Olympic Stadium - Please sign the NEW PETITION
Comments
-
What club did they sell to buy WH. The owner is now in prison and his company bust.1
-
There are a number of outcomes that include:GermanEastEnder said:
This may see certain people from the LLDC receiving punishment. But we won't necessarily see the terms of the deal being amended.
LLDC people exposed as corrupt/inept - deal either stands or fails.
Gullivan exposed as corrupt - deal fails
Valid deal agreed by legal and just means, giving WH an unfair competitive advantage but the best LLDC could get.
Valid deal where WH are paying a fair price.
Who knows? Nobody unfortunately unless the deal is laid bare for scrutiny in the public interest - and make no mistake there is definitely public interest in the use of public funds. That's all the petition is asking for.2 -
One wonders how their offspring will pay the inheritance tax?GermanEastEnder said:
It's been mentioned time and time again that they will not sell but hand the club over to their children.
1 -
Sent just now:
Dear Matt Jackson,
There is now a widespread assumption that many people working for and involved with the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park are possibly involved in corrupt practices. This assumption could be assuaged if the full details of the West Ham United deal were to be made public in an unredacted form in order to allow detailed public scrutiny, and reassurance that everything is absolutely fair. The notion that this information ought to be fully shared is because it is taxpayers money.
There can be no withholding of the information because of ‘commercial sensitivity’ because this is a government to private business arrangement, rather than a private business to private business arrangement.
You may be able to tell me why there is any secrecy at all, because on the face of it, as I have mentioned above, it seems that a lot of people involved in this enterprise on all sides may be personally financially benefiting.
If there could be a credible explanation as to why there is a cover up of the financial arrangements then it would relax a lot of people and put their minds at rest. I am hoping that as the press officer who is in charge of this aspect of the enterprise (so I have been told) you may be able to explain to me why there is any delay of any sort in releasing the full details of the deal and allowing it to be open to forensic public scrutiny.
Yours Sincerely
(Seth Plum)
Blogger.1 -
Seth, for me you've gone a bit over the top with your accusation. There is so far no evidence of corruption at the LLDC. Incompetence is a far more likely scenario. But if it is a private effort, well good luck. I suspect you may draw a hostile answer0
-
I am writing in as more or less an individual, and I would welcome any answer at all, and if it is a hostile one then I would be delighted because it would mean I have got under somebody's skin.PragueAddick said:Seth, for me you've gone a bit over the top with your accusation. There is so far no evidence of corruption at the LLDC. Incompetence is a far more likely scenario. But if it is a private effort, well good luck. I suspect you may draw a hostile answer
I have not made any direct accusation, rather suggested that without transparency then people (like me) would suspect corruption, even criminal corruption, and as you can see, they can throw oil on the troubled waters by releasing all the information.
If the people at LLDC are worried that outsiders will see them as either corrupt, or as incompetent, they might actually do something. Try to see my post as part of the spectrum of reaction rather than the only reaction.
1 -
The football Supporters Federation are now running an article on their website.
More trusts join call for Public Inquiry into Olympic Stadium.6 -
Got a link, Badger?Badger said:The football Supporters Federation are now running an article on their website.
More trusts join call for Public Inquiry into Olympic Stadium.0 -
http://www.fsf.org.uk/latest-news/view/more-trusts-join-call-for-public-inquiry-into-olympic-stadiumman_at_milletts said:
Got a link, Badger?Badger said:The football Supporters Federation are now running an article on their website.
More trusts join call for Public Inquiry into Olympic Stadium.1 -
- Sponsored links:
-
Exactly...IA said:1 -
Now that is a downright weird tweeter0
-
What is that Tweet all about?
Anyway, interesting discussion tonight with a distant relation at a wedding. He runs a security company for events eg Wimbledon, London Marathon...and some OS events. So I casually asked what he thought of WHU deal. He's not a football fan and had seen nothing of this campaign but his immediate answer was that the whole thing is a disaster and a disgrace. Vinci are clueless, apparently, and Balfour Beattie are currently fixing myriad holes in the new roof...not sure who will be paying for that.2 -
Its perfect even for a lazy tyke like me. It immediately blew the argument out of the water that Man City got the same deal. Posted the link on FB etc tooPragueAddick said:
Sure. Would you have a look at the home page of the Trust website, and tell me if what you can read there gives you that overview? It will be updated anyway, but it will be useful to know how we can improve it for the more casual reader.holyjo said:Is there an idiots guide or link to the key points of this issue. I am surrounded by Hammers and I want to be better equipped to explain / argue the issue without the need to read and digest every post on the thread ....call me lazy butI am a big picture person
Thanks3 -
So it's gone way way beyond London trusts - this must increase the no. of petition signings, although I guess the trusts have to publicise it to their fansStrasburger said:
http://www.fsf.org.uk/latest-news/view/more-trusts-join-call-for-public-inquiry-into-olympic-stadiumman_at_milletts said:
Got a link, Badger?Badger said:The football Supporters Federation are now running an article on their website.
More trusts join call for Public Inquiry into Olympic Stadium.0 -
Interview of Payet in today's Telegraph talking about the draw of playing at the stadium which is a little at odds with some of the other articles Jim White has written on the subject.
telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/west-ham/11832207/I-joined-French-exodus-to-play-at-Olympic-Stadium-reveals-West-Ham-playmaker-Dimitri-Payet.html
Oddly there's a link to the WHU Priority List at the end. Why not a link through to every other clubs ticketing page at the end of an article?4 -
Sullivan also had a big moan in the standard yesterday about it say that the deal was good for tax payers and not as one sided as we all think.0
-
Fine, then tell us all about it if it's that good.cafc999 said:Sullivan also had a big moan in the standard yesterday about it say that the deal was good for tax payers and not as one sided as we all think.
2 -
At nearly 25,000 there is a real chance of reaching 100,000 that guarantees a debate in the house if the supporter's trusts really push this as a target and a few more join the campaign. The tax payers that Sullivan thinks will benefit will all be long dead by the time their money is returned. If you look at the World Athletics championships in Bejing, you can see how the stadium should have been used. It shouldn't have been changed/altered (that would have saved almost £300 million) and it just needed to be kept up to scratch which surely could have been funded through events (boxing/pop concerts etc...). The country would have had a dedicated Athletics stadium where it now only has a Sorry Crystal Palace and the stadium could have staged future commonwealth games and athletics championships and be made accessable to young athletes and schools who could have benefited from the inspirational surroundings and the facilities . It should have been about an Athletics legacy not a gift to West Ham. Ok some will say it still can, but it will become a football stadium, not the Athletics stadium is was designed to be. I was proud of that stadium initially, and I now hate it for all what it stands for. Some legacy. The politicians and administrators behind this farce need to be exposed and punished so nothing like this happens again.7
-
The Red Robin said:
Fine, then tell us all about it if it's that good.cafc999 said:Sullivan also had a big moan in the standard yesterday about it say that the deal was good for tax payers and not as one sided as we all think.
How much would it cost us, if no one went to play there? Just £700m?
So by West Ham playing there it's £700m + £272m?
So how is that a good deal for the tax payers?
1 - Sponsored links:
-
If no tax payer's money was spent converting it for West Ham I would still have a problem with it by the way. I think West Ham already had a perfectly good ground for their needs and the damage it will do to Leyton Orient is criminal. But to fork out the tax payer's money to make this happen - there is no better word to describe it other than criminal. When you feel you have to use that word, there has to be a full enquiry and where wrongdoing and incompetence is exposed, those responsible have to be punished.5
-
My thoughts exactly. He was going on about costing them money if they have a cup run and so on and if their was an enquiry then it would be a waste of money.The Red Robin said:
Fine, then tell us all about it if it's that good.cafc999 said:Sullivan also had a big moan in the standard yesterday about it say that the deal was good for tax payers and not as one sided as we all think.
He sounds rattled, which was a shame 1 -
Agree with every word there, Mutts.MuttleyCAFC said:At nearly 25,000 there is a real chance of reaching 100,000 that guarantees a debate in the house if the supporter's trusts really push this as a target and a few more join the campaign. The tax payers that Sullivan thinks will benefit will all be long dead by the time their money is returned. If you look at the World Athletics championships in Bejing, you can see how the stadium should have been used. It shouldn't have been changed/altered (that would have saved almost £300 million) and it just needed to be kept up to scratch which surely could have been funded through events (boxing/pop concerts etc...). The country would have had a dedicated Athletics stadium where it now only has a Sorry Crystal Palace and the stadium could have staged future commonwealth games and athletics championships and be made accessable to young athletes and schools who could have benefited from the inspirational surroundings and the facilities . It should have been about an Athletics legacy not a gift to West Ham. Ok some will say it still can, but it will become a football stadium, not the Athletics stadium is was designed to be. I was proud of that stadium initially, and I now hate it for all what it stands for. Some legacy. The politicians and administrators behind this farce need to be exposed and punished so nothing like this happens again.
Just one point to note, though - 100,000 votes guarantees that a debate in parliament will be considered, the debate isn't guaranteed. Democracy eh??0 -
The way West Ham owners/executives have sought to defend themselves against accusations from supporter's trusts has highlighted they are genuinely worried. Their defence has been so cherry picked that you have to be an idiot not to know something is wrong. It is like somebody justifying why it was right to keep a full purse they found on the pavement. In this instance that purse belongs to tax payers and some of those support clubs that will actually be damaged by their money!!!!4
-
Just one thing about a debate in parliament if it reaches 100,000. Who would debate it? What would count as a debate? Would it be the local MPs concerned or the PM and leader of the opposition? My point is, could it just be fobbed off with a half-arsed "debate" in an empty House of Lords in attempt to shut everyone up and say "There you go, we've debated it, case closed."0
-
Don't know the answer and there is a lot of cynicism around the No 10 petition website. But I would say don't worry at this stage. We already got a tip from a prominent MP on another way to get this whole shoddy mess looked at in the Commons.The Red Robin said:Just one thing about a debate in parliament if it reaches 100,000. Who would debate it? What would count as a debate? Would it be the local MPs concerned or the PM and leader of the opposition? My point is, could it just be fobbed off with a half-arsed "debate" in an empty House of Lords in attempt to shut everyone up and say "There you go, we've debated it, case closed."
But the more people sign it, the more sympathetic politicians have ammunition for supporting us.
4 -
Excellent work by PA and the trusts has got us to the stage where I think enought stink has been raised that will lead to political pressure being put on LLDC to publish the material.
What logic is there in having a Parliamentary debate or a public enquiry when all that is needed is for some simple facts to be disclosed.
Public enquiries are only needed where the facts are unclear or disputed. All we have here is the problem of a public body witholding facts on entirely spurious grounds.
So we need the petition to create the pressure that shows the absurdity of LLDC's stance as the main issue.
The whole focus should be on attacking the fallacious argument about commercial confidentiality.
It's absurd that Brady and co think government would allow this to get to an enquiry stage. They should not get away with trying to pretend the petition is a frivolous anti-WH crusade by jealous fans out to damage WH.
If the fairness is symmetrical between tax payer and WH it must be one hell of a deal for the tax payer. Why not publish details and get the credit.
The only reason can be because of the fear it might provide hitherto undisclosed details that demonstrates a State subsidy, which is where PA started all this. I think we might just get there.
Finally, we shouldn't worry about the cost of an enquiry. It wouldn't be expensive all would be revealed in one document in 20 minutes.9 -
I don't understand why the West Ham owners don't just maintain a dignified silence! Surely the deal has been signed and those who will be embarrassed are the bureaucrats and politicians, unless they have something to hide?0
-
Being a bright dog, you know that this is the polar opposite of their personalities.MuttleyCAFC said:I don't understand why the West Ham owners don't just maintain a dignified silence! Surely the deal has been signed and those who will be embarrassed are the bureaucrats and politicians, unless they have something to hide?
The Brady bunch/Dignified = Oxymoron
2 -
OS did not impress at its first rugby match:
insidethegames.biz/articles/1029717/opening-rugby-match-at-london-2012-olympic-stadium-slammed-as-shambolic-saturday
0
