That somewhat assumes, doesn't it, that there is no alternative to West Ham. In which case, the idea of an open competitive tender is a sham and the Hammers have received government money on a selective basis. Which is it?
1. What other credible offers were there when the second tender came up?
2. Why does West Ham being the only credible tenant for the stadium that the LLDC decided to build mean that state aid must have occurred?
Your point was that the choice was West Ham or nothing, but there were three other offers. I've not seen them to be able to comment on them, but I would agree with you that it was always going to be West Ham - after all, the first discussions about it occurred in the early 2000s.
But even if we were to accept West Ham were the only option, why does that mean that the notion of win/win goes out the window? Why is it that West Ham will show profits from even their first year in the stadium in the tens of millions whilst the stadium owners pocket £200k of revenue whilst still carrying £300k of direct stadium costs, plus all the staffing, which runs into the millions, and a myriad of other costs hidden in Vinci? And as we know stadium sponsorship starts in 2016/7...
As for state aid, well you mentioned that not me, and as we've said any complaint about that is for another party - but here are the four characteristics of state aid in case you're not familiar:
It is granted by the state
It favours certain undertakings (is given on a selective basis)
It distorts competition
It will or has the potential to affect trade across member states.
I'll leave it up to other to determine whether this deal fits that description. I'm not sure you're right that it's selective though Gav - as I say, it was surely an open and competitive tender and anyone could have competed and won.
You do realise, though, that LLDC could have applied for an exemption? They may have considered it wouldn't have succeeded though, given that any state money provided that would aid normal operating costs - I dunno, what's normal in football, policing matches? - wouldn't have been considered as an exception.
I'm glad you have resurfaced gavros as it gives you another chance to answer my question that you didn't answer a few days ago.
So here goes (again) By not publishing the deal, do you not think that it makes the deal look fishy..??
Over to you gavros
Obviously. That's why i support the eventual publication of the deal in full.
As for the LLDC not securing the exemption as mentioned, yes that seems odd, but if they were stupid enough to believe that any deal that would eventually face full scrutiny and might be provable in terms of state aid rules, and yet that wouldn't be challenged by other clubs (namely Spurs, given their historical interest), then I'd be amazed.
The other three bids were extraordinarily flaky, the idea Essex county cricket club could have sustained the stadium alone was risible, the F1 bid was fantasy land stuff, and campus bid needed an anchor to stack up. All three those would have ended up costing more and probably needing West Ham to prop them up
The other three bids were extraordinarily flaky, the idea Essex county cricket club could have sustained the stadium alone was risible, the F1 bid was fantasy land stuff, and campus bid needed an anchor to stack up. All three those would have ended up costing more and probably needing West Ham to prop them up
What percentage do UK Athletics get from the naming rights?
The other three bids were extraordinarily flaky, the idea Essex county cricket club could have sustained the stadium alone was risible, the F1 bid was fantasy land stuff, and campus bid needed an anchor to stack up. All three those would have ended up costing more and probably needing West Ham to prop them up
The original approved use for the smaller stadium would arguably have had a bigger impact on legacy and cost a lot less. As a community focused solution it could have attracted funding from the lottery, perhaps even via Sport England. That's one alternative no-one seems to want to talk about.
But look, it's an iconic stadium and personally I'm glad that it's going to be put to regular use on the scale for which it was built. That doesn't mean, to me, that the taxpayer should be stumping up every year to make it happen. It doesn't happen in Manchester and it shouldn't happen here, regardless of the ludicrous nature of Lord Coe's insistence the running track was retained. It also shouldn't mean that an already wealthy Premier League football club should get a stadium without the risks of owning it for, er, nothing.
I'm glad you have resurfaced gavros as it gives you another chance to answer my question that you didn't answer a few days ago.
So here goes (again) By not publishing the deal, do you not think that it makes the deal look fishy..??
Over to you gavros
Obviously. That's why i support the eventual publication of the deal in full.
As for the LLDC not securing the exemption as mentioned, yes that seems odd, but if they were stupid enough to believe that any deal that would eventually face full scrutiny and might be provable in terms of state aid rules, and yet that wouldn't be challenged by other clubs (namely Spurs, given their historical interest), then I'd be amazed.
At last..!!
I'm glad we finally agree on something and you must also now understand why so many people are asking for the contract to be published. Not because people are anti west ham or having sour grapes but because people want to see the truth.
When you speak about "State Aid" do you - and I'm not being funny here - know what you are talking about? Because two years a go, I for one did not. But you do need to distinguish between the EU specific State Aid rules,which are complex and require specialist consideration, and the general issue of whether the UK taxpayer's money in any given situation is being used wisely and in the public interest. The Coalition campaign concentrates on the latter. Which does not stop others from focusing on the former.
obviously not as much as you. That I will defer to.
surely government lawyers would know about it, though. That's what they're paid to do.
If some monumental screw up was done, then the government might be liable for the bill.
Well funny you should say that. In my latest FOI request, I tried to find out what the bill might be. Of course my request was denied. This time their excuse was that they cannot extract the specific fees for work relating to the OS contract from the other bills they have from Allen & Overy (and PWC). An interesting excuse.
Earlier you dismissed Mishcon de Reya as some kind of commercial ambulance-chasers. Yet you think Government lawyers are all knowing, and always right? Touching...
obviously not as much as you. That I will defer to.
surely government lawyers would know about it, though. That's what they're paid to do.
If some monumental screw up was done, then the government might be liable for the bill.
Well funny you should say that. In my latest FOI request, I tried to find out what the bill might be. Of course my request was denied. This time their excuse was that they cannot extract the specific fees for work relating to the OS contract from the other bills they have from Allen & Overy (and PWC). An interesting excuse.
Earlier you dismissed Mishcon de Reya as some kind of commercial ambulance-chasers. Yet you think Government lawyers are all knowing, and always right? Touching...
In my experience, Govt. lawyers (Treasury Counsel excepted) are not very good. That's why they are working for the Govt. - they couldn't hack it in private practice.
It seems to suggest that they just pay their bills without checking what they are for and have no idea as to the cost of anything they do as it is all lumped into one.
Who are their Auditors? They need to be named and shamed!
Who are their Auditors? They need to be named and shamed!
The Government auditors are, of course, the National Audit Office (NAO). They do work quite independently from other Govt depts, and have been known to get upset with departmental inefficiences!
I don't think much will or could be done if when the terms are released and out there, it is found that West Ham have struck a very good deal. The issue will be if it is found that West Ham have struck a ridiculously good deal - the sort of deal reported in the BBC programme in July. If that isn't the case, all of this will end. But I would say this - Gullivan are hard nosed businessmen - they went into negotiations with the LLDC who they knew were not open to any option that didn't involve a Premiership football club and they knew they were the only club being considered after Spurs were ruled out. The negotiations were bound to be somewhat one sided. If what they were securing was anything other than tax payers subsidy, most would say good luck to them. But they were and now we have to see how much. If simple maths suggest they will be staying at the stadium virtually rent free for 99 years when benefits like policing, pitch upkeep etc... are taken into account, it must be the most cut and dried example of state aid in history. Now I don't claim to know the details as Prague does, but I think it would be impossible not to argue there is state aid if this is the case. The next page in this story is going to be the release of the actual figures.
Who are their Auditors? They need to be named and shamed!
The Government auditors are, of course, the National Audit Office (NAO). They do work quite independently from other Govt depts, and have been known to get upset with departmental inefficiences!
Hmmm. Do you think the LLDC would come under the NAO remit? That could make thing interesting.
Here is the thread, containing the question and answer. Would be grateful for all thoughts and ideas; maybe consider first whether you want to share them with @gavros but I think he's just a freelancer. To be fair to him, unlike his mate Sean Whetstone, he does not claim to sit down with Gullivan every other week, not proclaim on the BBC that he can guarantee Gullivan will never sell :-)
One of the reasons behind my request was to try and prove a suspicion I have, that the LLDC didn't have any specific advice from within the commercial football sphere. It seems that indeed they didn't. That looks like a reasonable conclusion from their reply. Of course, as we've discussed before, there is nothing a commercial lawyer does not think he is the master of, but it looks like the geniuses at Allen & Overy and PwC gave away the overheads because they simply didn't understand their monetary significance.
Two and a half days. To go through invoices for 4 (four) suppliers, over about a year. Either their "£25 per hour cost" staff are very slow or they have an extremely large number of invoices.
Lawyers write their time based on activity and client. I would expect PWC do this too. All it would really take from the LLDC is to put in a call to both saying they need a schedule based on cost per project. I would imagine the Cost Advisors would be easily able to help with this too (in terms of providing their costs), all at no extra charge.
Also sounds like very poor project management/cost management to me.
Who are their Auditors? They need to be named and shamed!
The Government auditors are, of course, the National Audit Office (NAO). They do work quite independently from other Govt depts, and have been known to get upset with departmental inefficiences!
Hmmm. Do you think the LLDC would come under the NAO remit? That could make thing interesting.
Here is the thread, containing the question and answer. Would be grateful for all thoughts and ideas; maybe consider first whether you want to share them with @gavros but I think he's just a freelancer. To be fair to him, unlike his mate Sean Whetstone, he does not claim to sit down with Gullivan every other week, not proclaim on the BBC that he can guarantee Gullivan will never sell :-)
One of the reasons behind my request was to try and prove a suspicion I have, that the LLDC didn't have any specific advice from within the commercial football sphere. It seems that indeed they didn't. That looks like a reasonable conclusion from their reply. Of course, as we've discussed before, there is nothing a commercial lawyer does not think he is the master of, but it looks like the geniuses at Allen & Overy and PwC gave away the overheads because they simply didn't understand their monetary significance.
Yes, LLDC would fall under NAO remit as part of DCMS. I have PM'ed you details from their website which may be of interest after the contract is published. It could be yet another line of attack if the contract looks unfavourable to the tax payer, for whatever reason.
Who are their Auditors? They need to be named and shamed!
The Government auditors are, of course, the National Audit Office (NAO). They do work quite independently from other Govt depts, and have been known to get upset with departmental inefficiences!
Hmmm. Do you think the LLDC would come under the NAO remit? That could make thing interesting.
Here is the thread, containing the question and answer. Would be grateful for all thoughts and ideas; maybe consider first whether you want to share them with @gavros but I think he's just a freelancer. To be fair to him, unlike his mate Sean Whetstone, he does not claim to sit down with Gullivan every other week, not proclaim on the BBC that he can guarantee Gullivan will never sell :-)
One of the reasons behind my request was to try and prove a suspicion I have, that the LLDC didn't have any specific advice from within the commercial football sphere. It seems that indeed they didn't. That looks like a reasonable conclusion from their reply. Of course, as we've discussed before, there is nothing a commercial lawyer does not think he is the master of, but it looks like the geniuses at Allen & Overy and PwC gave away the overheads because they simply didn't understand their monetary significance.
Yes, LLDC would fall under NAO remit as part of DCMS. I have PM'ed you details from their website which may be of interest after the contract is published. It could be yet another line of attack if the contract looks unfavourable to the tax payer, for whatever reason.
Thanks mate, got it. I think first I should request an internal review under FOI of the LLDC's answer. I think I'd complain that the answer is not credible; and that if it is to be taken as credible it indicates an extremely lack approach to cost control. I'd be grateful for any more thoughts on this from people with experience. Is it really reasonable that you just engage such an expensive law firm like A&O and then not have them organise their invoices so that each one, or part of one is clearly related to one legal issue or another? Otherwise all you end up with in the P&L is "legal services, £5m" or whatever. That could hide all kinds of stuff. Is this really how it works in the UK public sector?
I would start with the question of what is a 'reasonable' (a word beloved by the legal system) breakdown of costs? 'Legal Services £5million' certainly wouldn't be reasonable, and yes, it is some, not none, of our business.
Who are their Auditors? They need to be named and shamed!
The Government auditors are, of course, the National Audit Office (NAO). They do work quite independently from other Govt depts, and have been known to get upset with departmental inefficiences!
Hmmm. Do you think the LLDC would come under the NAO remit? That could make thing interesting.
Here is the thread, containing the question and answer. Would be grateful for all thoughts and ideas; maybe consider first whether you want to share them with @gavros but I think he's just a freelancer. To be fair to him, unlike his mate Sean Whetstone, he does not claim to sit down with Gullivan every other week, not proclaim on the BBC that he can guarantee Gullivan will never sell :-)
One of the reasons behind my request was to try and prove a suspicion I have, that the LLDC didn't have any specific advice from within the commercial football sphere. It seems that indeed they didn't. That looks like a reasonable conclusion from their reply. Of course, as we've discussed before, there is nothing a commercial lawyer does not think he is the master of, but it looks like the geniuses at Allen & Overy and PwC gave away the overheads because they simply didn't understand their monetary significance.
Yes, LLDC would fall under NAO remit as part of DCMS. I have PM'ed you details from their website which may be of interest after the contract is published. It could be yet another line of attack if the contract looks unfavourable to the tax payer, for whatever reason.
Thanks mate, got it. I think first I should request an internal review under FOI of the LLDC's answer. I think I'd complain that the answer is not credible; and that if it is to be taken as credible it indicates an extremely lack approach to cost control. I'd be grateful for any more thoughts on this from people with experience. Is it really reasonable that you just engage such an expensive law firm like A&O and then not have them organise their invoices so that each one, or part of one is clearly related to one legal issue or another? Otherwise all you end up with in the P&L is "legal services, £5m" or whatever. That could hide all kinds of stuff. Is this really how it works in the UK public sector?
Who are their Auditors? They need to be named and shamed!
The Government auditors are, of course, the National Audit Office (NAO). They do work quite independently from other Govt depts, and have been known to get upset with departmental inefficiences!
Hmmm. Do you think the LLDC would come under the NAO remit? That could make thing interesting.
Here is the thread, containing the question and answer. Would be grateful for all thoughts and ideas; maybe consider first whether you want to share them with @gavros but I think he's just a freelancer. To be fair to him, unlike his mate Sean Whetstone, he does not claim to sit down with Gullivan every other week, not proclaim on the BBC that he can guarantee Gullivan will never sell :-)
One of the reasons behind my request was to try and prove a suspicion I have, that the LLDC didn't have any specific advice from within the commercial football sphere. It seems that indeed they didn't. That looks like a reasonable conclusion from their reply. Of course, as we've discussed before, there is nothing a commercial lawyer does not think he is the master of, but it looks like the geniuses at Allen & Overy and PwC gave away the overheads because they simply didn't understand their monetary significance.
Yes, LLDC would fall under NAO remit as part of DCMS. I have PM'ed you details from their website which may be of interest after the contract is published. It could be yet another line of attack if the contract looks unfavourable to the tax payer, for whatever reason.
Thanks mate, got it. I think first I should request an internal review under FOI of the LLDC's answer. I think I'd complain that the answer is not credible; and that if it is to be taken as credible it indicates an extremely lack approach to cost control. I'd be grateful for any more thoughts on this from people with experience. Is it really reasonable that you just engage such an expensive law firm like A&O and then not have them organise their invoices so that each one, or part of one is clearly related to one legal issue or another? Otherwise all you end up with in the P&L is "legal services, £5m" or whatever. That could hide all kinds of stuff. Is this really how it works in the UK public sector?
The cost advisors have been earning their money
I thought your previous reply was very pertinent. "Lawyers write their time based on activity and client. I would expect PWC do this too." Exactly as I'd expect.
Just thought of another mate who was 25 years at E&Y who would have a view on this. All building nicely….
Who are their Auditors? They need to be named and shamed!
The Government auditors are, of course, the National Audit Office (NAO). They do work quite independently from other Govt depts, and have been known to get upset with departmental inefficiences!
Hmmm. Do you think the LLDC would come under the NAO remit? That could make thing interesting.
Here is the thread, containing the question and answer. Would be grateful for all thoughts and ideas; maybe consider first whether you want to share them with @gavros but I think he's just a freelancer. To be fair to him, unlike his mate Sean Whetstone, he does not claim to sit down with Gullivan every other week, not proclaim on the BBC that he can guarantee Gullivan will never sell :-)
One of the reasons behind my request was to try and prove a suspicion I have, that the LLDC didn't have any specific advice from within the commercial football sphere. It seems that indeed they didn't. That looks like a reasonable conclusion from their reply. Of course, as we've discussed before, there is nothing a commercial lawyer does not think he is the master of, but it looks like the geniuses at Allen & Overy and PwC gave away the overheads because they simply didn't understand their monetary significance.
Yes, LLDC would fall under NAO remit as part of DCMS. I have PM'ed you details from their website which may be of interest after the contract is published. It could be yet another line of attack if the contract looks unfavourable to the tax payer, for whatever reason.
Thanks mate, got it. I think first I should request an internal review under FOI of the LLDC's answer. I think I'd complain that the answer is not credible; and that if it is to be taken as credible it indicates an extremely lack approach to cost control. I'd be grateful for any more thoughts on this from people with experience. Is it really reasonable that you just engage such an expensive law firm like A&O and then not have them organise their invoices so that each one, or part of one is clearly related to one legal issue or another? Otherwise all you end up with in the P&L is "legal services, £5m" or whatever. That could hide all kinds of stuff. Is this really how it works in the UK public sector?
The cost advisors have been earning their money
I thought your previous reply was very pertinent. "Lawyers write their time based on activity and client. I would expect PWC do this too." Exactly as I'd expect.
Just thought of another mate who was 25 years at E&Y who would have a view on this. All building nicely….
Who are their Auditors? They need to be named and shamed!
The Government auditors are, of course, the National Audit Office (NAO). They do work quite independently from other Govt depts, and have been known to get upset with departmental inefficiences!
Hmmm. Do you think the LLDC would come under the NAO remit? That could make thing interesting.
Here is the thread, containing the question and answer. Would be grateful for all thoughts and ideas; maybe consider first whether you want to share them with @gavros but I think he's just a freelancer. To be fair to him, unlike his mate Sean Whetstone, he does not claim to sit down with Gullivan every other week, not proclaim on the BBC that he can guarantee Gullivan will never sell :-)
One of the reasons behind my request was to try and prove a suspicion I have, that the LLDC didn't have any specific advice from within the commercial football sphere. It seems that indeed they didn't. That looks like a reasonable conclusion from their reply. Of course, as we've discussed before, there is nothing a commercial lawyer does not think he is the master of, but it looks like the geniuses at Allen & Overy and PwC gave away the overheads because they simply didn't understand their monetary significance.
Yes, LLDC would fall under NAO remit as part of DCMS. I have PM'ed you details from their website which may be of interest after the contract is published. It could be yet another line of attack if the contract looks unfavourable to the tax payer, for whatever reason.
Thanks mate, got it. I think first I should request an internal review under FOI of the LLDC's answer. I think I'd complain that the answer is not credible; and that if it is to be taken as credible it indicates an extremely lack approach to cost control. I'd be grateful for any more thoughts on this from people with experience. Is it really reasonable that you just engage such an expensive law firm like A&O and then not have them organise their invoices so that each one, or part of one is clearly related to one legal issue or another? Otherwise all you end up with in the P&L is "legal services, £5m" or whatever. That could hide all kinds of stuff. Is this really how it works in the UK public sector?
It's a while since I worked in law but when I did, all billed time had to be broken down into units of 6 minutes with a clear explanation as to what the charge was related to.
Who are their Auditors? They need to be named and shamed!
The Government auditors are, of course, the National Audit Office (NAO). They do work quite independently from other Govt depts, and have been known to get upset with departmental inefficiences!
Hmmm. Do you think the LLDC would come under the NAO remit? That could make thing interesting.
Here is the thread, containing the question and answer. Would be grateful for all thoughts and ideas; maybe consider first whether you want to share them with @gavros but I think he's just a freelancer. To be fair to him, unlike his mate Sean Whetstone, he does not claim to sit down with Gullivan every other week, not proclaim on the BBC that he can guarantee Gullivan will never sell :-)
One of the reasons behind my request was to try and prove a suspicion I have, that the LLDC didn't have any specific advice from within the commercial football sphere. It seems that indeed they didn't. That looks like a reasonable conclusion from their reply. Of course, as we've discussed before, there is nothing a commercial lawyer does not think he is the master of, but it looks like the geniuses at Allen & Overy and PwC gave away the overheads because they simply didn't understand their monetary significance.
Yes, LLDC would fall under NAO remit as part of DCMS. I have PM'ed you details from their website which may be of interest after the contract is published. It could be yet another line of attack if the contract looks unfavourable to the tax payer, for whatever reason.
Thanks mate, got it. I think first I should request an internal review under FOI of the LLDC's answer. I think I'd complain that the answer is not credible; and that if it is to be taken as credible it indicates an extremely lack approach to cost control. I'd be grateful for any more thoughts on this from people with experience. Is it really reasonable that you just engage such an expensive law firm like A&O and then not have them organise their invoices so that each one, or part of one is clearly related to one legal issue or another? Otherwise all you end up with in the P&L is "legal services, £5m" or whatever. That could hide all kinds of stuff. Is this really how it works in the UK public sector?
It's a while since I worked in law but when I did, all billed time had to be broken down into units of 6 minutes with a clear explanation as to what the charge was related to.
Boris Johnson has admitted he decided London should not host the start of the 2017 Tour de France because it was "not worth it". The London mayor told BBC London 94.9 he could not justify spending £35m on a one-off event. He said: "I will not waste cycling money on something that would only deliver very brief benefits."
However, Boris was adamant that the £270m conversions costs for the Olympic Stadium, which benefits West Ham United and owners David Gold and David Sullivan enormously, would still go ahead. He described the contract on which the OS is handed over to WHU almost rent free as "a great deal for London, despite the service costs also being paid for by the taxpayer".
Boris Johnson has admitted he decided London should not host the start of the 2017 Tour de France because it was "not worth it". The London mayor told BBC London 94.9 he could not justify spending £35m on a one-off event. He said: "I will not waste cycling money on something that would only deliver very brief benefits."
However, Boris was adamant that the £270m conversions costs for the Olympic Stadium, which benefits West Ham United and owners David Gold and David Sullivan enormously, would still go ahead. He described the contract on which the OS is handed over to WHU almost rent free as "a great deal for London, despite the service costs also being paid for by the taxpayer".
Comments
So here goes (again)
By not publishing the deal, do you not think that it makes the deal look fishy..??
Over to you gavros
But even if we were to accept West Ham were the only option, why does that mean that the notion of win/win goes out the window? Why is it that West Ham will show profits from even their first year in the stadium in the tens of millions whilst the stadium owners pocket £200k of revenue whilst still carrying £300k of direct stadium costs, plus all the staffing, which runs into the millions, and a myriad of other costs hidden in Vinci? And as we know stadium sponsorship starts in 2016/7...
As for state aid, well you mentioned that not me, and as we've said any complaint about that is for another party - but here are the four characteristics of state aid in case you're not familiar:
- It is granted by the state
- It favours certain undertakings (is given on a selective basis)
- It distorts competition
- It will or has the potential to affect trade across member states.
I'll leave it up to other to determine whether this deal fits that description. I'm not sure you're right that it's selective though Gav - as I say, it was surely an open and competitive tender and anyone could have competed and won.You do realise, though, that LLDC could have applied for an exemption? They may have considered it wouldn't have succeeded though, given that any state money provided that would aid normal operating costs - I dunno, what's normal in football, policing matches? - wouldn't have been considered as an exception.
As for the LLDC not securing the exemption as mentioned, yes that seems odd, but if they were stupid enough to believe that any deal that would eventually face full scrutiny and might be provable in terms of state aid rules, and yet that wouldn't be challenged by other clubs (namely Spurs, given their historical interest), then I'd be amazed.
But look, it's an iconic stadium and personally I'm glad that it's going to be put to regular use on the scale for which it was built. That doesn't mean, to me, that the taxpayer should be stumping up every year to make it happen. It doesn't happen in Manchester and it shouldn't happen here, regardless of the ludicrous nature of Lord Coe's insistence the running track was retained. It also shouldn't mean that an already wealthy Premier League football club should get a stadium without the risks of owning it for, er, nothing.
I'm glad we finally agree on something and you must also now understand why so many people are asking for the contract to be published. Not because people are anti west ham or having sour grapes but because people want to see the truth.
When you speak about "State Aid" do you - and I'm not being funny here - know what you are talking about? Because two years a go, I for one did not. But you do need to distinguish between the EU specific State Aid rules,which are complex and require specialist consideration, and the general issue of whether the UK taxpayer's money in any given situation is being used wisely and in the public interest. The Coalition campaign concentrates on the latter. Which does not stop others from focusing on the former.
surely government lawyers would know about it, though. That's what they're paid to do.
If some monumental screw up was done, then the government might be liable for the bill.
Earlier you dismissed Mishcon de Reya as some kind of commercial ambulance-chasers. Yet you think Government lawyers are all knowing, and always right? Touching...
It seems to suggest that they just pay their bills without checking what they are for and have no idea as to the cost of anything they do as it is all lumped into one.
Who are their Auditors? They need to be named and shamed!
(The lawyer's will know to the penny though).
Here is the thread, containing the question and answer. Would be grateful for all thoughts and ideas; maybe consider first whether you want to share them with @gavros but I think he's just a freelancer. To be fair to him, unlike his mate Sean Whetstone, he does not claim to sit down with Gullivan every other week, not proclaim on the BBC that he can guarantee Gullivan will never sell :-)
One of the reasons behind my request was to try and prove a suspicion I have, that the LLDC didn't have any specific advice from within the commercial football sphere. It seems that indeed they didn't. That looks like a reasonable conclusion from their reply. Of course, as we've discussed before, there is nothing a commercial lawyer does not think he is the master of, but it looks like the geniuses at Allen & Overy and PwC gave away the overheads because they simply didn't understand their monetary significance.
Two and a half days. To go through invoices for 4 (four) suppliers, over about a year. Either their "£25 per hour cost" staff are very slow or they have an extremely large number of invoices.
Lawyers write their time based on activity and client. I would expect PWC do this too. All it would really take from the LLDC is to put in a call to both saying they need a schedule based on cost per project. I would imagine the Cost Advisors would be easily able to help with this too (in terms of providing their costs), all at no extra charge.
Also sounds like very poor project management/cost management to me.
Just thought of another mate who was 25 years at E&Y who would have a view on this. All building nicely….
The London mayor told BBC London 94.9 he could not justify spending £35m on a one-off event.
He said: "I will not waste cycling money on something that would only deliver very brief benefits."
However, Boris was adamant that the £270m conversions costs for the Olympic Stadium, which benefits West Ham United and owners David Gold and David Sullivan enormously, would still go ahead. He described the contract on which the OS is handed over to WHU almost rent free as "a great deal for London, despite the service costs also being paid for by the taxpayer".