Mischon de Reya are Spurs' lawyers. Spurs and their lawyers, lest you don't know, are like flies around $hit about everything. So this is totally par for the course.
Mischon de Reya are Spurs' lawyers. Spurs and their lawyers, lest you don't know, are like flies around $hit about everything. So this is totally par for the course.
So. What is the shit that is attracting them at this particular time?
I'm aware that Daniel Levy is litigious. I'm also aware that he does not spend a single pound unless he believes he has a good reason to do so.
Mischon de Reya are Spurs' lawyers. Spurs and their lawyers, lest you don't know, are like flies around $hit about everything. So this is totally par for the course.
I'm no fan of spurs and their arrogant supporters, but this is not relevant
As I understand it the European Commission didn't get the LLDC angle, they didn't get a redacted version, they apparently saw the full deal. And found nothing to suggest a case of state aid in this instance. If anyone can appeal the publication of the deal it is the LLDC by the way, not West Ham. By the way: Would you be also interested to find out the finer details of the deal struck between the LLDC and UK Athletics ? Maybe you should as the taxpayers' money is at the heart of your campaign, innit ? Yet you are still only interested in the West Ham deal, despite it not being about West Ham renting the OS ?
We are interested in the LLDC side NOT the West Ham side ...stop playing the victim .
I'm aware that Daniel Levy is litigious. I'm also aware that he does not spend a single pound unless he believes he has a good reason to do so.
And of course he has good reason to spend a few quid to see if he can disrupt it. Back to square one. I honestly congratulate you chaps on opening this up as if it wasn't it'd cause mistrust against west ham forever. Let's just see what the contract says, unredacted, in full.
And if I get directly asked a question I will reply. I think you will find once the deal is out that West Ham as anchor tenant (not owner of the stadium) paid a market going rate under the circumstances. I think you'll find it would have driven the market price up if there had been more competitors to rent the place. Guess what ? There weren't any other viable options who wanted to rent. That's why the rent is reasonably low, maybe Charlton should have bid to drive the price up.
So the market rate under the circumstances was net feck all?
Give us £2.5m a year rent (don't worry we'll pay all the refurb costs apart from £15m that you can take out of the £60-70m you got from the sale of that karsi down the road) and we'll give you at least the value of your rent in freebie security and stewarding and other ancillary match day costs.
GEE I've a question as I genuinely don't understand this.
If you're happy for your owners to piss away your history, change your badge, move your home and rename your club to London United and if it's the word "London" that's apparently the magic key that unlocks all this Arab money for sponsorship and naming rights etc. then how the fudge can't you understand that renting costs more in London than it does in scuzzy Manchester? A fudge lot more, you twonk....
It's when they change the colour of their shirts that I'll be laughing for real.
...and the only bubbles they'll allow will be in magnums.
Mischon de Reya are Spurs' lawyers. Spurs and their lawyers, lest you don't know, are like flies around $hit about everything. So this is totally par for the course.
So. What is the shit that is attracting them at this particular time?
I'm aware that Daniel Levy is litigious. I'm also aware that he does not spend a single pound unless he believes he has a good reason to do so.
Hold on a minute. surely buying a centre-forward would be a good reason? ahhhhh clearly not... As you were Gents...
Don't worry yourselves about West Ham ever allowing our marvellous heritage being sullied by anything. Our club team were building warships for the Royal Navy before Charlton was even conceived.
Suggest you try to keep on topic instead of resorting to petty taunts.
Don't worry yourselves about West Ham ever allowing our marvellous heritage being sullied by anything. Our club team were building warships for the Royal Navy before Charlton was even conceived.
Suggest you try to keep on topic instead of resorting to petty taunts.
Don't worry yourselves about West Ham ever allowing our marvellous heritage being sullied by anything. Our club team were building warships for the Royal Navy before Charlton was even conceived.
Suggest you try to keep on topic instead of resorting to petty taunts.
Could West Ham fans become the most bitter 'away' fans on here? They've swooped into 3rd place already, just behind Crystal Palace and Sheffield Wednesday.
West Ham were founded ten years before us, and a rich bloke called Arnold Hills poured £20,000 into the club (a fortune in those days) to get it established. Charlton were founded by 15 year old street lads locally, and their growth was organic and funded by the wit of those involved, not set up by some rich dude.
West Ham were founded ten years before us, and a rich bloke called Arnold Hills poured £20,000 into the club (a fortune in those days) to get it established and with the express intention of winning the World Cup. Charlton were founded by 15 year old street lads locally, and their growth was organic and funded by the wit of those involved, not set up by some rich dude.
Don't worry yourselves about West Ham ever allowing our marvellous heritage being sullied by anything. Our owners club team were filming cocks and nipples for profit building warships for the Royal Navy before Charlton was even conceived.
Gav, I think you're as guilty as anyone. Why don't we all agree to stick to debating the issue without the usual 'bants' - GEE and you had a good start on here - even if we disagree with your point of view, it's good to explore it all isn't it?
West Ham were founded ten years before us, and a rich bloke called Arnold Hills poured £20,000 into the club (a fortune in those days) to get it established. Charlton were founded by 15 year old street lads locally, and their growth was organic and funded by the wit of those involved, not set up by some rich dude.
It's a little known fact that Arnold Hills is a distant ancestor of both the Gullivans. He made his fortune by inventing the "what the butler saw" peepshow machines first installed at Southend. On the positive side, he struck an early blow in support of the suffragette movement by appointing a Lady Karina Brody to operate the turnstiles in the Thames Ironworks side's first few seasons. Rumour has it she was a great favourite of the then Prime Minister, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, and received her honour due to that relationship.
Some things never change.
Note: most of this is made up. Except for the bit about all of them being a bit dodgy.
Good for you. Not sure what you are asking, other than perhaps for help in understanding what a "private company" is, but while you have him I'd be interested in his comments on this article
Let’s get the elephant out of the room. We all know the reason West Ham are so concerned about this has nothing to do with loss of commercial advantage in transfer dealings, it is a fear of the state aid issue. Prague needs to be commended for the way he has patiently investigated this and reached a point where it has become national news and exposed a criminal waste of tax payer’s money as well as threatening other clubs – particularly Leyton Orient.
When asking why LLDC and West Ham would be so stupid to set all this up without the correct legal scrutiny, I would imagine the answer is probably arrogance. That same arrogance that led Karen Brady to recently lecture other premiership clubs about ticket prices. Announcing to the world that West Ham would have cheap prices in the Olympic Stadium. I expected them to wait a season before they tried to put Orient out of business, but West Ham probably thought they were untouchable.
It is re-assuring that the democratic process allows tenacious individuals to break through the system. I would be very worried if I was West Ham as I find it hard to see how they can dodge the state aid issue – unless the terms are not as rosy as we all think they are- but then why would they want to hide the fact? It provides them with a commercial advantage surely with rivals knowing that they haven’t done quite so well as they think they have in this deal.
It is perfectly right that Prague and CAST don’t make the state aid complaint, but it is pretty clear it will be made and the way this has played out is not looking too great for West Ham. I don’t know if Charlton will either, but I can think of two clubs who certainly will. With the coverage, the secrecy, the scrutiny West Ham will certainly be sweating now and in my opinion rightfully so.
I think there can be only two reasons why this farce has been allowed to happen. The first is incompetence. If LLDC decided they needed a football club at the stadium at any cost, then that is what you get. Even if that cost is a ridiculous waste of hundreds of millions of tax payers money. Simply, you have to be a fool to take such an approach when different types of legacy were possible for much less. Incompetence of LLDC won’t get West Ham out of this though as I don’t think it matters whose fault it is.
The second possible reason is more sinister and isn’t an allegation, but has to be put out there. But if you scratch the backs of wealthy people they can scratch your back later on – funding for election campaigns etc… Ok the funding they might provide might pale into insignificance compared the vast amounts of conversion costs, but you would have to accept a big loss in the conversion of public money into donor money. I say allegation as I imagine Gullivan has never contributed to a political party and/or attended party functions etc…
Let me address a couple of questions put to me yesterday. The first is the concern about the 'fairness' of the deal. This concept is totally subjective. For many on here the idea of fairness appears to be one whereby the deal provides no financial uplift from West Ham making the move. That is a spurious argument, as why would West Ham make the move if it were not financially beneficial to the club in the first place? Yes, it will boost West Ham versus its competitors, but then the option to tender was there for all and West Ham were the only major club to bid. Therefore, they won the tender fair and square.
The second question, asked yesterday by Prague Addick amounted to "if West Ham benefit from zero to moderate naming rights from Upton Park, why should they expect anything more at the OS?". The reply to this is that that the financial uplift from the move, which may or may not in West Ham's projections include regular European football exposure thanks to said financial uplift, suitably increase the naming rights value of the clubs tenancy. Hypothetically, the increase in revenue and on pitch performance would raise the value of the stadium naming rights, and as such that is the basis on which the naming rights portion of the contract was rewarded on (and is likely the information that West Ham is most concerned with being released). From my and others guesstimates, there should be a financial and on the pitch uplift based upon which West Ham's tenancy in terms of attracting a decent sponsorship deal increases the stadium naming rights value, and West Ham should by rights capture some of that value. That said I believe the bar is set high enough for the E20 LLP to recoup most to all of that, at least initially, which if proven blows out of the water all of the innuendo surrounding the contention that West Ham receive state aid.
When was the last time west ham played in Europe?? Surely it would be bad business to include that in any projections?
Gavros, people are not blaming the 'fairness' of the deal at West hams feet. In fact, I cannot think of one business that would turn down an offer at which you have been given. With this in mind, stop playing the sour grapes or victim card.
Comments
They always come back
I'm aware that Daniel Levy is litigious. I'm also aware that he does not spend a single pound unless he believes he has a good reason to do so.
Suggest you try to keep on topic instead of resorting to petty taunts.
Charlton were founded by 15 year old street lads locally, and their growth was organic and funded by the wit of those involved, not set up by some rich dude.
Some things never change.
Note: most of this is made up. Except for the bit about all of them being a bit dodgy.
When asking why LLDC and West Ham would be so stupid to set all this up without the correct legal scrutiny, I would imagine the answer is probably arrogance. That same arrogance that led Karen Brady to recently lecture other premiership clubs about ticket prices. Announcing to the world that West Ham would have cheap prices in the Olympic Stadium. I expected them to wait a season before they tried to put Orient out of business, but West Ham probably thought they were untouchable.
It is re-assuring that the democratic process allows tenacious individuals to break through the system. I would be very worried if I was West Ham as I find it hard to see how they can dodge the state aid issue – unless the terms are not as rosy as we all think they are- but then why would they want to hide the fact? It provides them with a commercial advantage surely with rivals knowing that they haven’t done quite so well as they think they have in this deal.
It is perfectly right that Prague and CAST don’t make the state aid complaint, but it is pretty clear it will be made and the way this has played out is not looking too great for West Ham. I don’t know if Charlton will either, but I can think of two clubs who certainly will. With the coverage, the secrecy, the scrutiny West Ham will certainly be sweating now and in my opinion rightfully so.
I think there can be only two reasons why this farce has been allowed to happen. The first is incompetence. If LLDC decided they needed a football club at the stadium at any cost, then that is what you get. Even if that cost is a ridiculous waste of hundreds of millions of tax payers money. Simply, you have to be a fool to take such an approach when different types of legacy were possible for much less. Incompetence of LLDC won’t get West Ham out of this though as I don’t think it matters whose fault it is.
The second possible reason is more sinister and isn’t an allegation, but has to be put out there. But if you scratch the backs of wealthy people they can scratch your back later on – funding for election campaigns etc… Ok the funding they might provide might pale into insignificance compared the vast amounts of conversion costs, but you would have to accept a big loss in the conversion of public money into donor money. I say allegation as I imagine Gullivan has never contributed to a political party and/or attended party functions etc…
The second question, asked yesterday by Prague Addick amounted to "if West Ham benefit from zero to moderate naming rights from Upton Park, why should they expect anything more at the OS?". The reply to this is that that the financial uplift from the move, which may or may not in West Ham's projections include regular European football exposure thanks to said financial uplift, suitably increase the naming rights value of the clubs tenancy. Hypothetically, the increase in revenue and on pitch performance would raise the value of the stadium naming rights, and as such that is the basis on which the naming rights portion of the contract was rewarded on (and is likely the information that West Ham is most concerned with being released). From my and others guesstimates, there should be a financial and on the pitch uplift based upon which West Ham's tenancy in terms of attracting a decent sponsorship deal increases the stadium naming rights value, and West Ham should by rights capture some of that value. That said I believe the bar is set high enough for the E20 LLP to recoup most to all of that, at least initially, which if proven blows out of the water all of the innuendo surrounding the contention that West Ham receive state aid.
Time will tell.
Gavros, people are not blaming the 'fairness' of the deal at West hams feet. In fact, I cannot think of one business that would turn down an offer at which you have been given. With this in mind, stop playing the sour grapes or victim card.