Good work people, please keep it coming, I will consolidate all your findings with mine.
Please enjoy this: I've already discovered two cases where content is redacted in this version which was not redacted in the previous one. Doh!!!!!!!!!
"18.16 clearly gives away that west ham do get a cut of all match day catering revenue but with no outlay themselves"
No it doesnt, it says that the club can cmplain if it thinks the revenues are not exclusively with regards to 'Pourage rights', which it is clearly stated in 18.15: "The Grantor shall be entitled to retain all revenue received from any beverage company, which is exclusively in respect of the Pourage Rights"
So outside of hospitality, the LLDC claim ALL drinks revenues.
Pouring rights are the only catering rights exclusively retained by the Grantor though aren't they Gav? And if they deign to sell peanuts with their beer, WHU will get a share of the peanuts. Right?
It appears so, yes, but this document redacts (a) the rent, (b) the main catering agreement and (c) the stadium sponsorship agreement, so it reveals very little in actuality.
What it does clearly point out is that West ham have no veto in terms of usage of the stadium during the football season, just that it is given primacy. Schedule 6 on page 135 points this out most clearly.
(a) The Overriding Priority Principle must not be departed from without the pnor written consent of the Concessionaire or Goveming Body
(b) It is noted and agreed that the Concessionaire is not the final arbiter as to the scheduling of Competitive Matches and the Concessionaire must be free to stage Events as required
(e)The Grantor acknowledges and agrees that, during the Football Season, any Other Concessionaires use of the Pitch for sporting activities (such as, but not limited to, the playing of Football or rugby or gridiron football) must not adversely affect the use of thePitch by the Concessionaire for the staging of Events.
I believe Steve Lawrence has stated that West Ham not having a veto on stadium usage is key to the argument over State Aid:
Steve Lawrence @SteveLawrence_ Sep 26 U-turn on West Ham veto on another club sharing Olympic stadium is an essential component in demonstrating state aid is compatible with TfEU
"18.16 clearly gives away that west ham do get a cut of all match day catering revenue but with no outlay themselves"
No it doesnt, it says that the club can cmplain if it thinks the revenues are not exclusively with regards to 'Pourage rights', which it is clearly stated in 18.15: "The Grantor shall be entitled to retain all revenue received from any beverage company, which is exclusively in respect of the Pourage Rights"
So outside of hospitality, the LLDC claim ALL drinks revenues.
Welcome back, gavros. You love it here, don't you:-)
BTW delighted to see that thanks to your time here you have learnt a little about FOI and have made your first FOI request on WhatDoTheyKnow.
Little tip on that, though. The idea of an FOI request is that you ask for information, and the authority gives it to you (or not, all too often). It's not the place for you to make suggestions to the authority about how they could do things better.:-)
Don't forget to make a donation to WDTK, and look forward to you joining us FOI campaigners in the fight to stop this government taking an axe to the law. Doubtless we'll be using the Olympic Stadium as a case study of why it's so valuable.
@gavros The inclusion of that clause means that if west ham feel the pouring rights payment is hiding revenue it is due from the sale of beverages it can review the deal. Pouring rights is probably one the very few things in this whole contract I have real world experience of. Pouring rights are payments and/or equipment deals so that all drinks poured are supplied by the same company.
The idea of an FOI request is that you ask for information, and the authority gives it to you (or not, all too often). It's not the place for you to make suggestions to the authority about how they could do things better.:-)
Sod them, I'll be proven right about loads of people avoiding the route via Stratford and instead come and leave via the Carpenters Road, not least because that's where the pubs are.
@gavros. It's difficult, on first view, to see how Spurs or Chelsea could rent the OS given the following two paras:
not schedule Other Concessionaires' events during the Football Season that might cause any material damage or deterioration to the Pitch;
not grant a concession, lease or licence to any Other Concessionaires to use the Stadium as its home ground for rhe playing of Football on the Pitch during the Football Season if: (i) the Grantor, acting reasonably, believe!' the quality and condition of the Pitch may be materially impacted; and (ii) use by the Other Concessionaires would conflict with the Overriding Priority Principle or any Governing Body Requirement,
The idea of an FOI request is that you ask for information, and the authority gives it to you (or not, all too often). It's not the place for you to make suggestions to the authority about how they could do things better.:-)
Sod them, I'll be proven right about loads of people avoiding the route via Stratford and instead come and leave via the Carpenters Road, not least because that's where the pubs are.
:-))) yes I'm sure you are right, but FOI is not FTAWA (Freedom to Argue With Authorities) . They created FixMy Street because some people cannot grasp what FOI is and is not about
That's a pretty thin argument there though. The Grantor has the say over any material impact on the pitch - not West Ham. Given it is in Karren Brady's words "state of the art Desso pitch" and has shown no significant deterioration over the RWC games, that question should be put to rest. The Overriding Priority Principle is a PL rule anyway, so any ground share would be subject to that.
In addition, the THST minutes released yesterday showed a clear preference from Spurs to rent Wembley, though they will I'm sure be in consultation with the LLDC:
"DL said that, should the Olympic Stadium become a possibility, THFC had a responsibility to consider it, but Wembley was the preferred venue as it was a neutral venue"
Their event days are, by default, 25 competitive matches (30 if they get relegated) plus 2 youth games and 2 friendlies. Additional competitive matches cost an extra fee, redacted, but for youth and friendly games WHU only need to cover incremental costs. EDIT: They probably won't pay additional matches very often, unless they have regular European competition - there's a carry over mechanism to balance year to year.
Additional performance payments are tiered with each position WHU finish in the top half of the Prem.
Naming rights is all over the place. The contract says E20 or a commercial agency will negotiate naming rights, but as the 2013 letter acknowledges the highest value will be made through association with shirt sponsorship. It's hard to see WHU not being the agency in practice.
Catering is provided at the Grantor's cost, West Ham take a share of revenue. Catering is, therefore, entirely a margin item for them.
TUPE is in effect, which means that staff will be transferring from their roles at Upton Park to the operator (a subsidiary of Vinci). This might fly in the face of the "800 jobs created" statement, given that many of them are likely to reflect transferred undertakings.
The contract provides 50k sq ft of commercial office and retail space.
That's a pretty thin argument there though. The Grantor has the say over any material impact on the pitch - not West Ham. Given it is in Karren Brady's words "state of the art Desso pitch" and has shown no significant deterioration over the RWC games, that question should be put to rest. The Overriding Priority Principle is a PL rule anyway, so any ground share would be subject to that.
In addition, the THST minutes released yesterday showed a clear preference from Spurs to rent Wembley, though they will I'm sure be in consultation with the LLDC:
"DL said that, should the Olympic Stadium become a possibility, THFC had a responsibility to consider it, but Wembley was the preferred venue as it was a neutral venue"
But look, there is a world of difference between a couple of rugby games at the beginning of a new pitch season and regular weekly usage throughout a wet London winter. Doesn't put the question to rest at all. And as for Karren Brady's words, it was her words that introduced the veto issue.
As regards Spurs, and Levy's words, the question is, why is there any question that the OS is a "possibility"? Why should it not be possible?
Other field event lines not being visible will rule out rugby during the football season. Similarly, anything that would/could affect the playing surface (ie use by another club for a season) is ruled out.
Don't they just paint the lines not being used green?
But they are still visible.
Yeh, but it's seems to be ok for everyone else. Are West Ham saying that's not good enough for them?
True, if CAFC were renting out the pich to a Rugby club then they would accept the 'extra lines' as part of the price for the extra income. WHU have no such interest as it does not create extra income for them, therefore it becomes a useful tool in vetoing any other use during their 10 months because pitch damage cannot be ruled out.
But look, there is a world of difference between a couple of rugby games at the beginning of a new pitch season and regular weekly usage throughout a wet London winter. Doesn't put the question to rest at all. And as for Karren Brady's words, it was her words that introduced the veto issue.
As regards Spurs, and Levy's words, the question is, why is there any question that the OS is a "possibility"? Why should it not be possible?
Well, perhaps he was waiting for confirmation that there wasn't any veto. Confirmation which I'm sure his lawyers would have confirmed to him today having read Schedule 6.
Again, as I said, it's the Grantor's decision as to whether it sees material degradation of the pitch to be an issue, not West Ham's. Unfortunately, Karren Brady's bravado got the better of her, again.
It strikes me that Karren Brady's bravado got the LLDC begging her to take the stadium at any cost. I have no doubt she has a veto, even if the contract says it's the Grantor's. ;-)
But look, there is a world of difference between a couple of rugby games at the beginning of a new pitch season and regular weekly usage throughout a wet London winter. Doesn't put the question to rest at all. And as for Karren Brady's words, it was her words that introduced the veto issue.
As regards Spurs, and Levy's words, the question is, why is there any question that the OS is a "possibility"? Why should it not be possible?
Well, perhaps he was waiting for confirmation that there wasn't any veto. Confirmation which I'm sure his lawyers would have confirmed to him today having read Schedule 6.
Again, as I said, it's the Grantor's decision as to whether it sees material degradation of the pitch to be an issue, not West Ham's. Unfortunately, Karren Brady's bravado got the better of her, again.
Oh come off it. The full context is
The Grantor must....not schedule Other Concessionaires' events during the Football Season that might cause any material damage or deterioration to the Pitch;
I mean that is pretty blunt, isn't it?
I really like the idea that Daniel Levy would wait to see whether a bunch of football fans can secure a copy of the unredacted contract for him. Daniel Levy...
Sorry, but you wanted to see clear evidence of a veto, and there isn't any. Banging on about lines on the pitch and whats the Grantor's view is about pitch degradation is, I am afraid, clutching at straws.
Sorry, but you wanted to see clear evidence of a veto, and there isn't any. Banging on about lines on the pitch and whats the Grantor's view is about pitch degradation is, I am afraid, clutching at straws.
So the conversation goes something like this.
LLDC (or E20): We can make a lot of money for the tax payer by renting the OS to XYZ rugby club for the season.
Brady: That'll be nice for XYZ's supporters and the OS will get more use and the tax payer even more money.
LLDC: Yes, we thought you would agree, especially as we musn't say you have a veto.
Brady: Of course, that wouldn't go down well. But can you confirm that you are 100% sure that we will not see the rugby lines and that the pitch will be perfect, whatever the weather throws at at ?
LLDC: Well, er ....... no, not 100%.
Brady: Can I refer you to the contract ...........
What is happening about the appeal against redaction? It looks as if some material has been un redacted, and some previously redacted stuff is now secret. I assume the partial stuff is to try to head off the whole stuff, however eventually the whole scenario can be viewed out in the open...I am assuming. The reason I say that, is that none of the reasons for secrecy given so far stand up, I can't see any threat to national security in there.
What is happening about the appeal against redaction? It looks as if some material has been un redacted, and some previously redacted stuff is now secret. I assume the partial stuff is to try to head off the whole stuff, however eventually the whole scenario can be viewed out in the open...I am assuming. The reason I say that, is that none of the reasons for secrecy given so far stand up, I can't see any threat to national security in there.
It now goes to an Information Tribunal. LLDC vs ICO, and me, as the requester
In one sense I quite look forward to it, but of course we know it's just a delaying tactic by the LLDC, we will slaughter them but it will be another 6 months, and a further waste of taxpayers' money.
Sorry, but you wanted to see clear evidence of a veto, and there isn't any. Banging on about lines on the pitch and whats the Grantor's view is about pitch degradation is, I am afraid, clutching at straws.
What is it about West ham fans? Just like your mate Hapless in Hamburg, you keep on repeating your mantra even after we've presented you the facts which contradict them. OK, once again, with extra emphasis to assist you
The Grantor must not schedule Other Concessionaires' events during the Football Season that might cause any material damage or deterioration to the Pitch;
Might Spurs or Chelsea playing every week cause "material damage or deterioration to the Pitch" . Might? it's a nailed on certainty. What must the grantor therefore not do?????
On the pitch issue, it is a according to my sources about American Football, and the mess it leaves behind. Wembley got wrecked on Sunday, hence the 3G at the new White Hart Lane
On the pitch issue, it is a according to my sources about American Football, and the mess it leaves behind. Wembley got wrecked on Sunday, hence the 3G at the new White Hart Lane
Just got advised of an annotation to the ongoing thread on WDTK, the FOI request for the contract.
"News item on West Ham website that was later removed. 2 things - WH fine with details being released. WH also believe the clause for pitch condition effectively gives then veto on any other football club."
The writer helpfully preserved the article, it is here
the important quote from the Baroness (for it is she)...
There are also multiple clauses that will ensure the pitch and playing facilities will always meet the world-class specifications we enjoy at the Boleyn Ground. Those clauses protect us from any other use of the Stadium during the football season if we feel it would have an adverse effect on the pitch, playing facilities or our supporter experience.
Comments
Please enjoy this: I've already discovered two cases where content is redacted in this version which was not redacted in the previous one. Doh!!!!!!!!!
:-)))
No it doesnt, it says that the club can cmplain if it thinks the revenues are not exclusively with regards to 'Pourage rights', which it is clearly stated in 18.15: "The Grantor shall be entitled to retain all revenue received from any beverage company, which is exclusively in respect of the Pourage Rights"
So outside of hospitality, the LLDC claim ALL drinks revenues.
What it does clearly point out is that West ham have no veto in terms of usage of the stadium during the football season, just that it is given primacy. Schedule 6 on page 135 points this out most clearly.
(a) The Overriding Priority Principle must not be departed from without the pnor written consent of the Concessionaire or Goveming Body
(b) It is noted and agreed that the Concessionaire is not the final arbiter as to the scheduling of Competitive Matches and the Concessionaire must be free to stage Events as required
(e)The Grantor acknowledges and agrees that, during the Football Season, any Other Concessionaires use of the Pitch for sporting activities (such as, but not limited to, the playing of Football or rugby or gridiron football) must not adversely affect the use of thePitch by the Concessionaire for the staging of Events.
I believe Steve Lawrence has stated that West Ham not having a veto on stadium usage is key to the argument over State Aid:
Steve Lawrence @SteveLawrence_ Sep 26
U-turn on West Ham veto on another club sharing Olympic stadium is an essential component in demonstrating state aid is compatible with TfEU
BTW delighted to see that thanks to your time here you have learnt a little about FOI and have made your first FOI request on WhatDoTheyKnow.
Little tip on that, though. The idea of an FOI request is that you ask for information, and the authority gives it to you (or not, all too often). It's not the place for you to make suggestions to the authority about how they could do things better.:-)
Don't forget to make a donation to WDTK, and look forward to you joining us FOI campaigners in the fight to stop this government taking an axe to the law. Doubtless we'll be using the Olympic Stadium as a case study of why it's so valuable.
not schedule Other Concessionaires' events during the Football Season that might cause any
material damage or deterioration to the Pitch;
not grant a concession, lease or licence to any Other Concessionaires to use the Stadium as
its home ground for rhe playing of Football on the Pitch during the Football Season if:
(i) the Grantor, acting reasonably, believe!' the quality and condition of the Pitch may
be materially impacted; and
(ii) use by the Other Concessionaires would conflict with the Overriding Priority
Principle or any Governing Body Requirement,
Would you not agree?
:-))) yes I'm sure you are right, but FOI is not FTAWA (Freedom to Argue With Authorities) . They created FixMy Street because some people cannot grasp what FOI is and is not about
Now cough up :-)
That's a pretty thin argument there though. The Grantor has the say over any material impact on the pitch - not West Ham. Given it is in Karren Brady's words "state of the art Desso pitch" and has shown no significant deterioration over the RWC games, that question should be put to rest. The Overriding Priority Principle is a PL rule anyway, so any ground share would be subject to that.
In addition, the THST minutes released yesterday showed a clear preference from Spurs to rent Wembley, though they will I'm sure be in consultation with the LLDC:
"DL said that, should the Olympic Stadium become a possibility, THFC had a responsibility to consider it, but Wembley was the preferred venue as it was a neutral venue"
thstofficial.com/thst-news/thst-thfc-board-to-board-meeting-minutes-29-september-2015
But look, there is a world of difference between a couple of rugby games at the beginning of a new pitch season and regular weekly usage throughout a wet London winter. Doesn't put the question to rest at all. And as for Karren Brady's words, it was her words that introduced the veto issue.
As regards Spurs, and Levy's words, the question is, why is there any question that the OS is a "possibility"? Why should it not be possible?
Again, as I said, it's the Grantor's decision as to whether it sees material degradation of the pitch to be an issue, not West Ham's. Unfortunately, Karren Brady's bravado got the better of her, again.
The Grantor must....not schedule Other Concessionaires' events during the Football Season that might cause any
material damage or deterioration to the Pitch;
I mean that is pretty blunt, isn't it?
I really like the idea that Daniel Levy would wait to see whether a bunch of football fans can secure a copy of the unredacted contract for him. Daniel Levy...
LLDC (or E20): We can make a lot of money for the tax payer by renting the OS to XYZ rugby club for the season.
Brady: That'll be nice for XYZ's supporters and the OS will get more use and the tax payer even more money.
LLDC: Yes, we thought you would agree, especially as we musn't say you have a veto.
Brady: Of course, that wouldn't go down well. But can you confirm that you are 100% sure that we will not see the rugby lines and that the pitch will be perfect, whatever the weather throws at at ?
LLDC: Well, er ....... no, not 100%.
Brady: Can I refer you to the contract ...........
I assume the partial stuff is to try to head off the whole stuff, however eventually the whole scenario can be viewed out in the open...I am assuming. The reason I say that, is that none of the reasons for secrecy given so far stand up, I can't see any threat to national security in there.
In one sense I quite look forward to it, but of course we know it's just a delaying tactic by the LLDC, we will slaughter them but it will be another 6 months, and a further waste of taxpayers' money.
We have a plan...
The Grantor must not schedule Other Concessionaires' events during the Football Season that might cause any
material damage or deterioration to the Pitch;
Might Spurs or Chelsea playing every week cause "material damage or deterioration to the Pitch" . Might? it's a nailed on certainty. What must the grantor therefore not do?????
Just got advised of an annotation to the ongoing thread on WDTK, the FOI request for the contract.
"News item on West Ham website that was later removed. 2 things - WH fine with details being released. WH also believe the clause for pitch condition effectively gives then veto on any other football club."
The writer helpfully preserved the article, it is here
the important quote from the Baroness (for it is she)...
There are also multiple clauses that will ensure the pitch and playing facilities will always meet the world-class specifications we enjoy at the Boleyn Ground. Those clauses protect us from any other use of the Stadium during the football season if we feel it would have an adverse effect on the pitch, playing facilities or our supporter experience.
What say you now, @gavros,@rothko ?