Olympic Stadium; our day in court
Comments
-
They are not concerned that the contract will be published in full? Or they are not concerned that when it is, there will be consequences for West Ham? Two different things, as Im sure you can work out.gavros said:
I was at a meeting with senior people at the club last night and they have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the action being taken. Absolutely no concern whatsoever. Even I was surprised.WestCountryAddick said:I think it must at least give West Ham some uncertainty in terms of their budgeting for next season and beyond. If it was my company, I'd want it done and dusted as soon as possible so I would know if my costs were going to increase beyond the agreed contract terms.
And exactly how "senior"are these people?According to your Baroness, she negotiated the contract single handed, so "senior" must be a relative term.
4 -
Very senior. As for what theyre not concerned about, I believe not concerned in the slightest about anything. That's because as they, I and you know, West Ham's overall contribution to the E20 LLP's coffers is significantly greater than the amount that you like to pretend to your media chums it is.0
-
But still nothing in the grand scheme of things.gavros said:Very senior. As for what theyre not concerned about, I believe not concerned in the slightest about anything. That's because as they, I and you know, West Ham's overall contribution to the E20 LLP's coffers is significantly greater than the amount that you like to pretend to your media chums it is.
1 -
Go on, enlighten us - this will be fun.gavros said:Very senior. As for what theyre not concerned about, I believe not concerned in the slightest about anything. That's because as they, I and you know, West Ham's overall contribution to the E20 LLP's coffers is significantly greater than the amount that you like to pretend to your media chums it is.
5 -
I do not pretend anything. I work with the information available to me. Nothing I have said in public on this matter has ever been challenged either by the LLDC or WHU. In that respect we will be releasing another factual nugget soon, since we successfully pointed out to Ms Murphy that the facts around the corporate hospitality aspect, redacted in the contract, are already in the public domain, as they were in the public version of their answer to the European Commission :-)gavros said:Very senior. As for what theyre not concerned about, I believe not concerned in the slightest about anything. That's because as they, I and you know, West Ham's overall contribution to the E20 LLP's coffers is significantly greater than the amount that you like to pretend to your media chums it is.
Now, back to your very senior West Ham people, who presumably did not include the Baroness, otherwise you would have told us. Would you like me to put up here the letter from a Very Senior Person Who Is Not The Baroness, presented to the Tribunal in which they outline all the things they are concerned about? Because if you can confirm they are actually not concerned at all, and what this meeting was, I could mention this to the Tribunal and ask them to ignore the letter on that basis....
22 -
I'd like you to put it up, @PragueAddick - but the secret of great comedy is timing7
-
Don't be silly, I'm not a narcissist who wants to get involved in things way over my station, I'll leave that to you.PragueAddick said:Now, back to your very senior West Ham people, who presumably did not include the Baroness, otherwise you would have told us. Would you like me to put up here the letter from a Very Senior Person Who Is Not The Baroness, presented to the Tribunal in which they outline all the things they are concerned about? Because if you can confirm they are actually not concerned at all, and what this meeting was, I could mention this to the Tribunal and ask them to ignore the letter on that basis....
0 -
Yet you keep coming on trying to sow little seeds of doubt.gavros said:
Don't be silly, I'm not a narcissist who wants to get involved in things way over my station, I'll leave that to you.PragueAddick said:Now, back to your very senior West Ham people, who presumably did not include the Baroness, otherwise you would have told us. Would you like me to put up here the letter from a Very Senior Person Who Is Not The Baroness, presented to the Tribunal in which they outline all the things they are concerned about? Because if you can confirm they are actually not concerned at all, and what this meeting was, I could mention this to the Tribunal and ask them to ignore the letter on that basis....
All wasted as @PragueAddick is an old hand at things like this.
Let nature take it's course @gavros and see what happens. Although, deep down, I think you know the outcome...........4 -
Yet you keep coming back here to raise your own self importance as if you are in the know!gavros said:
Don't be silly, I'm not a narcissist who wants to get involved in things way over my station, I'll leave that to you.PragueAddick said:Now, back to your very senior West Ham people, who presumably did not include the Baroness, otherwise you would have told us. Would you like me to put up here the letter from a Very Senior Person Who Is Not The Baroness, presented to the Tribunal in which they outline all the things they are concerned about? Because if you can confirm they are actually not concerned at all, and what this meeting was, I could mention this to the Tribunal and ask them to ignore the letter on that basis....
3 -
Sponsored links:
-
Oi! That's Barry Hearn's best mate you're digging out PAL.gavros said:
Don't be silly, I'm not a narcissist who wants to get involved in things way over my station, I'll leave that to you.PragueAddick said:Now, back to your very senior West Ham people, who presumably did not include the Baroness, otherwise you would have told us. Would you like me to put up here the letter from a Very Senior Person Who Is Not The Baroness, presented to the Tribunal in which they outline all the things they are concerned about? Because if you can confirm they are actually not concerned at all, and what this meeting was, I could mention this to the Tribunal and ask them to ignore the letter on that basis....
11 -
Eynsfordaddick said:
Yet you keep coming back here to raise your own self importance as if you are in the know!gavros said:
Don't be silly, I'm not a narcissist who wants to get involved in things way over my station, I'll leave that to you.PragueAddick said:Now, back to your very senior West Ham people, who presumably did not include the Baroness, otherwise you would have told us. Would you like me to put up here the letter from a Very Senior Person Who Is Not The Baroness, presented to the Tribunal in which they outline all the things they are concerned about? Because if you can confirm they are actually not concerned at all, and what this meeting was, I could mention this to the Tribunal and ask them to ignore the letter on that basis....
He keeps coming back because he's feeding back anything he finds out about the situation to those involved at WHU. Yet, even though @PragueAddick has been far more open than I think he should be with him, his lack of any class means he can't help making snide, personal remarks and groundless accusations too.Eynsfordaddick said:
Yet you keep coming back here to raise your own self importance as if you are in the know!gavros said:
Don't be silly, I'm not a narcissist who wants to get involved in things way over my station, I'll leave that to you.PragueAddick said:Now, back to your very senior West Ham people, who presumably did not include the Baroness, otherwise you would have told us. Would you like me to put up here the letter from a Very Senior Person Who Is Not The Baroness, presented to the Tribunal in which they outline all the things they are concerned about? Because if you can confirm they are actually not concerned at all, and what this meeting was, I could mention this to the Tribunal and ask them to ignore the letter on that basis....
3 -
-
As UK law permits FOI requests, and that it appears that UK tax payers may be having to pay a lot of undisclosed money towards West Ham's use of the stadium, I cannot see what you are going on about.gavros said:
Don't be silly, I'm not a narcissist who wants to get involved in things way over my station, I'll leave that to you.PragueAddick said:Now, back to your very senior West Ham people, who presumably did not include the Baroness, otherwise you would have told us. Would you like me to put up here the letter from a Very Senior Person Who Is Not The Baroness, presented to the Tribunal in which they outline all the things they are concerned about? Because if you can confirm they are actually not concerned at all, and what this meeting was, I could mention this to the Tribunal and ask them to ignore the letter on that basis....
The fact that a legal decision was already reached shows that the right course of action was indeed taken.2 -
Only joking! i understand your concerns of course and those of other clubs, and appreciate what Prague is doing for the greater public good. Personally I wholly believe that this deal is in the best interest of the taxpayer but we shall see.
Shame there's not a group that is as inquisitive about all Public-Private Partnership deals.0 -
It could be something that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has a remit over.....problem is that if you set a precedent for revealing financial info that was contained in Non Disclosure Agreements, you may find a lot of firms far less willing to bid for PPP contracts, which could be detrimental to the taxpayer. Just like the LLDC is arguing here.IA said:You should start that group.
0 -
Are the LLDC planning to build more stadiums?gavros said:
It could be something that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has a remit over.....problem is that if you set a precedent for revealing financial info that was contained in Non Disclosure Agreements, you may find a lot of firms far less willing to bid for PPP contracts, which could be detrimental to the taxpayer. Just like the LLDC is arguing here.IA said:You should start that group.
6 -
Surely, almost by definition, PPP is detrimental to the taxpayer. Yes the short term cost is reduced, but, as so much of PPP procurement is, in effect leasing, with seemingly consistently poor contract negotiations by the public authorities, almost all the risk on the public side of the deal, it costs so much more over the full term.gavros said:
It could be something that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has a remit over.....problem is that if you set a precedent for revealing financial info that was contained in Non Disclosure Agreements, you may find a lot of firms far less willing to bid for PPP contracts, which could be detrimental to the taxpayer. Just like the LLDC is arguing here.IA said:You should start that group.
I accept that there is a clear political benefit to PPP, but that's only because Government is inherently short term in their planning, and unwilling to do anything, like borrow from the markets or tax to pay for capital schemes up front, that may lose them votes or, more importantly, the adulation of the media and big business...
Mind you, I'm dangerously left wing.12 -
Sponsored links:
-
Well sure, but if due diligence reveals compliance with FOI is business prohibitive you don't sign a contract with a public organisation, right?gavros said:
It could be something that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has a remit over.....problem is that if you set a precedent for revealing financial info that was contained in Non Disclosure Agreements, you may find a lot of firms far less willing to bid for PPP contracts, which could be detrimental to the taxpayer. Just like the LLDC is arguing here.IA said:You should start that group.
You can't plead ignorance after the fact, it's the law - and the fact that the West Ham contract has a section dedicated to FOI hardly supports a view they weren't aware of its effect.2 -
So by releasing the terms of a contract between LLDC and WHU, that will affect the building of hospitals around the country?gavros said:
Err, no. PPP covers a massive area...NHS, road building, legal services..basically every strand of government now contains PPP.IA said:Are the LLDC planning to build more stadiums?
Keep holding on to those straws.2 -
The best interest for the tax payer is that West Ham pay for ALL costs associated with their stay at the OS. Anything less means it's a poor deal.gavros said:Only joking! i understand your concerns of course and those of other clubs, and appreciate what Prague is doing for the greater public good. Personally I wholly believe that this deal is in the best interest of the taxpayer but we shall see.
Shame there's not a group that is as inquisitive about all Public-Private Partnership deals.7 -
West Ham would have paid all costs associated with the stadium if they held the freehold with Newham, as was the original deal and as is the 250 year lease granted to Man City (who get to keep all revenues from the stadium, unlike West Ham). As it is, that got torpedoed, so West Ham are simply a tenant and like any other tenant there the costs get covered by Vinci, who are the stadium operator.WestCountryAddick said:The best interest for the tax payer is that West Ham pay for ALL costs associated with their stay at the OS. Anything less means it's a poor deal.
People thought they were being clever in stopping it the first time around, and now theyre bitter that the alternative has happened.
Sorry.
0 -
Unfortunately that deal would have fallen foul of EU State Aid legislation - or are you suggesting illegal's ok because it's West Ham?
Tottenham would have paid all the costs of rebuilding the stadium too, but it wouldn't have cost Newham or the taxpayer a penny. They would also have redeveloped Crystal Palace Athletics Stadium that could be used all year round rather than just a few weeks in the summer.
We've been over the reason Man City's a red herring. They too are a tenant incidentally, but their share of the conversion costs was more than paid for by them handing the keys of Maine Road over to the Council. They continue to invest huge amounts in local regeneration. They pay for their operational matchday costs and all stadium enhancements. They have not asked the taxpayer to stump up £257m for their conversion, or to continue paying them to play there for another 99 years. They also pay more than double the West Ham rent annually, and unless you're about to spill the proportion of the naming rights West Ham retains there's nothing to compare in terms of naming rights value.
Nor indeed has the taxpayer agreed to stump up even more money should Man City ever get relegated.14 -
The BEST interest of tax payers (there's more than one isn't there?) would have been to demolish the useless white elephant and slap up housing on the site.WestCountryAddick said:
The best interest for the tax payer is that West Ham pay for ALL costs associated with their stay at the OS. Anything less means it's a poor deal.gavros said:Only joking! i understand your concerns of course and those of other clubs, and appreciate what Prague is doing for the greater public good. Personally I wholly believe that this deal is in the best interest of the taxpayer but we shall see.
Shame there's not a group that is as inquisitive about all Public-Private Partnership deals.1 -
Absolute drivel. Given the political element of PPP contracts the "risk" of any disclosure sits firmly with the public sector side of the equation. Under what circumstances would a private sector financer turn down a deal that may be worth £100m's to them on the basis that at some point it might become public knowledge? I would think their shareholders might have something to say about that.gavros said:
It could be something that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has a remit over.....problem is that if you set a precedent for revealing financial info that was contained in Non Disclosure Agreements, you may find a lot of firms far less willing to bid for PPP contracts, which could be detrimental to the taxpayer. Just like the LLDC is arguing here.IA said:You should start that group.
1 -
The BEST interests of West Ham fans would be to stay at historic Upton Park, a stadium deep in their affections. As it is they seem to have been supine in surrendering their home in order to build a so called legacy for Boris, Coe, Brady and Thompson.
I suppose the West Ham Trust have surveyed fans on this.
Mind you maybe the West Ham fans are 100% in favour given all the free stuff they're getting.7 -
They haven't got a Trust.!!! The only club in London without one. Even the Spanners have one, albeit they don't believe in communication with anyone from outside their lair.seth plum said:The BEST interests of West Ham fans would be to stay at historic Upton Park, a stadium deep in their affections. As it is they seem to have been supine in surrendering their home in order to build a so called legacy for Boris, Coe, Brady and Thompson.
I suppose the West Ham Trust have surveyed fans on this.
Mind you maybe the West Ham fans are 100% in favour given all the free stuff they're getting.
3 -
Posted on other thread about Airman's article in 'When Saturday Comes March 2016':
As you'd expect, a very good summary of our woes living under the fiendish regime of Roland.
I see there's also a two page spread on the Olympic stadium - one from Simon Inglis (who doesn't think the view will be much cop, given the design and the distance from the pitch) and the other from Kevin Rye, a PR consultant and strategy manager for the 14 supporter trusts coalition. All good stuff.1
