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.
I'm quite interested to know whom you think I have targeted, and why you think whoever that is, is the wrong target.
I asked for some information, in accordance with the law. After two years, the second highest court in the land on such matters agreed that I should have it. All of it.
A genuine question given my and others love for The Valley.
Do West Ham fans have any affection for Upton Park, The Boleyn or whatever it's called?
Reason I ask is that I cannot remember reading or hearing of any attempt to save it which strikes me as strange.
We may be out of the loop on this, because I simply can't believe that 100% of the West Ham fanbase is cool with leaving their ground. They may have eventually 'listened to reason', or there may have been a charm offensive, or they may have been worn down. Or maybe there exists a reckonable lobby of fans who really don't like what's happening.
As I say we may simply have missed what has happened.
There's been plenty of West Ham fans against it, but you have to remember this move has been on the table for ten years now, ever since the club (under the biscuit barons) offered a couple of hundred million toward the costs in order to make it a proper multi-use stadium that had an athletics legacy, which 10 years later it has become, albeit with a compromised design that had to be stitched back together again, to the detriment of both fans of football and the taxpayer. Therefore that gestation period has allowed people to get used to the idea, even if they don't really like it.
I find little reason to claim that West Ham fans are "laughing" at anyone, however, particularly to Charlton fans, who we have no discernible rivalry with. As for being a 'cock', I'll take that as a compliment, given what I've been called on certain West Ham boards. Not KUMB of course, whose Nazi-esque mods would never allow such fruity language.
A genuine question given my and others love for The Valley.
Do West Ham fans have any affection for Upton Park, The Boleyn or whatever it's called?
Reason I ask is that I cannot remember reading or hearing of any attempt to save it which strikes me as strange.
We may be out of the loop on this, because I simply can't believe that 100% of the West Ham fanbase is cool with leaving their ground. They may have eventually 'listened to reason', or there may have been a charm offensive, or they may have been worn down. Or maybe there exists a reckonable lobby of fans who really don't like what's happening.
As I say we may simply have missed what has happened.
There was some disquiet when it was first mooted but from what I understand from Hammer supporting family that soon disapated when they realised they were being handed the absolute deal of the fecking century and the keys to the Top 6 every year.
A genuine question given my and others love for The Valley.
Do West Ham fans have any affection for Upton Park, The Boleyn or whatever it's called?
Reason I ask is that I cannot remember reading or hearing of any attempt to save it which strikes me as strange.
We may be out of the loop on this, because I simply can't believe that 100% of the West Ham fanbase is cool with leaving their ground. They may have eventually 'listened to reason', or there may have been a charm offensive, or they may have been worn down. Or maybe there exists a reckonable lobby of fans who really don't like what's happening.
As I say we may simply have missed what has happened.
There was some disquiet when it was first mooted but from what I understand from Hammer supporting family that soon disapated when they realised they were being handed the absolute deal of the fecking century and the keys to the Top 6 every year.
That has been my interpretation.
And gavros, you are right, West Ham fans are not laughing at anyone, they're laughing at everyone.
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.
I'm quite interested to know whom you think I have targeted, and why you think whoever that is, is the wrong target.
I asked for some information, in accordance with the law. After two years, the second highest court in the land on such matters agreed that I should have it. All of it.
That's quite Ok, isn't it?
I think you've targeted West Ham and the committee that negotiated the deal. I have already stated who I think should be called to account. Is that ok?
West Ham has never been the target, but clearly if their owners want to bullshit the country there's a right of reply.
For example, saying they're only using the stadium 25 days a year is simply misleading. Leaving aside the huge permanent space they have there, at least one day is reserved either side of a match for set up/set down, so that's 75 right there.
Except of course you then have to consider that the TV companies might want to move your home game to any of Friday to Monday, which means you have to reserve Thursday through Tuesday Possibly 21 times a season, which is 126 days. And of course you can't use it on the Wednesday because an event needs at least a day to set up and set down.
And if you're in Europe you're taking Wednesdays out anyway to accommodate Thursday matches.
Plus it takes a week to move from football mode to full stadium mode, and vice versa. So little or no chance of non-football type events during the football season.
I think therefore it's right to challenge the guys at WHU when they bullshit. But the argument has always been with LLDC.
There's been plenty of West Ham fans against it, but you have to remember this move has been on the table for ten years now, ever since the club (under the biscuit barons) offered a couple of hundred million toward the costs in order to make it a proper multi-use stadium that had an athletics legacy, which 10 years later it has become, albeit with a compromised design that had to be stitched back together again, to the detriment of both fans of football and the taxpayer. Therefore that gestation period has allowed people to get used to the idea, even if they don't really like it.
I find little reason to claim that West Ham fans are "laughing" at anyone, however, particularly to Charlton fans, who we have no discernible rivalry with. As for being a 'cock', I'll take that as a compliment, given what I've been called on certain West Ham boards. Not KUMB of course, whose Nazi-esque mods would never allow such fruity language.
Gavros, are you a SHILL? Are West Ham, or a PR company employed by West Ham, paying you?
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.
I'm quite interested to know whom you think I have targeted, and why you think whoever that is, is the wrong target.
I asked for some information, in accordance with the law. After two years, the second highest court in the land on such matters agreed that I should have it. All of it.
That's quite Ok, isn't it?
I think you've targeted West Ham and the committee that negotiated the deal. I have already stated who I think should be called to account. Is that ok?
You are absolutely incorrect to say that I, or anyone else in this campaign, have "targeted" West Ham. They - or more specifically their owners and CEO - are the recipients of a massive amount of public money. We have said until we are blue in the face that we recognise that they have done what they think best for the commercial future of their shareholders. If we uncover wrongdoing by them asa result of the information we now have, we will present it. But even if that is the case I don't hold @gavros or any other of the 30,000 normal Hammers fans responsible and bear them no ill will whatsoever. They are very welcome to their new home.
By the "committee" I assume you mean the LLDC. It is not a committee, it calls itself a corporation, which is vaguely absurd, but anyway it reports directly to the GLA and the Local Government Ministry. It is directly accountable to us as citizens and taxpayers, and for that reason is subject to the Freedom of Information Law.
It is very difficult for me and my colleagues to 'target' the three people you name. How would we do that? What would we do? What we can do, is uncover the facts about the deal. That has taken two years, but we have now done that. Now we have to point out exactly how bad the deal is. It will then be for the wider public to determine which politicians should be held to account. Personally, while I would not disagree with the names of the three you mention, the absence from your list of Boris Johnson is absolutely baffling.
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.
This is where I think you are and others are completely wide of the mark. They appreciated that there was no need for a football club on the site - the ground would have been sustainable and part of a legacy that Coe had to sign up to to get the bloody games, instead of a tax payer's gift to West Ham. If when the Olympic bid team were asked about legacy, they had said - oh we'll give it to a multi million pound football club, we might not have had the games in the first place. History has ben distorted against the original team and architect because of this ridiculous fooball link that never had any need to be there.
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.
I'm quite interested to know whom you think I have targeted, and why you think whoever that is, is the wrong target.
I asked for some information, in accordance with the law. After two years, the second highest court in the land on such matters agreed that I should have it. All of it.
That's quite Ok, isn't it?
I think you've targeted West Ham and the committee that negotiated the deal. I have already stated who I think should be called to account. Is that ok?
You are absolutely incorrect to say that I, or anyone else in this campaign, have "targeted" West Ham. They - or more specifically their owners and CEO - are the recipients of a massive amount of public money. We have said until we are blue in the face that we recognise that they have done what they think best for the commercial future of their shareholders. If we uncover wrongdoing by them asa result of the information we now have, we will present it. But even if that is the case I don't hold @gavros or any other of the 30,000 normal Hammers fans responsible and bear them no ill will whatsoever. They are very welcome to their new home.
By the "committee" I assume you mean the LLDC. It is not a committee, it calls itself a corporation, which is vaguely absurd, but anyway it reports directly to the GLA and the Local Government Ministry. It is directly accountable to us as citizens and taxpayers, and for that reason is subject to the Freedom of Information Law.
It is very difficult for me and my colleagues to 'target' the three people you name. How would we do that? What would we do? What we can do, is uncover the facts about the deal. That has taken two years, but we have now done that. Now we have to point out exactly how bad the deal is. It will then be for the wider public to determine which politicians should be held to account. Personally, while I would not disagree with the names of the three you mention, the absence from your list of Boris Johnson is absolutely baffling.
I didn't realize Boris was anything to do with original plan. I thought Ken Livingstone was the Mayor at that time.
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.
This is where I think you are and others are completely wide of the mark. They appreciated that there was no need for a football club on the site - the ground would have been sustainable and part of a legacy that Coe had to sign up to to get the bloody games, instead of a tax payer's gift to West Ham. If when the Olympic bid team were asked about legacy, they had said - oh we'll give it to a multi million pound football club, we might not have had the games in the first place. History has ben distorted against the original team and architect because of this ridiculous fooball link that never had any need to be there.
So who's fault was it that football was added as an after thought?
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.
This is where I think you are and others are completely wide of the mark. They appreciated that there was no need for a football club on the site - the ground would have been sustainable and part of a legacy that Coe had to sign up to to get the bloody games, instead of a tax payer's gift to West Ham. If when the Olympic bid team were asked about legacy, they had said - oh we'll give it to a multi million pound football club, we might not have had the games in the first place. History has ben distorted against the original team and architect because of this ridiculous fooball link that never had any need to be there.
So who's fault was it that football was added as an after thought?
The answer to that sets you on the path to where the blame lies. Of course they want to blame the original team who decided they didn't want it to be a football stadium! Would it have been a white elephant? - of course not - there are lots of non football uses for it - not that would repay the cost of building it - but the West Ham option is costing tax payers an additional £272m FFS! For just that to be paid back in a quarter of a century, you have to net over £10m a year from West Ham! Not going to happen given all the extras they don't have to pay for! If you don't convert the stadium for West Ham, you don't have to get the £272m back - saving the tax payers a lot of money. You can make some progress in terms of paying tax payers back - slow I know, by the net profit form boxing, pop concerts etc.... You can also provide a legacy, by allowing young athletes to use the facilities and get inspired- it isn't rocket science really!
What I meant was why was it not set up for a multi sports stadium use originaly. Wasn't rocket science was it?
Seb Coe was the one who rather obstinately insisted on a permanent home for athletics. To that extent he has questions to answer, as you suggest. I have heard rumours of other more sinister ones too, but way off my radar.
However the contract - the one which enables West Ham to fling cheap tickets all round our South- East London and Kent catchment area - was railroaded through and signed off by Johnson. That is why CAST went after it originally, and why I believe you as a Charlton supporter should expect him to be the first politician we hold to account.
That I don't like the slimy fat American lizard is neither here nor there :-)
I'm not going to argue with you over Boris he's a buffoon We're poles apart on the other stuff though, let's just leave it that and as you rightly say me and you are both Charlton and that's the main thing.
What I meant was why was it not set up for a multi sports stadium use originaly. Wasn't rocket science was it?
Seb Coe was the one who rather obstinately insisted on a permanent home for athletics. To that extent he has questions to answer, as you suggest. I have heard rumours of other more sinister ones too, but way off my radar.
However the contract - the one which enables West Ham to fling cheap tickets all round our South- East London and Kent catchment area - was railroaded through and signed off by Johnson. That is why CAST went after it originally, and why I believe you as a Charlton supporter should expect him to be the first politician we hold to account.
That I don't like the slimy fat American lizard is neither here nor there :-)
He did it because that was what this whole legacy thing was supposed to be all about! Not about putting Orient out of business!
You're wrong there Muttley. When Boris first decided to run for London Mayor, it was all due to having a pathological hatred of Leyton Orient. Everyone knows that. Not only that but he also wanted to get into Karen Brady's knickers; which is why he gave West Ham the Olympic stadium. In fact the only thing that he couldn't do anything about was those pesky Charlton Athletic fans. However a quick phone call to an old mate who lived in Liege and that was all sorted as well. Of course this could all be paranoid bollocks but I reckon you'd know more about that than me.
This is where I think you are and others are completely wide of the mark. They appreciated that there was no need for a football club on the site - the ground would have been sustainable and part of a legacy that Coe had to sign up to to get the bloody games, instead of a tax payer's gift to West Ham. If when the Olympic bid team were asked about legacy, they had said - oh we'll give it to a multi million pound football club, we might not have had the games in the first place. History has ben distorted against the original team and architect because of this ridiculous fooball link that never had any need to be there.
MuttleyCAFC I said I wouldn't comment on this subject so I apologise for going back on my word but your comment intrigued me, can I ask what you base your assertions on as from what I recall it was widely understood that the conversion and running costs for a 25,000 venue were still a significant amount of money and with the commitment to athletics unlikely to appeal to many other parties to make it attractive for any other use? Do you seriously believe that a few athletics events each year would have shown a return to meet these costs or more realistically like with nearly every other post-Olympic athletics venue it would have just quickly become a white elephant?
The real individuals that are culpable here for me and I guess everyone else you think are wide of the mark are those made the commitment to an Athletics legacy with little thought of how that could realistically be sustained whilst making the incredible decision not to factor in any other post conversion use into the stadium design for anything other than athletics something that if done I am pretty sure would have put the venue it a far better position post-Olympics to get the Taxpayer a quicker return for it's investment.
Instead in my eyes everyone seems to be chasing those who are trying to solve a problem because they don't like the answer whilst allowing those who created it disappear off into the sunset without a question asked, which for me seems to me to be a pretty bizarre scenario if this all about what it best for the Taxpayer as being the motivation for these actions.
This is where I think you are and others are completely wide of the mark.
Instead in my eyes everyone seems to be chasing those who are trying to solve a problem because they don't like the answer whilst allowing those who created it disappear off into the sunset without a question asked, which for me seems to me to be a pretty bizarre scenario if this all about what it best for the Taxpayer as being the motivation for these actions.
I'll leave you and Mutely to debate the legacy issue. However you continue to imply criticism of the OS Coalition campaign. So I would ask you from that standpoint, and more specifically from that of CAST, because this is a forum for Charlton supporters, to kindly point out what is wrong with the action we have already taken.? That is to say, to fight for two years to uncover the actual facts of the size of taxpayer subsidy behind the agreement?
Once you have answered that, and only then , in my view, can you legitimately go on to discuss what people should do, now that we have the facts. Which we have had for all of nine days. Specifically, how would you propose that the people you hold accountable actually be chased? And do you excuse Johnson from your list? If so, why?
I have questioned Coe, Boris, Tannie Gray Thompson and the LLDC in emails, only Boris' office replied, now months ago saying disclosure is cool. Those who created the situation, baked gavros cake if you like, are being questioned, and will be.
I'm not even going to bother to read up on what a SHILL is but no, I'm not being paid by West Ham. I was a member of the recently disbanded Supporters Advisory Board and we've all been asked to re-apply if we want but I'm not going to bother, as I wouldn't get in again after the pasting that I regularly gave the club's representatives over what has been on occasion misleading information about the stadium.
As for the issue of whether or not to transform it in the way that was done, some LLDC document (I haven't got time currently to search for it) mention a CBA that was done comparing the original 25k transformation to this one over a 25 year period, with this one representing greater taxpayer benefit, hence justifying the extra costs and the work subsequently done. It's probably out of bounds of FOI but that would be a useful document to get your hands on.
This is where I think you are and others are completely wide of the mark.
Instead in my eyes everyone seems to be chasing those who are trying to solve a problem because they don't like the answer whilst allowing those who created it disappear off into the sunset without a question asked, which for me seems to me to be a pretty bizarre scenario if this all about what it best for the Taxpayer as being the motivation for these actions.
I'll leave you and Mutely to debate the legacy issue. However you continue to imply criticism of the OS Coalition campaign. So I would ask you from that standpoint, and more specifically from that of CAST, because this is a forum for Charlton supporters, to kindly point out what is wrong with the action we have already taken.? That is to say, to fight for two years to uncover the actual facts of the size of taxpayer subsidy behind the agreement?
Once you have answered that, and only then , in my view, can you legitimately go on to discuss what people should do, now that we have the facts. Which we have had for all of nine days. Specifically, how would you propose that the people you hold accountable actually be chased? And do you excuse Johnson from your list? If so, why?
I am sorry if my comments come across as a criticism of the actions of yourself or CAST as that is not what is intended but I am have always been uncomfortable with the claims that the motivation behind is for the benefit of the Taxpayer when in reality I suspect it is football tribalism.
As I have said before I have nothing but respect for what you have achieved but that doesn't automatically mean I agree with everything that is being done, because if the reasons behind are football tribalism ones unless something is proven to be corrupt rather than a perception that they are unfair it really doesn't bother me especially when I would suspect far more questionable practices probably would be uncovered by looking into those who created the problem in the first place, also I think I have commented that the timing of the action for me does more harm than good to the LLDC at this time so I fail to see the benefit to the Taxpayer there.
With your first point I come from the perspective that you look after your own house and get that right, what others are doing really doesn't bother me other than learning lessons from them, I think we all have witnessed Charlton doing more harm to themselves in the last 10 years than I foresee West Ham moving to the OS will do in the next 50, I maybe wrong but that is how I feel.
Dealing with you second point to be honest unless we see the same problem at the beginning I guess it is hard to understand why the whole West Ham/LLDC saga outrages me far less than you because for me what went before with the OS means I currently look at what has followed as the solution rather than another problem.
I suppose also fundamentally if we don't agree on what the problem is then we simply are going to generally interpret the actions and proposals that follow differently and this I feel is the situation here so as to what to next personally is what I would have done all along that is wait to see whether LLDC/West Ham live up to their promises to help solve a problem left by others who seem to be unaccountable for it's creation.
This is where I think you are and others are completely wide of the mark.
Instead in my eyes everyone seems to be chasing those who are trying to solve a problem because they don't like the answer whilst allowing those who created it disappear off into the sunset without a question asked, which for me seems to me to be a pretty bizarre scenario if this all about what it best for the Taxpayer as being the motivation for these actions.
I'll leave you and Mutely to debate the legacy issue. However you continue to imply criticism of the OS Coalition campaign. So I would ask you from that standpoint, and more specifically from that of CAST, because this is a forum for Charlton supporters, to kindly point out what is wrong with the action we have already taken.? That is to say, to fight for two years to uncover the actual facts of the size of taxpayer subsidy behind the agreement?
Once you have answered that, and only then , in my view, can you legitimately go on to discuss what people should do, now that we have the facts. Which we have had for all of nine days. Specifically, how would you propose that the people you hold accountable actually be chased? And do you excuse Johnson from your list? If so, why?
I am sorry if my comments come across as a criticism of the actions of yourself or CAST as that is not what is intended but I am have always been uncomfortable with the claims that the motivation behind is for the benefit of the Taxpayer when in reality I suspect it is football tribalism.
As I have said before I have nothing but respect for what you have achieved but that doesn't automatically mean I agree with everything that is being done, because if the reasons behind are football tribalism ones unless something is proven to be corrupt rather than a perception that they are unfair it really doesn't bother me especially when I would suspect far more questionable practices probably would be uncovered by looking into those who created the problem in the first place, also I think I have commented that the timing of the action for me does more harm than good to the LLDC at this time so I fail to see the benefit to the Taxpayer there.
With your first point I come from the perspective that you look after your own house and get that right, what others are doing really doesn't bother me other than learning lessons from them, I think we all have witnessed Charlton doing more harm to themselves in the last 10 years than I foresee West Ham moving to the OS will do in the next 50, I maybe wrong but that is how I feel.
Dealing with you second point to be honest unless we see the same problem at the beginning I guess it is hard to understand why the whole West Ham/LLDC saga outrages me far less than you because for me what went before with the OS means I currently look at what has followed as the solution rather than another problem.
I suppose also fundamentally if we don't agree on what the problem is then we simply are going to generally interpret the actions and proposals that follow differently and this I feel is the situation here so as to what to next personally is what I would have done all along that is wait to see whether LLDC/West Ham live up to their promises to help solve a problem left by others who seem to be unaccountable for it's creation.
I think simply you don't know Prague if you believe that.
That said, it's been said all along that the primary issues are transparency for the tax payer and fair competition. The latter brings football into play, but of course no one could be certain of it without the former.
In my view it's always been in everyone's interests for this to have been done transparently, and I think Gavin would agree with that too. I understand why West Ham might fight shy of it, they operate in a private commercial world, but the LLDC has no such excuse.
No one is opposed to WHU playing at the OS and it's more than reasonable to argue that a commercial threat would exist anyway. But the extent of what the contract reveals to be state money propping this deal up should concern us all.
I'm not even opposed to WHU getting a good deal as being part of the solution. But the LLDC's forecasts for the next three years show big losses and a big funding requirement that will add millions to the headline £272m.
As a football fan I'm outraged, but as a taxpayer I'm apoplectic at this waste of our money through poor commercial acumen at very best but much more likely political, let's say, expediency.
This is where I think you are and others are completely wide of the mark.
Instead in my eyes everyone seems to be chasing those who are trying to solve a problem because they don't like the answer whilst allowing those who created it disappear off into the sunset without a question asked, which for me seems to me to be a pretty bizarre scenario if this all about what it best for the Taxpayer as being the motivation for these actions.
I'll leave you and Mutely to debate the legacy issue. However you continue to imply criticism of the OS Coalition campaign. So I would ask you from that standpoint, and more specifically from that of CAST, because this is a forum for Charlton supporters, to kindly point out what is wrong with the action we have already taken.? That is to say, to fight for two years to uncover the actual facts of the size of taxpayer subsidy behind the agreement?
Once you have answered that, and only then , in my view, can you legitimately go on to discuss what people should do, now that we have the facts. Which we have had for all of nine days. Specifically, how would you propose that the people you hold accountable actually be chased? And do you excuse Johnson from your list? If so, why?
I am sorry if my comments come across as a criticism of the actions of yourself or CAST as that is not what is intended but I am have always been uncomfortable with the claims that the motivation behind is for the benefit of the Taxpayer when in reality I suspect it is football tribalism.
As I have said before I have nothing but respect for what you have achieved but that doesn't automatically mean I agree with everything that is being done, because if the reasons behind are football tribalism ones unless something is proven to be corrupt rather than a perception that they are unfair it really doesn't bother me especially when I would suspect far more questionable practices probably would be uncovered by looking into those who created the problem in the first place, also I think I have commented that the timing of the action for me does more harm than good to the LLDC at this time so I fail to see the benefit to the Taxpayer there.
With your first point I come from the perspective that you look after your own house and get that right, what others are doing really doesn't bother me other than learning lessons from them, I think we all have witnessed Charlton doing more harm to themselves in the last 10 years than I foresee West Ham moving to the OS will do in the next 50, I maybe wrong but that is how I feel.
Dealing with you second point to be honest unless we see the same problem at the beginning I guess it is hard to understand why the whole West Ham/LLDC saga outrages me far less than you because for me what went before with the OS means I currently look at what has followed as the solution rather than another problem.
I suppose also fundamentally if we don't agree on what the problem is then we simply are going to generally interpret the actions and proposals that follow differently and this I feel is the situation here so as to what to next personally is what I would have done all along that is wait to see whether LLDC/West Ham live up to their promises to help solve a problem left by others who seem to be unaccountable for it's creation.
"...I come from the perspective that you look after your own house and get that right, what others are doing really doesn't bother me other than learning lessons from them..."
But how can clubs like ours or Orient or Millwall or Barnet, etc ever hope to get our own house right if there's not a level playing field due to the deal? What lessons can we learn from WHU being gifted a massively unfair advantage?
It's always going to be near on impossible for smaller clubs to compete for the floating supporter or next generation, given the saturation of the Premier League in the league. Throw in the cheap/free tickets combined with increased profile combined with better playing resources that this deal facilitates and clubs of any size are going to be affected, let alone those medium or smaller competitors.
This is my view – but one I feel passionately about. When it was announced the stadium (pre-games) was not to be used for football, I was delighted. This wasn’t due to football tribalism but pride. I thought it was great that British Athletics could have a home that could inspire future athletes and as for the costs – it is in London with fantastic transport links – there would be massive demand for it to be used for other sporting and commercial events! Maybe not every day, but enough to be a lot cheaper than paying £272million on top of everything to allow West Ham to use it. In fact, what excited me was the prospect of youngsters getting to perform in this legendary stadium, with it’s fantastic facilities and for them to be inspired. A bit like building a velodrome helped to transform British cycling. Coe had the job of winning the games – my point and I think it is an important one, is that job would have been much more difficult if the Olympic committee thought the legacy would be that some premiership football club would have main use of it on the cheap! By designing a stadium unsuitable for football, that message could be delivered loud and clear. Now basic maths says that if the stadium was making a loss – and I contest that would have been the case – but the loss over many, many years (my lifetime I suspect) would be less at the very least than the money that has been subsequently pumped into it to make it into a football stadium. Politicians are rubbish at seeing the potential of things and the value of things outside corrupt monetary interests. I was annoyed by the criticism of the Dome. I thought at the time and said and argued as much, ‘what a fantastic thing to build’! The issue was the government didn’t know what to put in it, thinking it had to be something educational as it shouldn’t touch anything commercial. This is the short-sightedness and uselessness of politics. The O2 is a fantastic venue and it didn’t need that much additional vision for it to be so. It could be making income for the taxpayer – I know for some I have uttered sinful words here! And if the stadium could not be reasonably self-sustaining over the initial years, there would never be a shortage of private concerns coverting it! That is my personal view – but I commend the initial bid team. It is not their fault that everybody else missed the point and corruption and self-interest took over.
This is my view – but one I feel passionately about. When it was announced the stadium (pre-games) was not to be used for football, I was delighted. This wasn’t due to football tribalism but pride. I thought it was great that British Athletics could have a home that could inspire future athletes and as for the costs – it is in London with fantastic transport links – there would be massive demand for it to be used for other sporting and commercial events! Maybe not every day, but enough to be a lot cheaper than paying £272million on top of everything to allow West Ham to use it. In fact, what excited me was the prospect of youngsters getting to perform in this legendary stadium, with it’s fantastic facilities and for them to be inspired. A bit like building a velodrome helped to transform British cycling. Coe had the job of winning the games – my point and I think it is an important one, is that job would have been much more difficult if the Olympic committee thought the legacy would be that some premiership football club would have main use of it on the cheap! By designing a stadium unsuitable for football, that message could be delivered loud and clear. Now basic maths says that if the stadium was making a loss – and I contest that would have been the case – but the loss over many, many years (my lifetime I suspect) would be less at the very least than the money that has been subsequently pumped into it to make it into a football stadium. Politicians are rubbish at seeing the potential of things and the value of things outside corrupt monetary interests. I was annoyed by the criticism of the Dome. I thought at the time and said and argued as much, ‘what a fantastic thing to build’! The issue was the government didn’t know what to put in it, thinking it had to be something educational as it shouldn’t touch anything commercial. This is the short-sightedness and uselessness of politics. The O2 is a fantastic venue and it didn’t need that much additional vision for it to be so. It could be making income for the taxpayer – I know for some I have uttered sinful words here! And if the stadium could not be reasonably self-sustaining over the initial years, there would never be a shortage of private concerns coverting it! That is my personal view – but I commend the initial bid team. It is not their fault that everybody else missed the point and corruption and self-interest took over.
Thank you for answering my question and in response it might surprise you I sympathise with a lot of what you say but equally probably not a shock I disagree massively with a couple of points.
The first point is that I am not convinced that a stand alone athletics stadium even with a 25,000 capacity would be sustainable in this country, Athletics simply outside of a few not too frequent major world events (which would demand a bigger capacity) has no history of being a spectator sport to generate the kind of income to maintain a top class facility throughout the year, experiences around the world and even in this country do nothing to disprove the belief that Athletics Stadium unless used for something else quickly become a drain on resources and the problem they face is how unsuitable for other spectator sports thanks to the running track.
The second point is that I thought it was understood that the stadium was basically designed for The Olympics and no matter what the legacy was there was always going to be substantial and expensive conversion costs, for example the roof and floodlights were always to be removed and replaced at a not insignificant cost so can I ask who was you expecting to be meeting these costs?
In the ideal world the post games scenario you have wish for would be happening but sadly in the real world it can't happen and once legacy promises were made the design of stadium should have been made to include easy conversion to self financing post games use. The inexcusable decision to ignore this is mainly why we are were we are now leaving only two real choices they were to go back on the promise and pull the whole thing down or do what the LLDC have tried to do, ignore these choices I would have bet my life we would be left with something that was a far bigger drain on the public purse than we have now for many years to come until someone decides to take action and finally goes back and make one of those two choices.
Those who decided to leave the country with a legacy and a flawed stadium to fulfil it are the people who should be being made accountable by the press at this time not the LLDC unless there is proof of corruption while they try to make the best of this situation.
I get fed up of all the smug bastards telling us what the real world is - it is a corrupt dishonest world. It didn't just have to be used for Athletics - so many uses - pop concerts, 20/20, boxing etc... But ultimately, it would be the national athletics stadium. We don't have anything decent at present. Crystal Palace is a dump! Quote me the not insignificant cost and subtract from £272m. One day people will see through all the sh*t. Of course this is totally outside of the state aid point which Prague has been admirably fighting against - but it is all a symptom of the same disease.
Comments
I asked for some information, in accordance with the law. After two years, the second highest court in the land on such matters agreed that I should have it. All of it.
That's quite Ok, isn't it?
A genuine question given my and others love for The Valley.
Do West Ham fans have any affection for Upton Park, The Boleyn or whatever it's called?
Reason I ask is that I cannot remember reading or hearing of any attempt to save it which strikes me as strange.
As I say we may simply have missed what has happened.
I find little reason to claim that West Ham fans are "laughing" at anyone, however, particularly to Charlton fans, who we have no discernible rivalry with. As for being a 'cock', I'll take that as a compliment, given what I've been called on certain West Ham boards. Not KUMB of course, whose Nazi-esque mods would never allow such fruity language.
And gavros, you are right, West Ham fans are not laughing at anyone, they're laughing at everyone.
For example, saying they're only using the stadium 25 days a year is simply misleading. Leaving aside the huge permanent space they have there, at least one day is reserved either side of a match for set up/set down, so that's 75 right there.
Except of course you then have to consider that the TV companies might want to move your home game to any of Friday to Monday, which means you have to reserve Thursday through Tuesday Possibly 21 times a season, which is 126 days. And of course you can't use it on the Wednesday because an event needs at least a day to set up and set down.
And if you're in Europe you're taking Wednesdays out anyway to accommodate Thursday matches.
Plus it takes a week to move from football mode to full stadium mode, and vice versa. So little or no chance of non-football type events during the football season.
I think therefore it's right to challenge the guys at WHU when they bullshit. But the argument has always been with LLDC.
Gavros, are you a SHILL? Are West Ham, or a PR company employed by West Ham, paying you?
geoengineeringwatch.org/dispelling-internet-disinformation-tactics-debunking-the-debunkers/
By the "committee" I assume you mean the LLDC. It is not a committee, it calls itself a corporation, which is vaguely absurd, but anyway it reports directly to the GLA and the Local Government Ministry. It is directly accountable to us as citizens and taxpayers, and for that reason is subject to the Freedom of Information Law.
It is very difficult for me and my colleagues to 'target' the three people you name. How would we do that? What would we do? What we can do, is uncover the facts about the deal. That has taken two years, but we have now done that. Now we have to point out exactly how bad the deal is. It will then be for the wider public to determine which politicians should be held to account. Personally, while I would not disagree with the names of the three you mention, the absence from your list of Boris Johnson is absolutely baffling.
However the contract - the one which enables West Ham to fling cheap tickets all round our South- East London and Kent catchment area - was railroaded through and signed off by Johnson. That is why CAST went after it originally, and why I believe you as a Charlton supporter should expect him to be the first politician we hold to account.
That I don't like the slimy fat American lizard is neither here nor there :-)
Of course this could all be paranoid bollocks but I reckon you'd know more about that than me.
The real individuals that are culpable here for me and I guess everyone else you think are wide of the mark are those made the commitment to an Athletics legacy with little thought of how that could realistically be sustained whilst making the incredible decision not to factor in any other post conversion use into the stadium design for anything other than athletics something that if done I am pretty sure would have put the venue it a far better position post-Olympics to get the Taxpayer a quicker return for it's investment.
Instead in my eyes everyone seems to be chasing those who are trying to solve a problem because they don't like the answer whilst allowing those who created it disappear off into the sunset without a question asked, which for me seems to me to be a pretty bizarre scenario if this all about what it best for the Taxpayer as being the motivation for these actions.
Those who created the situation, baked gavros cake if you like, are being questioned, and will be.
As for the issue of whether or not to transform it in the way that was done, some LLDC document (I haven't got time currently to search for it) mention a CBA that was done comparing the original 25k transformation to this one over a 25 year period, with this one representing greater taxpayer benefit, hence justifying the extra costs and the work subsequently done. It's probably out of bounds of FOI but that would be a useful document to get your hands on.
That said, it's been said all along that the primary issues are transparency for the tax payer and fair competition. The latter brings football into play, but of course no one could be certain of it without the former.
In my view it's always been in everyone's interests for this to have been done transparently, and I think Gavin would agree with that too. I understand why West Ham might fight shy of it, they operate in a private commercial world, but the LLDC has no such excuse.
No one is opposed to WHU playing at the OS and it's more than reasonable to argue that a commercial threat would exist anyway. But the extent of what the contract reveals to be state money propping this deal up should concern us all.
I'm not even opposed to WHU getting a good deal as being part of the solution. But the LLDC's forecasts for the next three years show big losses and a big funding requirement that will add millions to the headline £272m.
As a football fan I'm outraged, but as a taxpayer I'm apoplectic at this waste of our money through poor commercial acumen at very best but much more likely political, let's say, expediency.
The first point is that I am not convinced that a stand alone athletics stadium even with a 25,000 capacity would be sustainable in this country, Athletics simply outside of a few not too frequent major world events (which would demand a bigger capacity) has no history of being a spectator sport to generate the kind of income to maintain a top class facility throughout the year, experiences around the world and even in this country do nothing to disprove the belief that Athletics Stadium unless used for something else quickly become a drain on resources and the problem they face is how unsuitable for other spectator sports thanks to the running track.
The second point is that I thought it was understood that the stadium was basically designed for The Olympics and no matter what the legacy was there was always going to be substantial and expensive conversion costs, for example the roof and floodlights were always to be removed and replaced at a not insignificant cost so can I ask who was you expecting to be meeting these costs?
In the ideal world the post games scenario you have wish for would be happening but sadly in the real world it can't happen and once legacy promises were made the design of stadium should have been made to include easy conversion to self financing post games use. The inexcusable decision to ignore this is mainly why we are were we are now leaving only two real choices they were to go back on the promise and pull the whole thing down or do what the LLDC have tried to do, ignore these choices I would have bet my life we would be left with something that was a far bigger drain on the public purse than we have now for many years to come until someone decides to take action and finally goes back and make one of those two choices.
Those who decided to leave the country with a legacy and a flawed stadium to fulfil it are the people who should be being made accountable by the press at this time not the LLDC unless there is proof of corruption while they try to make the best of this situation.