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.
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.
At what point did you run into the courtroom with a pitchfork to help out?
Dont forget it's up to LLDC to prove that the IC is wrong in rejecting LLDC appeal.
You would have thought that the LLDC brief would have been grilling the Commissioner and Richard to show they are in the wrong. In fact it was LLDC being grilled as to why they are trying to justify such a flimsy argument as commercial sensitivity.
So the statistics are :
Richard's side first
Possession 90% - 10% Shots at goal 20 - 1 Shots on target 20 - 0 Faking injury 0 - 8 Diving in the box 0 - 3 Time wasting 0 - 240 minutes
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.
Good to hear he was there @PragueAddick Just a short walk across Lincolns Inn, so I wouldn't expect any travel expense to be billed!!
I'm seeing them later this week. Nothing to do with this and they and I would certainly never discuss it. But, if they are involved in some aspect, I hope it is on our side in some form or other.
Congratulations again on all your efforts on this. Sounds like the LDDC have scored an OG with their choice, or lack of choice, of representatives.
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.".
Somebody at Gateleys really didn't understand the legislation then...
Unless they were attempting to show that your request was vexatious/manifestly unreasonable they should just have based their argument on whether the information is releasable or not (and in any event it's the request, not the identity of the requester that should be considered).
But apart from that, in the one letter they say you want the information because you will gain a competitive advantage and that its difficult to fathom what your motives must be.
They must be being paid by the word.
None of their comments would indicate anything that would meet a public interest in favour of withholding the information.
So, @PragueAddick , sorry if I've missed this, but is there a date set for the rematch/continuation? Is it to be decided later? And do you have a rough idea how long the wait might be?
So, @PragueAddick , sorry if I've missed this, but is there a date set for the rematch/continuation? Is it to be decided later? And do you have a rough idea how long the wait might be?
Unfortunately not yet. All three judges, counsel for both sides, and I, must agree a date. I can be pretty flexible but they cannot be so much. I think we are looking at 6 weeks minimum. In this sense at least, the LLDC regrettably have a result.
The motives of the complainant are relevant in as much as the complainant is representing us all, and doing a blimmin good job of it.
I really hope there is a way of weaving this letter in to this appeal in order to indicate that the LLDC simply don't know what they're talking about.
The legislation requires public authorities to be both motive and applicant blind. Each request must be handled on its own merits, irrespective of the person making the request (unless repeated, harassing, etc.).
So, @PragueAddick , sorry if I've missed this, but is there a date set for the rematch/continuation? Is it to be decided later? And do you have a rough idea how long the wait might be?
Unfortunately not yet. All three judges, counsel for both sides, and I, must agree a date. I can be pretty flexible but they cannot be so much. I think we are looking at 6 weeks minimum. In this sense at least, the LLDC regrettably have a result.
The motives of the complainant are relevant in as much as the complainant is representing us all, and doing a blimmin good job of it.
I really hope there is a way of weaving this letter in to this appeal in order to indicate that the LLDC simply don't know what they're talking about.
It's in the "bundle" mate. However to be fair I must record that the LLDC dissociated themselves from those remarks in forwarding the letter to the ICO.
So, @PragueAddick , sorry if I've missed this, but is there a date set for the rematch/continuation? Is it to be decided later? And do you have a rough idea how long the wait might be?
Unfortunately not yet. All three judges, counsel for both sides, and I, must agree a date. I can be pretty flexible but they cannot be so much. I think we are looking at 6 weeks minimum. In this sense at least, the LLDC regrettably have a result.
I wonder if this is why their team looked pleased with themselves? I've been suspecting for a while that maybe they're not actually that bothered about losing, just that they can buy enough time to get themselves into a position where it no longer matters? No expertise or insight here, by the way. Pure speculation on my part.
So, @PragueAddick , sorry if I've missed this, but is there a date set for the rematch/continuation? Is it to be decided later? And do you have a rough idea how long the wait might be?
Unfortunately not yet. All three judges, counsel for both sides, and I, must agree a date. I can be pretty flexible but they cannot be so much. I think we are looking at 6 weeks minimum. In this sense at least, the LLDC regrettably have a result.
Were you able to make this point when they turned up late? An adjournment is effectively what they achieved by appealing in the first place, and surely their only objective (they must have given up on actually winning or they would have sent more people).
So, @PragueAddick , sorry if I've missed this, but is there a date set for the rematch/continuation? Is it to be decided later? And do you have a rough idea how long the wait might be?
Unfortunately not yet. All three judges, counsel for both sides, and I, must agree a date. I can be pretty flexible but they cannot be so much. I think we are looking at 6 weeks minimum. In this sense at least, the LLDC regrettably have a result.
I wonder if this is why their team looked pleased with themselves? I've been suspecting for a while that maybe they're not actually that bothered about losing, just that they can buy enough time to get themselves into a position where it no longer matters? No expertise or insight here, by the way. Pure speculation on my part.
Is there any point in time when it 'no longer matters'?
These are 'ifs' of course, but if by viewing the non-redacted contract it can be seen (and subsequently proved in a court of law) that unfair State aid was used then even if Wet Spam are ensconced in the OS by that time the contract could still be overturned, and/or politicians be charged with incompetence/unlawful actions, and/or Wet Spam are required to pay more, and/or their exclusivity as anchor tenants be diluted.
The more they seek to delay the inevitable the more likely they have something to hide. And when it does come out then the consequences they will face for their actions, if they were unlawful, will be prosecuted.
P.S. You have my deepest respect, Richard, for your tenacity, energy and undoubted ability in what you are seeking to achieve here.
I was chatting to a West Ham fan at the weekend and his view was that nothing is going to stop them using the Olympic Stadium because Newham Council need the land the Boleyn is on for housing.
Surely the LLDC delays are going to be detrimental to West Ham. If they are forced to up the rent then West Ham will be in a weaker negotiating position once Upton Park has gone. So whilst West Ham has LLDC over a barrel originally, if it get's the stage where the contract needs to be renegotiated later this year then LLDC will have the strong position of "agree to our terms or have no home". It's possibly why the two parties aren't as chummy now as they once were, there's a good possibility they'll be on opposite sides of the negotiating table soon and LLDC will be keen to prove they're playing fair by bargaining far harder with West Ham.
I was chatting to a West Ham fan at the weekend and his view was that nothing is going to stop them using the Olympic Stadium because Newham Council need the land the Boleyn is on for housing.
It's not about stopping them using the stadium. It's about the taxpayer funding them to do so.
Surely the LLDC delays are going to be detrimental to West Ham. If they are forced to up the rent then West Ham will be in a weaker negotiating position once Upton Park has gone. So whilst West Ham has LLDC over a barrel originally, if it get's the stage where the contract needs to be renegotiated later this year then LLDC will have the strong position of "agree to our terms or have no home". It's possibly why the two parties aren't as chummy now as they once were, there's a good possibility they'll be on opposite sides of the negotiating table soon and LLDC will be keen to prove they're playing fair by bargaining far harder with West Ham.
I think it must at least give West Ham some uncertainty in terms of their budgeting for next season and beyond. If it was my company, I'd want it done and dusted as soon as possible so I would know if my costs were going to increase beyond the agreed contract terms.
Fair play Prague for all your efforts. Be great to see the taxpayers get a result.
Are west ham liable for all upkeep/repair of stadium out of interest?
Actually mate, are you a member of the Lions Trust? It really is a shame that they are the only London Trust that has not joined or pledged support to the Coalition. They are nuts if they think this won't affect Millwall, and anyway it has gone way beyond a local thing. We would be pleased to have them on board.
I was chatting to a West Ham fan at the weekend and his view was that nothing is going to stop them using the Olympic Stadium because Newham Council need the land the Boleyn is on for housing.
Then Newham Council probably need to grow a pair and insist on their own rules of every development having 50% of affordable & social housing.
Gaillard Homes first plans included just 6% of affordable and no social housing.
And despite being picked by WHam due to their local roots, which Lady Brady was keen to trumpet, Gaillard have now signed a joint venture with Barrett Homes (a national rather than local builder) and there are no signs of ANY affordable/social housing yet!
That joint venture should pave the way for Gaillard to float, so not only the Gullivan & Brady bunch will be making a killing out of this deal!
I think it must at least give West Ham some uncertainty in terms of their budgeting for next season and beyond. If it was my company, I'd want it done and dusted as soon as possible so I would know if my costs were going to increase beyond the agreed contract terms.
I was at a meeting with senior people at the club last night and they have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the action being taken. Absolutely no concern whatsoever. Even I was surprised.
I think it must at least give West Ham some uncertainty in terms of their budgeting for next season and beyond. If it was my company, I'd want it done and dusted as soon as possible so I would know if my costs were going to increase beyond the agreed contract terms.
I was at a meeting with senior people at the club last night and they have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the action being taken. Absolutely no concern whatsoever. Even I was surprised.
Well I doubt they'd be telling you even if they did. I imagine they're confident that there will be no fallout for them - although I think that somewhat depends on what's in the contract. The LLDC are doing a great job of delaying the inevitable, but I'm not convinced it's all over yet.
I think it must at least give West Ham some uncertainty in terms of their budgeting for next season and beyond. If it was my company, I'd want it done and dusted as soon as possible so I would know if my costs were going to increase beyond the agreed contract terms.
I was at a meeting with senior people at the club last night and they have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the action being taken. Absolutely no concern whatsoever. Even I was surprised.
I think it must at least give West Ham some uncertainty in terms of their budgeting for next season and beyond. If it was my company, I'd want it done and dusted as soon as possible so I would know if my costs were going to increase beyond the agreed contract terms.
I was at a meeting with senior people at the club last night and they have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the action being taken. Absolutely no concern whatsoever. Even I was surprised.
Comments
You would have thought that the LLDC brief would have been grilling the Commissioner and Richard to show they are in the wrong. In fact it was LLDC being grilled as to why they are trying to justify such a flimsy argument as commercial sensitivity.
So the statistics are :
Richard's side first
Possession 90% - 10%
Shots at goal 20 - 1
Shots on target 20 - 0
Faking injury 0 - 8
Diving in the box 0 - 3
Time wasting 0 - 240 minutes
Referee cautions 0 - 2
I'm seeing them later this week. Nothing to do with this and they and I would certainly never discuss it. But, if they are involved in some aspect, I hope it is on our side in some form or other.
Congratulations again on all your efforts on this. Sounds like the LDDC have scored an OG with their choice, or lack of choice, of representatives.
Keep on keeping on!!
Unless they were attempting to show that your request was vexatious/manifestly unreasonable they should just have based their argument on whether the information is releasable or not (and in any event it's the request, not the identity of the requester that should be considered).
But apart from that, in the one letter they say you want the information because you will gain a competitive advantage and that its difficult to fathom what your motives must be.
They must be being paid by the word.
None of their comments would indicate anything that would meet a public interest in favour of withholding the information.
Well done.
I really hope there is a way of weaving this letter in to this appeal in order to indicate that the LLDC simply don't know what they're talking about.
These are 'ifs' of course, but if by viewing the non-redacted contract it can be seen (and subsequently proved in a court of law) that unfair State aid was used then even if Wet Spam are ensconced in the OS by that time the contract could still be overturned, and/or politicians be charged with incompetence/unlawful actions, and/or Wet Spam are required to pay more, and/or their exclusivity as anchor tenants be diluted.
The more they seek to delay the inevitable the more likely they have something to hide. And when it does come out then the consequences they will face for their actions, if they were unlawful, will be prosecuted.
P.S. You have my deepest respect, Richard, for your tenacity, energy and undoubted ability in what you are seeking to achieve here.
Are west ham liable for all upkeep/repair of stadium out of interest?
Gaillard Homes first plans included just 6% of affordable and no social housing.
And despite being picked by WHam due to their local roots, which Lady Brady was keen to trumpet, Gaillard have now signed a joint venture with Barrett Homes (a national rather than local builder) and there are no signs of ANY affordable/social housing yet!
That joint venture should pave the way for Gaillard to float, so not only the Gullivan & Brady bunch will be making a killing out of this deal!