We had a chat this afternoon. The Coalition had no inkling of the seating story and at first I thought Owen has to have that wrong, it must be a one off £8M; not £8m every year. But a journalist of his calibre checks his facts, and he is sure. This is quite gobsmacking. We know the Amsterdam Arena has a hydraulic retractable system. Given what we know about the overall costs, it seems the entire system cost less than that, and we taxpayers are going to pay this every year???
Together with the loss of the naming rights, this means the stadium will make an operating loss for the foreseeable future, unless of course West Ham are prevailed upon to pay their fair share.
All of a sudden, it all becomes very simple...
I do hope Khan isn't just going to hand the keys over to West Ham at the end of this.
One of the most shocking lines in all of this for me is this: "The soaring cost of the retractable seating, always considered a prerequisite by West Ham if the stadium was to be suitable for football, will now be one of the major focuses for the wide-ranging inquiry ordered by Khan."
This line in itself proves the state aid bit in my view. That's £8m a year just to accommodate West Ham's 'prerequisite' on a £2.5m rental contract. Absolutely astonishing - they wouldn't release it, but the business case for that - which I understand is required for any major stadium works - would surely be explosive.
It might actually be quite difficult to withhold a business case for the retractable seating (provided there is one) if asked for under FOI/EIR - always assuming that LLDC follow the rules.
It would be interesting to see LLDC attempt to make a case for either commercial confidentiality, with the cost in the public domain already, or that the issue remains live. Nor, as the business case is separate from the decision making process, would it be easy to make a coherent claim that safe space/chilling effect arguments to protect that process would come into play.
Of course, it would take time, and the involvement of the ICO, if history is anything to go by.
They rejected my previous request on the basis that it would expose financials that would compromise them in negotiations. I didn't bother to pursue.
We had a chat this afternoon. The Coalition had no inkling of the seating story and at first I thought Owen has to have that wrong, it must be a one off £8M; not £8m every year. But a journalist of his calibre checks his facts, and he is sure. This is quite gobsmacking. We know the Amsterdam Arena has a hydraulic retractable system. Given what we know about the overall costs, it seems the entire system cost less than that, and we taxpayers are going to pay this every year???
Together with the loss of the naming rights, this means the stadium will make an operating loss for the foreseeable future, unless of course West Ham are prevailed upon to pay their fair share.
All of a sudden, it all becomes very simple...
I do hope Khan isn't just going to hand the keys over to West Ham at the end of this.
One of the most shocking lines in all of this for me is this: "The soaring cost of the retractable seating, always considered a prerequisite by West Ham if the stadium was to be suitable for football, will now be one of the major focuses for the wide-ranging inquiry ordered by Khan."
This line in itself proves the state aid bit in my view. That's £8m a year just to accommodate West Ham's 'prerequisite' on a £2.5m rental contract. Absolutely astonishing - they wouldn't release it, but the business case for that - which I understand is required for any major stadium works - would surely be explosive.
It might actually be quite difficult to withhold a business case for the retractable seating (provided there is one) if asked for under FOI/EIR - always assuming that LLDC follow the rules.
It would be interesting to see LLDC attempt to make a case for either commercial confidentiality, with the cost in the public domain already, or that the issue remains live. Nor, as the business case is separate from the decision making process, would it be easy to make a coherent claim that safe space/chilling effect arguments to protect that process would come into play.
Of course, it would take time, and the involvement of the ICO, if history is anything to go by.
They rejected my previous request on the basis that it would expose financials that would compromise them in negotiations. I didn't bother to pursue.
more like financials that would compromise them. Full stop. Resignations shouldn't be an escape for them.
We had a chat this afternoon. The Coalition had no inkling of the seating story and at first I thought Owen has to have that wrong, it must be a one off £8M; not £8m every year. But a journalist of his calibre checks his facts, and he is sure. This is quite gobsmacking. We know the Amsterdam Arena has a hydraulic retractable system. Given what we know about the overall costs, it seems the entire system cost less than that, and we taxpayers are going to pay this every year???
Together with the loss of the naming rights, this means the stadium will make an operating loss for the foreseeable future, unless of course West Ham are prevailed upon to pay their fair share.
All of a sudden, it all becomes very simple...
I do hope Khan isn't just going to hand the keys over to West Ham at the end of this.
One of the most shocking lines in all of this for me is this: "The soaring cost of the retractable seating, always considered a prerequisite by West Ham if the stadium was to be suitable for football, will now be one of the major focuses for the wide-ranging inquiry ordered by Khan."
This line in itself proves the state aid bit in my view. That's £8m a year just to accommodate West Ham's 'prerequisite' on a £2.5m rental contract. Absolutely astonishing - they wouldn't release it, but the business case for that - which I understand is required for any major stadium works - would surely be explosive.
It might actually be quite difficult to withhold a business case for the retractable seating (provided there is one) if asked for under FOI/EIR - always assuming that LLDC follow the rules.
It would be interesting to see LLDC attempt to make a case for either commercial confidentiality, with the cost in the public domain already, or that the issue remains live. Nor, as the business case is separate from the decision making process, would it be easy to make a coherent claim that safe space/chilling effect arguments to protect that process would come into play.
Of course, it would take time, and the involvement of the ICO, if history is anything to go by.
They rejected my previous request on the basis that it would expose financials that would compromise them in negotiations. I didn't bother to pursue.
I'd be interested to see whether they could continue to justify withholding it though, the arguments in favour of exemptions generally diminish over time, and there is a very strong public interest (particularly so, in this case), in placing this information in the public domain - where issues remain live, the information can retain the necessary quality of confidence, but a business case is not the tender documents or the contract, so I would expect that it is less easy to apply the exemption/exception.
My starting point would always be to look at the information for organisations on the ICO website, they do have guidance on looking at exemptions which is really useful - if for no other reason than it provides links to key Information Tribunal rulings.
if it's costing 8m a year to remove/replace the retractable seating and that happens for say the next 25 years, a total cost of 200m in total then why bother with it. just spend the 200m now on a purpose built athletics stadium. after 25 years we'd be in profit.
Why not spend that 8m/year on the facilities at Crystal Palace (not the football one)? That won't happen, for obvious reasons, saving face one of them.
The best outcome for the taxpayers,that I can see realistically viable, is for everyone to walk away from this monumental mess and leave West Ham to it. They do have (or shortly will) the proceeds of their home in their pockets that they could use to do up the housing association property they now find themselves in. I wonder if West Ham have the right to buy their affordable home as a sitting tenant? I don't think they would be entitled to much of a percentage off but I feel they could argue the value is basically just the land and some magic seats that contain "retractable technology ". At least our Olympic facilities have not gone the same way as they have in other countries but the stadium deal is breathtakingly bad. No one would ever write a deal like this one unless for political reasons.
if it's costing 8m a year to remove/replace the retractable seating and that happens for say the next 25 years, a total cost of 200m in total then why bother with it. just spend the 200m now on a purpose built athletics stadium. after 25 years we'd be in profit.
Why not spend that 8m/year on the facilities at Crystal Palace (not the football one)? That won't happen, for obvious reasons, saving face one of them.
The best outcome for the taxpayers,that I can see realistically viable, is for everyone to walk away from this monumental mess and leave West Ham to it. They do have (or shortly will) the proceeds of their home in their pockets that they could use to do up the housing association property they now find themselves in. I wonder if West Ham have the right to buy their affordable home as a sitting tenant? I don't think they would be entitled to much of a percentage off but I feel they could argue the value is basically just the land and some magic seats that contain "retractable technology ". At least our Olympic facilities have not gone the same way as they have in other countries but the stadium deal is breathtakingly bad. No one would ever write a deal like this one unless for political reasons.
Quick update from various strands of the campaign.
Sadiq Khan has basically delivered on our key demand, but we want to make sure that we are able to provide all we have to the investigation. To this end, we have a meeting with Caroline Pidgeon on Dec 6 - unfortunately I will only be able to join in on Skype, but the important thing is to ensure she is all over the operational stuff. Khan's people have also confirmed that they are interested in the operational side as well as the spiralling capital costs.That's good, because we are now able to show that because of the fiasco with the seating, as well as the loss of the naming rights, E20 will be losing at least £5m per annum. That completely destroys the central argument for this deal - that, unlike the athletics stadium, it would not require an ongoing subsidy from the taxpayer, but would pay back the capital costs over time.
Last Thursday I went with fellow campaigner Steve Lawrence to the University of Football Business (who knew this exists?) at Wembley, where we presented the campaign to students. It's the first time I really had the chance to discover just how much Steve knows about this utter fiasco. He's an architect who was working on the Olympic project way back in the earliest days (his timeline of the story starts in 1990) . I sat open-mouthed as he showed us the original plan which envisaged the Park being on the other side of the railway line, and due to other land deals which were available there, McAlpine would have built the OS for free! And there would have been a railway station in the Park. For reasons I must get Steve to explain more, this was rejected by Coe and others. McAlpine were still the chosen contractor for the actual stadium. It is gob-smacking, trust me, and we really need to get this part of the story out there.
Afterwards Steve revealed something else which I had not heard. In early July Mishcon de Reya submitted a formal State Aid complaint. Steve confirmed that their client is a club. And gratifyingly, the EC are reviewing it under the case number of my complaint, which they had kept open, hoping to hear from a club, exactly as they had told the BBC. I asked Steve what sanction the EC could impose on West Ham, since they did not receive the State money directly. He said that they would decide if West Ham are paying a "fair" rent. If not the EC could decide what is fair, and Steve reckons that figure could quite rationally be £30m per year. Think about the implications of that...
Finally the BBC are planning an update on the story to run early Jan in the "Inside Out" slot. So I was back in the Museum on Friday being interviewed (this time properly attired :-)). This time it is a news journo doing it, who does not have any problem taking on all comers. And guess what, the other side, having complained bitterly that they didn't get enough airtime last time, have refused to participate:-)
It's all crumbling faster than the Berlin Wall in 89...
Breathtaking. So many different issues now, any one of which could be a killer blow. For one, the EC must be feeling particularly peevish towards the UK - no mercy !! Thanks so much for this timely update - the Belgian commando raids incl taxi, and now this, are belatedly turning a pretty grim year into a real cracker.
Very interesting fact about McAlpine, I think he stepped down as Tory party Treasurer in 1990, or thereabouts the time of Thatcher's departure,? Did he not get disenchanted with the tory party, and the Major style of Goverment.? Think he joined Goldsmith's referendum party in the end. May well explain a few things,.......but I could not possibly comment?
Confused about the McAlpine deal. Why would they turn down a free stadium? Appreciate it may all be speculation if anyone has any suggestions but I cannot think why they would do it.
Confused about the McAlpine deal. Why would they turn down a free stadium? Appreciate it may all be speculation if anyone has any suggestions but I cannot think why they would do it.
I only now have the chance to go through Steve's prezzie and then will ask him to help me get to grips with questions such as this. But basically to answer your question, it was an entire different plan for the whole Park, of which this deal was just a part, which was rejected. More on this to come but probably better via the media first. I really was gobsmacked, and you'd think by now I would be ungobsmackable about anything to do with this omnishambles. Obviously its a pity that we never got alongside Steve earlier, or that the media haven't talked to him in more detail, but he isn't such a media tart as I am and also lives abroad now, in Amsterdam. His son is an accomplished professional footballer too, playing in Europe with AS Trencin in Slovakia currently, so he is an interesting guy all round.
Am I readng this correctly? If you answer yes to the four questions, it is considered state aid?
Interesting, I'm sure an argument could be made for all four. This will get interesting now.
Unfortunately this isnt the route.
Maybe some will recall that my great OS adventure started with a State Aid complaint. But in the end the EC did not go with an investigation because the State money does not flow directly to West Ham's balance sheet.
They did tell the BBC that they would be interested to hear directly from "competitors", i.e. Other clubs. But by the time a club grows enough balls to hire Mishcon de Reya to makemamcomplaint ( Mishcon are ready and waiting, it seems) we will have left the EU anyway.
Fair enough but, at this stage, the only option is via the EU.
Is there not an option under English Law that we can use? Competition, State Aid post-brexit, unfair contractual bias?
Well the equivalent body is the Competition and Markets Authority, and @Pedro45 in particular was encouraging us to follow that route. However this body does not particularly welcome complaints from private citizens (unlike the EC, I must point out). They basically say that if you send in a complaint and they don't think it measures up to their criteria, they will not even reply. Which frankly is fucking disgraceful. So I didn't bother. But I have always maintained that EU State Aid law is not the only mechanism by which UK citizens can examine whether State funds are being misused. If the CMA is not going to help us, we go directly to politicians. Basically, Sadiq Khan has now taken up this issue in the way we have always wanted a politician to do.
I sent a complaint to the CMA about price fixing in the musical instruments industry a couple of years back, and got some replies, though they did take their time with them. In my case they eventually stated that they are on a tight budget and whilst they could see the problem clearly, there were bigger projects they'd rather pursue. It could be a worthwhile exercise. My issue was relatively small and low key compared to something like this.
Don't get me started on that. Poxy distributors - it's the reason I never bought specific brands when I was playing guitar. I resent having to pay 30% more for something than I would in the US just because they can get away with fixing the market for it over here. Doesn't only happen in the music world though - plenty of tech products are disgustingly marked up here and, if anything, it's even worse in my industry because we have literally no choice other than to use certain products/brands due to compatibility issues or lack of available skilled staff.
Am I readng this correctly? If you answer yes to the four questions, it is considered state aid?
Interesting, I'm sure an argument could be made for all four. This will get interesting now.
Unfortunately this isnt the route.
Maybe some will recall that my great OS adventure started with a State Aid complaint. But in the end the EC did not go with an investigation because the State money does not flow directly to West Ham's balance sheet.
They did tell the BBC that they would be interested to hear directly from "competitors", i.e. Other clubs. But by the time a club grows enough balls to hire Mishcon de Reya to makemamcomplaint ( Mishcon are ready and waiting, it seems) we will have left the EU anyway.
Fair enough but, at this stage, the only option is via the EU.
Is there not an option under English Law that we can use? Competition, State Aid post-brexit, unfair contractual bias?
Well the equivalent body is the Competition and Markets Authority, and @Pedro45 in particular was encouraging us to follow that route. However this body does not particularly welcome complaints from private citizens (unlike the EC, I must point out). They basically say that if you send in a complaint and they don't think it measures up to their criteria, they will not even reply. Which frankly is fucking disgraceful. So I didn't bother. But I have always maintained that EU State Aid law is not the only mechanism by which UK citizens can examine whether State funds are being misused. If the CMA is not going to help us, we go directly to politicians. Basically, Sadiq Khan has now taken up this issue in the way we have always wanted a politician to do.
I sent a complaint to the CMA about price fixing in the musical instruments industry a couple of years back, and got some replies, though they did take their time with them. In my case they eventually stated that they are on a tight budget and whilst they could see the problem clearly, there were bigger projects they'd rather pursue. It could be a worthwhile exercise. My issue was relatively small and low key compared to something like this.
Don't get me started on that. Poxy distributors - it's the reason I never bought specific brands when I was playing guitar. I resent having to pay 30% more for something than I would in the US just because they can get away with fixing the market for it over here. Doesn't only happen in the music world though - plenty of tech products are disgustingly marked up here and, if anything, it's even worse in my industry because we have literally no choice other than to use certain products/brands due to compatibility issues or lack of available skilled staff.
Indeed, it's ridiculous. I focus on the used market these days, far better value. I did have my eye on a Suhr Modern Satin, it was £1600 but after the pound tanked it's gone up to £2k, so I'm keeping my eyes open for a second hand one instead, though with the pickup configuration I want, they don't come up that often.
I like the way the stadium spokesman makes out it will be a result of the mayors inquiry if another £50m is spent on seating
Thanks for posting that Dave. We are still trying to get to the bottom of all this, and this is a new version of the story. It seems really true that the cost of just taking out and putting back the seats with manual labour has somehow gone up to £8m per year (in which case we ought to form a CL consortium to undercut the price and still all get rich :-)) so I presume that this £50m would be spent on installing a hydraulic system (as used in Singapore) which long term would be cheaper than £8m per year obviously. But even so the whole thing with the seats is the most hideous cock-up.
Note also that no one now pretends that anything other than West Ham will take place throughout the season there. That drives a coach and horses through the central "profitability" story that this contract was built on.
Also going back to the story which Steve Lawrence has highlighted, that the stadium could have been built for free. I asked him if he can explain a bit more. Here is is his reply
The McAlpine thing came about when I arranged for Richard Rogers and Bill McAlpine to meet over a BOOT proposal for the stadium (Build, Own, Operate, Transfer). It's a kind of public/private partnership proposition which allows private funding of public projects on the basis of future revenue. It culminated in Lord Rogers writing to Tony Blair - see letter attached - I don't know what Blair's response was or indeed if Tessa Jowell took it seriously.
Bill McAlpine was friend and I was the chair of a trust which he was a board member of - we discussed the project on and off over a couple of years and naturally he was interested in it. I got to know Richard Rogers because I was a member of the Olympic Village Working Group from 2000-2003. The idea of a BOOT project with a private consortium funded from the revenue stream from 2 anchor tenant football clubs was to allow a commitment to the stadium irrespective of winning the bid for the Olympics - it took any risk out of the project for the government.
So basically it depended on probably West Ham and Spurs being co-tenants, but McAlpines- and not the taxpayer entity LLDC - would have run the thing. And it would have been a proper footie stadium. Looks like a no-brainer, once you brought Daniel Levy into line, which of course is no small thing.
Also going back to the story which Steve Lawrence has highlighted, that the stadium could have been built for free. I asked him if he can explain a bit more. Here is is his reply
The McAlpine thing came about when I arranged for Richard Rogers and Bill McAlpine to meet over a BOOT proposal for the stadium (Build, Own, Operate, Transfer). It's a kind of public/private partnership proposition which allows private funding of public projects on the basis of future revenue. It culminated in Lord Rogers writing to Tony Blair - see letter attached - I don't know what Blair's response was or indeed if Tessa Jowell took it seriously.
Bill McAlpine was friend and I was the chair of a trust which he was a board member of - we discussed the project on and off over a couple of years and naturally he was interested in it. I got to know Richard Rogers because I was a member of the Olympic Village Working Group from 2000-2003. The idea of a BOOT project with a private consortium funded from the revenue stream from 2 anchor tenant football clubs was to allow a commitment to the stadium irrespective of winning the bid for the Olympics - it took any risk out of the project for the government.
So basically it depended on probably West Ham and Spurs being co-tenants, but McAlpines- and not the taxpayer entity LLDC - would have run the thing. And it would have been a proper footie stadium. Looks like a no-brainer, once you brought Daniel Levy into line, which of course is no small thing.
It seems like a no-brainer now, with the advantage of hindsight. I don't think many PL clubs would have been keen on a tenancy, let alone a co-tenancy, in those days. Their fans would have liked it even less. And not many people would have predicted the obscene rise in PL profitability and power to quite the level it is at today, when it overrides all other considerations.
Also going back to the story which Steve Lawrence has highlighted, that the stadium could have been built for free. I asked him if he can explain a bit more. Here is is his reply
The McAlpine thing came about when I arranged for Richard Rogers and Bill McAlpine to meet over a BOOT proposal for the stadium (Build, Own, Operate, Transfer). It's a kind of public/private partnership proposition which allows private funding of public projects on the basis of future revenue. It culminated in Lord Rogers writing to Tony Blair - see letter attached - I don't know what Blair's response was or indeed if Tessa Jowell took it seriously.
Bill McAlpine was friend and I was the chair of a trust which he was a board member of - we discussed the project on and off over a couple of years and naturally he was interested in it. I got to know Richard Rogers because I was a member of the Olympic Village Working Group from 2000-2003. The idea of a BOOT project with a private consortium funded from the revenue stream from 2 anchor tenant football clubs was to allow a commitment to the stadium irrespective of winning the bid for the Olympics - it took any risk out of the project for the government.
So basically it depended on probably West Ham and Spurs being co-tenants, but McAlpines- and not the taxpayer entity LLDC - would have run the thing. And it would have been a proper footie stadium. Looks like a no-brainer, once you brought Daniel Levy into line, which of course is no small thing.
It's Orient's home turf so maybe they were thinking that for 'political' reasons at the outset the two anchor tenants would have been Orient and one other which could have been West Ham or Spurs or even at at really wild guess a little south London club that was in the PL at the time and needed a bigger stadium and put its own ground expansion on hold ?
Comments
My starting point would always be to look at the information for organisations on the ICO website, they do have guidance on looking at exemptions which is really useful - if for no other reason than it provides links to key Information Tribunal rulings.
The best outcome for the taxpayers,that I can see realistically viable, is for everyone to walk away from this monumental mess and leave West Ham to it.
They do have (or shortly will) the proceeds of their home in their pockets that they could use to do up the housing association property they now find themselves in.
I wonder if West Ham have the right to buy their affordable home as a sitting tenant? I don't think they would be entitled to much of a percentage off but I feel they could argue the value is basically just the land and some magic seats that contain "retractable technology ".
At least our Olympic facilities have not gone the same way as they have in other countries but the stadium deal is breathtakingly bad. No one would ever write a deal like this one unless for political reasons.
Sadiq Khan has basically delivered on our key demand, but we want to make sure that we are able to provide all we have to the investigation. To this end, we have a meeting with Caroline Pidgeon on Dec 6 - unfortunately I will only be able to join in on Skype, but the important thing is to ensure she is all over the operational stuff. Khan's people have also confirmed that they are interested in the operational side as well as the spiralling capital costs.That's good, because we are now able to show that because of the fiasco with the seating, as well as the loss of the naming rights, E20 will be losing at least £5m per annum. That completely destroys the central argument for this deal - that, unlike the athletics stadium, it would not require an ongoing subsidy from the taxpayer, but would pay back the capital costs over time.
Last Thursday I went with fellow campaigner Steve Lawrence to the University of Football Business (who knew this exists?) at Wembley, where we presented the campaign to students. It's the first time I really had the chance to discover just how much Steve knows about this utter fiasco. He's an architect who was working on the Olympic project way back in the earliest days (his timeline of the story starts in 1990) . I sat open-mouthed as he showed us the original plan which envisaged the Park being on the other side of the railway line, and due to other land deals which were available there, McAlpine would have built the OS for free! And there would have been a railway station in the Park. For reasons I must get Steve to explain more, this was rejected by Coe and others. McAlpine were still the chosen contractor for the actual stadium. It is gob-smacking, trust me, and we really need to get this part of the story out there.
Afterwards Steve revealed something else which I had not heard. In early July Mishcon de Reya submitted a formal State Aid complaint. Steve confirmed that their client is a club. And gratifyingly, the EC are reviewing it under the case number of my complaint, which they had kept open, hoping to hear from a club, exactly as they had told the BBC. I asked Steve what sanction the EC could impose on West Ham, since they did not receive the State money directly. He said that they would decide if West Ham are paying a "fair" rent. If not the EC could decide what is fair, and Steve reckons that figure could quite rationally be £30m per year. Think about the implications of that...
Finally the BBC are planning an update on the story to run early Jan in the "Inside Out" slot. So I was back in the Museum on Friday being interviewed (this time properly attired :-)). This time it is a news journo doing it, who does not have any problem taking on all comers. And guess what, the other side, having complained bitterly that they didn't get enough airtime last time, have refused to participate:-)
It's all crumbling faster than the Berlin Wall in 89...
Breathtaking. So many different issues now, any one of which could be a killer blow. For one, the EC must be feeling particularly peevish towards the UK - no mercy !! Thanks so much for this timely update - the Belgian commando raids incl taxi, and now this, are belatedly turning a pretty grim year into a real cracker.
Not Katrien, that's for sure. Maybe she should enrol.
When past on the A12 about 9 and the stadium had it's lights on.
Who's paying for that?
Did he not get disenchanted with the tory party, and the Major style of Goverment.? Think he joined Goldsmith's referendum party in the end.
May well explain a few things,.......but I could not possibly comment?
I like the way the stadium spokesman makes out it will be a result of the mayors inquiry if another £50m is spent on seating
Note also that no one now pretends that anything other than West Ham will take place throughout the season there. That drives a coach and horses through the central "profitability" story that this contract was built on.
The McAlpine thing came about when I arranged for Richard Rogers and Bill McAlpine to meet over a BOOT proposal for the stadium (Build, Own, Operate, Transfer). It's a kind of public/private partnership proposition which allows private funding of public projects on the basis of future revenue. It culminated in Lord Rogers writing to Tony Blair - see letter attached - I don't know what Blair's response was or indeed if Tessa Jowell took it seriously.
Bill McAlpine was friend and I was the chair of a trust which he was a board member of - we discussed the project on and off over a couple of years and naturally he was interested in it. I got to know Richard Rogers because I was a member of the Olympic Village Working Group from 2000-2003. The idea of a BOOT project with a private consortium funded from the revenue stream from 2 anchor tenant football clubs was to allow a commitment to the stadium irrespective of winning the bid for the Olympics - it took any risk out of the project for the government.
So basically it depended on probably West Ham and Spurs being co-tenants, but McAlpines- and not the taxpayer entity LLDC - would have run the thing. And it would have been a proper footie stadium. Looks like a no-brainer, once you brought Daniel Levy into line, which of course is no small thing.