However, don't worry. He's used it to make a bunch of unrelated conclusions to support his friends in the Boleyn boardroom.
It's been obvious for some time that whoever negotiated the contract knew less about football than Barry Hearn's dog. It seems that the LLDC allowed it to be negotiated by lawyers and consultants working for the most expensive firms, and kidded themselves that this would ensure a good result.
Now imagine that instead they had taken on, say, Steve Kavanagh as a consultant to help them negotiate with Brady and co. (I was going to say Peter Varney until I remembered that he counts Gullivan as his friends). But never mind; do you suppose Steve or Peter, or any other senior commercial manager from football would have agreed to:
- West Ham not paying the overheads - West Ham not paying for policing - West Ham keeping all the hospitality money.
Of course not, but these jokers did, and that's part of the reason why the deal is such a joke. To that extent, we agree with Samuel.
But the question of State Aid is separate. It is perfectly possible that as a result of their incompetence, there could be a State Aid complaint. Samuel obviously has no clue about EC State Aid law (and to be fair neither did I until I started my complaint process). We know that at least one heavy duty law firm is closely examining the issue, while the architect Steve Lawrence is continuing his own dogged investigation into the possibility.
However the OS Coalition moved on from the State Aid question a while ago. There seems to be this perception that State Aid is exclusively something the EC decides on. That is not the case. This public money has been assigned by British public servants under the direction of British politicians for a project of alleged benefit to British citizens. They are the people whom we hold accountable and whom we demand should address the issue. That will be our focus in the coming weeks.
Article suggests IMG were trying to get a £15m per annum deal...that went well then!
One thing to potentially look into. The "blue block" in the article with various figures, suggests that the Stadium sponsorship returns are shared over a 20 year period. Is there anything in the released papers that say whether this split/share is the same throughout the tenancy?
Hi Tel. It gives me great pleasure to invite you to take a look for yourself - and maybe give me your thoughts in a PM.
Naming Rights is Clause 11 on page 49, and then Schedule 15 right at the back, which sets out various scenarios. In evaluating it, I think overall the most sensible approach is to consider what Gullivan would have got if they tried to flog naming rights for the Boleyn. But I'd be interested in your view. Also interested in your view on the sale scenario. Again you will need to consult Schedule 15, and the ominously (or perhaps aptly) named Project Viper...
as I say, best to keep detailed thoughts off here, but your thoughts (and those of anyone else who is a finance and /or sports marketing pro) could greatly assist our process of pulling together a sensible response to what we now know of the deal.
Article suggests IMG were trying to get a £15m per annum deal...that went well then!
One thing to potentially look into. The "blue block" in the article with various figures, suggests that the Stadium sponsorship returns are shared over a 20 year period. Is there anything in the released papers that say whether this split/share is the same throughout the tenancy?
Hi Tel. It gives me great pleasure to invite you to take a look for yourself - and maybe give me your thoughts in a PM.
Naming Rights is Clause 11 on page 49, and then Schedule 15 right at the back, which sets out various scenarios. In evaluating it, I think overall the most sensible approach is to consider what Gullivan would have got if they tried to flog naming rights for the Boleyn. But I'd be interested in your view. Also interested in your view on the sale scenario. Again you will need to consult Schedule 15, and the ominously (or perhaps aptly) named Project Viper...
as I say, best to keep detailed thoughts off here, but your thoughts (and those of anyone else who is a finance and /or sports marketing pro) could greatly assist our process of pulling together a sensible response to what we now know of the deal.
I assume the answer is nothing as the Boleyn didn't have a paid for name despite years of opportunity. We shouldn't even need to speculate on that one!
Article suggests IMG were trying to get a £15m per annum deal...that went well then!
One thing to potentially look into. The "blue block" in the article with various figures, suggests that the Stadium sponsorship returns are shared over a 20 year period. Is there anything in the released papers that say whether this split/share is the same throughout the tenancy?
Hi Tel. It gives me great pleasure to invite you to take a look for yourself - and maybe give me your thoughts in a PM.
Naming Rights is Clause 11 on page 49, and then Schedule 15 right at the back, which sets out various scenarios. In evaluating it, I think overall the most sensible approach is to consider what Gullivan would have got if they tried to flog naming rights for the Boleyn. But I'd be interested in your view. Also interested in your view on the sale scenario. Again you will need to consult Schedule 15, and the ominously (or perhaps aptly) named Project Viper...
as I say, best to keep detailed thoughts off here, but your thoughts (and those of anyone else who is a finance and /or sports marketing pro) could greatly assist our process of pulling together a sensible response to what we now know of the deal.
Thanks @PragueAddick Have tried to avoid this document after getting a form of snow blindness from all the redactions in the original one I went through! Work has been manic, which means I really should stop posting on here!!! But, I'll take a look and drop you a line. Seeing our law firm friends socially next week and will have a chat about their interest. It has cropped up, so easier to have a chat now.
That suggests West Ham have a lot to do with Mahindra coming in. Never heard of them before today, and there's Karren Brady speaking at their conference 3 years ago.
Article suggests IMG were trying to get a £15m per annum deal...that went well then!
One thing to potentially look into. The "blue block" in the article with various figures, suggests that the Stadium sponsorship returns are shared over a 20 year period. Is there anything in the released papers that say whether this split/share is the same throughout the tenancy?
Hi Tel. It gives me great pleasure to invite you to take a look for yourself - and maybe give me your thoughts in a PM.
Naming Rights is Clause 11 on page 49, and then Schedule 15 right at the back, which sets out various scenarios. In evaluating it, I think overall the most sensible approach is to consider what Gullivan would have got if they tried to flog naming rights for the Boleyn. But I'd be interested in your view. Also interested in your view on the sale scenario. Again you will need to consult Schedule 15, and the ominously (or perhaps aptly) named Project Viper...
as I say, best to keep detailed thoughts off here, but your thoughts (and those of anyone else who is a finance and /or sports marketing pro) could greatly assist our process of pulling together a sensible response to what we now know of the deal.
I assume the answer is nothing as the Boleyn didn't have a paid for name despite years of opportunity. We shouldn't even need to speculate on that one!
Their current sponsors have also sponsored a stand haven't they?
That suggests West Ham have a lot to do with Mahindra coming in. Never heard of them before today, and there's Karren Brady speaking at their conference 3 years ago.
That suggests West Ham have a lot to do with Mahindra coming in. Never heard of them before today, and there's Karren Brady speaking at their conference 3 years ago.
great spot, Rich. Think Owen Gibson might be interested in that.
Their current sponsors have also sponsored a stand haven't they?
Give the man a prize! The betway deal includes a provisional £1 million for sponsoring the West stand. Don't know if that lapses next season. By the way £1 million would also be what West Ham would get out of a £6 million naming rights deal, so Christ knows what exactly is 'shady' about that if West Ham were able to convince them to do it - it'd still be £5 million for those taxpayers you all claim to champion.
By the way for the tin hatters on here, the mini electric car they launched in the UK this month is called the e2o an their concept sports electric is called the Halo. Have a think and se if you can find a connection.
Their current sponsors have also sponsored a stand haven't they?
Give the man a prize! The betway deal includes a provisional £1 million for sponsoring the West stand. Don't know if that lapses next season. By the way £1 million would also be what West Ham would get out of a £6 million naming rights deal, so Christ knows what exactly is 'shady' about that if West Ham were able to convince them to do it - it'd still be £5 million for those taxpayers you all claim to champion.
By the way for the tin hatters on here, the mini electric car they launched in the UK this month is called the e2o an their concept sports electric is called the Halo. Have a think and se if you can find a connection.
Ha, the e20, we have a handful of them here. Big song and dance with the makers at launch about a year ago, but not many on the road. Certainly ain't no Tesla.
Do Betway pay West Ham £1m more than other sponsors do to similarly sized clubs who don't sponsor a stand? They can give West Ham X and claim £1m of that is sponsoring Bilic's right little toenail!
Their current sponsors have also sponsored a stand haven't they?
Give the man a prize! The betway deal includes a provisional £1 million for sponsoring the West stand. Don't know if that lapses next season. By the way £1 million would also be what West Ham would get out of a £6 million naming rights deal, so Christ knows what exactly is 'shady' about that if West Ham were able to convince them to do it - it'd still be £5 million for those taxpayers you all claim to champion.
By the way for the tin hatters on here, the mini electric car they launched in the UK this month is called the e2o an their concept sports electric is called the Halo. Have a think and se if you can find a connection.
The truth is out there.
So.
When do you reckon the taxpayer will have recouped the conversion costs?
Actually I don't know why I asked you.
Please be glad of your massive free gift leg up, and continue to laugh in the face of the rest of us, because truthfully, isn't that the way the West Ham fans feel about everybody else?
West Ham United are about to lose the Boelyn, something pretty special, go on your board and have a mutual hug about it. You have been singled out as special, and have had a massive financial boost paid for by not you. Be glad and laugh.
Why is it all about "laughing in people's face" for you? Do you really think all west ham fans just want to take the piss out of Charlton and Orient? Have we ever done so before? It's nothing to do with laughing at other people, for better or worse (and for many fans for worse) this has been baked in the cake since the Olympics were awarded in 2006, and we've been marionettes for the government ever since.
Going to reserve comment on Gavros post until after the Charlton match today. I am still pondering poor WHU as poor marrionettes as poor puppets controlled by the government. Poor WHU, something must be down. Hang on a minute, its not so poor WHU, after the deal to play in the Mahindra stadium.
Gavros. Baked in the cake. It has been baked in the cake since Lord Coe, Boris Johnson fascists Tories joined with fascist Tory Baroness Brady (let's vote down the poor on tax credits), who together with LLDC board member and fellow Baroness Tannie Gray Thompson, struck this corrupt deal. They then wanted to hide the details. Are you going to join your West Ham companions in shedding your hypocritical crocodile tears at West Hams last game at the wonderful Boelyn Ground? West Ham laugh at everybody, not only Orient and Charlton.
Gavros. Baked in the cake. It has been baked in the cake since Lord Coe, Boris Johnson fascists Tories joined with fascist Tory Baroness Brady (let's vote down the poor on tax credits), who together with LLDC board member and fellow Baroness Tannie Gray Thompson, struck this corrupt deal. They then wanted to hide the details. Are you going to join your West Ham companions in shedding your hypocritical crocodile tears at West Hams last game at the wonderful Boelyn Ground? West Ham laugh at everybody, not only Orient and Charlton.
TBH SP, reading that it I can't help thinking that you're the one shedding tears. That really does come across as bitter, twisted and not a little bit paranoid. Oh and Gavros; piss off!
Bitter and twisted over this, yeah, and what's wrong with that? More honest than the West Ham fans exercising doublethink to justify their largesse and to cover their glee.
Don't know about glee SP. I should think some are happy about the move and some not, as you would expect. Any glee felt would probably be down to reactions like yours. Stamping your feet while you squeam and squeam comes to mind!
Don't know about glee SP. I should think some are happy about the move and some not, as you would expect. Any glee felt would probably be down to reactions like yours. Stamping your feet while you squeam and squeam comes to mind!
OK. You do make a decent point. I am not as forensic as others when it comes to analysing the detail as to why the deal stinks. I am irritated though that gavros returned here and kind of said that if we'd read the runes from 2006 we would have known that what has transpired was already 'baked in the cake'. So that's ten years wiped out then. Yes I squeam and squeam at gavros from one end of the spectrum, and others have tried informed reasoning from the other, however he returns here again and again bringing nothing to the debate much what he says now, saying everything was pre-determined anyway. Maybe I see it as a subtle form of triumphalism, because it is hardly a development of a debate from gavros that, baked in the cake indeed. I suspect we're all guilty of hypocrisy, probably me more than most, but I try not to display it on other clubs message boards.
looks like a proper stitch up, the cronyism, the trying to hide the details for reasons proven to be entirely spurious in court, soon to be followed by the ground expansion and the wrap round screens all around the outside of the stadium. Eyesore for miles. Worse than the O2.
The thing that cheers me up with all of this is the thought of each and every West Ham fan or random when the sing 'I'm forever blowing bubbles' knowing that that was Michael Jackson's chimps name and knowing that everyone else thinks of that every time they sing it.
Don't know about glee SP. I should think some are happy about the move and some not, as you would expect. Any glee felt would probably be down to reactions like yours. Stamping your feet while you squeam and squeam comes to mind!
OK. You do make a decent point. I am not as forensic as others when it comes to analysing the detail as to why the deal stinks. I am irritated though that gavros returned here and kind of said that if we'd read the runes from 2006 we would have known that what has transpired was already 'baked in the cake'. So that's ten years wiped out then. Yes I squeam and squeam at gavros from one end of the spectrum, and others have tried informed reasoning from the other, however he returns here again and again bringing nothing to the debate much what he says now, saying everything was pre-determined anyway. Maybe I see it as a subtle form of triumphalism, because it is hardly a development of a debate from gavros that, baked in the cake indeed. I suspect we're all guilty of hypocrisy, probably me more than most, but I try not to display it on other clubs message boards.
Fair play and I apologies for my facetiousness. My take has always been that the main culprits; Coe, Jowell, Livingstone have never been brought to account for the whole fiasco. I do realise and appreciate what Prague has achieved even if I don't necessarily agree with who or what he has targeted. As far as Gavros goes, he's a cock for constantly posting on this forum whatever the reason and by us constantly biting it just gives him unwarranted opportunities to post again.
Comments
Naming Rights is Clause 11 on page 49, and then Schedule 15 right at the back, which sets out various scenarios. In evaluating it, I think overall the most sensible approach is to consider what Gullivan would have got if they tried to flog naming rights for the Boleyn. But I'd be interested in your view. Also interested in your view on the sale scenario. Again you will need to consult Schedule 15, and the ominously (or perhaps aptly) named Project Viper...
as I say, best to keep detailed thoughts off here, but your thoughts (and those of anyone else who is a finance and /or sports marketing pro) could greatly assist our process of pulling together a sensible response to what we now know of the deal.
By the way for the tin hatters on here, the mini electric car they launched in the UK this month is called the e2o an their concept sports electric is called the Halo. Have a think and se if you can find a connection.
The truth is out there.
When do you reckon the taxpayer will have recouped the conversion costs?
Actually I don't know why I asked you.
Please be glad of your massive free gift leg up, and continue to laugh in the face of the rest of us, because truthfully, isn't that the way the West Ham fans feel about everybody else?
West Ham United are about to lose the Boelyn, something pretty special, go on your board and have a mutual hug about it. You have been singled out as special, and have had a massive financial boost paid for by not you. Be glad and laugh.
And be honest.
Black is white.
Baked in the cake.
It has been baked in the cake since Lord Coe, Boris Johnson
fascistsTories joined withfascistTory Baroness Brady (let's vote down the poor on tax credits), who together with LLDC board member and fellow Baroness Tannie Gray Thompson, struck this corrupt deal.They then wanted to hide the details.
Are you going to join your West Ham companions in shedding your hypocritical crocodile tears at West Hams last game at the wonderful Boelyn Ground?
West Ham laugh at everybody, not only Orient and Charlton.
Oh and Gavros; piss off!
More honest than the West Ham fans exercising doublethink to justify their largesse and to cover their glee.
I am irritated though that gavros returned here and kind of said that if we'd read the runes from 2006 we would have known that what has transpired was already 'baked in the cake'.
So that's ten years wiped out then.
Yes I squeam and squeam at gavros from one end of the spectrum, and others have tried informed reasoning from the other, however he returns here again and again bringing nothing to the debate much what he says now, saying everything was pre-determined anyway.
Maybe I see it as a subtle form of triumphalism, because it is hardly a development of a debate from gavros that, baked in the cake indeed. I suspect we're all guilty of hypocrisy, probably me more than most, but I try not to display it on other clubs message boards.
The thing that cheers me up with all of this is the thought of each and every West Ham fan or random when the sing 'I'm forever blowing bubbles' knowing that that was Michael Jackson's chimps name and knowing that everyone else thinks of that every time they sing it.
Valley Floyd Road.
As far as Gavros goes, he's a cock for constantly posting on this forum whatever the reason and by us constantly biting it just gives him unwarranted opportunities to post again.