Phones not allowed in session so hard to update. Morning session was open and both sides put their key points across before Prague got his chance. The boy did well. Hard to tell, not least because we are biased, but it seemed to me that the ICO and Richard won the opening skirmishes on points. They kicked us out for the closed session and told us to be back at 2.15 when we were then told it would go on substantially longer. I exited at that point and now on train home. I suspect that it is what is said in the closed session that will be decisive.
Most of all though, very proud of @PragueAddick for his work on this. You would not believe the huge bundles of documents being worked through, and the level of detail involved. Daunting for anyone. Well done Richard.
Davo55 has said it all. The closed session was extended by an hour and a quarter which mad it longer than the open session by the time I left. The West Ham angle was being downplayed by the LLDC side and they were going on about the range of commercial interests they want to attract. The LLDC wanted to have the closed session first which was opposed and disallowed. Prague has done a genuinely superb job on this, very much a case of putting the effort in, and I simply can't see how this appeal can succeed...remember they have already lost, and from what I can tell they have a very fragile case to have the original decision overturned. If the full facts come out my betting that the embarrassment factor for the LLDC will emerge as the real reason for redaction, not commercial sensitivities.
Another day to be set to finalise hearing. Delaying tactics rule supreme. Richard superb.
No resolution today?
Did you speak to the FOI people about how the secret part went?
We got an agreed written statement read out. Nothing of note just waffle. Agreed to release hospitality details which are are already public!
IOC barrister told Richard secret session was mostly her cross examining LLDC and not to read it negatively.
Quote of the day from one of the Tribunal judges to LLDC witness "are you saying your commercial department are so weedy they will be turned over in any negotiations?"
Another day to be set to finalise hearing. Delaying tactics rule supreme. Richard superb.
No resolution today?
Did you speak to the FOI people about how the secret part went?
We got an agreed written statement read out. Nothing of note just waffle. Agreed to release hospitality details which are are already public!
IOC barrister told Richard secret session was mostly her cross examining LLDC and not to read it negatively.
Quote of the day from one of the Tribunal judges to LLDC witness "are you saying your commercial department are so weedy they will be turned over in any negotiations?"
Barry Hearn famously said he wouldn't trust them to run a newsagents. I think he has a point.
Another day to be set to finalise hearing. Delaying tactics rule supreme. Richard superb.
No resolution today?
Did you speak to the FOI people about how the secret part went?
We got an agreed written statement read out. Nothing of note just waffle. Agreed to release hospitality details which are are already public!
IOC barrister told Richard secret session was mostly her cross examining LLDC and not to read it negatively.
Quote of the day from one of the Tribunal judges to LLDC witness "are you saying your commercial department are so weedy they will be turned over in any negotiations?"
Perhaps they need some negotiation training from the lovely Lady Brady!! I'm sure she wouldn't charge much!!
Not long back, so still collecting my thoughts. Bit of a rollercoaster. In football terms it feels a bit like Doncaster must have felt after that abandoned game at The Valley. The proceedings only got under way at 10.30, the open session concluded at just before 12.30 and we were only allowed back in at 4.30 to learn that of course the session could not conclude today and a new session would need to be arranged. While we were waiting outside before the 4.30 recall, the LLDC side came out and all of us instantly agreed that they had very smug looks- this sent our group into something close to despair. However after we were recalled and the Judge outlined the need for a further session, I spoke to the ICO lawyer and she assured me that nothing negative should be assumed. Most of the time, she said, was taken up with her questions of the LLDC (and not, as I had feared, LLDC filibustering). She seemed to be quietly confident.
The remarkable thing was that there is only one witness for the LLDC side, and she is the Finance Director. Before very long, I started to feel sorry for her. She has only been in the position since the turn of 2015, and clearly is not a commercial/marketing person. Several times one of the Tribunal people had to point out to her that she had not answered the question. Why field her, and not the CEO of that rabble? Where was Brady and anyone else from West Ham? the commercial director of Vinci/LS185? The most senior commercial person from E20 (allegedly an entity which would suffer commercial damage, but currently boasting only two employees)? I haven't yet had the chance to make that explicit point, but the Tribunal people have, I am sure already picked it up.
It is indeed really amazing that suddenly the LLDC have really dropped the emphasis on West Ham as the harmed entity. I asked her about that, and she pretty much seemed to say that West Ham's previous "robust" objections have been rowed back - but did not explain why.
She also seemed to accept our evidence whereby by modelling how Spurs would have used the OS this season so far, 71 days would have had to be reserved just up until Christmas for football usage - whereas the LLDC told the EC they have it for 75 days a year, and Sullivan claimed there are 340 spare days when the LLDC can rent it out. In short, they have misled the public on this point. We have also sown the seeds of doubt about whether West Ham have an effective veto over other clubs (not just footie) usage.
I did manage to get a late goal just before the ref abandoned the match. After the Judge explained why we would have to return, I pointed out that while I understand and accept what had happened, this latest delay was at a piece with the delays that had marked every single part of the FOI process from the day I submitted the question. The two lay judges showed distinct signs of readily accepting that point.
Thanks to all the Lifers who attended for their support. It definitely felt like a home game.
Prague, on behalf of us all well done. You make the point about being expensive for us. I, and am sure many more, would gladly chip in. How are the costs being funded?
Prague, on behalf of us all well done. You make the point about being expensive for us. I, and am sure many more, would gladly chip in. How are the costs being funded?
The cost of the Tribunal and indeed the LLDC's expensive legal advice (£21,000 ) is met by you, the taxpayer.
My costs, don't worry about it. I need to come home and see my ageing Mum, and can park the travel costs as a business expense.
So when the LLDC rep says that "negotiations are very difficult if you've got an anchor", I assume she means if you've given a ludicrously advantageous deal to the anchor tenant?
Comments
I blame @Redmidland
Richard won't flag in the 2nd half !
Or were East Kent Addicks taking notes ;-)
Good to see @seth plum there and also to meet @Blucher and @Dippenhall there.
Most of all though, very proud of @PragueAddick for his work on this. You would not believe the huge bundles of documents being worked through, and the level of detail involved. Daunting for anyone. Well done Richard.
The LLDC wanted to have the closed session first which was opposed and disallowed.
Prague has done a genuinely superb job on this, very much a case of putting the effort in, and I simply can't see how this appeal can succeed...remember they have already lost, and from what I can tell they have a very fragile case to have the original decision overturned.
If the full facts come out my betting that the embarrassment factor for the LLDC will emerge as the real reason for redaction, not commercial sensitivities.
thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/6885415/West-Ham-do-NOT-have-final-say-over-sharing-Olympic-Stadium-with-another-club.html
Much squirming because WHU have the power of veto by exercising consents/agreements but no specific veto.
Interpret as you choose. WHU prefer one interpretation LLDC another.
Did you speak to the FOI people about how the secret part went?
IOC barrister told Richard secret session was mostly her cross examining LLDC and not to read it negatively.
Quote of the day from one of the Tribunal judges to LLDC witness "are you saying your commercial department are so weedy they will be turned over in any negotiations?"
Yet one of her "customers" finds it relevant to spend all this time doing such great work!!!
Surely this should be part of any bullet points for why we want them out!!!
Well done to all involved!!!
Well done Prague!
Not long back, so still collecting my thoughts. Bit of a rollercoaster. In football terms it feels a bit like Doncaster must have felt after that abandoned game at The Valley. The proceedings only got under way at 10.30, the open session concluded at just before 12.30 and we were only allowed back in at 4.30 to learn that of course the session could not conclude today and a new session would need to be arranged. While we were waiting outside before the 4.30 recall, the LLDC side came out and all of us instantly agreed that they had very smug looks- this sent our group into something close to despair. However after we were recalled and the Judge outlined the need for a further session, I spoke to the ICO lawyer and she assured me that nothing negative should be assumed. Most of the time, she said, was taken up with her questions of the LLDC (and not, as I had feared, LLDC filibustering). She seemed to be quietly confident.
The remarkable thing was that there is only one witness for the LLDC side, and she is the Finance Director. Before very long, I started to feel sorry for her. She has only been in the position since the turn of 2015, and clearly is not a commercial/marketing person. Several times one of the Tribunal people had to point out to her that she had not answered the question. Why field her, and not the CEO of that rabble? Where was Brady and anyone else from West Ham? the commercial director of Vinci/LS185? The most senior commercial person from E20 (allegedly an entity which would suffer commercial damage, but currently boasting only two employees)? I haven't yet had the chance to make that explicit point, but the Tribunal people have, I am sure already picked it up.
It is indeed really amazing that suddenly the LLDC have really dropped the emphasis on West Ham as the harmed entity. I asked her about that, and she pretty much seemed to say that West Ham's previous "robust" objections have been rowed back - but did not explain why.
She also seemed to accept our evidence whereby by modelling how Spurs would have used the OS this season so far, 71 days would have had to be reserved just up until Christmas for football usage - whereas the LLDC told the EC they have it for 75 days a year, and Sullivan claimed there are 340 spare days when the LLDC can rent it out. In short, they have misled the public on this point. We have also sown the seeds of doubt about whether West Ham have an effective veto over other clubs (not just footie) usage.
I did manage to get a late goal just before the ref abandoned the match. After the Judge explained why we would have to return, I pointed out that while I understand and accept what had happened, this latest delay was at a piece with the delays that had marked every single part of the FOI process from the day I submitted the question. The two lay judges showed distinct signs of readily accepting that point.
Thanks to all the Lifers who attended for their support. It definitely felt like a home game.
My costs, don't worry about it. I need to come home and see my ageing Mum, and can park the travel costs as a business expense.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jan/25/west-ham-face-possibility-of-groundsharing-at-olympic-stadium