Hi Gavros....... are you the same poster as the one I quoted this morning......... the one you have been a member of since 2011.......
Just for the sake of 'transparency'........ and in my case, yes I am a member of the trust, and a founding board member of the Charlton Supporters trust.
Yes, I think everyone by now is sick to death about the fogginess of this deal and full transparency should be allowed. if they cant find a stadium sponsor in time, then so be it.
My actual name was also 'outed earlier in the thread when this was mentioned "He's got nothing particularly striking to say. In fact it is striking how as a fan base they are not organised"
I think it's fairly striking that the petition and the BBC documentary doesnt mention the fact that it is in the public sphere already the LLDC get the vast majority of catering and pouring rights (I believe between 85-90%) and also a very large chunk of the stadium sponsorship.
As for organisation of a fan base about this, I think that would be inappropriate given that there are a very diverse range of opinions on the move. Some love it, others hate it. one group could not act as spokesperson for such divergent views.
@gavros Why would the contract over stadium usage need to include West Ham's commercial projections?
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.
No it does not. The ICO simply cite this as a past excuse from West Ham, they are simply summarizing the arguments up to now when referring to that.
Anyway, guys and gals, we were pretty pleased with that. Boris on record that he's in favour of full disclosure. As some people have already realized, West Ham cannot sue to stop release of the contract. They can sue the LLDC for damages as a result of disclosure,, but in fact it would not last five minutes in court. If you make a public- private partnership you know it is subject to the FOI law. Anyway the idea that West Ham's business strategy and plans would need to be included in a rental contract is preposterous. That is one of the things we pointed out to the ICO in a submission, and the ICO will have challenged them on this. They were unable to show the ICO evidence of such extensive disclosure of business plans.
I should be on Sky News as part of their report package.
No it does not. The ICO simply cite this as a past excuse from West Ham, they are simply summarizing the arguments up to now when referring to that.
If that is the case then apologies but the fact stands that there is a 'baseline scenario' (LLDC's words from the 2013 letter from Denis Hone to John Biggs) and that scenario will be of significant interest to any potential Stadium sponsors, commercial partners of West Ham and to competitors of West Ham. I would imagine, given the work that I and other have done to guesstimate the revenue improvement for West ham from the deal, that it factors in consistently better performance in the Premier League and occasional European football. Of course it should project higher revenues and better performance on the pitch, otherwise it wouldnt be in the interest of West ham to bid for the Stadium. That is a separate issue to taxpayer value for money from the deal, but you can understand why both the LLDC and West Ham would want to keep that quiet at least until various commercial deals had been signed, particularly stadium sponsorship.
No it does not. The ICO simply cite this as a past excuse from West Ham, they are simply summarizing the arguments up to now when referring to that.
If that is the case then apologies but the fact stands that there is a 'baseline scenario' (LLDC's words from the 2013 letter from Denis Hone to John Biggs) and that scenario will be of significant interest to any potential Stadium sponsors, commercial partners of West Ham and to competitors of West Ham. I would imagine, given the work that I and other have done to guesstimate the revenue improvement for West ham from the deal, that it factors in consistently better performance in the Premier League and occasional European football. Of course it should project higher revenues and better performance on the pitch, otherwise it wouldnt be in the interest of West ham to bid for the Stadium. That is a separate issue to taxpayer value for money from the deal, but you can understand why both the LLDC and West Ham would want to keep that quiet at least until various commercial deals had been signed, particularly stadium sponsorship.
Then that should have been the only part of the contract that was redacted rather than black-ink virtually everything.
My actual name was also 'outed earlier in the thread when this was mentioned "He's got nothing particularly striking to say. In fact it is striking how as a fan base they are not organised"
I think it's fairly striking that the petition and the BBC documentary doesnt mention the fact that it is in the public sphere already the LLDC get the vast majority of catering and pouring rights (I believe between 85-90%) and also a very large chunk of the stadium sponsorship.
As for organisation of a fan base about this, I think that would be inappropriate given that there are a very diverse range of opinions on the move. Some love it, others hate it. one group could not act as spokesperson for such divergent views.
Ah, so I know how you are. You are the guy who chose to highlight my real name on West Ham sites, in a lamentable attempt to make it about individuals.
Well, we don't do that kind of shit on Charlton Life, so your secret's safe with me.
There are of course West Ham fan groups who are against the OS move, as I have heard from other Trusts, but ironically we can't help them, because as we keep saying, we have no objection to you lot playing there.
Then that should have been the only part of the contract that was redacted rather than black-ink virtually everything.
Fully agree. The connivance of the LLDC and West Ham to obscure many of the aspects of the deal has come back to bite them on the arse, and rightly so. However I remain confident due to information from a number of sources that the deal will be seen as beneficial to the taxpayer by the general public and the issue will then be put to bed....apart for certain individuals who see West Ham moving to a stadium in West Ham as some sort of existential threat to their club.
I know how you are. You are the guy who chose to highlight my real name on West Ham sites, in a lamentable attempt to make it about individuals.
When was this, then? I've always broadly supported the idea that the details of the contract be published, and so have already commended you on your work here.
And anyway, assuming you are one of the people that was on that truly lamentable documentary, your name already is in the public sphere, so why should that be an issue for you?
As for me, I'm happy to be a keyboarder on this, and see going on the telly about it as somewhat cringeworthy (certainly the West Ham fans on it who were cheerleading the move).
To the german hammer- you can’t type over and out and then come back! My understanding anyway is that no other football club can apply for a similar deal to West Ham so it can’t possibly prejudice future deals as they are likely to be very different in nature- for one off events etc…
Maybe the previous government didn’t design the stadium as a football stadium, because they built it for the Olympics and athletics! Maybe the big mistake in this sorry tale has been the desire for it to be a football stadium at any cost. When the IOC demand a legacy, I don’t think that means lobbing a football club who already have a ground in there at great tax payer’s expense.
If the deal turns out to be beneficial to the taxpayer, then the question is why has it been handled like there is something to hide? Some very poor decisions have certainly been made.
So, West Ham / LLDC have until the end of the month to decide how to cover it up appeal? If they don't, when is the earliest release date? How long can the LLDC and West Ham realistically drag this out? I fully expect them to appeal and / or publish another redacted version.
So, West Ham / LLDC have until the end of the month to decide how to cover it up appeal? If they don't, when is the earliest release date? How long can the LLDC and West Ham realistically drag this out? I fully expect them to appeal and / or publish another redacted version.
West Ham can't appeal; Only LLDC can appeal but their previous head (BoJo) has intimated that they are happy to release the contract in full, so why would they now appeal? If they do proceed to release, then West Ham may take action to try to prevent this in the courts, but it is expected that their case will be thrown out. Once released, West Ham may sue LLDC for breach of contract, but the consensus is that they are unlikely to win that case either.
So, if LLDC prepare to release on October 8th (the last date by which they have to I think), West Ham's court appeal would need to be before that. If in the unlikely event that LLDC appeal, that has to be by October 3rd. So that week (between 3rd and 8th October) is our new key time-period.
West Ham and the LLDC argue that the deal is a good one for the taxpayer because it gives the stadium a sustainable future that will not require further bailouts in future. (A better deal would have been spending the conversion costs on bonds and using the profits to pay in much more money a year than West Ham are – ridiculous of course but far more sensible financially than what they have chosen to do).
Johnson said that the LLDC was left with no choice but to undertake the expensive conversion scheme in an attempt to clean up the “mess” left by the previous Labour government.(What about the choice of saving the hundreds and millions of pounds conversion costs and renting the stadium out to non football organisations?)
West Ham insiders insist legal action in the courts is unlikely but stress the club will work with the LLDC to decide whether the information commissioner’s verdict should be appealed against before the end of the month. (Why work with LLDC – Boris says they are happy to make public?)
Our 99-year agreement will not only return hundreds of millions of pounds to the taxpayer...... (West Ham conveniently forgetting that hundreds and millions of pounds have been paid in by the tax payer over a much shorter period than 99 years.)
"West Ham insiders insist legal action in the courts is unlikely but stress the club will work with the LLDC to decide whether the information commissioner’s verdict should be appealed against before the end of the month."
Westham cannot appeal the decision so why on earth are they even allowed to work with the LLDC on the decision of an appeal?
this is out of Westhams hands so their further involvement screams of corruption.
"West Ham insiders insist legal action in the courts is unlikely but stress the club will work with the LLDC to decide whether the information commissioner’s verdict should be appealed against before the end of the month."
Westham cannot appeal the decision so why on earth are they even allowed to work with the LLDC on the decision of an appeal?
this is out of Westhams hands so their further involvement screams of corruption.
(A better deal would have been spending the conversion costs on bonds and using the profits to pay in much more money a year than West Ham are – ridiculous of course but far more sensible financially than what they have chosen to do).
You dont know that because you dont know what the exact contribution is from West Ham to the LLDC
(What about the choice of saving the hundreds and millions of pounds conversion costs and renting the stadium out to non football organisations?)
I assume you mean the original 25,000 seat venue design? the one that was going to cost about a hundred million to convert to anyway and would have been a yearly drain on the taxpayer?
(West Ham conveniently forgetting that hundreds and millions of pounds have been paid in by the tax payer over a much shorter period than 99 years.)
Which is well worth it if the marginal expenditure over the original 25k conversion brings in significantly more money over the course of the lease, allowing for the conversion costs to be repaid multiple times over.
remember too that the stadium has given the country a feasible large scale athletics venue which it lost when Wembley was rebuilt. One that wont require us to build yet another large scale athletics stadium the next time the country bids to host something.
(A better deal would have been spending the conversion costs on bonds and using the profits to pay in much more money a year than West Ham are – ridiculous of course but far more sensible financially than what they have chosen to do).
You dont know that because you dont know what the exact contribution is from West Ham to the LLDC
(What about the choice of saving the hundreds and millions of pounds conversion costs and renting the stadium out to non football organisations?)
I assume you mean the original 25,000 seat venue design? the one that was going to cost about a hundred million to convert to anyway and would have been a yearly drain on the taxpayer?
(West Ham conveniently forgetting that hundreds and millions of pounds have been paid in by the tax payer over a much shorter period than 99 years.)
Which is well worth it if the marginal expenditure over the original 25k conversion brings in significantly more money over the course of the lease, allowing for the conversion costs to be repaid multiple times over.
remember too that the stadium has given the country a feasible large scale athletics venue which it lost when Wembley was rebuilt. One that wont require us to build yet another large scale athletics stadium the next time the country bids to host something.
Providing we don't want to host it between August and May.
(A better deal would have been spending the conversion costs on bonds and using the profits to pay in much more money a year than West Ham are – ridiculous of course but far more sensible financially than what they have chosen to do).
You dont know that because you dont know what the exact contribution is from West Ham to the LLDC
(What about the choice of saving the hundreds and millions of pounds conversion costs and renting the stadium out to non football organisations?)
I assume you mean the original 25,000 seat venue design? the one that was going to cost about a hundred million to convert to anyway and would have been a yearly drain on the taxpayer?
(West Ham conveniently forgetting that hundreds and millions of pounds have been paid in by the tax payer over a much shorter period than 99 years.)
Which is well worth it if the marginal expenditure over the original 25k conversion brings in significantly more money over the course of the lease, allowing for the conversion costs to be repaid multiple times over.
remember too that the stadium has given the country a feasible large scale athletics venue which it lost when Wembley was rebuilt. One that wont require us to build yet another large scale athletics stadium the next time the country bids to host something.
1) 15 million 2) It would have been a lesser overall drain - the yearly bit is very misleading 3) It was an Athletics stadium already
I'm not going to get into a pointless hypothetical debate with someone who cant see that without full disclosure of the deal it is impossible to judge value for money for the taxpayer. Well done on CAST for ensuring that, even though it may have an adverse effect on the ability of the LLDC to earn money back for the taxpayer from the stadium.
Comments
Just for the sake of 'transparency'........ and in my case, yes I am a member of the trust, and a founding board member of the Charlton Supporters trust.
Gavrosh
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,819
Likes (Received): 580
Yes, I think everyone by now is sick to death about the fogginess of this deal and full transparency should be allowed. if they cant find a stadium sponsor in time, then so be it.
Better not say any more - Prague had his car keyed for saying much less!!
I think it's fairly striking that the petition and the BBC documentary doesnt mention the fact that it is in the public sphere already the LLDC get the vast majority of catering and pouring rights (I believe between 85-90%) and also a very large chunk of the stadium sponsorship.
As for organisation of a fan base about this, I think that would be inappropriate given that there are a very diverse range of opinions on the move. Some love it, others hate it. one group could not act as spokesperson for such divergent views.
I'd probably be the latter.
I should be on Sky News as part of their report package.
Well, we don't do that kind of shit on Charlton Life, so your secret's safe with me.
There are of course West Ham fan groups who are against the OS move, as I have heard from other Trusts, but ironically we can't help them, because as we keep saying, we have no objection to you lot playing there.
And anyway, assuming you are one of the people that was on that truly lamentable documentary, your name already is in the public sphere, so why should that be an issue for you?
As for me, I'm happy to be a keyboarder on this, and see going on the telly about it as somewhat cringeworthy (certainly the West Ham fans on it who were cheerleading the move).
Maybe the previous government didn’t design the stadium as a football stadium, because they built it for the Olympics and athletics! Maybe the big mistake in this sorry tale has been the desire for it to be a football stadium at any cost. When the IOC demand a legacy, I don’t think that means lobbing a football club who already have a ground in there at great tax payer’s expense.
If the deal turns out to be beneficial to the taxpayer, then the question is why has it been handled like there is something to hide? Some very poor decisions have certainly been made.
cover it upappeal? If they don't, when is the earliest release date? How long can the LLDC and West Ham realistically drag this out? I fully expect them to appeal and / or publish another redacted version.So, if LLDC prepare to release on October 8th (the last date by which they have to I think), West Ham's court appeal would need to be before that. If in the unlikely event that LLDC appeal, that has to be by October 3rd. So that week (between 3rd and 8th October) is our new key time-period.
West Ham and the LLDC argue that the deal is a good one for the taxpayer because it gives the stadium a sustainable future that will not require further bailouts in future. (A better deal would have been spending the conversion costs on bonds and using the profits to pay in much more money a year than West Ham are – ridiculous of course but far more sensible financially than what they have chosen to do).
Johnson said that the LLDC was left with no choice but to undertake the expensive conversion scheme in an attempt to clean up the “mess” left by the previous Labour government.(What about the choice of saving the hundreds and millions of pounds conversion costs and renting the stadium out to non football organisations?)
West Ham insiders insist legal action in the courts is unlikely but stress the club will work with the LLDC to decide whether the information commissioner’s verdict should be appealed against before the end of the month. (Why work with LLDC – Boris says they are happy to make public?)
Our 99-year agreement will not only return hundreds of millions of pounds to the taxpayer...... (West Ham conveniently forgetting that hundreds and millions of pounds have been paid in by the tax payer over a much shorter period than 99 years.)
Westham cannot appeal the decision so why on earth are they even allowed to work with the LLDC on the decision of an appeal?
this is out of Westhams hands so their further involvement screams of corruption.
remember too that the stadium has given the country a feasible large scale athletics venue which it lost when Wembley was rebuilt. One that wont require us to build yet another large scale athletics stadium the next time the country bids to host something.
remember too that the stadium has given the country a feasible large scale athletics venue which it lost when Wembley was rebuilt. One that wont require us to build yet another large scale athletics stadium the next time the country bids to host something.
Providing we don't want to host it between August and May.
remember too that the stadium has given the country a feasible large scale athletics venue which it lost when Wembley was rebuilt. One that wont require us to build yet another large scale athletics stadium the next time the country bids to host something.
1) 15 million
2) It would have been a lesser overall drain - the yearly bit is very misleading
3) It was an Athletics stadium already