@Dippenhall One of the important points about it being a CA and not a tenancy - I am told - is that the current CA is no longer valid if E20 goes bankrupt. A new one could therefore be negotiated. This new one would probably say things like " Should the User (WHU) require retractable seats, he has to pay for them". "The rent will be £4m p.a.in line with national benchmarks (City)", "the User is responsible for meeting all football matchday overheads". West Ham could not be thrown out, (you believe) but squatting, not paying anything, how long would that be tenable? Assuming that I am right about the CA lapsing, I don't think even Brady would be able to withstand the huge public backlash if she failed to accept that such new terms are reasonable. It looks like even a fair few West Ham fans would agree.
I agree the CA is no longer valid, thats effectively what is stated in the agreement. I agree WH COULD agree a new tenancy but what if they don't? What are the implications of that? There is no criminal law breached if WH remain in situ, they have not trespassed and only residential property is protected against trespassers acquiring rights under criminal law anyway. Who has any legal relationship with WH to take any civil action to recover occupation of the stadium?
Given how far WH ran rings round LLDC, do you think WH would have entered into the CA without covering any risk they could be homeless in a couple of years if E20 went bust ?
Regarding a Brady backlash, do you think WH would not be suing for compensation for loss of 99 years of turnover if they were forced out of the stadium. Tenancy or concession is not relevant, it's what legal rights are acquired under your licence to occupy and use the property and whether they are being denied that matters. WH would no doubt agree to pay something, but I suggest they would have no interest in paying rent to a new landlord, only a consideration to acquire ownership of the stadium. That sum would be paid to the administrator of E20 who would be bound to realise the assets of E20 for as much as he could to pay back taxpayers. It's unlikely that the administrator would be able to agree a new rental agreement given he would have no funds to continue to act as owner and who else is queuing up to buy a multi purpose stadium in East Stratford worth zilch.
I don't pretend to know the answers I am just asking the questions and speculating what might happen in a vacuum where the stadium has no owner to run it, no body with contactual rights over WH and WH neither committing any criminal offence nor breaching a term of the CA which only fails because of the bankruptcy of E20. More importantly, WH is the only body to gain from becoming owners of the stadium.
There may be a legal right of LLDC to take ownership of the stadium but I still can't how that changes WH's position holding all the cards.
WH could choose to occupy the stadium after a theoretical E20 insolvency, but it wouldn't do them any good. Without any responsible owner, it would loose any licensing, it'd have no public liability insurance, the police will almost certainly either refuse to police and sanction any events, or would be instructed that way by the major. WH may then have possession of the stadium, but no possible way to use it.
WH could choose to occupy the stadium after a theoretical E20 insolvency, but it wouldn't do them any good. Without any responsible owner, it would loose any licensing, it'd have no public liability insurance, the police will almost certainly either refuse to police and sanction any events, or would be instructed that way by the major. WH may then have possession of the stadium, but no possible way to use it.
Very true and makes sense, let’s hope WHU are put under pressure by Khan.
The stadium cannot be given away and if an outside bidder, such as AEG did put a realistic offer in then WHU would be forced to bid.
It's probably already been mentioned but having the asset of a stadium will surely increase the value of WHU.
Should WHU take ownership then there's a good chance UK Athletics won’t have a major events stadium to use, which politically won't look good.
WH could choose to occupy the stadium after a theoretical E20 insolvency, but it wouldn't do them any good. Without any responsible owner, it would loose any licensing, it'd have no public liability insurance, the police will almost certainly either refuse to police and sanction any events, or would be instructed that way by the major. WH may then have possession of the stadium, but no possible way to use it.
Very true and makes sense, let’s hope WHU are put under pressure by Khan.
The stadium cannot be given away and if an outside bidder, such as AEG did put a realistic offer in then WHU would be forced to bid.
It's probably already been mentioned but having the asset of a stadium will surely increase the value of WHU.
Should WHU take ownership then there's a good chance UK Athletics won’t have a major events stadium to use, which politically won't look good.
WH could choose to occupy the stadium after a theoretical E20 insolvency, but it wouldn't do them any good. Without any responsible owner, it would loose any licensing, it'd have no public liability insurance, the police will almost certainly either refuse to police and sanction any events, or would be instructed that way by the major. WH may then have possession of the stadium, but no possible way to use it.
Very true and makes sense, let’s hope WHU are put under pressure by Khan.
The stadium cannot be given away and if an outside bidder, such as AEG did put a realistic offer in then WHU would be forced to bid.
It's probably already been mentioned but having the asset of a stadium will surely increase the value of WHU.
Should WHU take ownership then there's a good chance UK Athletics won’t have a major events stadium to use, which politically won't look good.
Met a young Wolves fan on the Prague metro on the way to the big match. As you do. Congratulated him. Looked around but no Southampton fans unfortunately.
I did some research on concession contracts a while ago, and I struggled to find any examples where the bankruptcy of the grantor was provisioned in contract. I imagine this is because those contracts available will be government or other public bodies and there's an assumption it will not fail. It may be explained as simply as that, Occam's razor and all that.
That said, there is a principle in a lease arrangement in such cirumstances of the leaseholders right of first refusal, which gives the leaseholder the right to buy the property in the event of the landlord company going bust. It may be that West Ham are considering that may apply to their arrangement, but they are not the only concessionaires, of course, and the legal basis is somewhat different.
There's an assumption here that West Ham would be better off should they own the stadium, but I think that might need testing. Right now their sole operating costs re the stadium are £2.5m per year, half that if they were relegated - and will be for 99 years (subject to indexation). Given they already retain all the revenues from the most profitable opportunities, and that they think they can order E20 to do whatever they want next in the stadium, do we really think owning it is what they want? Not convinced, frankly - rather I suspect that their legal threats to a grantor who seems to roll over whenever Brady breathes in their direction are aiming to milk it for as much as they can get away with.
By the way, if E20 were placed into the hands of liquidators, is the stadium legally their asset? It's owned by the GLA/LLDC, who are of course the major partner in the LLP - but it's a legally different entity, right?
If I read I rightly, Baroness brady is on her soap box in today’s current bun saying the government could pay for care for the elderly if it stopped wasting money and we got our priorities right...no, that waste of taxpayers money isnt mentioned.
If I read I rightly, Baroness brady is on her soap box in today’s current bun saying the government could pay for care for the elderly if it stopped wasting money and we got our priorities right...no, that waste of taxpayers money isnt mentioned.
If I read I rightly, Baroness brady is on her soap box in today’s current bun saying the government could pay for care for the elderly if it stopped wasting money and we got our priorities right...no, that waste of taxpayers money isnt mentioned.
Do you know what, whenever I open this thread I do so with eager anticipation of conclusive confirmation that WHU and their owners are going to be banged to rights for their apparent "sleight of hand" steal of the Olympic Stadium at expense of the taxpayer. It's never going to happen is it?
Do you know what, whenever I open this thread I do so with eager anticipation of conclusive confirmation that WHU and their owners are going to be banged to rights for their apparent "sleight of hand" steal of the Olympic Stadium at expense of the taxpayer. It's never going to happen is it?
Do you know what, whenever I open this thread I do so with eager anticipation of conclusive confirmation that WHU and their owners are going to be banged to rights for their apparent "sleight of hand" steal of the Olympic Stadium at expense of the taxpayer. It's never going to happen is it?
Do you know what, whenever I open this thread I do so with eager anticipation of conclusive confirmation that WHU and their owners are going to be banged to rights for their apparent "sleight of hand" steal of the Olympic Stadium at expense of the taxpayer. It's never going to happen is it?
We'll see about that....
Actually Prague, reading back my post it comes across as awfully insulting to those like yourself in particular who have been fighting this cause tooth and nail. Good luck - and make a fool of me (Not too difficult )
I did some research on concession contracts a while ago, and I struggled to find any examples where the bankruptcy of the grantor was provisioned in contract. I imagine this is because those contracts available will be government or other public bodies and there's an assumption it will not fail. It may be explained as simply as that, Occam's razor and all that.
That said, there is a principle in a lease arrangement in such cirumstances of the leaseholders right of first refusal, which gives the leaseholder the right to buy the property in the event of the landlord company going bust. It may be that West Ham are considering that may apply to their arrangement, but they are not the only concessionaires, of course, and the legal basis is somewhat different.
There's an assumption here that West Ham would be better off should they own the stadium, but I think that might need testing. Right now their sole operating costs re the stadium are £2.5m per year, half that if they were relegated - and will be for 99 years (subject to indexation). Given they already retain all the revenues from the most profitable opportunities, and that they think they can order E20 to do whatever they want next in the stadium, do we really think owning it is what they want? Not convinced, frankly - rather I suspect that their legal threats to a grantor who seems to roll over whenever Brady breathes in their direction are aiming to milk it for as much as they can get away with.
By the way, if E20 were placed into the hands of liquidators, is the stadium legally their asset? It's owned by the GLA/LLDC, who are of course the major partner in the LLP - but it's a legally different entity, right?
Bankruptcy provisions are irrelevant for normal concession which can be terminated st any time eg a stall in Greenwich market. The liquidator of Greenwich market would be able to exercise the termination clause.
The concession is granted for 99 years with no power under the agreement for early termination. The liquidator has acquired no termination power to exercise.
Transfer of the benefit of the concession by the Liquidstor requires the consent of WH.
This concession bears no comparison to a conventional concession. Neither is it a lease as it does not involve sole uninterrupted use of a property 24/7 so no statutory protection exists for either grantor or grantee, it is entirely a contractual matter.
The asset of value is the Concesdion agreement which gives.99 year’s rental income, not the freehold interest in the stadium. Ownership of the freehold is a worthless asset if you can’t issue a new unemcumbered lease or concession.
LLDC will have inherited an agreement which for 99 years cannot be touched if WH pay the rent and LLDC can’t sell it on without consent of WH.
Do you know what, whenever I open this thread I do so with eager anticipation of conclusive confirmation that WHU and their owners are going to be banged to rights for their apparent "sleight of hand" steal of the Olympic Stadium at expense of the taxpayer. It's never going to happen is it?
We'll see about that....
Actually Prague, reading back my post it comes across as awfully insulting to those like yourself in particular who have been fighting this cause tooth and nail. Good luck - and make a fool of me (Not too difficult )
I didnt read it that way, dont worry. I just want to make sure people know we are still very much on the case. Both friend and foe...
Do you know what, whenever I open this thread I do so with eager anticipation of conclusive confirmation that WHU and their owners are going to be banged to rights for their apparent "sleight of hand" steal of the Olympic Stadium at expense of the taxpayer. It's never going to happen is it?
We'll see about that....
Actually Prague, reading back my post it comes across as awfully insulting to those like yourself in particular who have been fighting this cause tooth and nail. Good luck - and make a fool of me (Not too difficult )
I don't think it is insulting - it is being cynical but honest. Prague is doing a terrific job fighting against the system but the system is not easy to beat. I took it as a comment about the authorities concerned rather than Prague. Because something is difficult, it is all the more reason to try and fix it, but most of us haven't got the drive or energy. It is what allows people to get away with this crap!
The Times reckons pelligrini would be in line for a £15m compensation payout if West Ham wanted to sack him after spending £98 million on new players and having a poor start to the season. Seems they didn’t get the contract right so they say...
Sun 16th Sep - Everton (A) Sun 23rd Sep - Chelsea (H) Sat 29th Sep - Man Utd (H) Fri 5th Oct - Brighton (A) Sat 20th Oct - Spurs (H) Sat 27th Oct - Leicester (A)
If I read I rightly, Baroness brady is on her soap box in today’s current bun saying the government could pay for care for the elderly if it stopped wasting money and we got our priorities right...no, that waste of taxpayers money isnt mentioned.
She is as thick as pig shit really isn't she?
sadly not
Nope. Not buying it. She's pigshit thick. She's a filthy chancer who lucked her way into the position she's in with the porno kings because she's got more front than Brighton and isn't afraid to use her tits to get what she wants. She's not 'clever' at all. She's 'cunning' and 'sly', if you want to put words on it.
If I read I rightly, Baroness brady is on her soap box in today’s current bun saying the government could pay for care for the elderly if it stopped wasting money and we got our priorities right...no, that waste of taxpayers money isnt mentioned.
She is as thick as pig shit really isn't she?
sadly not
Nope. Not buying it. She's pigshit thick. She's a filthy chancer who lucked her way into the position she's in with the porno kings because she's got more front than Brighton and isn't afraid to use her tits to get what she wants. She's not 'clever' at all. She's 'cunning' and 'sly', if you want to put words on it.
Buy that man a beer...
From an Accounts Exec at Saatchi to MD of a football club. What (or who) do i need to do to get that kind of promotion?
Comments
Given how far WH ran rings round LLDC, do you think WH would have entered into the CA without covering any risk they could be homeless in a couple of years if E20 went bust ?
Regarding a Brady backlash, do you think WH would not be suing for compensation for loss of 99 years of turnover if they were forced out of the stadium. Tenancy or concession is not relevant, it's what legal rights are acquired under your licence to occupy and use the property and whether they are being denied that matters. WH would no doubt agree to pay something, but I suggest they would have no interest in paying rent to a new landlord, only a consideration to acquire ownership of the stadium. That sum would be paid to the administrator of E20 who would be bound to realise the assets of E20 for as much as he could to pay back taxpayers. It's unlikely that the administrator would be able to agree a new rental agreement given he would have no funds to continue to act as owner and who else is queuing up to buy a multi purpose stadium in East Stratford worth zilch.
I don't pretend to know the answers I am just asking the questions and speculating what might happen in a vacuum where the stadium has no owner to run it, no body with contactual rights over WH and WH neither committing any criminal offence nor breaching a term of the CA which only fails because of the bankruptcy of E20. More importantly, WH is the only body to gain from becoming owners of the stadium.
There may be a legal right of LLDC to take ownership of the stadium but I still can't how that changes WH's position holding all the cards.
The stadium cannot be given away and if an outside bidder, such as AEG did put a realistic offer in then WHU would be forced to bid.
It's probably already been mentioned but having the asset of a stadium will surely increase the value of WHU.
Should WHU take ownership then there's a good chance UK Athletics won’t have a major events stadium to use, which politically won't look good.
That said, there is a principle in a lease arrangement in such cirumstances of the leaseholders right of first refusal, which gives the leaseholder the right to buy the property in the event of the landlord company going bust. It may be that West Ham are considering that may apply to their arrangement, but they are not the only concessionaires, of course, and the legal basis is somewhat different.
There's an assumption here that West Ham would be better off should they own the stadium, but I think that might need testing. Right now their sole operating costs re the stadium are £2.5m per year, half that if they were relegated - and will be for 99 years (subject to indexation). Given they already retain all the revenues from the most profitable opportunities, and that they think they can order E20 to do whatever they want next in the stadium, do we really think owning it is what they want? Not convinced, frankly - rather I suspect that their legal threats to a grantor who seems to roll over whenever Brady breathes in their direction are aiming to milk it for as much as they can get away with.
By the way, if E20 were placed into the hands of liquidators, is the stadium legally their asset? It's owned by the GLA/LLDC, who are of course the major partner in the LLP - but it's a legally different entity, right?
It's never going to happen is it?
Good luck - and make a fool of me (Not too difficult
The concession is granted for 99 years with no power under the agreement for early termination. The liquidator has acquired no termination power to exercise.
Transfer of the benefit of the concession by the Liquidstor requires the consent of WH.
This concession bears no comparison to a conventional concession. Neither is it a lease as it does not involve sole uninterrupted use of a property 24/7 so no statutory protection exists for either grantor or grantee, it is entirely a contractual matter.
The asset of value is the Concesdion agreement which gives.99 year’s rental income, not the freehold interest in the stadium. Ownership of the freehold is a worthless asset if you can’t issue a new unemcumbered lease or concession.
LLDC will have inherited an agreement which for 99 years cannot be touched if WH pay the rent and LLDC can’t sell it on without consent of WH.
Sun 16th Sep - Everton (A)
Sun 23rd Sep - Chelsea (H)
Sat 29th Sep - Man Utd (H)
Fri 5th Oct - Brighton (A)
Sat 20th Oct - Spurs (H)
Sat 27th Oct - Leicester (A)
Ouch!
From an Accounts Exec at Saatchi to MD of a football club. What (or who) do i need to do to get that kind of promotion?