The LLDC are able to introduce new reasons for refusing a freedom of information request at the appeal stage, after the Information Commissioner deemed their initial justification to be insufficient
Here's the key to this.
Their original objection was the effect it would have on future negotiations. That was deemed insufficient.
Unless the appeal is based on a point(s) of law the only reason for overturning the original ICO decision would be to present new reasons that are more convincing. I can't wait to see what they might be!!
What happened to BoJo's statement a couple of weeks ago that they were happy to release the full contract. He mentioned at the time that Wet Spam wouldn't be so is it not fair to assume that the LLDC have been straight-armed by Gullivan on the appeal?
If, and it's still an if, the deal is eventually deemed to be unlawful then the LLDC, and by association Boris, are likely to be found culpable of both a dodgy deal AND an attempted cover up.
The LLDC are able to introduce new reasons for refusing a freedom of information request at the appeal stage, after the Information Commissioner deemed their initial justification to be insufficient
Here's the key to this.
Their original objection was the effect it would have on future negotiations. That was deemed insufficient
The LLDC are able to introduce new reasons for refusing a freedom of information request at the appeal stage, after the Information Commissioner deemed their initial justification to be insufficient
Here's the key to this.
What happened to BoJo's statement a couple of weeks ago that they were happy to release the full contract. He mentioned at the time that Wet Spam wouldn't be so is it not fair to assume that the LLDC have been straight-armed by Gullivan on the appeal?
The LLDC are able to introduce new reasons for refusing a freedom of information request at the appeal stage, after the Information Commissioner deemed their initial justification to be insufficient
Here's the key to this.
Their original objection was the effect it would have on future negotiations. That was deemed insufficient
The LLDC are able to introduce new reasons for refusing a freedom of information request at the appeal stage, after the Information Commissioner deemed their initial justification to be insufficient
Here's the key to this.
What happened to BoJo's statement a couple of weeks ago that they were happy to release the full contract. He mentioned at the time that Wet Spam wouldn't be so is it not fair to assume that the LLDC have been straight-armed by Gullivan on the appeal?
he was just distancing himself from the fallout.
Yes and yes.
But Boris will still have his grubby little hands all over this.
I'm pleased they have appealed - it will make the eventual disclosure and possible ramifications if it is dodgy far more serious.
Even if the end result isn't known before Wet Spam take up residency it would still be possible to evict them if, and I repeat, if the deal is shown to be unlawful. They could always ground share with Spurs!
I think as I said before that the LLDC would do it to buy time to nail down and announce the stadium sponsor after the RWC and possibly to give them some leverage in discussions with Spurs about a temporary ground share in 2017/18.
So any idea how long this will take? Looks like a two stage process ending up with the Upper Tribunal in the Court of Appeal.
Nonsense. They've got all the leverage they need with Spurs. 99 years of it.
As to your second question, it will take as long as the LLDC and your owners can spin it out. That is the entire and only purpose of the appeal. You need to understand that the ICO pissed all over their arguments. They didn't even get to Stage 3. Yet they appeal, because they can. That is the system. Cynical, arrogant, foolish.
"This follows careful consideration, informed by legal advice, and is limited to a smaller number of redactions. The appeal relates only to information which if released could significantly reduce the level of financial return to the taxpayer as it would undermine negotiations with future users of the stadium and other partners."
Umm, haven't they undermined their negotiations with others by mentioning this in the first place? So, I'm going in to talk to them about a deal. I know that they want to screw me over because they've just said so. Opening position: whatever figure you mention is bollocks - I'll offer you a tenth of it or I'm walking."
Utterly beyond comprehension.
BTW, my experience of the magic circle firms is that they'll listen to what you want to achieve as a client and then do their utmost to find a way that you can do that. It would be quite unusual for them to advise against a course of action unless it's obviously doomed to failure and/or illegal. They go out and get some tame Counsel to write a seemingly impressive bit of advice and the client is a happy bunny - for the moment.
So, the LLDC would say have we got grounds to appeal this? The lawyers would say, yes, of course you have, it might not succeed but there's every prospect it will. (Can we have some more fees now please? And would you like a slap-up all day breakfast down the Docklands Diner for you and your team.)
Yes, it now pretty much confirms you have ben on the right track all along Prague. This can only be a desperate act to spin it all out. They clearly can’t use the arguments they have already used and if they had any better, they presumably would have used them originally.
Actually, it has been pretty clear from the communications West Ham and LLDC have made to date, that the figures presented in that BBC programme are the right ones. The opportunity to refute them directly was always there, but we get these more subtle bits of nonsense aimed at idiots, like there will be no more tax payer money put into the stadium etc… so how much money has been put in to convert the bloody thing is not important!
The bottom line is that when the financial facts are out there, it will be state aid. I don’t think it will be even debatable.
The bottom line is that when the financial facts are out there, it will be state aid. I don’t think it will be even debatable.
The bottom line is that this was totally to be expected as the LLDC wraps up its deals with the stadium sponsor and other future users (including potentially some of the home county cricket clubs, which I believe they have an agreement in principle with and Spurs). If Owen Gibson is right it'll take 4-6 months in total to get through this process.
If as you believe they were now totally bricking it because they know the deal constituted state aid, surely they'd just rip it up and start again like they did last time.
West Ham statement "From West Ham United’s point of view, other than the personal affairs of our shareholders, we are happy to disclose the entire document, the details of which have been accurately reported widely enough already.
However, quite clearly, E20 must continue to best serve the taxpayer through the negotiation of future contracts with potential users of the stadium and it is therefore only right that details which affect their ability to do so remain confidential"
I think as I said before that the LLDC would do it to buy time to nail down and announce the stadium sponsor after the RWC and possibly to give them some leverage in discussions with Spurs about a temporary ground share in 2017/18.
So any idea how long this will take? Looks like a two stage process ending up with the Upper Tribunal in the Court of Appeal.
No thanks. Would rather Spurs spend a year at MK Dons than share any stadium with West Ham.
No thanks. Would rather Spurs spend a year at MK Dons than share any stadium with West Ham.
That's the second option according to Spurs ITKs if they fail to get Wembley. But it's a classic Levy tactic to trade off rivals against each other, so it makes total sense for him to at least enquire with the LLDC.
The bottom line is that when the financial facts are out there, it will be state aid. I don’t think it will be even debatable.
The bottom line is that this was totally to be expected as the LLDC wraps up its deals with the stadium sponsor and other future users (including potentially some of the home county cricket clubs, which I believe they have an agreement in principle with and Spurs). If Owen Gibson is right it'll take 4-6 months in total to get through this process.
If as you believe they were now totally bricking it because they know the deal constituted state aid, surely they'd just rip it up and start again like they did last time.
West Ham statement "From West Ham United’s point of view, other than the personal affairs of our shareholders, we are happy to disclose the entire document, the details of which have been accurately reported widely enough already.
However, quite clearly, E20 must continue to best serve the taxpayer through the negotiation of future contracts with potential users of the stadium and it is therefore only right that details which affect their ability to do so remain confidential"
It's been reported that they're getting the ground rent-free. Accurately reported, it seems.
No thanks. Would rather Spurs spend a year at MK Dons than share any stadium with West Ham.
That's the second option according to Spurs ITKs if they fail to get Wembley. But it's a classic Levy tactic to trade off rivals against each other, so it makes total sense for him to at least enquire with the LLDC.
You've said this before and nobody corrected you. Surely it's standard business practice to trade one supplier off against another ?
I'm sure I don't need to point you again in the direction of documents in which the LLDC state that the rent more than covers running costs associated with West Ham and that other revenue shares are included in the deal.
Still, look on the bright side, it's another 4-6 months fun with making up conspiracy theories for most of you, and your leaders getting their air time.
Why would the sponsorship deal aid the plight of non disclosure
I'm not saying I know why the LLDC are holding back on this, in fact I tend to agree that it can only slightly prejudice things if West Ham's deal is known in full, as they are the anchor tenant and no-one else can expect the same sort of deal. Still, if they can continue to keep things schtum for another 6 months I always thought it would be clear that they would.
I'm sure I don't need to point you again in the direction of documents in which the LLDC state that the rent more than covers running costs associated with West Ham
I'm sure you do. For me, anyway. I don't recall seeing this from the LLDC.
As a sponsor, about to invest millions in naming rights, I wouldn't be happy until the whole sorry saga is finished with, or maybe use it as a tool to get a reduced rate
"in broad terms the deal provides WHU with a 99 year lease, which ensures the stadium has ongoing, year round use. With regards to financial payments by the club, they have made public their £15 contribution to the capital costs of transforming the stadium which is personally guaranteed by the owners. They will also pay an annual index linked usage fee which more than covers the cost of them hosting matches at the stadium"
More in there about clawback if the club is sold, revenue shares etc.
"in broad terms the deal provides WHU with a 99 year lease, which ensures the stadium has ongoing, year round use. With regards to financial payments by the club, they have made public their £15 contribution to the capital costs of transforming the stadium which is personally guaranteed by the owners. They will also pay an annual index linked usage fee which more than covers the cost of them hosting matches at the stadium"
More in there about clawback if the club is sold, revenue shares etc.
Still, look on the bright side, it's another 4-6 months fun with making up conspiracy theories for most of you, and your leaders getting their air time.
you come across as a decent enough fella most of the time and then a complete and utter (bow) bell end every so often
"in broad terms the deal provides WHU with a 99 year lease, which ensures the stadium has ongoing, year round use. With regards to financial payments by the club, they have made public their £15 contribution to the capital costs of transforming the stadium which is personally guaranteed by the owners. They will also pay an annual index linked usage fee which more than covers the cost of them hosting matches at the stadium"
More in there about clawback if the club is sold, revenue shares etc.
Ps Prague; don't bother trying to 'scare' me about linking this doc on here, again.
Is this it? A letter from 2013, before the significance of the running costs (those that every other club in the country has to pay themselves - whether owner or tenant) were made public?
'Lets make an appeal as a delaying tactic so we can sort out a plan' seems to be it. As much obfuscation as can be mustered, peppered with helpings of buck passing, and shrugging whilst avoiding eye contact.
Secret information is about things like national security and serious threats, not this taxpayers money stuff.
LLDC look like mugs to me, as do those associated.
Prague, Allen & Overy are bound to have created a code for costs charged to LLDC relating to FOI request dodging. Maybe the LLDC can check in on the costs incurred so far against this code when they're looking for the answer to your other FOI.
And there is something illogical about the LLDC position. A BBC programme has pretty much reported what it thinks West Ham terms are. How does refusing to reveal the terms improve its bargaining position? If the reported terms are grossly inaccurate, surely the best negotiating position is to prove them wrong. If I was negotiating I would be using the figures reported if it would help me. But it wouldn't be much use as any other negotiated tenancy would be completely different to West Ham anyway. So however way you look at it the reasons don't stack up. There has to be another reason for hiding from tax payers what they have paid for.
And there is something illogical about the LLDC position. A BBC programme has pretty much reported what it thinks West Ham terms are. How does refusing to reveal the terms improve its bargaining position? If the reported terms are grossly inaccurate, surely the best negotiating position is to prove them wrong. If I was negotiating I would be using the figures reported if it would help me. But it wouldn't be much use as any other negotiated tenancy would be completely different to West Ham anyway. So however way you look at it the reasons don't stack up. There has to be another reason for hiding from tax payers what they have paid for.
Worse than that. West Ham have said the figures reported by the BBC are correct.
The deal might be more generous than reported so far.
And there is something illogical about the LLDC position. A BBC programme has pretty much reported what it thinks West Ham terms are. How does refusing to reveal the terms improve its bargaining position? If the reported terms are grossly inaccurate, surely the best negotiating position is to prove them wrong. If I was negotiating I would be using the figures reported if it would help me. But it wouldn't be much use as any other negotiated tenancy would be completely different to West Ham anyway. So however way you look at it the reasons don't stack up. There has to be another reason for hiding from tax payers what they have paid for.
The obvious reason is that they are even better for WHU than the BBC reports.
So if the BBC terms were correct, West Ham will be playing there virtually rent free.If the real terms are preferable to those reported and this information had a bearing in a future deal - it must be a case of a future tenant negotiating between not paying anything and getting paid to use the stadium!!!! So presumably LLDC don't want to pay any more tenants!!!!! They just want them to use the stadium for free. You know it makes sense! Well it must do to somebody!
Comments
Unless the appeal is based on a point(s) of law the only reason for overturning the original ICO decision would be to present new reasons that are more convincing. I can't wait to see what they might be!!
What happened to BoJo's statement a couple of weeks ago that they were happy to release the full contract. He mentioned at the time that Wet Spam wouldn't be so is it not fair to assume that the LLDC have been straight-armed by Gullivan on the appeal?
If, and it's still an if, the deal is eventually deemed to be unlawful then the LLDC, and by association Boris, are likely to be found culpable of both a dodgy deal AND an attempted cover up.
But Boris will still have his grubby little hands all over this.
I'm pleased they have appealed - it will make the eventual disclosure and possible ramifications if it is dodgy far more serious.
Even if the end result isn't known before Wet Spam take up residency it would still be possible to evict them if, and I repeat, if the deal is shown to be unlawful. They could always ground share with Spurs!
As to your second question, it will take as long as the LLDC and your owners can spin it out. That is the entire and only purpose of the appeal. You need to understand that the ICO pissed all over their arguments. They didn't even get to Stage 3. Yet they appeal, because they can. That is the system. Cynical, arrogant, foolish.
Umm, haven't they undermined their negotiations with others by mentioning this in the first place? So, I'm going in to talk to them about a deal. I know that they want to screw me over because they've just said so. Opening position: whatever figure you mention is bollocks - I'll offer you a tenth of it or I'm walking."
Utterly beyond comprehension.
BTW, my experience of the magic circle firms is that they'll listen to what you want to achieve as a client and then do their utmost to find a way that you can do that. It would be quite unusual for them to advise against a course of action unless it's obviously doomed to failure and/or illegal. They go out and get some tame Counsel to write a seemingly impressive bit of advice and the client is a happy bunny - for the moment.
So, the LLDC would say have we got grounds to appeal this? The lawyers would say, yes, of course you have, it might not succeed but there's every prospect it will. (Can we have some more fees now please? And would you like a slap-up all day breakfast down the Docklands Diner for you and your team.)
Actually, it has been pretty clear from the communications West Ham and LLDC have made to date, that the figures presented in that BBC programme are the right ones. The opportunity to refute them directly was always there, but we get these more subtle bits of nonsense aimed at idiots, like there will be no more tax payer money put into the stadium etc… so how much money has been put in to convert the bloody thing is not important!
The bottom line is that when the financial facts are out there, it will be state aid. I don’t think it will be even debatable.
If as you believe they were now totally bricking it because they know the deal constituted state aid, surely they'd just rip it up and start again like they did last time.
West Ham statement "From West Ham United’s point of view, other than the personal affairs of our shareholders, we are happy to disclose the entire document, the details of which have been accurately reported widely enough already.
However, quite clearly, E20 must continue to best serve the taxpayer through the negotiation of future contracts with potential users of the stadium and it is therefore only right that details which affect their ability to do so remain confidential"
Still, look on the bright side, it's another 4-6 months fun with making up conspiracy theories for most of you, and your leaders getting their air time.
More in there about clawback if the club is sold, revenue shares etc.
london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s25244/Appendix%204%20-%20Letter%20to%20John%20Biggs%20from%20LLDC%20-%20Olympic%20Stadium%20costs.pdf
Ps Prague; don't bother trying to 'scare' me about linking this doc on here, again.
you come across as a decent enough fella most of the time and then a complete and utter (bow) bell end every so often
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/oct/01/west-ham-olympic-stadium-appeal
Not naming names, but some have been accused by their own fans of trying to use this issue to push up their profile.
Thought it would be more substantial.
Secret information is about things like national security and serious threats, not this taxpayers money stuff.
LLDC look like mugs to me, as do those associated.
The deal might be more generous than reported so far.