I have just read the article linked by Prague above. I then went on to the betway West Ham site and it is removed, have they got redacting fever or something? They publish an article, and then censor their own publication, why I wonder?
More telling for me is how the Events Calendar is created. It is called an "Agreed" Events Calendar because 5.2. requires the Grantor and WH to use "best endeavours" agree who else can use the stadium. The Overriding Priority Principle applies which effectively means WH, not E20, have the balance of power.
The OPP applies 365 days a year, every year because an "Event" can be on any day of the year. Nowhere is WH's use restricted by reference to a period, except between 1 July and 21 August 2017. This reservation had to be included for the Athletics Championship because WH have a de facto control over all event planning for the stadium.
Even when an event is scheduled it is defined as a "Potential" event because WH's needs can cause it to be cancelled, and E20 bear the consequences.
WH can even prevent a new owner of the stadium if in their opinion the new owner is not sufficiently financed. glaring omission is what happens if E20 default by going bust. Says what happens if WH default, they can be thrown out. All that happens if E20 default is that the Agreement lapses. So when E20 run out of money, as suspected all along, WH just pick it up from the Administrator for a token payment.
A masterpiece in arranging a deal to acquire an asset without having to pay for it.
Yeah I helped bringing that to light. It simply shows yet again that the Baroness really needs to take the proper legal advice before the club pump out this crap (I mean, honestly, what sort of people do you have working for you when you state things such as the rent which was redacted in the partially redacted contract?). It's clear as day that stadium share is out of West Ham's hands, and while some fans might not like the idea of it, it's plainly there in the contract. One year of sharing with spurs is no great concern, just as sharing the Boleyn with Charlton was no great concern for us, either.
Yeah I helped bringing that to light. It simply shows yet again that the Baroness really needs to take the proper legal advice before the club pump out this crap (I mean, honestly, what sort of people do you have working for you when you state things such as the rent which was redacted in the partially redacted contract?). It's clear as day that stadium share is out of West Ham's hands, and while some fans might not like the idea of it, it's plainly there in the contract. One year of sharing with spurs is no great concern, just as sharing the Boleyn with Charlton was no great concern for us, either.
Yeah I helped bringing that to light. It simply shows yet again that the Baroness really needs to take the proper legal advice before the club pump out this crap (I mean, honestly, what sort of people do you have working for you when you state things such as the rent which was redacted in the partially redacted contract?). It's clear as day that stadium share is out of West Ham's hands, and while some fans might not like the idea of it, it's plainly there in the contract. One year of sharing with spurs is no great concern, just as sharing the Boleyn with Charlton was no great concern for us, either.
Yeah I helped bringing that to light. It simply shows yet again that the Baroness really needs to take the proper legal advice before the club pump out this crap (I mean, honestly, what sort of people do you have working for you when you state things such as the rent which was redacted in the partially redacted contract?). It's clear as day that stadium share is out of West Ham's hands, and while some fans might not like the idea of it, it's plainly there in the contract. One year of sharing with spurs is no great concern, just as sharing the Boleyn with Charlton was no great concern for us, either.
Yes but the Boleyn was a shit hole then and the pitch resembled a ploughed field.
I have just read the article linked by Prague above. I then went on to the betway West Ham site and it is removed, have they got redacting fever or something? They publish an article, and then censor their own publication, why I wonder?
It's what I said Richard, it's about American Football and the damage it does to pitches designed for football, which is far worse then rugby (either code does)
It's what I said Richard, it's about American Football and the damage it does to pitches designed for football, which is far worse then rugby (either code does)
Brady and the contract seem to disagree with you though.
I wonder how much the office space alone would cost a normal company.
It's what I said Richard, it's about American Football and the damage it does to pitches designed for football, which is far worse then rugby (either code does)
It's what I said Richard, it's about American Football and the damage it does to pitches designed for football, which is far worse then rugby (either code does)
It doesn't really matter why it's there - there's no reason to doubt you're correct - but it's the effect of the clause that's significant. Baroness Brady has indicated they could use it to stop Tottenham playing there, for example.
I quite liked our time at West Ham. Felt a lot more welcome than we did at Selhurst and it was a proper football ground. No complaints from me. But we digress...
It's what I said Richard, it's about American Football and the damage it does to pitches designed for football, which is far worse then rugby (either code does)
Brady and the contract seem to disagree with you though.
I wonder how much the office space alone would cost a normal company.
We are getting that priced by professionals, you can be sure. Mind you it took an FOI request by @rikofold, and not this release, to get details of the square metreage.
They are so desperate, that they forget what they have already released. As well as redacting content that was released in version 1, I realised (sadly when i woke up too early this morning with my head full of this shit) that they are still redacting stuff we learnt in their defence of the State Aid complaint. For example the "relegation clause" . That's still behind black ink here, isn't it? But we know it exists from the State Aid document.
I quite liked our time at West Ham. Felt a lot more welcome than we did at Selhurst and it was a proper football ground. No complaints from me. But we digress...
It's was miles better than sellout park. You could park the car at the ferry and pop into the mitre to wait the 20 mins or so. @TelMc32
It's what I said Richard, it's about American Football and the damage it does to pitches designed for football, which is far worse then rugby (either code does)
Brady and the contract seem to disagree with you though.
I wonder how much the office space alone would cost a normal company.
We are getting that priced by professionals, you can be sure. Mind you it took an FOI request by @rikofold, and not this release, to get details of the square metreage.
They are so desperate, that they forget what they have already released. As well as redacting content that was released in version 1, I realised (sadly when i woke up too early this morning with my head full of this shit) that they are still redacting stuff we learnt in their defence of the State Aid complaint. For example the "relegation clause" . That's still behind black ink here, isn't it? But we know it exists from the State Aid document.
To be fair, the key information re space is amongst the things in the contract now un-redacted. It's going to be worth over £500k on the open market, but as you say the professionals will know. However, if you thought of it as cost avoidance from renting something elsewhere nearby on the open market, there is similar sized unserviced office space available in East London for £650k pa.
EDIT: although no point not releasing it if you've already answered the FOIA request on it, of course.
The newly released contract also does show there are two different fees depending on whether they are in the 'Premier Match Quota' or 'Secondary Match Quota', but you'd have to read between the lines a little to understand it's a discount for relegation, and the key information - the reduction - remains redacted.
Quite how that particular bit of information is prejudicial to future negotiations is anyone's guess.
It's what I said Richard, it's about American Football and the damage it does to pitches designed for football, which is far worse then rugby (either code does)
Brady and the contract seem to disagree with you though.
I wonder how much the office space alone would cost a normal company.
We are getting that priced by professionals, you can be sure. Mind you it took an FOI request by @rikofold, and not this release, to get details of the square metreage.
They are so desperate, that they forget what they have already released. As well as redacting content that was released in version 1, I realised (sadly when i woke up too early this morning with my head full of this shit) that they are still redacting stuff we learnt in their defence of the State Aid complaint. For example the "relegation clause" . That's still behind black ink here, isn't it? But we know it exists from the State Aid document.
To be fair, the key information re space is amongst the things in the contract now un-redacted. It's going to be worth over £500k on the open market, but as you say the professionals will know. However, if you thought of it as cost avoidance from renting something elsewhere nearby on the open market, there is similar sized unserviced office space available in East London for £650k pa.
The newly released contract also does show there are two different fees depending on whether they are in the 'Premier Match Quota' or 'Secondary Match Quota', but you'd have to read between the lines a little to understand it's a discount for relegation, and the key information - the reduction - remains redacted.
Quite how that particular bit of information is prejudicial to future negotiations is anyone's guess.
Do you think that those clauses refer to their life in the Championship? I though it was simply covering their exciting extended run in the Capital One Cup, or if heaven forbid they sneak into the Europa league again and scrape past the champions of the Faroe islands…What we've heard from Sean -"ITK" - Whetstone is that the overall basic usage fee drops on relegation. Perhaps @gavros can help us….
The Premier Match Quota is 25 days, subject to a carry mechanism (which means the additional matches fee won't be incurred unless they're always in the Champions League), and is for a fee (redacted). This refers to being in the Premier League (section 20.1(a)(i)).
The Secondary Match Quota is 30 days, and is for a different fee (redacted). This refers to being below the Premier League (section 20.1(a)(ii)).
Just going over a few bits I highlighted to myself yesterday. In 5.4 (b) it talks about set-up and break-down time (I assume of the seating). I know it has been talked about, it takes up-to 5 days to change from one configuration to another. Is this a figure that has been officially confirmed? Can not seem to find anything official online ?
Having read WHU link from yesterday (provided by Prague) its clear the Baroness is using governing bodies, including the Premier League, to justify sole use of the pitch. Also seems to think millions of pounds a year will be given back, to E20 for finishing higher then tenth in the Premier League, why would information like this not become public knowledege. What if they finish below tenth, then pay nothing?
You have to understand that her main audience is West Ham fans, many of whom don't want to go and are wary about the idea of sharing the ground with anyone, particularly Spurs. Still, doesn't mean what she says is gospel, as proven by the contract. This is what she said:
"There are also multiple clauses that will ensure the pitch and playing facilities will always meet the world-class specifications we enjoy at the Boleyn Ground. Those clauses protect us from any other use of the Stadium during the football season if we feel it would have an adverse effect on the pitch, playing facilities or our supporter experience"
And this is Schedule 6 (re-worked to make the system more understandable);
(e) The Grantor acknowledges and agrees that, during the Football Season, any Other Concessionaires use of the Pitch for sporting activities (such as, but not limited to, the playing of Football or rugby or gridiron football) must not adversely affect the use of the Pitch by the Concessionaire for the staging of Events.
(d) If the Concessionaire reasonably believes that the staging of Events and attendance of the Concessionaire's customers at Events will be adversely affected (such as but not limited to the adverse consequences for the Pitch and/or the period of time in between Events to allow for the remediation ands restoration of the Stadium following an event not staged by the Concessionaire) then the Concessionaire shall be entitled to object to the Agreed Event Calendar, such notice to specify in reasonable detail the basis of and nature of the Concessionaire's objection. The Grantor will not finalise the Agreed Event Calendar until after such objection has been fully considered and dealt with and failing agreement as to the outcome of any such objection, the Concessionaire shall have the right to refer the Matter for Expert Determination
(b) it is noted and agreed that the Concessionaire is not the final arbiter as to the scheduling of Competitive Matches and the Concessionaire must be free to stage Events as required by the Governing Bodies from time to time as the same are arranged and/or rearranged from time to time during each Football Season.
If it does go for 'Expert Determination', any such expert would no doubt look at how other ground shares with the same Desso pitch system have fared. Here's an example:
“We average 54 games a season here on our Desso GrassMaster pitch, plus training sessions, (...) corporate events and music concerts. (...) Our Desso GrassMaster pitch handles it perfectly.” Dan Duffy, Head Groundsman Liberty Stadium and IOG Groundsman of the Year
Nice work from gavros to change the order of things to pretend it means something different.
I've done the same with our season so far. After a poor start, we've come into some good form and have just drawn away to Derby and beaten QPR 2-0. Playoffs here we come.
At the beginning of the West Ham article which they themselves redacted from their own website she goes on and on about 'legacy', something Boris goes on and on about too. Legacy seems to be their basic justification for everything, so maybe they could explain what they mean by the term, as it seems they define the word 'legacy' to mean 'whatever we decide to do we have decided to call legacy, and will brook no argument on the matter, and this legacy thingy justifies every decision we make'.
Comments
The OPP applies 365 days a year, every year because an "Event" can be on any day of the year. Nowhere is WH's use restricted by reference to a period, except between 1 July and 21 August 2017. This reservation had to be included for the Athletics Championship because WH have a de facto control over all event planning for the stadium.
Even when an event is scheduled it is defined as a "Potential" event because WH's needs can cause it to be cancelled, and E20 bear the consequences.
WH can even prevent a new owner of the stadium if in their opinion the new owner is not sufficiently financed. glaring omission is what happens if E20 default by going bust. Says what happens if WH default, they can be thrown out. All that happens if E20 default is that the Agreement lapses. So when E20 run out of money, as suspected all along, WH just pick it up from the Administrator for a token payment.
A masterpiece in arranging a deal to acquire an asset without having to pay for it.
West Ham taking a share of profits, OK. A share of revenue regardless of profit?
I wonder how much the office space alone would cost a normal company.
They are so desperate, that they forget what they have already released. As well as redacting content that was released in version 1, I realised (sadly when i woke up too early this morning with my head full of this shit) that they are still redacting stuff we learnt in their defence of the State Aid complaint. For example the "relegation clause" . That's still behind black ink here, isn't it? But we know it exists from the State Aid document.
EDIT: although no point not releasing it if you've already answered the FOIA request on it, of course.
The newly released contract also does show there are two different fees depending on whether they are in the 'Premier Match Quota' or 'Secondary Match Quota', but you'd have to read between the lines a little to understand it's a discount for relegation, and the key information - the reduction - remains redacted.
Quite how that particular bit of information is prejudicial to future negotiations is anyone's guess.
The Secondary Match Quota is 30 days, and is for a different fee (redacted). This refers to being below the Premier League (section 20.1(a)(ii)).
In 5.4 (b) it talks about set-up and break-down time (I assume of the seating).
I know it has been talked about, it takes up-to 5 days to change from one configuration to another. Is this a figure that has been officially confirmed? Can not seem to find anything official online ?
Also seems to think millions of pounds a year will be given back, to E20 for finishing higher then tenth in the Premier League, why would information like this not become public knowledege.
What if they finish below tenth, then pay nothing?
"There are also multiple clauses that will ensure the pitch and playing facilities will always meet the world-class specifications we enjoy at the Boleyn Ground. Those clauses protect us from any other use of the Stadium during the football season if we feel it would have an adverse effect on the pitch, playing facilities or our supporter experience"
And this is Schedule 6 (re-worked to make the system more understandable);
(e) The Grantor acknowledges and agrees that, during the Football Season, any Other Concessionaires use of the Pitch for sporting activities (such as, but not limited to, the playing of Football or rugby or gridiron football) must not adversely affect the use of the Pitch by the Concessionaire for the staging of Events.
(d) If the Concessionaire reasonably believes that the staging of Events and attendance of the Concessionaire's customers at Events will be adversely affected (such as but not limited to the adverse consequences for the Pitch and/or the period of time in between Events to allow for the remediation ands restoration of the Stadium following an event not staged by the Concessionaire) then the Concessionaire shall be entitled to object to the Agreed Event Calendar, such notice to specify in reasonable detail the basis of and nature of the Concessionaire's objection. The Grantor will not finalise the Agreed Event Calendar until after such objection has been fully considered and dealt with and failing agreement as to the outcome of any such objection, the Concessionaire shall have the right to refer the Matter for Expert Determination
(b) it is noted and agreed that the Concessionaire is not the final arbiter as to the scheduling of Competitive Matches and the Concessionaire must be free to stage Events as required by the Governing Bodies from time to time as the same are arranged and/or rearranged from time to time during each Football Season.
If it does go for 'Expert Determination', any such expert would no doubt look at how other ground shares with the same Desso pitch system have fared. Here's an example:
“We average 54 games a season here on our Desso GrassMaster pitch, plus training sessions, (...) corporate events and music concerts. (...) Our Desso GrassMaster pitch handles it perfectly.”
Dan Duffy, Head Groundsman Liberty Stadium and IOG Groundsman of the Year
dessosports.com/sports/football/football-projects/swansea-fc-uk
I've done the same with our season so far. After a poor start, we've come into some good form and have just drawn away to Derby and beaten QPR 2-0. Playoffs here we come.
Legacy seems to be their basic justification for everything, so maybe they could explain what they mean by the term, as it seems they define the word 'legacy' to mean 'whatever we decide to do we have decided to call legacy, and will brook no argument on the matter, and this legacy thingy justifies every decision we make'.