Olympic Stadium; our day in court
Comments
-
That article has changed names on my phone to West Ham deny groundshare0
-
Well done Prague, I'm sure you must be frustrated right now, but it's a great thing you are doing.3
-
...and they oblige you to return! The bloody tribunal ought to pay, they weren't exactly punctual I seem to remember.PragueAddick said:
The cost of the Tribunal and indeed the LLDC's expensive legal advice (£21,000 ) is met by you, the taxpayer.redman said: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?
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.
The 3.30 resumption of the public session becomes 4.30 so the closed session was way longer than the open one, which is ironic seeing as how the whole malarkey is about open disclosure of stuff. I believe the LLDC side were interested in muddy waters (not the Blues man!) and delay, and creating confusion over documents and such.
There was a great moment when the LLDC lawyer woman asked Geraldine Murphy (the LLDC witness) a question, and then stopped her from answering it with a frantic flap of her hand as it might reveal that which may not be revealed!
So the LLDC side did not allow themselves to answer the questions they asked themselves! The Judge Judy lady pounced on that pretty quickly.
Richard you made telling points in open session about the hiding of who pays police costs, and who gets the dough from the executive boxes.
I also thought the LLDC who began by banging on about creating legacy, businesses, environmental improvements and jobs by having a 'premier league' club as the central flagship, they have obviously never heard of relegation like the Venkys, and given this is a 99 year agreement, then relegation is a clear, well a clear likelihood some time, not just a possibility. What that means to them in terms of 'legacy' remains to be seen. I take legacy to mean something Brady, or Boris, or Lord Coe, or even the saintly (!) Baroness Tanni-Grey Thompson can claim for themselves, even though we have paid for it all.
The LLDC lady also said that West Ham do not have a veto regarding other football clubs there, and went as far as to say she hoped her commercial people were chasing Tottenham and Chelsea to play there during their ground development, then the West Ham veto thing was obfuscated by her insisting that Tottenham/Chelsea, West Ham and the Premier League would have to agree and co-operate with each other.
If the LLDC win this appeal it will feel like a referee disallowing a goal that was a metre over the line before a desperate defender hoofs it clear.
11 -
That indeed is the headline in the article.Mackle said:That article has changed names on my phone to West Ham deny groundshare
It is interesting because it shows the LLDC and West Ham are at loggerheads over this.I thought the Guardian were just referring to Brady's earlier comments (which I read out in court) but it seems they got an update from them today. All good stuff.
5 -
Well done today Prague.
It really doesn't sound like LLDC made much of a fist of it. I would be interested to see whether they might attempt to bring another witness for the remainder of the hearing.
From the Guardian report it appears that any alleged commercial damage is very nebulous - the requirement under EIR is that there would be, or would be likely to be, damage to the commercial interests of LLDC or others. Vague references to potential losses are unlikely to persuade the Tribunal - I'd expected the LLDC to be a bit more organised...
As I said, well done.1 -
Well done Richard.
What does your best friend Barry Hearne think about today ?
;-)7 -
I'll ask him at the darts :-)Miserableoldgit said:Well done Richard.
What does your best friend Barry Hearne think about today ?
;-)
7 -
Only one word for Prague's brilliant efforts , apart from thanks on behalf of all football fans.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T.15 -
Procedurally I don't think they can. It won't be a new hearing. They can only finish today's agenda.NornIrishAddick said:Well done today Prague.
It really doesn't sound like LLDC made much of a fist of it. I would be interested to see whether they might attempt to bring another witness for the remainder of the hearing.
From the Guardian report it appears that any alleged commercial damage is very nebulous - the requirement under EIR is that there would be, or would be likely to be, damage to the commercial interests of LLDC or others. Vague references to potential losses are unlikely to persuade the Tribunal - I'd expected the LLDC to be a bit more organised...
As I said, well done.
1 -
I am a bit unclear as to what a good result is here. Is it embarrassing disclosure of behind the scenes deals leading to embarrassment of those involved, if so very good.
Is there any real possibility of preventing the Hammers from taking the ground built by public money and getting a massive boost up unfairly and contrary to EU state aid provisions?
Or is it too complicated to say...
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
I hope you're right, because everything I've seen today indicates that they selected the wrong person. I would really have expected them to put forward someone actually involved in negotiating the contracts...PragueAddick said:
Procedurally I don't think they can. It won't be a new hearing. They can only finish today's agenda.NornIrishAddick said:Well done today Prague.
It really doesn't sound like LLDC made much of a fist of it. I would be interested to see whether they might attempt to bring another witness for the remainder of the hearing.
From the Guardian report it appears that any alleged commercial damage is very nebulous - the requirement under EIR is that there would be, or would be likely to be, damage to the commercial interests of LLDC or others. Vague references to potential losses are unlikely to persuade the Tribunal - I'd expected the LLDC to be a bit more organised...
As I said, well done.
Mind you, almost everything I've read has been on here (not that we'd have a bias).
Fingers' crossed.0 -
It has never been our position that we want to stop West Ham playing there. They are welcome to it. We simply want them to pay more, and the taxpayer to pay less. That is achievable by more than one route, including the possibility that a new State Aid complaint could be made to the European Commission.Alwaysneil said:I am a bit unclear as to what a good result is here. Is it embarrassing disclosure of behind the scenes deals leading to embarrassment of those involved, if so very good.
Is there any real possibility of preventing the Hammers from taking the ground built by public money and getting a massive boost up unfairly and contrary to EU state aid provisions?
Or is it too complicated to say...
Which reminds me @TelMc32 , the lawyer from Mishcon was there today as a very interested observer. A very genial chap he is too. He of course did not want tosay what his exact interest was but he was very happy to allow us to believe it is serious. And someone has to pay for his several hours spent there.
3 -
Good evening gents. Well I guess many of you had an interesting day out. God knows why you'd think I'd bother myself with attending such a non-event. After all, even if this finds in favour of the FOI declaration the LLDC will simply take it to the upper chamber to delay further while they complete the naming rights deal and negotiate with Spurs (I think anyone would have to be very silly to think that David Levy would not try to see what he could get out of this). That comment by Murphy "In any commercial negotiation, it’s very difficult if you’ve got an anchor” relates exactly to that, I'll wager, and nothing to do with West Ham.
As for hoping that West Ham are trying to claim they have a veto, that has been rubbished for months. It was just stupid bragging by Brady in her Sun column, which was immediately quashed by David Sullivan (see thfclatest.com/2014/11/04/spurs-to-play-in-olympic-stadium/. "Speaking on Sky Sports News, David Sullivan admitted that West Ham can only prevent another club using the Olympic Stadium during the Hammers inaugural season of 2016/17". Even so, with the IAAF World Championships taking place up until early August in 2017, and the Premier League season likely to start early because of the timing of the 2018, a share may not be logistically possible in any case. Levy of course knows that there is no veto (see below) but remains hell bent on Wembley with Stadium MK as second choice, despite the desire of the Tottenham Hotspur Supporters Club wishes to remain in London.
Furthermore, the un-redacted parts of the contract made clear the process by which West Ham can try to stop a share; in that case, it goes to an 'external adjudicator' who will determine whether the use would materially affect the pitch. With lots of rugby and football teams already happily sharing using the Desso grass system, any such complaint would be easily thrown out. I would have thought you all would have known this having read the thing.
Anyway, i'm glad you feel good for your 'victory' today. All the best.3 -
Well done Prague, and also those that were able to support you at the hearing.1
-
gavros nothing was won today. The secret document may yet remain secret. Thanks for your gracious contribution though.10
-
It's actually very rare to find anyone appealing to the Upper Tribunal, you generally have to demonstrate that the First Tier Tribunal has made an error in law. There is only a 28 day window in which to make a decision to appeal (you can also ask the Tribunal to reconsider if you believe they were factually wrong - but good luck with that one).gavros said:Good evening gents. Well I guess many of you had an interesting day out. God knows why you'd think I'd bother myself with attending such a non-event. After all, even if this finds in favour of the FOI declaration the LLDC will simply take it to the upper chamber to delay further while they complete the naming rights deal and negotiate with Spurs (I think anyone would have to be very silly to think that David Levy would not try to see what he could get out of this). That comment by Murphy "In any commercial negotiation, it’s very difficult if you’ve got an anchor” relates exactly to that, I'll wager, and nothing to do with West Ham.
As for hoping that West Ham are trying to claim they have a veto, that has been rubbished for months. It was just stupid bragging by Brady in her Sun column, which was immediately quashed by David Sullivan (see thfclatest.com/2014/11/04/spurs-to-play-in-olympic-stadium/. "Speaking on Sky Sports News, David Sullivan admitted that West Ham can only prevent another club using the Olympic Stadium during the Hammers inaugural season of 2016/17". Even so, with the IAAF World Championships taking place up until early August in 2017, and the Premier League season likely to start early because of the timing of the 2018, a share may not be logistically possible in any case. Levy of course knows that there is no veto (see below) but remains hell bent on Wembley with Stadium MK as second choice, despite the desire of the Tottenham Hotspur Supporters Club wishes to remain in London.
Furthermore, the un-redacted parts of the contract made clear the process by which West Ham can try to stop a share; in that case, it goes to an 'external adjudicator' who will determine whether the use would materially affect the pitch. With lots of rugby and football teams already happily sharing using the Desso grass system, any such complaint would be easily thrown out. I would have thought you all would have known this having read the thing.
Anyway, i'm glad you feel good for your 'victory' today. All the best.
LLDC will also find life more difficult, in terms of Parliamentary scrutiny, if they engage in a vexatious appeal.
In any event, it's not actually an anti-West Ham thing, it's all about transparency and accountability in public expenditure.22 -
Thanks Prague, sorry I wasn't very precise, what I meant by West Ham taking the ground more or less for free was as you stated, they get a massive ground, paid for by the taxpayer, on overly favourable terms which gives them an unfair advantage over everyone else.PragueAddick said:
It has never been our position that we want to stop West Ham playing there. They are welcome to it. We simply want them to pay more, and the taxpayer to pay less. That is achievable by more than one route, including the possibility that a new State Aid complaint could be made to the European Commission.Alwaysneil said:I am a bit unclear as to what a good result is here. Is it embarrassing disclosure of behind the scenes deals leading to embarrassment of those involved, if so very good.
Is there any real possibility of preventing the Hammers from taking the ground built by public money and getting a massive boost up unfairly and contrary to EU state aid provisions?
Or is it too complicated to say...
Which reminds me @TelMc32 , the lawyer from Mishcon was there today as a very interested observer. A very genial chap he is too. He of course did not want tosay what his exact interest was but he was very happy to allow us to believe it is serious. And someone has to pay for his several hours spent there.
I wasn't sure how the action today, even if successful, could prevent that from happening. I guess this is about finding the information that can then assess if there are further actions that can be taken rather than this being the final action? That was what I was asking.
A good result would be disclosure of information that allows future actions which could ensure West Ham pay a market price for the facility.0 -
Well at least we agree in one sense that publication in full is the right and fair course of action. It will, I am quite confident, exonerate West Ham in terms of contribution to stadium revenues, and then all those dummies can go go back to where they came from.
With the stadium naming rights partner now close to being announced there is only one key interested player who'd like to see the contract published immediately, and it's good to hear that Prague retains such cordiality with their agents.0 -
.
Still trying to push that line that Prague is too stupid to realise he's being used by Spurs then I see. And you know where you can shove your digs about people spitting their dummies out too.gavros said:Well at least we agree in one sense that publication in full is the right and fair course of action. It will, I am quite confident, exonerate West Ham in terms of contribution to stadium revenues, and then all those dummies can go go back to where they came from.
With the stadium naming rights partner now close to being announced there is only one key interested player who'd like to see the contract published immediately, and it's good to hear that Prague retains such cordiality with their agents.6 -
The sun article link is here now:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/apple_news/6885724/West-Ham-do-NOT-have-final-say-over-sharing-Olympic-Stadium-with-another-club.html
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Snooker him in a corner until he answers.PragueAddick said:
I'll ask him at the darts :-)Miserableoldgit said:Well done Richard.
What does your best friend Barry Hearne think about today ?
;-)2 -
So in total, the taxpayer is paying roughly:PragueAddick said:
The cost of the Tribunal and indeed the LLDC's expensive legal advice (£21,000 ) is met by you, the taxpayer.redman said: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?
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.
£1,100,021,0000 -
Gavros, is this naming rights deal that is close the one from about a year ago?
1 -
It would be "exoneration" of LLDC, not West Ham. Brady has stitched up the LLDC big time, that was her job. The dummies were those who allowed it and let politics determine the outcome, not the interests of taxpayers.gavros said:Well at least we agree in one sense that publication in full is the right and fair course of action. It will, I am quite confident, exonerate West Ham in terms of contribution to stadium revenues, and then all those dummies can go go back to where they came from.
With the stadium naming rights partner now close to being announced there is only one key interested player who'd like to see the contract published immediately, and it's good to hear that Prague retains such cordiality with their agents.
The veto issue is just symptomatic of the stitch up. Brady managed to include wording that isn't exactly a veto in name, but powers to withhold agreement and frustrate powers of the LLDC, like LLDC having to get WH approval to every event calandar.
LLDC prefer to explain there is no veto, which is technically correct if naive.
The OS seems to many, to all intents and purposes, the WH stadium subsidised by the taxpayer.
It is also a brilliant deal for the WH shareholders which they would prefer to keep out of the public domain.
The FOI request is a legitimate exercise of democratic powers given to plebs to ensure accountability of our elected and unelected public servants.
Only those with something to hide, or fear the consequences of a State aid claim to the EU will object.
If the appeal fails and the facts do not support what WH and LLDC have been claiming, it wil show WH were prepared to push LLDC beyond what was prudent, given the risk of a successful State aid claim to the EU.
If this goes pear shaped for WH the blame sits with Brady and her co shareholders who put the quest to make a killing for the shareholders above every other consideration.
Part of the closed session yesterday was to defend redaction of the WH shareholding terms. Why is that so sensitive for LLDC? It isn't, it's more likely about what Brady wouldn't like WH fans to know.
14 -
The judge yesterday confirmed that all documents and aural evidence from yesterday are in the public domain (although sadly there will be no transcript).
I therefore present for your amusement West Ham's desperate attempt to smear and pigeonhole my complaint in tribal football terms. Unfortunately it seems they do not consult with @gavros, who continues to suppose that the "trouble" is all directed from White Hart Lane.
There is a document in the bundle which I had not seen before (because the LLDC didn't want me to, but the ICO thought I should). It is a letter from lawyers acting for West Ham called Gateleys. It was written on 1st December 2014. It says
"The motives of the Complainant are relevant. WHU is deeply suspicious of the motives of the Complainant, and WHU believe he has an association with Leyton Orient, an unsuccessful bidder in the tender process. He is requesting access to commercial information which would be of competitive advantage to the club with which he is associated....the public debate has long since concluded. The motives of the individual making the request are therefore difficult for WHU to fathom. WHU is frankly suspicious of this Request....It is difficult to fathom how the decision made by LLDC affects the life of the Complainant. Leyton Orient remain at their home ground, Brisbane Road. WHU will relocate a short distance from its current home ground at Upton Park."
So there you have it. The Baroness assumed I'm a darts companion of Barry Hearn. She must have been quite surprised when the BBC doc appeared 9 months later. Poor lamb.
For the avoidance of doubt, particularly in gavros' fevered brain, I have never met Barry Hearn in my life, and cannot hit a dartboard from 5 metres. I did however speak to him for the first time just before Christmas, and a most interesting and genial man he is too. He in turn facilitated for me an hour long phone call with another club chairman, but his identity has to remain secret not least because I cannot bring myself to type the name of his club here. It was probably the most bittersweet football conversation i have ever had.
There must be something in the air north of the river. I have always found it a bit claustrophobic. It must mess with their brains.26 -
The difference between this article and that in the Guardian, is that the Guardian journo was actually present at the hearing...:-)I_was_Floyd said:
2 -
in simple terms, at Half-time, what's the score ?0
-
2-0, and while the ref's abandonment was met with concern by the ..er... customers..it was in the cold light of day a reasonable decision.Miserableoldgit said:in simple terms, at Half-time, what's the score ?
The first goal was definitely scored by the ICO counsel, Laura John with her quietly made suggestion that Murphy's witness statement portrayed their negotiating skills as "weedy". A diminutive but lethal striker.
The LLDC centre back, Anya Proops looks and sounds classy, but one centre back cannot hold out if the rest of the line is in total disarray.
6 -
Well, at least we're on familiar ground then!PragueAddick said:The LLDC centre back, Anya Proops looks and sounds classy, but one centre back cannot hold out if the rest of the line is in total disarray.
8 -
So you're an Orient fan who supports Viktoria Plzen and occasionally turns up at The Valley wearing a Swansea scarf.
No wonder the LLDC are confused28
