I think the argument that the state aid issue will go nowhere because we will be out of the EU before they can do anything gives Gavros away. I mean he could say, there was no state aid so nothing can come of it. But his position admits there was/is from his perspective!
Mind you, I'd imagine that one of the loose ends that will be negotiated as part of the divorce proceedings will be about things like ongoing investigations. If illegal state aid happens, or is alleged, during the UK's membership of the EU, the EU would argue (with some reason) that the Commission would have legal competence to investigate and make a ruling.
Good enough reason as any for the taxpayers to flatten a section of a major city and built a terrible stadium.
Except its not the reason, is it? The reason is a long and rather dull list of reasonings that start with those early pre-bid plans, through West Ham's original offer to pay into a proper multipurpose stadium, to the decision to make it a 20k athletics venue, to deciding against that and keeping the whole thing, which then naturally led to West Ham becoming anchor tenants. Its been a total shambles since day one, but it ain't West Ham's fault.
Presumably, your point is that West Ham shouldn't pick up the tab for any cock ups, provided the said cock up is 'not their fault'? On the face of it, I agree. However, which part of the whole sorry mess is the taxpayer's fault? Only it seems the taxpayer is picking up an awfully large tab for this giant turd of a situation, so I can only guess that you, me, the bloke down the road and millions of other people did something stupid or careless and we've been rightly hit with a dirty great big bill.
Serves us right, eh?
On the other hand, maybe West Ham were, at least partly, to blame for this mess? In which case you seem to be pleading a case that if it's not West Ham's fault, they shouldn't pay, while if it is West Ham's fault, they shouldn't pay.
The amount of times that @gavros has been on here saying "You wait for the naming rights" & "You won't get the deal published" and getting it wrong is unbelievable. Now it's "It's not West Ham's fault"
Surely he must be running out of feet to put in his mouth.
Tbf to Gavros the only thing I do agree with him on is that it isn't West Ham's fault. The fault and blame lies with the Government and the powers that be that allowed this to happen. Absolutely West Ham took advantage of the situation and why wouldn't they? Morally it's questionable but I wouldn't say they are to blame for this.
Tbf to Gavros the only thing I do agree with him on is that it isn't West Ham's fault. The fault and blame lies with the Government and the powers that be that allowed this to happen. Absolutely West Ham took advantage of the situation and why wouldn't they? Morally it's questionable but I wouldn't say they are to blame for this.
Who do we know that works at West Ham & the Government?
Tbf to Gavros the only thing I do agree with him on is that it isn't West Ham's fault. The fault and blame lies with the Government and the powers that be that allowed this to happen. Absolutely West Ham took advantage of the situation and why wouldn't they? Morally it's questionable but I wouldn't say they are to blame for this.
Remove all West Ham branding from the stadium Remove the 'retractable seating' or make West Ham responsible for returning it to the natural, athletics configuration after each match, or West Ham cover all costs relating to the "retractable seating" (including the cost to install them) Make West Ham responsible for all pitch maintenance, stewarding and policing Prevent West Ham from blocking alternative events in the venue on non match days (including the day before and day after matches)
Make those changes for starters, and then I might agree that it's not West Ham's fault. All of those issues were at West Ham's insistence.
I think if West Ham strike a great deal at the expense of a rival company, it is fair enough. But when they strike a great deal at the expense of tax payers - yes they are to blame to some extent. I don't think corruption can be ruled out but proving it will be difficult. I think Gold, Sullivan and Brady are the biggest scroungers going when you tot it up. I mean they have conned more money off tax payers than that bloke who has two wives and 30 odd kids!
He shouldn't get away with it, but why should they? And they even have the cheek to try to get even more off of us, with all the disorder issues they are having. They haven't got the humility to just hold their hands up and pay for the systems that are needed to make the stadium safer beacuse they have a lot of problems with some of their fans. Not tax payer's fans - their fans!
Is it not their jobs to get the best possible deal for West Ham though? Imagine if you were a fan and it came out that Gullivan offered more than they had to just because they felt bad for the tax payer? Absolute nonsense. Like I said the fault lies with the Government(s) and LLDC. They were the ones that built a stadium not fit for purpose and they accepted such a ridiculous deal. They didn't have to do any of that.
Is it not their jobs to get the best possible deal for West Ham though? Imagine if you were a fan and it came out that Gullivan offered more than they had to just because they felt bad for the tax payer? Absolute nonsense. Like I said the fault lies with the Government(s) and LLDC. They were the ones that built a stadium not fit for purpose and they accepted such a ridiculous deal. They didn't have to do any of that.
Perhaps, but the relationship between the Tories (the party in power at both a national and London level at the time) and the owners/SMT of West Ham was incestuous to say the least. Is West Ham, as in the football team and the fans, responsible for the deal? No. But did the owners play any part in the deal being a total snafu? Abso-fucking-lutely.
Is it their job to rip off taxpayers? I suppose it depends on morals? Why is Philip Green getting slagged off for ripping off pensioners? You surely have to have and expect standards in these people.
The stadium was built as an Olympic athletics stadium. That was its purpose. We might not have got teh games if the legacy was West Ham United. Why can't people grasp that simple point! Keeping it an athletics stadium would have cost us less - if commercial opportunities were maxed out possibly a fortune less.
Is it West Ham's fault? Not really the question. You should be considering whether it is West Ham's responsibility to ensure any 'great deal' it negotiates falls within parameters of law. If not, they are no less culpable than the LLDC for the consequences.
Bit like being aware of FoIA responsibilities when you're signing a contract with a public body. It's called due diligence.
Is it West Ham's fault? Not really the question. You should be considering whether it is West Ham's responsibility to ensure any 'great deal' it negotiates falls within parameters of law. If not, they are no less culpable than the LLDC for the consequences.
Bit like being aware of FoIA responsibilities when you're signing a contract with a public body. It's called due diligence.
What aspects of the contract did not fall within the parameters of the law? All the appeals and length of time it took would suggest the legal responsibilities, regarding FoIA were not so cut and dry.
As clear as it is that West Ham have taken the piss, their obligations are towards their shareholders, not the tax payer. Surely it's those sitting across the table from them that need to take the flak here.
Is it West Ham's fault? Not really the question. You should be considering whether it is West Ham's responsibility to ensure any 'great deal' it negotiates falls within parameters of law. If not, they are no less culpable than the LLDC for the consequences.
Bit like being aware of FoIA responsibilities when you're signing a contract with a public body. It's called due diligence.
What aspects of the contract did not fall within the parameters of the law? All the appeals and length of time it took would suggest the legal responsibilities, regarding FoIA were not so cut and dry.
As clear as it is that West Ham have taken the piss, their obligations are towards their shareholders, not the tax payer. Surely it's those sitting across the table from them that need to take the flak here.
What about the one, sitting on both sides of the table? Who then became a baroness.
Is it West Ham's fault? Not really the question. You should be considering whether it is West Ham's responsibility to ensure any 'great deal' it negotiates falls within parameters of law. If not, they are no less culpable than the LLDC for the consequences.
Bit like being aware of FoIA responsibilities when you're signing a contract with a public body. It's called due diligence.
What aspects of the contract did not fall within the parameters of the law? All the appeals and length of time it took would suggest the legal responsibilities, regarding FoIA were not so cut and dry.
As clear as it is that West Ham have taken the piss, their obligations are towards their shareholders, not the tax payer. Surely it's those sitting across the table from them that need to take the flak here.
Well I can answer with authority regarding the FOI part.
The first aspect is that the LLDC broke the law with regard to the FOI response time at every single stage of the process. 20 working days is just that. And it is supposed to be the maximum. They broke that part of the law 6 times on this request alone, and regularly do so on other requests.
Their more substantive argument, which does come up quite commonly in FOI, was commercial confidentiality. However when that was finally tested in the highest available court, their argument was thrown out. Unanimously. I don't believe the LLDC seriously believed there was a commercial risk, because their version of the nature of the risk changed during the process. Up until the Tribunal the risk was to West Ham. At the Tribunal West Ham hardly got a mention, let alone an appearance, the risk was to E20 (the company without employees). IMHO it was simply a cynical delaying tactic. Had they respected the law, the full contract would have been open to inspection more than two years before West Ham were due to move in. Two years in which Boris Johnson's career (he was the head of the LLDC until he mysteriously resigned when the Information Commissioner found for us) was on an upward trajectory....
Apparently 85% were in favour of the move. Perhaps they deserve to be mugged off.
I'd assume that the 85% were in favour because they thought that off the back of a decent season, the move to a bigger ground with more revenue would mean that it would suddenly give them the right to gatecrash the top 4. Worked out well.
Small piece in CityAM today (p.7) confirming that the Hamsters have avoided paying £43K police costs.
"West Ham has managed to dodge over £43,000 in policing costs for their recent home game against Stoke. The information was revealed to Labour London Assembly member Andrew Dismore by Sadiq Khan as part of Mayor's questions"
I have just watched a bit of this. Just before the two hour mark, the chairman (not sure who he is) asks about the police costs. It turns out that this year so far the police costs at the OS are 426,000, of which only £43,000 is recharged - but to LS185 not West Ham, per the contract. When he asks the Baronness if West Ham shouldn't be making a contribution, she replies that she is paying all the costs. When asked to clarify, she says that it's all included in her rent payment of £2.5m. He then tries to ask her if she doesn't feel a moral obligation to cough up more. Brady? Morals?? that went predictably nowhere.
Unfortunately they were not briefed on the key fact - that West Ham are the only club in the land which pay no police costs. Man City, another tenant paid, nearly £1million the season before last.
The bloke who has 20 kids and two wives all paid for by us has a moral obligation not to take the proverbial. The party Brady, Sullivan and Gold support and which made her a Baroness FFS! use the issue of scroungers to get votes at every election. But these people have nicked far more of our money than the scroungers they berate. Not defending any scroungers - I have never nicked tax payers money so feel I can do so. But that scrounging cow shouldn't get away with it! Maybe they should make the bloke with 20 kids a Baron! The money they have stolen from tax payers is mind blowing.
This is not a party political statement - just a point of fact about these particular scumbags!
Nice to see the West Ham ball boys all rush to get Sanchez's shirt and have a selfie taken with him. A no partisanship spirit still lives at the Olympic Park
Comments
Presumably, your point is that West Ham shouldn't pick up the tab for any cock ups, provided the said cock up is 'not their fault'? On the face of it, I agree.
However, which part of the whole sorry mess is the taxpayer's fault? Only it seems the taxpayer is picking up an awfully large tab for this giant turd of a situation, so I can only guess that you, me, the bloke down the road and millions of other people did something stupid or careless and we've been rightly hit with a dirty great big bill.
Serves us right, eh?
On the other hand, maybe West Ham were, at least partly, to blame for this mess?
In which case you seem to be pleading a case that if it's not West Ham's fault, they shouldn't pay, while if it is West Ham's fault, they shouldn't pay.
Surely he must be running out of feet to put in his mouth.
Remove the 'retractable seating' or make West Ham responsible for returning it to the natural, athletics configuration after each match, or West Ham cover all costs relating to the "retractable seating" (including the cost to install them)
Make West Ham responsible for all pitch maintenance, stewarding and policing
Prevent West Ham from blocking alternative events in the venue on non match days (including the day before and day after matches)
Make those changes for starters, and then I might agree that it's not West Ham's fault. All of those issues were at West Ham's insistence.
He shouldn't get away with it, but why should they? And they even have the cheek to try to get even more off of us, with all the disorder issues they are having. They haven't got the humility to just hold their hands up and pay for the systems that are needed to make the stadium safer beacuse they have a lot of problems with some of their fans. Not tax payer's fans - their fans!
The stadium was built as an Olympic athletics stadium. That was its purpose. We might not have got teh games if the legacy was West Ham United. Why can't people grasp that simple point! Keeping it an athletics stadium would have cost us less - if commercial opportunities were maxed out possibly a fortune less.
https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/whats-going-on-at-west-ham
Bit like being aware of FoIA responsibilities when you're signing a contract with a public body. It's called due diligence.
As clear as it is that West Ham have taken the piss, their obligations are towards their shareholders, not the tax payer. Surely it's those sitting across the table from them that need to take the flak here.
The first aspect is that the LLDC broke the law with regard to the FOI response time at every single stage of the process. 20 working days is just that. And it is supposed to be the maximum. They broke that part of the law 6 times on this request alone, and regularly do so on other requests.
Their more substantive argument, which does come up quite commonly in FOI, was commercial confidentiality. However when that was finally tested in the highest available court, their argument was thrown out. Unanimously. I don't believe the LLDC seriously believed there was a commercial risk, because their version of the nature of the risk changed during the process. Up until the Tribunal the risk was to West Ham. At the Tribunal West Ham hardly got a mention, let alone an appearance, the risk was to E20 (the company without employees). IMHO it was simply a cynical delaying tactic. Had they respected the law, the full contract would have been open to inspection more than two years before West Ham were due to move in. Two years in which Boris Johnson's career (he was the head of the LLDC until he mysteriously resigned when the Information Commissioner found for us) was on an upward trajectory....
A hand full of silver.
Saddens me.
"West Ham has managed to dodge over £43,000 in policing costs for their recent home game against Stoke. The information was revealed to Labour London Assembly member Andrew Dismore by Sadiq Khan as part of Mayor's questions"
Unfortunately they were not briefed on the key fact - that West Ham are the only club in the land which pay no police costs. Man City, another tenant paid, nearly £1million the season before last.
This is not a party political statement - just a point of fact about these particular scumbags!