Well, if you want office space, don't rent an empty warehouse. The LLDC wanted a multi-purpose stadium, roof, retractable seating and everything and they wanted a Premier League club in there, so they decided to pay it b way of making a short-term investment in exchange for long-term gain. Which will be what the LLDC and the taxpayer will get out of this. Non-standard seats could be some of the specially padded seats with the best views in the OS. Apparently those have sold out already and they are obviously more expensive than the normal seats.
I've answered that already. Yes, to outsiders with a vested interest it may look fishy. But again, that doesn't mean there actually IS anything fishy. I still think the LLDC is just finishing the final touches on a naming rights deal which may be announced as early as after the Rugby World Cup. At that point the deal will be released and you can dig around in the various clauses trying to prove your state aid issue.
DO YOU think that by not publishing the deal that it may look fishy?
NO ONE has said that it is fishy. In fact, as you say, it may be all squeaky clean and all above board. But, if you had nothing to hide, why wouldn't you just say so..??
For the record GEE, I couldn't care less where west ham play, in fact, I think the OS would suit them.
West Ham are paying themselves for the claret and blue seating. Any team groundsharing would obviously have to pay more than us as we are anchor tenants with a 99 year committment while other teams would only play there temporarily for one or two seasons. As you rightly say, we are only tenants, so why should the tenant have to pay for the conversion costs making it fit for multi-purpose ? And are you really more concerned about this OS bollox when your own club should give yourself plenty of issues at the moment to dig your teeth into in your function as the CAS Trust ? If you continue in the current vein you will have plenty more empty seats in your stadium for home games without any other London club giving out free or cheap tickets. Don't you think it might help your club more if you put a bit more effort into getting your club back into the Premier League instead of assisting Spurs in getting better terms for a possible temporary groundshare in the OS ?
And how do you propose that the Trust miraculously bring the team back to form?
Calling a public meeting worked miracles the last time ;-)
Look, the LLDC claim the secrecyof certain terms of the deal is needed for commercial reasons, i.e. to get the best possible deals from other parties renting the OS (hence getting more money back for the taxpayers). You (and some other people) obviously aren't buying that, yet the LLDC may still go and appeal to protect their commercial confidentiality and then it will be up to a proper court to decide. I'm not saying everything is squeaky clean, how could I without having been a witness when the LLDc and West Ham were negotiating ? But it is not unusual to have commercial confidentiality as the LLDC/Vinci will have to negotiate deals with other parties for the OS and for that reason they may have a point to keep some cards close to their chests. One more thing: Do you really think if there was something dodgy or fishy going on that the LLDC and West Ham would be stupid enough to put that into a written contract ? Your Spurs friendly lawyer may be able to tell you a few stories in that respect...
Let's leave it to the courts then, they can deal with this properly. As LLDC is sure to appeal. It's entirely your right to want the deal being published. It's also the LLDC's right to defend their commercial interests by going through the courts. Remember that Haern didn't get very far with his pursuit of getting a court to grant him a judicial review of the bidding process that got West Ham the anchor tenancy. You are clearly confident that a court case could prove state aid. We'll see about that.
Let's leave it to the courts then, they can deal with this properly. As LLDC is sure to appeal. It's entirely your right to want the deal being published. It's also the LLDC's right to defend their commercial interests by going through the courts. Remember that Haern didn't get very far with his pursuit of getting a court to grant him a judicial review of the bidding process that got West Ham the anchor tenancy. You are clearly confident that a court case could prove state aid. We'll see about that.
I am not confident in anything as I have no issue. All I want to see is the deal published like it should be.
It will be interesting to see if the LDDC appeal as Boris said they probably wouldn't, we shall see though.
Look, the LLDC claim the secrecyof certain terms of the deal is needed for commercial reasons, i.e. to get the best possible deals from other parties renting the OS (hence getting more money back for the taxpayers). You (and some other people) obviously aren't buying that, yet the LLDC may still go and appeal to protect their commercial confidentiality and then it will be up to a proper court to decide. I'm not saying everything is squeaky clean, how could I without having been a witness when the LLDc and West Ham were negotiating ? But it is not unusual to have commercial confidentiality as the LLDC/Vinci will have to negotiate deals with other parties for the OS and for that reason they may have a point to keep some cards close to their chests. One more thing: Do you really think if there was something dodgy or fishy going on that the LLDC and West Ham would be stupid enough to put that into a written contract ? Your Spurs friendly lawyer may be able to tell you a few stories in that respect...
I'm amazed to come in late, and find you two still banging on, but let me leave you with this fact.
Boris Johnson said, twice, in the GLA meeting, link to which is available further up the thread, and the ICO case office backed this up, that the main player wanting to keep the contract redacted is not the LLDC, but West Ham.
So get your heads round that fact, and then answer @cafc999's question. Or do one.
Look, the LLDC claim the secrecyof certain terms of the deal is needed for commercial reasons, i.e. to get the best possible deals from other parties renting the OS (hence getting more money back for the taxpayers). You (and some other people) obviously aren't buying that, yet the LLDC may still go and appeal to protect their commercial confidentiality and then it will be up to a proper court to decide. I'm not saying everything is squeaky clean, how could I without having been a witness when the LLDc and West Ham were negotiating ? But it is not unusual to have commercial confidentiality as the LLDC/Vinci will have to negotiate deals with other parties for the OS and for that reason they may have a point to keep some cards close to their chests. One more thing: Do you really think if there was something dodgy or fishy going on that the LLDC and West Ham would be stupid enough to put that into a written contract ? Your Spurs friendly lawyer may be able to tell you a few stories in that respect...
You must be one of the dumbest m*********** on the internet.
Look, the LLDC claim the secrecyof certain terms of the deal is needed for commercial reasons, i.e. to get the best possible deals from other parties renting the OS (hence getting more money back for the taxpayers). You (and some other people) obviously aren't buying that, yet the LLDC may still go and appeal to protect their commercial confidentiality and then it will be up to a proper court to decide. I'm not saying everything is squeaky clean, how could I without having been a witness when the LLDc and West Ham were negotiating ? But it is not unusual to have commercial confidentiality as the LLDC/Vinci will have to negotiate deals with other parties for the OS and for that reason they may have a point to keep some cards close to their chests. One more thing: Do you really think if there was something dodgy or fishy going on that the LLDC and West Ham would be stupid enough to put that into a written contract ? Your Spurs friendly lawyer may be able to tell you a few stories in that respect...
You must be one of the dumbest m************ on the internet.
And are you really more concerned about this OS bollox when your own club should give yourself plenty of issues at the moment to dig your teeth into in your function as the CAS Trust ? If you continue in the current vein you will have plenty more empty seats in your stadium for home games without any other London club giving out free or cheap tickets. Don't you think it might help your club more if you put a bit more effort into getting your club back into the Premier League instead of assisting Spurs in getting better terms for a possible temporary groundshare in the OS ?
west ham are 3rd in the Premiership everything is rosey for the appy ammers , why are you so bothered by what a bunch of geeky Charlton fans are up to regarding your honest owners endeavours in securing their deal at the OS , you appear at ease with what may or may not be in the deal The lady doth protest too much, me thinks
You couldn't turn Talksport on last year without hearing another embarrassing advert/plea/promotion for big old Premier League West Ham to try and fill their current stadium, it's good to know a shinier seat much further from the pitch is going to attract all these extra cockernee-no-marks from their jellied eels stalls...
For a club that has outgrown its stadium, there were lots of adverts in the Standard too - I mean why advertise if you don't need to?
I don't think any London club advertised more!!!! If you can't fill what you have got - why go somewhere else? Arsenal moved because Highbury was too small and their supporters paid for it in higher prices!!!! West Ham are offering cheaper prices.
I don't think any London club advertised more!!!! If you can't fill what you have got - why go somewhere else? Arsenal moved because Highbury was too small and their supporters paid for it in higher prices!!!! West Ham are offering cheaper prices.
Not only did Arsenal fans pay for it in higher prices the club also had to pay for and regenerate the surrounding areas of the Emirates. They hardly splashed the cash for a few years either on players either.
Look, the LLDC claim the secrecyof certain terms of the deal is needed for commercial reasons, i.e. to get the best possible deals from other parties renting the OS (hence getting more money back for the taxpayers). You (and some other people) obviously aren't buying that, yet the LLDC may still go and appeal to protect their commercial confidentiality and then it will be up to a proper court to decide. I'm not saying everything is squeaky clean, how could I without having been a witness when the LLDc and West Ham were negotiating ? But it is not unusual to have commercial confidentiality as the LLDC/Vinci will have to negotiate deals with other parties for the OS and for that reason they may have a point to keep some cards close to their chests. One more thing: Do you really think if there was something dodgy or fishy going on that the LLDC and West Ham would be stupid enough to put that into a written contract ? Your Spurs friendly lawyer may be able to tell you a few stories in that respect...
I'm amazed to come in late, and find you two still banging on, but let me leave you with this fact.
Boris Johnson said, twice, in the GLA meeting, link to which is available further up the thread, and the ICO case office backed this up, that the main player wanting to keep the contract redacted is not the LLDC, but West Ham.
So get your heads round that fact, and then answer @cafc999's question. Or do one.
Prague, GEE doesn't do facts very well. He only likes to do assumptions, rumours and what he has 'heard'
Look, the LLDC claim the secrecyof certain terms of the deal is needed for commercial reasons, i.e. to get the best possible deals from other parties renting the OS (hence getting more money back for the taxpayers). You (and some other people) obviously aren't buying that, yet the LLDC may still go and appeal to protect their commercial confidentiality and then it will be up to a proper court to decide. I'm not saying everything is squeaky clean, how could I without having been a witness when the LLDc and West Ham were negotiating ? But it is not unusual to have commercial confidentiality as the LLDC/Vinci will have to negotiate deals with other parties for the OS and for that reason they may have a point to keep some cards close to their chests. One more thing: Do you really think if there was something dodgy or fishy going on that the LLDC and West Ham would be stupid enough to put that into a written contract ? Your Spurs friendly lawyer may be able to tell you a few stories in that respect...
I'm amazed to come in late, and find you two still banging on, but let me leave you with this fact.
Boris Johnson said, twice, in the GLA meeting, link to which is available further up the thread, and the ICO case office backed this up, that the main player wanting to keep the contract redacted is not the LLDC, but West Ham.
So get your heads round that fact, and then answer @cafc999's question. Or do one.
Prague, GEE doesn't do facts very well. He only likes to do assumptions, rumours and what he has 'heard'
Let's leave it to the courts then, they can deal with this properly. As LLDC is sure to appeal. It's entirely your right to want the deal being published. It's also the LLDC's right to defend their commercial interests by going through the courts. Remember that Haern didn't get very far with his pursuit of getting a court to grant him a judicial review of the bidding process that got West Ham the anchor tenancy. You are clearly confident that a court case could prove state aid. We'll see about that.
Why were the LLDC conferring with Westham with regards to the appeal if , as you claim, it is the LLDC that want the deal held back to safeguard their commercial interests?
I assume the two West Ham posters are not getting any attention on their own forum? Probably seen as muppets by the rank & file. They've had their say and choose not to answer most questions directed at them, so cant we just redirect them to KUMB to bore everyone on there or simply block them. The last time I looked on KUMB, there was a great argument going on between " the Olympic Stadium no matter what" group and "the views are shit, the transport set up is poor and the food is rubbish" contingent who have been to a rugby match, mixed up with the "Johnny-come-latelys" who have jumped the queue for the best seats. Surely that's more interesting.
I assume the two West Ham posters are not getting any attention on their own forum? Probably seen as muppets by the rank & file. They've had their say and choose not to answer most questions directed at them, so cant we just redirect them to KUMB to bore everyone on there or simply block them. The last time I looked on KUMB, there was a great argument going on between " the Olympic Stadium no matter what" group and "the views are shit, the transport set up is poor and the food is rubbish" contingent who have been to a rugby match, mixed up with the "Johnny-come-latelys" who have jumped the queue for the best seats. Surely that's more interesting.
I'm glad we never have rows like that between Charlton supporters on here.
Yes, some fellow posters on West Ham forums may consider me to be a muppet, but that comes with the territory of having a multitude of fans discussing their favourite club and disagreeing on certain issues, no, I don't like every single West Ham fan either just because they support the same club. Of course I do a lot of assumptions, same as you, simply because the deal hasn't been published yet. As for being muppets both your forum and Prague Addick are being seen as a bit controversial to say the least. So not everybody is your fan either on other Charlton forums. The LLDC will appeal which will prolong matters for another month or two, then the deal is likely to be published and then we'll all see what happens then. You still think you may be in a position to ultimately change the terms while I think it'll pretty much remain as it is. All we can do is wait at this point. And I agree, I've been spending far too much time on here, I've got an article to write for a West Ham blog, full of assumptions, muppeting and devoid of any facts. Don't be too sad on losing again at Cardiff. I'm sure there will be some easier games for you soon.
Comments
It's what they do when they cannot answer (or refuse to answer) questions that doesn't agree with them
Non-standard seats could be some of the specially padded seats with the best views in the OS.
Apparently those have sold out already and they are obviously more expensive than the normal seats.
I have also noted the word 'could' in your post which again indicates that you assume that they are the non standard seats.
At that point the deal will be released and you can dig around in the various clauses trying to prove your state aid issue.
DO YOU think that by not publishing the deal that it may look fishy?
NO ONE has said that it is fishy. In fact, as you say, it may be all squeaky clean and all above board. But, if you had nothing to hide, why wouldn't you just say so..??
For the record GEE, I couldn't care less where west ham play, in fact, I think the OS would suit them.
You (and some other people) obviously aren't buying that, yet the LLDC may still go and appeal to protect their commercial confidentiality and then it will be up to a proper court to decide.
I'm not saying everything is squeaky clean, how could I without having been a witness when the LLDc and West Ham were negotiating ?
But it is not unusual to have commercial confidentiality as the LLDC/Vinci will have to negotiate deals with other parties for the OS and for that reason they may have a point to keep some cards close to their chests.
One more thing: Do you really think if there was something dodgy or fishy going on that the LLDC and West Ham would be stupid enough to put that into a written contract ?
Your Spurs friendly lawyer may be able to tell you a few stories in that respect...
Are you sure you're not or was a politician?
If there is nothing to hide then why hide it? Publish the deal and if it's all ok then all this fuss goes away over night.
Before posting any other comments remember, you have not been a witness when the LDDC and west ham negotiated.
You are clearly confident that a court case could prove state aid. We'll see about that.
It will be interesting to see if the LDDC appeal as Boris said they probably wouldn't, we shall see though.
Boris Johnson said, twice, in the GLA meeting, link to which is available further up the thread, and the ICO case office backed this up, that the main player wanting to keep the contract redacted is not the LLDC, but West Ham.
So get your heads round that fact, and then answer @cafc999's question. Or do one.
Male Genitals?
Malevolences?
Marx Brothers?
Millwall Fans?
Melancholiacs?
Menstruations?
Mental Strains?
The lady doth protest too much, me thinks
The last time I looked on KUMB, there was a great argument going on between " the Olympic Stadium no matter what" group and "the views are shit, the transport set up is poor and the food is rubbish" contingent who have been to a rugby match, mixed up with the "Johnny-come-latelys" who have jumped the queue for the best seats. Surely that's more interesting.
Of course I do a lot of assumptions, same as you, simply because the deal hasn't been published yet.
As for being muppets both your forum and Prague Addick are being seen as a bit controversial to say the least.
So not everybody is your fan either on other Charlton forums.
The LLDC will appeal which will prolong matters for another month or two, then the deal is likely to be published and then we'll all see what happens then. You still think you may be in a position to ultimately change the terms while I think it'll pretty much remain as it is. All we can do is wait at this point.
And I agree, I've been spending far too much time on here, I've got an article to write for a West Ham blog, full of assumptions, muppeting and devoid of any facts. Don't be too sad on losing again at Cardiff.
I'm sure there will be some easier games for you soon.