The cost to convert the ground for football is £703m according to the link above, add to the initial cost of something like £800m. How is the tax payer ever going to get the money back?
Bit carried away but absolutely brilliant news, Richard !!!
You SO deserve this fantastic result for all the hard work you've put in on the tax payers' behalf ! I feel a celebration dinner coming on for Mrs PA tonight !!!
Would be great if you could join us on Saturday and, in fact, to lead the protest( whatever it might be!)
We just need a " For Sale" sign on The Valley by the end of the week to add to this tremendous victory.
Big kiss coming your way......
I'm getting confused, I thought we wanted to keep our little ol' ground?
They have 28 days in which to make an appeal. However this time they can only do so on a point of law. The thing is, that just as with the ICO's own decision, the Tribunal was so unimpressed with the argument about commercial harm (extent unproven), that they did not even need to consider the public interest test, (which if applied, could still tip the balance for disclosure). As such, in legal terms its a double 4-0 victory. To appeal now would be an absurdly cynical act, a point I hope to make later on the BBC.
The cost to convert the ground for football is £703m according to the link above, add to the initial cost of something like £800m. How is the tax payer ever going to get the money back?
Bit carried away but absolutely brilliant news, Richard !!!
You SO deserve this fantastic result for all the hard work you've put in on the tax payers' behalf ! I feel a celebration dinner coming on for Mrs PA tonight !!!
Would be great if you could join us on Saturday and, in fact, to lead the protest( whatever it might be!)
We just need a " For Sale" sign on The Valley by the end of the week to add to this tremendous victory.
Big kiss coming your way......
Careful. Don't put ideas into Douchbag's head about selling the ground!
And well done Prague. To take on, and beat, a huge corporation is a huge achievement.
They have 28 days in which to make an appeal. However this time they can only do so on a point of law. The thing is, that just as with the ICO's own decision, the Tribunal was so unimpressed with the argument about commercial harm (extent unproven), that they did not even need to consider the public interest test, (which if applied, could still tip the balance for disclosure). As such, in legal terms its a double 4-0 victory. To appeal now would be an absurdly cynical act, a point I hope to make later on the BBC.
Fantastic, Prague, as everyone has said already! Your tenacity and determination to fight for the side of the right is admirable. Well done and can't wait to see the news now!
Since @gavros was of the opinion that the deal should be public I expect he'll be along any minute now to add his congratulations.
I only just saw this as I've been busy all day but of course, congratulations are in order.
I would however still expect the LLDC to look for grounds to appear to the Upper Chamber.
Just to put the record straight on one point, that Guardian article contains very large inaccuracies. The total cost of converting the stadium from a temporary athletics facility to a permanent multi purpose stadium was £272 million. The £701 million figure quoted was the total cost (ie plus the cost of building the thing in the first place).
Since @gavros was of the opinion that the deal should be public I expect he'll be along any minute now to add his congratulations.
I only just saw this as I've been busy all day but of course, congratulations are in order.
I would however still expect the LLDC to look for grounds to appear to the Upper Chamber.
Just to put the record straight on one point, that Guardian article contains very large inaccuracies. The total cost of converting the stadium from a temporary athletics facility to a permanent multi purpose stadium was £272 million. The £701 million figure quoted was the total cost (ie plus the cost of building the thing in the first place).
Bit carried away but absolutely brilliant news, Richard !!!
You SO deserve this fantastic result for all the hard work you've put in on the tax payers' behalf ! I feel a celebration dinner coming on for Mrs PA tonight !!!
Would be great if you could join us on Saturday and, in fact, to lead the protest( whatever it might be!)
We just need a " For Sale" sign on The Valley by the end of the week to add to this tremendous victory.
Big kiss coming your way......
Careful. Don't put ideas into Douchbag's head about selling the ground!
And well done Prague. To take on, and beat, a huge corporation is a huge achievement.
Since @gavros was of the opinion that the deal should be public I expect he'll be along any minute now to add his congratulations.
I only just saw this as I've been busy all day but of course, congratulations are in order.
I would however still expect the LLDC to look for grounds to appear to the Upper Chamber.
Just to put the record straight on one point, that Guardian article contains very large inaccuracies. The total cost of converting the stadium from a temporary athletics facility to a permanent multi purpose stadium was £272 million. The £701 million figure quoted was the total cost (ie plus the cost of building the thing in the first place).
do you feel they have anything in their locker to warrant such an appeal or do you just feel they will appeal?
personally i think they will appeal but solely in the hope that this can drag out till you have taken ownership of the OS and thus hoping that any renegotiation's become almost impossible
do you feel they have anything in their locker to warrant such an appeal or do you just feel they will appeal?
personally i think they will appeal but solely in the hope that this can drag out till you have taken ownership of the OS and thus hoping that any renegotiation's become almost impossible
Not a legal expert so Can't tell you, but the fact is that they were supposed to announce the stadium sponsor last summer (then in the autumn) and I think things are being held up by (amongst other things) the new digital wrap which has only just gone into planning and will take 8 weeks to get approved. Hence why I think they'll do what they can to appeal.
Since @gavros was of the opinion that the deal should be public I expect he'll be along any minute now to add his congratulations.
I only just saw this as I've been busy all day but of course, congratulations are in order.
I would however still expect the LLDC to look for grounds to appear to the Upper Chamber.
Just to put the record straight on one point, that Guardian article contains very large inaccuracies. The total cost of converting the stadium from a temporary athletics facility to a permanent multi purpose stadium was £272 million. The £701 million figure quoted was the total cost (ie plus the cost of building the thing in the first place).
I'd be very doubtful that they could bring an appeal, unless they can demonstrate that the First Tier Tribunal has erred on a point of law. Other then that the options are really very very limited.
Even where the losing side can view a decision as being perverse, it is hugely difficult to challenge it.
I somehow doubt that the LLDC could justify an appeal (it is the sort of thing that Parliamentary Committees would query).
The total cost of converting the stadium from a temporary athletics facility to a permanent multi purpose stadium was £272 million. The £701 million figure quoted was the total cost (ie plus the cost of building the thing in the first place).
Bargain! Should the taxpayer buy one to give to Spurs too?
I think you'll find that behind the partisan bluster there's an appreciation for what's been done here. After all, West Ham fans are going to be the most affected by this and themselves wants to know what the actual deal is.
I think you'll find that behind the partisan bluster there's an appreciation for what's been done here. After all, West Ham fans are going to be the most affected by this and themselves wants to know what the actual deal is.
True. West Ham fans will be annoyed when they realise the transfer budget is so low because they've negotiated such a terrible deal and the big bad LLDC has done a job on the GulliBrady bunch.
Since @gavros was of the opinion that the deal should be public I expect he'll be along any minute now to add his congratulations.
I only just saw this as I've been busy all day but of course, congratulations are in order.
I would however still expect the LLDC to look for grounds to appear to the Upper Chamber.
Just to put the record straight on one point, that Guardian article contains very large inaccuracies. The total cost of converting the stadium from a temporary athletics facility to a permanent multi purpose stadium was £272 million. The £701 million figure quoted was the total cost (ie plus the cost of building the thing in the first place).
I'd be very doubtful that they could bring an appeal, unless they can demonstrate that the First Tier Tribunal has erred on a point of law. Other then that the options are really very very limited.
Even where the losing side can view a decision as being perverse, it is hugely difficult to challenge it.
I somehow doubt that the LLDC could justify an appeal (it is the sort of thing that Parliamentary Committees would query).
Had a nose around the government site and one ground mentioned is a claim that the case is not covered by existing precedent and the outcome is of relevance to other parties who may have similar cases to bring.
The LLDC lawyer went out of her way to argue that the Commissioner should have applied a public interest test. Currently, before refusing to order disclosure of information on grounds of protecting commercial interests, a test must be applied to see whether the public interest warrants disclosure in spite of the likelihood of damaging commercial interests.
What LLDC argued central to their case is that before agreeing to order disclosure, the Commissioner having dismissed precedence of commercial interests for WHU, a test, never before used, should have been applied. This test would consider whether damaging the prospect of maximising revenue for the LLDC warrants suppression on the grounds of public interest. They wasted most of the time, much in secrecy, trying to show how LLDC would be held to ransom by Chips a Plenty in a burger van franchise negotiation because Chips a Plenty knew how much WHU paid for their tenancy.
Pure fantasy land created in the mind of a lawyer who then tried to prove it was real.
Comments
And well done Prague. To take on, and beat, a huge corporation is a huge achievement.
EDIT: Fumbluff got there first.
I would however still expect the LLDC to look for grounds to appear to the Upper Chamber.
Just to put the record straight on one point, that Guardian article contains very large inaccuracies. The total cost of converting the stadium from a temporary athletics facility to a permanent multi purpose stadium was £272 million. The £701 million figure quoted was the total cost (ie plus the cost of building the thing in the first place).
Great stuff Prague.
My bad ....
But you know where I'm coming from.
personally i think they will appeal but solely in the hope that this can drag out till you have taken ownership of the OS and thus hoping that any renegotiation's become almost impossible
Even where the losing side can view a decision as being perverse, it is hugely difficult to challenge it.
I somehow doubt that the LLDC could justify an appeal (it is the sort of thing that Parliamentary Committees would query).
I think you'll find that behind the partisan bluster there's an appreciation for what's been done here. After all, West Ham fans are going to be the most affected by this and themselves wants to know what the actual deal is.
Obviously.
Can you now get rid of RD & KM please ?
Thanks very much.
The LLDC lawyer went out of her way to argue that the Commissioner should have applied a public interest test. Currently, before refusing to order disclosure of information on grounds of protecting commercial interests, a test must be applied to see whether the public interest warrants disclosure in spite of the likelihood of damaging commercial interests.
What LLDC argued central to their case is that before agreeing to order disclosure, the Commissioner having dismissed precedence of commercial interests for WHU, a test, never before used, should have been applied. This test would consider whether damaging the prospect of maximising revenue for the LLDC warrants suppression on the grounds of public interest. They wasted most of the time, much in secrecy, trying to show how LLDC would be held to ransom by Chips a Plenty in a burger van franchise negotiation because Chips a Plenty knew how much WHU paid for their tenancy.
Pure fantasy land created in the mind of a lawyer who then tried to prove it was real.