Olympic Stadium - Please sign the NEW PETITION
Comments
-
This has been an absolutely superbly planned and executed campaign. Congratulations to Prague, the Trust guys and gals and everyone else who has contributed, Makes me proud to be a lifelong Addick, even if our team is reverting to it's usual shit-ness.
I am sure that developments in the relationship between KM/the CAFC board and CAST will be kept under wraps, but I really hope that she/they see and appreciate the expertise that has been deployed, and recognise that closer alignment with CAST has the potential to be a real force for CAFC good.12 -
It is being reported that WH are expected to make a loss of 17m this year, Quote from Sullivan " I can not remember a more exciting or successful window during our time, but that was only possible because David and I made sure we dug deep"0
-
Now in City Hall chamber with other Coalition members. Some standup comedian is talking....0
-
Boris?PragueAddick said:Now in City Hall chamber with other Coalition members. Some standup comedian is talking....
2 -
Next Q on the list...
So they didn't chuck you out as a rowdy cabbie, then, @PragueAddick? I'm waiting for the response when he refers to football hooligans...0 -
Boris happy to publish but he believes West Ham are not.
0 -
Boris says he'd be perfectly happy to publish, but WHU not so keen...and may be taking legal action on that point. Now bullshitting re what a great success the OS deal is...0
-
Reason not to release thus far is because they have only just concluded parts of the contract re hospitality (???)0
-
Boris very happy to release all details of the contract ... but again goes on about West Ham legal action0
-
stonemuse said:
Boris happy to publish but he believes West Ham are not.
So he'll hide behind that and shift the blame to West Ham to try and make it look like a tribal / footballing matter.Weegie Addick said:Boris says he'd be perfectly happy to publish, but WHU not so keen...and may be taking legal action on that point. Now bullshitting re what a great success the OS deal is...
Call me naive, but can West Ham appeal independently not to publish the full details? Do they get any say if they've been ordered to publish it? Is there anything to stop Boris / LLDC from just publishing it?0 - Sponsored links:
-
Boris confident that contract not in breach of any state aid agreements
Blames labour for not ensuring stadium is fit for football0 -
Boris again stated that West Ham will not allow release, they will appeal, but Boris apparently wants it released.
Question stopped without a clear answer.0 -
Failed to answer the direct Q re whether he/ LLDC would join with football club supporters in standing up to any challenge re publication by WHU.0
-
As Boris resigned "quietly" from the post of LLDC chair just before the general election, I doubt he would be allowed to reveal any details of the deal.The Red Robin said:stonemuse said:Boris happy to publish but he believes West Ham are not.
So he'll behind that and shift the blame to West Ham to try and make it look like a tribal / footballing matter.Weegie Addick said:Boris says he'd be perfectly happy to publish, but WHU not so keen...and may be taking legal action on that point. Now bullshitting re what a great success the OS deal is...
Call me naive, but can West Ham appeal independently not to publish the full details? Do they get any say if they've been ordered to publish it? Is there anything to stop Boris / LLDC from just publishing it?
at a guess any legal action would be directly between westham and the LLDC for breach of confidentiality??1 -
But surely the position about not publishing so as to protect future negotiations with other potential users of the stadium would only affect LLDC as they would be the ones trying to secure good deals. There could be no commercial detriment therefore to Wet Spam by publishing and if the only possible affected party is LLDC and they are happy to publish then what possible objection would Gullivan and the Brady bunch have?Weegie Addick said:Boris says he'd be perfectly happy to publish, but WHU not so keen...and may be taking legal action on that point. Now bullshitting re what a great success the OS deal is...
As someone else said, they can only appeal on a point of law anyway.
P.S. BoJo's comments would also appear to rule out an LLDC appeal.4 -
Will they pass the credit test to take over the stadium?Dansk_Red said:It is being reported that WH are expected to make a loss of 17m this year, Quote from Sullivan " I can not remember a more exciting or successful window during our time, but that was only possible because David and I made sure we dug deep"
0 -
Unless LLDC or West Ham unilaterally published the full contract before the timescale for appeal had been reached could there possibly be legal action between those two august bodies!!cafcdave123 said:
As Boris resigned "quietly" from the post of LLDC chair just before the general election, I doubt he would be allowed to reveal any details of the deal.The Red Robin said:stonemuse said:Boris happy to publish but he believes West Ham are not.
So he'll behind that and shift the blame to West Ham to try and make it look like a tribal / footballing matter.Weegie Addick said:Boris says he'd be perfectly happy to publish, but WHU not so keen...and may be taking legal action on that point. Now bullshitting re what a great success the OS deal is...
Call me naive, but can West Ham appeal independently not to publish the full details? Do they get any say if they've been ordered to publish it? Is there anything to stop Boris / LLDC from just publishing it?
at a guess any legal action would be directly between westham and the LLDC for breach of confidentiality??
Any legal challenge would be between one or both parties to the deal against the Information Commissioner.0 -
The strange thing for me is that we have been told all along that it is not West Hm that are blocking but Vinci because it could be detrimental in negotiations for other deals.
Now West Ham suddenly have a problem - why? How can this be a problem for them?7 -
Because the contract includes details of West Ham's business plan that will include projections for things like ticketing revenue....which they will have increasing over time as they jack ticket prices back up. They'll also have projections for commercial revenues too, which will likely jump as well.stonemuse said:The strange thing for me is that we have been told all along that it is not West Hm that are blocking but Vinci because it could be detrimental in negotiations for other deals.
Now West Ham suddenly have a problem - why? How can this be a problem for them?
I think it's a pretty weak argument however and with BoJo putting the ball back in West Ham's court I think they should just agree to the publishing of the documents rather than go to the courts and sully their image further.1 -
Maybe - but it's the terms of the contract we all want to see. I couldn't give a flying f**k about WH's business plans (and they would have no place in the contract anyway).gavros said:
Because the contract includes details of West Ham's business plan that will include projections for things like ticketing revenue....which they will have increasing over time as they jack ticket prices back up. They'll also have projections for commercial revenues too, which will likely jump as well.stonemuse said:The strange thing for me is that we have been told all along that it is not West Hm that are blocking but Vinci because it could be detrimental in negotiations for other deals.
Now West Ham suddenly have a problem - why? How can this be a problem for them?
I think it's a pretty weak argument however and with BoJo putting the ball back in West Ham's court I think they should just agree to the publishing of the documents rather than go to the courts and sully their image further.1 - Sponsored links:
-
I understand those points but agree, it is a fairly weak argument at this stage and Boris is certainly playing a slippery game by putting this back on West Ham.gavros said:
Because the contract includes details of West Ham's business plan that will include projections for things like ticketing revenue....which they will have increasing over time as they jack ticket prices back up. They'll also have projections for commercial revenues too, which will likely jump as well.stonemuse said:The strange thing for me is that we have been told all along that it is not West Hm that are blocking but Vinci because it could be detrimental in negotiations for other deals.
Now West Ham suddenly have a problem - why? How can this be a problem for them?
I think it's a pretty weak argument however and with BoJo putting the ball back in West Ham's court I think they should just agree to the publishing of the documents rather than go to the courts and sully their image further.
In everyone's interests, including their own, West Ham should now agree to releasing the details - they have consistently stated that they have nothing to worry about, so why not just get this all out there in the public domain and prove it so the whole deal can be put to rest.1 -
Mind you there is also a legal precedence issue that the government might want to avoid, as this ruling could open the door to FOI requests on all sorts of Public-Private Partnerships that have redactions under section 41 of FOIA.0
-
It's not about legal precedent, this is an individual ruling by the ICO.gavros said:Mind you there is also a legal precedence issue that the government might want to avoid, as this ruling could open the door to FOI requests on all sorts of Public-Private Partnerships that have redactions under section 41 of FOIA.
1 -
Good job then that the government are not party to any appeal processes on this one! It was a government agency and the Chairman of said agency at the time the deal was cobbled together has publicly stated this morning that he's happy for the full contract to be published. If the LLDC now choose to be party to any appeal process it would smack of political interference - which of course I wouldn't rule out!!gavros said:Mind you there is also a legal precedence issue that the government might want to avoid, as this ruling could open the door to FOI requests on all sorts of Public-Private Partnerships that have redactions under section 41 of FOIA.
0 -
This puts the LLDC in a bit of a quandry with regards to stadium sponsor. If they decide to appeal then a cloud will continue to hang over the stadium and potentially put off sponsors. If they publish and show West Ham's projections are 'low ball' in terms of performance and revenues (including, specifically, European competition) then that too would put off a sponsor.0
-
@gavros Why would the contract over stadium usage need to include West Ham's commercial projections?1
-
It says it does in the ICO's report. And remember, rental changes if the club are relegated and there is a bonus to E20 LLP if it performs above a 'baseline scenario', so there has to be in the contract details about West Ham's projected performance on the field and finances off of it.Weegie Addick said:@gavros Why would the contract over stadium usage need to include West Ham's commercial projections?
0 -
I would imagine the only reason to include these would be if they were downplaying their potential earnings in order to get a better deal on the rent. these would obviously be picked apart quite easily if they were made publicWeegie Addick said:@gavros Why would the contract over stadium usage need to include West Ham's commercial projections?
0 -
I believe we have establish that GEE is Brady - could you perhaps help us by stating which David you are? ;-)gavros said:
It says it does in the ICO's report. And remember, rental changes if the club are relegated and there is a bonus to E20 LLP if it performs above a 'baseline scenario', so there has to be in the contract details about West Ham's projected performance on the field and finances off of it.Weegie Addick said:@gavros Why would the contract over stadium usage need to include West Ham's commercial projections?
2
