its also worth noting that its still very much may be in Barry Hearn's interest to keep the topic alive seeing as he still holds the long lease on Brisbane Road and is now charging Orient £180k a year rent, adjusted upward for inflation every year and subject to review every five years. This was something that the club have never had to cope with before LBWF awarded the club the lease for £300k after Hearn made noises about moving to Harlow. He then sold the lease from the club to himself, let Orient have the ground rent free for the first five years, and then sold the club (but not the lease) just as the rental payments kicked in.
Thanks @Knuckles - this is your best post by far, and goes a long way into explaining your issues.
I think that we can probably separate the legal challenges into ones which tried to get Spurs into the stadium instead of West Ham, and then Orient into the stadium with West Ham.
The Charlton Trust and petition into holding public inquiry are not to prevent West Ham playing at the OS, but for the financial aspects to be better for the taxpayer. If you can accept that point, we will have progressed a long way, as GEE and Gavros appear not to be able to grasp this point despite it being repeated ad nauseum on here.
I think that this is the key point as to why no other Clubs have stepped forward to challenge West Ham yet on the State Aid issue (that may come later of course, and should very much concern WHU fans when the facts are made public); the STate Aid challenge has to (as far as I know) come from similar companies, so (for instance) an individual or Trust cannot bring such a complaint to the EU; where this was done previously, it was dismissed due to this reason (which GEE mistakenly thinks will be the end of it).
Through the FOI request made by @PragueAddick, the redacted contract circulated. This obviously raised major concerns about what West Ham may or may not being paying, and what they were getting in return. This affects all taxpayers in the UK. This is why all of us are involved - even you - and why people like me get involved in a forum discussion like this (I am not involved with the Trust - just a simple forum member).
Once the un-redacted contract details are in the public domain, a much better idea of how the LLDC/West Ham deal looks will be available to all, and then we can all discuss how best to take matters forward, if there looks to be anything "unsafe" about the deal.
To conclude, nobody on here has a problem with West Ham playing at the OS, only what it will cost the taxpayer to make such an initiative work, and how the knock-on effects may influence Charlton's future position.
The Charlton Trust and petition into holding public inquiry are not to prevent West Ham playing at the OS, but for the financial aspects to be better for the taxpayer. If you can accept that point, we will have progressed a long way, as GEE and Gavros appear not to be able to grasp this point despite it being repeated ad nauseum on here.
To conclude, nobody on here has a problem with West Ham playing at the OS, only what it will cost the taxpayer to make such an initiative work, and how the knock-on effects may influence Charlton's future position.
If it can be shown when the documents are released that it is not a state aid issue, then there is no case to make a 'better' deal for the taxpayer. The contract is signed and unless it can be prized open by EC state aid rules, it will stay as it is. It is also not subject to how it impacts other clubs. All clubs have the right to start initiatives to bring in new fans, be it the Charlton's buses or Orient's free season tickets for youngsters that they ran a couple of years back, and now have my nephew an Orient fan as a result.
Thing though is: Does it just give you a better feeling if the taxpayer gets more money back more quickly (as Charlton as a club or the supporters have not much to gain from this campaign) and West Ham subsequently having to pay more ? Would that give ou peace of mind ? I understand that some of you are afraid that you'll be struggling to gain new Charlton fans because of West Ham giving out free or cheap tickets in the OS. The up to 100.000 free West Ham tickets a year mentioned by the Newham Council will go exclusively to residents in Newham. I don't suppose Newham is your classic Charlton catchment area, is it ? As for cheap tickets you can also rest assured. It's rumoured that West Ham could be close to selling 40.000 season tickets (in fact some fans on our forums are already complaining they had to pay more money for their season ticket in the OS in order to get a comparable view to the one they have at our current ground at the moment). The cheap 298 Pound tickets in the crap seats (Upper Tier behind the goals) will be few and far between if the current ticket sales in Band 1 and 2 are anything to go by. Could be as little as 2.000 cheap season tickets only to be had. Is there really going to be that amssive an impact on clubs like Orient or Charlton if West Ham move into the OS ? Competition among London clubs at various league levels has always been fierce. Does West Ham in the OS really put your club or Orient at the risk of dying ?
The Charlton Trust and petition into holding public inquiry are not to prevent West Ham playing at the OS, but for the financial aspects to be better for the taxpayer. If you can accept that point, we will have progressed a long way, as GEE and Gavros appear not to be able to grasp this point despite it being repeated ad nauseum on here.
To conclude, nobody on here has a problem with West Ham playing at the OS, only what it will cost the taxpayer to make such an initiative work, and how the knock-on effects may influence Charlton's future position.
If it can be shown when the documents are released that it is not a state aid issue, then there is no case to make a 'better' deal for the taxpayer. The contract is signed and unless it can be prized open by EC state aid rules, it will stay as it is. It is also not subject to how it impacts other clubs. All clubs have initiatives to bring in new fans, be it the Chalton buses or Orient's free season tickets for youngsters.
I don't think this is right @gavros: I think it has been said before that if the contract is in any way illegal (State aid or otherwise), then it can be "voided". It may not need the EC to determine it to be "illegal" or "unfair", or shall I say "non-competitive"? That could well happen within the British legal system.
Yes, all clubs have initiatives to improve support, but how many clubs are able to do so after receiving a bunk-up worth millions from the taxpayer each year?
GEE is freaking me out i mean how can you write that well and be that bothered to waste that much time waffling on about a team from another country on another teams forum , seriously its just too weird and doesn't add up
GEE - Yes, I do think the deal needs to be fair, both from a taxpaying perspective and from that which gives West Ham an unfair advantage over all other English clubs. LBN free tickets may not impinge on the usual CAFC catchment area, but if the costs of playing in the stadium are underwritten by us (the taxpayers), then what is to stop WHU offering numerous low priced tickets all over London, and deep into Kent, as transport links (which we the taxpayer paid for) are good for Stratford.
GEE is freaking me out i mean how can you write that well and be that bothered to waste that much time waffling on about a team from another country on another teams forum , seriously its just too weird and doesn't add up
It's true. I can't even be bothered to write on here sometimes, let alone another teams forum.
I will answer you, despite the tone of voice you have used.
1. Charlton supporters were alerted to the commercial threat of West Ham's move to the OS years ago by the former CEO and former chairman. Of course at the time the terms of the deal were not known. It was simply a commercial threat to be aware of.
2. I became personally interested in the deal and the potential for State Aid early in 2013. Out of curiosity to test the EC system, I put together a State Aid complaint. At the time, it was just my personal initiative.
3. The response from the LLDC to the EC was so high handed and truculent that it got me more interested, so I continued with the State Aid complaint.
4. The first connection with another club came when Mat Roper of Orient started his petition in around May last year, and I posted it on here ( the thread can be easily found), and made contact with Mat. I thought he was a brave fan who was determined to go down fighting on behalf of his club, and I thought he should not stand alone
5. Only after that did CAST decide to officially adopt it as a Trust cause.
6. Mishcon de Reya when they contacted me in July did NOT tell me whom they represented in doing so. It was subsequently suggested to us that they may be working for Spurs and Orient because they have worked for both in the past. But we don't know, and we don't make it our business to know.
7. Also in July we went to the Supporters Summit, armed with a briefing on our campaign and we we'e delighted with the support we received.That is where the Coalition was borne. What a pity West Ham had no official reps there.
8. The Spurs Trust are among the excellent people involved, others are from Fulham, QPR and Chelsea, to mention only those who met in the pub last week. You would cause offence to the Spurs people with your suggestion that they act on behalf of Daniel Levy.
9. You don't know me to be fair, but anyone on here who does will tell you that I have many faults but being in the pocket of other people and being their puppet, is not among them.
6. Mishcon de Reya when they contacted me in July did NOT tell me whom they represented in doing so. It was subsequently suggested to us that they may be working for Spurs and Orient because they have worked for both in the past. But we don't know, and we don't make it our business to know.
You were not at all interested why a legal company approached you for information and you were also not bothered why they wanted that information or who they might be wanting this information for ? You don't know and you don't make it your business to know ? Strange, as you have very much made it your business to know everything with regard to the OS deal.
If you are curious about the OS deal, why not also be curious about who may be using you (with you not even knowing about it) for their own purposes ?
Difference being, I am not directly involved in the OS business, I have nothing to gain or lose personally other than being interested in how all this may affect my favourite club. If Spurs as a club (not the fans) however used this campaign and Prague's work/information for their own purposes, well, it doesn't exactly add to the credibility of the coalition of fans' Trusts. You may indeed have the taxpayers' interests as heart. Spurs surely haven't. As their owners are the kings of tax avoidance. Spurs are among several Premier League clubs not paying a single penny in corporation tax. You really don't want to liaise with them if you are all about getting the best for the taxpayer.
As Prague has said, but you fail yet again to understand, he has liaised with the Spurs Trust, not the club. Please don't try to bring this down to it all being a Spurs conspiracy against WHU - it honestly isn't!
Difference being, I am not directly involved in the OS business, I have nothing to gain or lose personally other than being interested in how all this may affect my favourite club. If Spurs as a club (not the fans) however used this campaign and Prague's work/information for their own purposes, well, it doesn't exactly add to the credibility of the coalition of fans' Trusts. You may indeed have the taxpayers' interests as heart. Spurs surely haven't. As their owners are the kings of tax avoidance. Spurs are among several Premier League clubs not paying a single penny in corporation tax. You really don't want to liaise with them if you are all about getting the best for the taxpayer.
They could use it if they wanted to though as it's out there in the open for all to see. Transparency. ;-)
Difference being, I am not directly involved in the OS business, I have nothing to gain or lose personally other than being interested in how all this may affect my favourite club. If Spurs as a club (not the fans) however used this campaign and Prague's work/information for their own purposes, well, it doesn't exactly add to the credibility of the coalition of fans' Trusts. You may indeed have the taxpayers' interests as heart. Spurs surely haven't. As their owners are the kings of tax avoidance. Spurs are among several Premier League clubs not paying a single penny in corporation tax. You really don't want to liaise with them if you are all about getting the best for the taxpayer.
6. Mishcon de Reya when they contacted me in July did NOT tell me whom they represented in doing so. It was subsequently suggested to us that they may be working for Spurs and Orient because they have worked for both in the past. But we don't know, and we don't make it our business to know.
You were not at all interested why a legal company approached you for information and you were also not bothered why they wanted that information or who they might be wanting this information for ? You don't know and you don't make it your business to know ? Strange, as you have very much made it your business to know everything with regard to the OS deal.
If you are curious about the OS deal, why not also be curious about who may be using you (with you not even knowing about it) for their own purposes ?
You are starting to become more than a little tedious.
Mishcon de Reya had just one question. The name of the EC oFficials I dealt with in my State aid complaint. They assured me that in doing so I would not be assisting in anything that was "problematic " for Charlton.
of course they were not going to tell me what exactly they are up to. They were not seeking anything particularly difficult from me, so why on earth would they? As I've already told you above, we heard some more and put two and two together. How on earth do you suppose we would persuade a company like Mishocn to tell us more about what they are doing? And if we knew, then so what? They will do what they will do on behalf of their clients, for their usual fees. If that coincides with our interests, great.
Once again GEE, I would ask you especially, but it applies to your mates too, imagine what would be the outcome on KUMB if a load of us went on there and demanded answers from a load of regulars there about what they are up to, in a tone of voice better suited to the interrogation of public officials. In my personal opinion, you are getting close to being out of order.
I don't particularly care for what Mischon are up to, they always would be monitoring this closely with or without Spur's (or any clubs) direction as they would love to sniff out the chances of profiting from any possible litigation.
In the case of state aid being proved (which I remain very confident it wont be) then that opens up the possibility of West Ham suing the government/ LLDC as surely the responsibility to test the state aid rule rested with them (which according to reports they already have done with the EC).
Incidentally the publication of Spurs stadium plan does make me somewhat envious, but beggars cant be choosers and West ham are in the former group thanks particularly to the disastrous period of Icelandic ownership.
By the way I was well impressed with the Valley having visited it in the pre-season friendly. Are there any plans to redevelop the Jimmy Seed stand? It could resemble a mini Old Trafford eventually.
6. Mishcon de Reya when they contacted me in July did NOT tell me whom they represented in doing so. It was subsequently suggested to us that they may be working for Spurs and Orient because they have worked for both in the past. But we don't know, and we don't make it our business to know.
You were not at all interested why a legal company approached you for information and you were also not bothered why they wanted that information or who they might be wanting this information for ? You don't know and you don't make it your business to know ? Strange, as you have very much made it your business to know everything with regard to the OS deal.
If you are curious about the OS deal, why not also be curious about who may be using you (with you not even knowing about it) for their own purposes ?
You are starting to become more than a little tedious.
Mishcon de Reya had just one question. The name of the EC oFficials I dealt with in my State aid complaint. They assured me that in doing so I would not be assisting in anything that was "problematic " for Charlton.
of course they were not going to tell me what exactly they are up to. They were not seeking anything particularly difficult from me, so why on earth would they? As I've already told you above, we heard some more and put two and two together. How on earth do you suppose we would persuade a company like Mishocn to tell us more about what they are doing? And if we knew, then so what? They will do what they will do on behalf of their clients, for their usual fees. If that coincides with our interests, great.
Once again GEE, I would ask you especially, but it applies to your mates too, imagine what would be the outcome on KUMB if a load of us went on there and demanded answers from a load of regulars there about what they are up to, in a tone of voice better suited to the interrogation of public officials. In my personal opinion, you are getting close to being out of order.
He will never accept your responses PA. “What is more arrogant than to assume that of all the paths through the woods yours is the only true one.”
By the way I was well impressed with the Valley having visited it in the pre-season friendly. Are there any plans to redevelop the Jimmy Seed stand? It could resemble a mini Old Trafford eventually.
We're just waiting for the £350m EU subsidy to come through. Then we'll rebuild the ground and spend the remaining £330m on players
By the way I was well impressed with the Valley having visited it in the pre-season friendly. Are there any plans to redevelop the Jimmy Seed stand? It could resemble a mini Old Trafford eventually.
We're just waiting for the £350m EU subsidy to come through. Then we'll rebuild the ground and spend the remaining £330m on players
By the way I was well impressed with the Valley having visited it in the pre-season friendly. Are there any plans to redevelop the Jimmy Seed stand? It could resemble a mini Old Trafford eventually.
We're just waiting for the £350m EU subsidy to come through. Then we'll rebuild the ground and spend the remaining £330m on players
Oh groan, you're back again...I bet you're not even German either
I don't particularly care for what Mischon are up to, they always would be monitoring this closely with or without Spur's (or any clubs) direction as they would love to sniff out the chances of profiting from any possible litigation.
In the case of state aid being proved (which I remain very confident it wont be) then that opens up the possibility of West Ham suing the government/ LLDC as surely the responsibility to test the state aid rule rested with them (which according to reports they already have done with the EC).
Incidentally the publication of Spurs stadium plan does make me somewhat envious, but beggars cant be choosers and West ham are in the former group thanks particularly to the disastrous period of Icelandic ownership.
By the way I was well impressed with the Valley having visited it in the pre-season friendly. Are there any plans to redevelop the Jimmy Seed stand? It could resemble a mini Old Trafford eventually.
It really does depend if Greenwich Council cover our conversion costs.
If I came across as being out of order I formally apologise. I'm merely asking questions, same as you. You've been mentioning possible dodgy/fishy dealings involving the LLDC and West Ham based on the LLDC's reluctance to publish every detail of the OS deal. You are drawing your conclusions from certain actions or non-actions by the LLDC and West Ham, I do the same with what your coalition of Trusts is doing. I reckon it's fair to say we are all passionate about our clubs which is why this is throwing up some heated debates. I'd expect the LLDC to come out with some kind of reaction either tomorrow or on Friday with regard to either appealing the decision by the FOI commissioner or releasing the requested info on the OS deal.
If I came across as being out of order I formally apologise. I'm merely asking questions, same as you. You've been mentioning possible dodgy/fishy dealings involving the LLDC and West Ham based on the LLDC's reluctance to publish every detail of the OS deal. You are drawing your conclusions from certain actions or non-actions by the LLDC and West Ham, I do the same with what your coalition of Trusts is doing. I reckon it's fair to say we are all passionate about our clubs which is why this is throwing up some heated debates. I'd expect the LLDC to come out with some kind of reaction either tomorrow or on Friday with regard to either appealing the decision by the FOI commissioner or releasing the requested info on the OS deal.
I'm surprised ...and disappointed ...it has taken them so long.
Comments
I think that we can probably separate the legal challenges into ones which tried to get Spurs into the stadium instead of West Ham, and then Orient into the stadium with West Ham.
The Charlton Trust and petition into holding public inquiry are not to prevent West Ham playing at the OS, but for the financial aspects to be better for the taxpayer. If you can accept that point, we will have progressed a long way, as GEE and Gavros appear not to be able to grasp this point despite it being repeated ad nauseum on here.
I think that this is the key point as to why no other Clubs have stepped forward to challenge West Ham yet on the State Aid issue (that may come later of course, and should very much concern WHU fans when the facts are made public); the STate Aid challenge has to (as far as I know) come from similar companies, so (for instance) an individual or Trust cannot bring such a complaint to the EU; where this was done previously, it was dismissed due to this reason (which GEE mistakenly thinks will be the end of it).
Through the FOI request made by @PragueAddick, the redacted contract circulated. This obviously raised major concerns about what West Ham may or may not being paying, and what they were getting in return. This affects all taxpayers in the UK. This is why all of us are involved - even you - and why people like me get involved in a forum discussion like this (I am not involved with the Trust - just a simple forum member).
Once the un-redacted contract details are in the public domain, a much better idea of how the LLDC/West Ham deal looks will be available to all, and then we can all discuss how best to take matters forward, if there looks to be anything "unsafe" about the deal.
To conclude, nobody on here has a problem with West Ham playing at the OS, only what it will cost the taxpayer to make such an initiative work, and how the knock-on effects may influence Charlton's future position.
I understand that some of you are afraid that you'll be struggling to gain new Charlton fans because of West Ham giving out free or cheap tickets in the OS.
The up to 100.000 free West Ham tickets a year mentioned by the Newham Council will go exclusively to residents in Newham. I don't suppose Newham is your classic Charlton catchment area, is it ?
As for cheap tickets you can also rest assured. It's rumoured that West Ham could be close to selling 40.000 season tickets (in fact some fans on our forums are already complaining they had to pay more money for their season ticket in the OS in order to get a comparable view to the one they have at our current ground at the moment).
The cheap 298 Pound tickets in the crap seats (Upper Tier behind the goals) will be few and far between if the current ticket sales in Band 1 and 2 are anything to go by.
Could be as little as 2.000 cheap season tickets only to be had. Is there really going to be that amssive an impact on clubs like Orient or Charlton if West Ham move into the OS ?
Competition among London clubs at various league levels has always been fierce. Does West Ham in the OS really put your club or Orient at the risk of dying ?
Yes, all clubs have initiatives to improve support, but how many clubs are able to do so after receiving a bunk-up worth millions from the taxpayer each year?
I will answer you, despite the tone of voice you have used.
1. Charlton supporters were alerted to the commercial threat of West Ham's move to the OS years ago by the former CEO and former chairman. Of course at the time the terms of the deal were not known. It was simply a commercial threat to be aware of.
2. I became personally interested in the deal and the potential for State Aid early in 2013. Out of curiosity to test the EC system, I put together a State Aid complaint. At the time, it was just my personal initiative.
3. The response from the LLDC to the EC was so high handed and truculent that it got me more interested, so I continued with the State Aid complaint.
4. The first connection with another club came when Mat Roper of Orient started his petition in around May last year, and I posted it on here ( the thread can be easily found), and made contact with Mat. I thought he was a brave fan who was determined to go down fighting on behalf of his club, and I thought he should not stand alone
5. Only after that did CAST decide to officially adopt it as a Trust cause.
6. Mishcon de Reya when they contacted me in July did NOT tell me whom they represented in doing so. It was subsequently suggested to us that they may be working for Spurs and Orient because they have worked for both in the past. But we don't know, and we don't make it our business to know.
7. Also in July we went to the Supporters Summit, armed with a briefing on our campaign and we we'e delighted with the support we received.That is where the Coalition was borne. What a pity West Ham had no official reps there.
8. The Spurs Trust are among the excellent people involved, others are from Fulham, QPR and Chelsea, to mention only those who met in the pub last week. You would cause offence to the Spurs people with your suggestion that they act on behalf of Daniel Levy.
9. You don't know me to be fair, but anyone on here who does will tell you that I have many faults but being in the pocket of other people and being their puppet, is not among them.
Thank you for replying.
You don't know and you don't make it your business to know ?
Strange, as you have very much made it your business to know everything with regard to the OS deal.
If you are curious about the OS deal, why not also be curious about who may be using you (with you not even knowing about it) for their own purposes ?
Spurs surely haven't. As their owners are the kings of tax avoidance. Spurs are among several Premier League clubs not paying a single penny in corporation tax.
You really don't want to liaise with them if you are all about getting the best for the taxpayer.
You don't know and you don't make it your business to know ?
Strange, as you have very much made it your business to know everything with regard to the OS deal.
If you are curious about the OS deal, why not also be curious about who may be using you (with you not even knowing about it) for their own purposes ?
You are starting to become more than a little tedious.
Mishcon de Reya had just one question. The name of the EC oFficials I dealt with in my State aid complaint. They assured me that in doing so I would not be assisting in anything that was "problematic " for Charlton.
of course they were not going to tell me what exactly they are up to. They were not seeking anything particularly difficult from me, so why on earth would they? As I've already told you above, we heard some more and put two and two together. How on earth do you suppose we would persuade a company like Mishocn to tell us more about what they are doing? And if we knew, then so what? They will do what they will do on behalf of their clients, for their usual fees. If that coincides with our interests, great.
Once again GEE, I would ask you especially, but it applies to your mates too, imagine what would be the outcome on KUMB if a load of us went on there and demanded answers from a load of regulars there about what they are up to, in a tone of voice better suited to the interrogation of public officials. In my personal opinion, you are getting close to being out of order.
I don't particularly care for what Mischon are up to, they always would be monitoring this closely with or without Spur's (or any clubs) direction as they would love to sniff out the chances of profiting from any possible litigation.
In the case of state aid being proved (which I remain very confident it wont be) then that opens up the possibility of West Ham suing the government/ LLDC as surely the responsibility to test the state aid rule rested with them (which according to reports they already have done with the EC).
Incidentally the publication of Spurs stadium plan does make me somewhat envious, but beggars cant be choosers and West ham are in the former group thanks particularly to the disastrous period of Icelandic ownership.
By the way I was well impressed with the Valley having visited it in the pre-season friendly. Are there any plans to redevelop the Jimmy Seed stand? It could resemble a mini Old Trafford eventually.
Mishcon de Reya had just one question. The name of the EC oFficials I dealt with in my State aid complaint. They assured me that in doing so I would not be assisting in anything that was "problematic " for Charlton.
of course they were not going to tell me what exactly they are up to. They were not seeking anything particularly difficult from me, so why on earth would they? As I've already told you above, we heard some more and put two and two together. How on earth do you suppose we would persuade a company like Mishocn to tell us more about what they are doing? And if we knew, then so what? They will do what they will do on behalf of their clients, for their usual fees. If that coincides with our interests, great.
Once again GEE, I would ask you especially, but it applies to your mates too, imagine what would be the outcome on KUMB if a load of us went on there and demanded answers from a load of regulars there about what they are up to, in a tone of voice better suited to the interrogation of public officials. In my personal opinion, you are getting close to being out of order.
He will never accept your responses PA.
“What is more arrogant than to assume that of all the paths through the woods yours is the only true one.”
We're just waiting for the £350m EU subsidy to come through. Then we'll rebuild the ground and spend the remaining £330m on players
You've been mentioning possible dodgy/fishy dealings involving the LLDC and West Ham based on the LLDC's reluctance to publish every detail of the OS deal. You are drawing your conclusions from certain actions or non-actions by the LLDC and West Ham, I do the same with what your coalition of Trusts is doing.
I reckon it's fair to say we are all passionate about our clubs which is why this is throwing up some heated debates.
I'd expect the LLDC to come out with some kind of reaction either tomorrow or on Friday with regard to either appealing the decision by the FOI commissioner or releasing the requested info on the OS deal.