Well done Richard, really an immense personal achievement, and very, very impressive. Thank god for brave souls like yourself who take on this type of challenge, and the energy and time you have spent on this. Excellent work mate, think we all owe you a pint or two for this.
West Ham Olympic Stadium deal: LLDC ordered to publish contract details • Tribunal reject appeal from LLDC over publishing details of deal • West Ham will pay £15m towards £701m conversion of stadium
The Olympic Stadium conversion has cost £701m, with West Ham contributing £15m towards the cost, but exact details of the Premier League club’s annual rent and other payments have so far been withheld Photograph: Anthony Charlton/AFP/Getty Images
Monday 11 April 2016 15.45 BST Last modified on Monday 11 April 2016 16.40 BST
The London Legacy Development Corporation has been ordered to publish the details of its controversial deal with West Ham over the Olympic Stadium in full, following a failed appeal to the Information Tribunal.
The LLDC, which operates the Olympic Park on behalf of City Hall, had argued that making the details of the contract public would harm commercial negotiations between its appointed stadium operator, Vinci, and other potential tenants and sponsors.
It has been confirmed that West Ham will pay £15m towards the conversion of the £701m stadium to make it suitable for both football and athletics, but other details – including annual rent, understood to be around £2.5m, and the specifics of other payments – have so far been withheld. The Information Tribunal, upholding an earlier decision by the Information Commissioner that the contract should be published in full under Freedom of Information rules, decided unanimously to reject the appeal.
It said the fact that anchor tenants West Ham, who will move into the 60,000 capacity stadium at the end of the season, did not choose to appear before the Tribunal harmed the LLDC’s case. And it was not convinced of the LLDC’s case that disclosing details of the 99-year lease agreement with West Ham, which makes it the anchor tenant during the football season, would significantly harm negotiations with other potential users.
Unless it decides to appeal again, a decision that can only be made on limited legal grounds and would increase costs that have already risen beyond £21,000, the LLDC has 35 days to publish the contract in full.
A determined Freedom of Information campaign that was led by Richard Hunt of the Charlton Athletic Supporters Trust, who presented his own evidence at the Tribunal, expanded to include a coalition of 14 clubs concerned that there was not enough transparency over the use of public money to convert the stadium.
“We’re naturally delighted with the outcome, as we see this as an issue of fairness to the taxpayer, to clubs near and far, and to football as a whole,” said a spokesman for the coalition. “We now respectfully request that the LLDC do what is right, waive the right to an appeal, and publish the deal in full so that it can be properly assessed and its implications understood.”
“Naturally, due process has to be completed, and though the LLDC’s appeal has been dismissed, it will be their decision as to whether they want to continue to pursue a case that has fallen at every hurdle – with the further financial cost to the taxpayer that will bring.”
West Ham and the outgoing London mayor, Boris Johnson, have continually argued that only a Premier League football club could provide the necessary income and profile to establish the Olympic Stadium without the need for ongoing subsidy from the taxpayer. The largest chunk of funding for the transformation costs comes from a one-off settlement of £148.8m from the exchequer in 2010. Newham council has provided £40m, West Ham £15m, almost £40m comes from the original £9.3bn budget for the Olympics, and a further £25m from the government.
The cost of the conversion soared from the original estimate of £160m when the decision was taken to award West Ham a 99-year lease after an earlier process had collapsed amid acrimony and legal challenge. Johnson had initially said he would be “perfectly happy” to publish the details of the contract, but the LLDC decided to appeal to the Information Commissioner’s decision.
The spokesman for the coalition of 14 clubs, which launched a public petition that attracted 25,000 signatures within a few days, added: “We believe that the tribunal stood up for what is right, namely the right of members of the public to know how their assets are being used, and money is being spent.
“The very reason we launched this campaign was because there was considerable doubt about the use of a major public asset, and the money being spent. Don’t forget that these are terms granted to a privately owned business: a Premier League football club who will next year be in receipt of more than £100m per season just for turning up.”
The LLDC responded to the tribunal’s findings with a statement on Monday afternoon.
A spokesperson said: “We are disappointed by the tribunal’s decision. We have already published the vast majority of the contract and only undertook this appeal following very clear legal advice that to release the remaining details could significantly impact the stadium’s ability to act competitively. The ruling will result in significant challenges given the commercial realities of a highly competitive market, which could amount to many millions of pounds being lost over the term of a 99-year deal. We are considering the judgement very carefully before we decide on the next steps to take.”
The LLDC will also be obliged to reveal which costs it is meeting, on matchdays and elsewhere, and which are being met by West Ham.
The exact terms of the lease, including a negotiated discount if West Ham are relegated, will also have to be revealed for the first time. During a long game of legal ping-pong with those who sought more transparency, the LLDC would reveal only that West Ham retained all the money from ticket sales and that the annual usage fee covers matchday costs.
I have got the full reasoning,and will send it to you, after all, you wrote large chunks of my winning summation :-). Otherwise I thought I'd better politely ask the Tribunal if it is OK to share it publicly (with the media). Their answer was that it is normal to provide a grace period of two days, and they wanted me to respect that unless the other side said it was OK. Sure enough, the LLDC solicitor popped up to ask if we could indeed hold it back until Thursday, which of course I readily agreed to.
Poor show then for the LLDc to immediately start whining to journalists that the decision would cost the taxpayer millions in lost revenue
LLDC "disappointed" after being told they must publish details of secret deal with West Ham for Olympic Stadium pic.twitter.com/6FtcNYPPkb
Sorry I cannot seem to successfully post entire tweets like most of you can. Can someone show me correct procedure? Anyway, their statement is the same excuse as before. No grace, no humility, no sense of awareness that they too have their salaries paid by us taxpayers.
The first item on BBC London news - lengthy piece including Richard's interview. Very impressive indeed.
And a statement from Boris which is a complete volte-face in that he now says he supported the appeal.
I'm pretty sure that he previously said he was happy for all information to be released ...perhaps that was when he thought they would win. Not covering himself in glory here.
Sorry I cannot seem to successfully post entire tweets like most of you can. Can someone show me correct procedure? Anyway, their statement is the same excuse as before. No grace, no humility, no sense of awareness that they too have their salaries paid by us taxpayers.
@PragueAddick just copy the URL of the specific tweet onto your clipboard and then paste the URL into the "Leave a Comment" box. The magic of the forum does the rest for you. :-)
They must have spent more than that on legal fees. Maybe they should check with the lawyers.
Was about to say something similar. If that is really what they have paid, then I am shocked! I would have expected a much, much bigger fee given how long this has dragged on.
Still...you scrimp like that and you'll get taken apart by @PragueAddick and Co LLP...you watching Roland & Latrine??
According to that report Boris says the LDDC were right to lodge their (failed) appeal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a little while ago Boris said they should release all the information didn't he?
Just seen you on the BBC local news. Well done mate.
(Good job you're nostrils were clean :-)
Funny enough they weren't. She had to warn me:-) But she also assured me we had the right height on that sodding iPad, when clearly we didn't. And the gilet rose from the dead :-( @Fumbluff
Never mind. We won. Again. Shampoo flowing here :-)
According to that report Boris says the LDDC were right to lodge their (failed) appeal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a little while ago Boris said they should release all the information didn't he?
You are right and we will be on his case. I think I even have it on video, when we went to the GLA assembly in September. If anyone else can dig out this reference (it was a day or two after the ICO announced their decision) we'd be much obliged.
Edit. Coalition forces have already found the transcript. You slimey backsliding fat toad, Johnson. Pass the shampoo :-)
According to that report Boris says the LDDC were right to lodge their (failed) appeal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a little while ago Boris said they should release all the information didn't he?
You are right and we will be on his case. I think I even have it on video, when we went to the GLA assembly in September. If anyone else can dig out this reference (it was a day or two after the ICO announced their decision) we'd be much obliged.
Edit. Coalition forces have already found the transcript. You slimey backsliding fat toad, Johnson. Pass the shampoo :-)
According to that report Boris says the LDDC were right to lodge their (failed) appeal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a little while ago Boris said they should release all the information didn't he?
You are right and we will be on his case. I think I even have it on video, when we went to the GLA assembly in September. If anyone else can dig out this reference (it was a day or two after the ICO announced their decision) we'd be much obliged.
Edit. Coalition forces have already found the transcript. You slimey backsliding fat toad, Johnson. Pass the shampoo :-)
Sure it was Mayor's Question Time on the 16th September 2015
Brilliant work by all concerned and by Richard in particular. Why is it that this country has inept and/or corrupt local politicians? Why can they not be transparent in their dealings? I favour that they are just inept and easily manipulated by smarter businessmen but maybe this is incorrect.Any ideas?
According to that report Boris says the LDDC were right to lodge their (failed) appeal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a little while ago Boris said they should release all the information didn't he?
You are right and we will be on his case. I think I even have it on video, when we went to the GLA assembly in September. If anyone else can dig out this reference (it was a day or two after the ICO announced their decision) we'd be much obliged.
Edit. Coalition forces have already found the transcript. You slimey backsliding fat toad, Johnson. Pass the shampoo :-)
Sure it was Mayor's Question Time on the 16th September 2015
Comments
Thank god for brave souls like yourself who take on this type of challenge, and the energy and time you have spent on this. Excellent work mate, think we all owe you a pint or two for this.
A few words of caution, Richard - in summer watch out for strangers carrying umbrellas ....
West Ham Olympic Stadium deal: LLDC ordered to publish contract details
• Tribunal reject appeal from LLDC over publishing details of deal
• West Ham will pay £15m towards £701m conversion of stadium
The Olympic Stadium conversion has cost £701m, with West Ham contributing £15m towards the cost, but exact details of the Premier League club’s annual rent and other payments have so far been withheld Photograph: Anthony Charlton/AFP/Getty Images
Owen Gibson
@owen_g
Monday 11 April 2016 15.45 BST Last modified on Monday 11 April 2016 16.40 BST
The London Legacy Development Corporation has been ordered to publish the details of its controversial deal with West Ham over the Olympic Stadium in full, following a failed appeal to the Information Tribunal.
The LLDC, which operates the Olympic Park on behalf of City Hall, had argued that making the details of the contract public would harm commercial negotiations between its appointed stadium operator, Vinci, and other potential tenants and sponsors.
It has been confirmed that West Ham will pay £15m towards the conversion of the £701m stadium to make it suitable for both football and athletics, but other details – including annual rent, understood to be around £2.5m, and the specifics of other payments – have so far been withheld. The Information Tribunal, upholding an earlier decision by the Information Commissioner that the contract should be published in full under Freedom of Information rules, decided unanimously to reject the appeal.
It said the fact that anchor tenants West Ham, who will move into the 60,000 capacity stadium at the end of the season, did not choose to appear before the Tribunal harmed the LLDC’s case. And it was not convinced of the LLDC’s case that disclosing details of the 99-year lease agreement with West Ham, which makes it the anchor tenant during the football season, would significantly harm negotiations with other potential users.
Unless it decides to appeal again, a decision that can only be made on limited legal grounds and would increase costs that have already risen beyond £21,000, the LLDC has 35 days to publish the contract in full.
A determined Freedom of Information campaign that was led by Richard Hunt of the Charlton Athletic Supporters Trust, who presented his own evidence at the Tribunal, expanded to include a coalition of 14 clubs concerned that there was not enough transparency over the use of public money to convert the stadium.
“We’re naturally delighted with the outcome, as we see this as an issue of fairness to the taxpayer, to clubs near and far, and to football as a whole,” said a spokesman for the coalition. “We now respectfully request that the LLDC do what is right, waive the right to an appeal, and publish the deal in full so that it can be properly assessed and its implications understood.”
“Naturally, due process has to be completed, and though the LLDC’s appeal has been dismissed, it will be their decision as to whether they want to continue to pursue a case that has fallen at every hurdle – with the further financial cost to the taxpayer that will bring.”
West Ham and the outgoing London mayor, Boris Johnson, have continually argued that only a Premier League football club could provide the necessary income and profile to establish the Olympic Stadium without the need for ongoing subsidy from the taxpayer. The largest chunk of funding for the transformation costs comes from a one-off settlement of £148.8m from the exchequer in 2010. Newham council has provided £40m, West Ham £15m, almost £40m comes from the original £9.3bn budget for the Olympics, and a further £25m from the government.
The cost of the conversion soared from the original estimate of £160m when the decision was taken to award West Ham a 99-year lease after an earlier process had collapsed amid acrimony and legal challenge. Johnson had initially said he would be “perfectly happy” to publish the details of the contract, but the LLDC decided to appeal to the Information Commissioner’s decision.
The spokesman for the coalition of 14 clubs, which launched a public petition that attracted 25,000 signatures within a few days, added: “We believe that the tribunal stood up for what is right, namely the right of members of the public to know how their assets are being used, and money is being spent.
“The very reason we launched this campaign was because there was considerable doubt about the use of a major public asset, and the money being spent. Don’t forget that these are terms granted to a privately owned business: a Premier League football club who will next year be in receipt of more than £100m per season just for turning up.”
The LLDC responded to the tribunal’s findings with a statement on Monday afternoon.
A spokesperson said: “We are disappointed by the tribunal’s decision. We have already published the vast majority of the contract and only undertook this appeal following very clear legal advice that to release the remaining details could significantly impact the stadium’s ability to act competitively. The ruling will result in significant challenges given the commercial realities of a highly competitive market, which could amount to many millions of pounds being lost over the term of a 99-year deal. We are considering the judgement very carefully before we decide on the next steps to take.”
The LLDC will also be obliged to reveal which costs it is meeting, on matchdays and elsewhere, and which are being met by West Ham.
The exact terms of the lease, including a negotiated discount if West Ham are relegated, will also have to be revealed for the first time. During a long game of legal ping-pong with those who sought more transparency, the LLDC would reveal only that West Ham retained all the money from ticket sales and that the annual usage fee covers matchday costs.
I have got the full reasoning,and will send it to you, after all, you wrote large chunks of my winning summation :-). Otherwise I thought I'd better politely ask the Tribunal if it is OK to share it publicly (with the media). Their answer was that it is normal to provide a grace period of two days, and they wanted me to respect that unless the other side said it was OK. Sure enough, the LLDC solicitor popped up to ask if we could indeed hold it back until Thursday, which of course I readily agreed to.
Poor show then for the LLDc to immediately start whining to journalists that the decision would cost the taxpayer millions in lost revenue
LLDC "disappointed" after being told they must publish details of secret deal with West Ham for Olympic Stadium pic.twitter.com/6FtcNYPPkb
— Dan Roan (@danroan) 11 April 2016 " />I went back to the LLDC solicitor and suggested she might have a word with her colleague Mr Fletcher...
No doubt they will wiggle and squirm but once it is out in the open let's hope they get a complete shoeing from those nasty press boys...
The first item on BBC London news - lengthy piece including Richard's interview. Very impressive indeed.
(Good job you're nostrils were clean :-)
I'm pretty sure that he previously said he was happy for all information to be released ...perhaps that was when he thought they would win. Not covering himself in glory here.
Well done Richard.
They must have spent more than that on legal fees. Maybe they should check with the lawyers.
Still...you scrimp like that and you'll get taken apart by @PragueAddick and Co LLP...you watching Roland & Latrine??
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a little while ago Boris said they should release all the information didn't he?
Never mind. We won. Again. Shampoo flowing here :-)
Edit. Coalition forces have already found the transcript. You slimey backsliding fat toad, Johnson. Pass the shampoo :-)
Why is it that this country has inept and/or corrupt local politicians? Why can they not be transparent in their dealings? I favour that they are just inept and easily manipulated by smarter businessmen but maybe this is incorrect.Any ideas?