Olympic Stadium; our day in court
Comments
-
I should think with state aid, you'll be playing champions league next season and not championship. LOLgavros said:
Instead of offering a workaround, surely you mean asking West ham to offer a reacharound?PragueAddick said:
Well, you can imagine that "ripping up" a deal signed by Baronness Brady is not for the faint-hearted. However we do have a "workaround", which we will be presenting at City Hall next week...
And State Aid....really? how many times is that one going to tried?1 -
Well quite.0
-
Ask the LLDC? Apparently it's a shoo-in.0
-
The Guardian rolling out the heavy artillery for the story now....
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/dec/01/sadiq-khan-west-ham-london-stadium
I particularly like this bit
Johnson said at the time: “It is vital that I continue to be at the forefront of the decision-making, driving forward the huge task of delivery.”
8 -
West Ham have apparently said that a deal is a deal and that no renegotiations will take place0
-
I'm sure the 1977 Unfair Contract Terms Act would beg to differ.ShootersHillGuru said:West Ham say that the original contract is water tight. This will drag on through the courts for years.
7 -
Oh Gavros is back. Idiot.2
-
Getting into a pissing contest with the Mayor of London who also runs things like TFL and funds the Met etc, things that West Ham rely heavily upon to stage a football match in that stadium they have their watertight deal for might make it a bit interesting.cafc999 said:West Ham have apparently said that a deal is a deal and that no renegotiations will take place
6 -
...nearly 2 years old now your "ITK" bullshit above Gavros. Any update for the concerned taxpayer?gavros said:Well at least we agree in one sense that publication in full is the right and fair course of action. It will, I am quite confident, exonerate West Ham in terms of contribution to stadium revenues, and then all those dummies can go go back to where they came from.
With the stadium naming rights partner now close to being announced there is only one key interested player who'd like to see the contract published immediately, and it's good to hear that Prague retains such cordiality with their agents.7 - Sponsored links:
-
They nearly signed sponsorship deals twice...once with Mahindra, once with Vodaphone, as is pointed out in today's report. But then both seemed to get cold feet about it. Maybe because of the negative news campaign about the stadium being brought about by a certain fans group oddly aligned with a certain group of laywers who do a lot of work for Spurs?17
-
I don’t think there is any need for conspiracy theories.gavros said:They nearly signed sponsorship deals twice...once with Mahindra, once with Vodaphone, as is pointed out in today's report. But then both seemed to get cold feet about it. Maybe because of the negative news campaign about the stadium being brought about by a certain fans group oddly aligned with a certain group of laywers who do a lot of work for Spurs?
1 -
Oh I don't know...what about all those claims on here of corruption?
To wit that's what needs to be done to get the contract annulled, short of convincing the courts that the government collectively was mentally unable to bargain in contract negotiations. The state aid issue similarly; the hurdle isn't that the agreement helped West Ham in some manner but that the state aid wasn't offered out equally to competing bids. The first tender collapsed because Newham were partnering with West ham and didn't offer that support to anyone else. The second tender was open and so therefore that issue was skirted.5 -
... or they see a load of uninterested blokes being yelled at by a failed Sunderland manager as something they don’t want to associate their brands with.gavros said:They nearly signed sponsorship deals twice...once with Mahindra, once with Vodaphone, as is pointed out in today's report. But then both seemed to get cold feet about it. Maybe because of the negative news campaign about the stadium being brought about by a certain fans group oddly aligned with a certain group of laywers who do a lot of work for Spurs?
Bring back Dagenham Motors7 -
I wish we could, I must be frank. The whole edifice of the game had turned so toxic.1
-
Fairly sure @PragueAddick isn't Jewish.gavros said:They nearly signed sponsorship deals twice...once with Mahindra, once with Vodaphone, as is pointed out in today's report. But then both seemed to get cold feet about it. Maybe because of the negative news campaign about the stadium being brought about by a certain fans group oddly aligned with a certain group of laywers who do a lot of work for Spurs?
But then that is only the excuse @gavros that concerns you really.
1 -
There are some very clever people out there who will trample all over your watertight contract.gavros said:Oh I don't know...what about all those claims on here of corruption?
To wit that's what needs to be done to get the contract annulled, short of convincing the courts that the government collectively was mentally unable to bargain in contract negotiations. The state aid issue similarly; the hurdle isn't that the agreement helped West Ham in some manner but that the state aid wasn't offered out equally to competing bids. The first tender collapsed because Newham were partnering with West ham and didn't offer that support to anyone else. The second tender was open and so therefore that issue was skirted.
See you next season.
5 -
Ok yeah I'm now spouting Jewish conspiracy theories am I?
Have some self respect.1 - Sponsored links:
-
"...Sources close to Mr Johnson, now Foreign Secretary, said that blame should be directed at the original planning for the 2012 Games by previous Mayor Ken Livingstone and former Prime Minister Tony Blair.
“No other city has an Olympic legacy like London’s – all seven venues on the park are in private hands, with millions of visitors a year, and a positive economic legacy for east London,” said the former Mayor’s ally. “The stadium has a secure future with athletics and football.
“The mistakes belonged to Khan’s Labour predecessor Ken Livingstone and the Blair government. Signing off on a stadium fit only for athletics was a massive error. The only option for Boris was conversion to a multi-use venue.
“If Sadiq Khan wants to try and blame someone he should blame his New Labour pals and the old Labour Mayor for their catastrophic planning failures.”
independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-olympic-stadium-sadiq-khan-west-ham-united-a8087441.html
Both Boris and his unamed "former ally" need to start explaining themselves not shifting the blame for decisions taken on their watch.6 -
I have my doubts, unfortunately. As ever with Acts of Parliament the preamble is your friend. The one for this Act says:Addickted said:
I'm sure the 1977 Unfair Contract Terms Act would beg to differ.ShootersHillGuru said:West Ham say that the original contract is water tight. This will drag on through the courts for years.
An Act to impose further limits on the extent to which under the law of England and Wales and Northern Ireland civil liability for breach of contract, of for negligence or other breach of duty, can be avoided by means of ......contract terms.
It seems very unlikely to me that West Ham's lawyers would have missed a trick on contract law. What breach of contract, negligence or breach of duty could West Ham be found to have avoided through use of the contract?1 -
I listened to that last night, Boris has some old neck on him giving that statement.Bournemouth Addick said:"...Sources close to Mr Johnson, now Foreign Secretary, said that blame should be directed at the original planning for the 2012 Games by previous Mayor Ken Livingstone and former Prime Minister Tony Blair.
“No other city has an Olympic legacy like London’s – all seven venues on the park are in private hands, with millions of visitors a year, and a positive economic legacy for east London,” said the former Mayor’s ally. “The stadium has a secure future with athletics and football.
“The mistakes belonged to Khan’s Labour predecessor Ken Livingstone and the Blair government. Signing off on a stadium fit only for athletics was a massive error. The only option for Boris was conversion to a multi-use venue.
“If Sadiq Khan wants to try and blame someone he should blame his New Labour pals and the old Labour Mayor for their catastrophic planning failures.”
independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-olympic-stadium-sadiq-khan-west-ham-united-a8087441.html
Both Boris and his unamed "former ally" need to start explaining themselves not shifting the blame for decisions taken on their watch.
Surly as a well informed and educated man he can see it would have been cheaper in the long run to knock down the stadium, build a new one and gift that one to a Premier cash rich football club.
0 -
Not a lawyer, but I would have thought that you could start with Part 1 Section 11.
...shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made.0 -
Two years later and he still can't spell.gavros said:They nearly signed sponsorship deals twice...once with Mahindra, once with Vodaphone, as is pointed out in today's report. But then both seemed to get cold feet about it. Maybe because of the negative news campaign about the stadium being brought about by a certain fans group oddly aligned with a certain group of laywers who do a lot of work for Spurs?
3 -
Sadly, this.cafcfan said:
I have my doubts, unfortunately. As ever with Acts of Parliament the preamble is your friend. The one for this Act says:Addickted said:
I'm sure the 1977 Unfair Contract Terms Act would beg to differ.ShootersHillGuru said:West Ham say that the original contract is water tight. This will drag on through the courts for years.
An Act to impose further limits on the extent to which under the law of England and Wales and Northern Ireland civil liability for breach of contract, of for negligence or other breach of duty, can be avoided by means of ......contract terms.
It seems very unlikely to me that West Ham's lawyers would have missed a trick on contract law. What breach of contract, negligence or breach of duty could West Ham be found to have avoided through use of the contract?
The laws around contract fairness are aimed at providing a balance in the contract and to stop one party relying on terms that unfairly restrict the others right to legitimate redress. They are also usually aimed at providing a level of protection to consumers entering into contracts with businesses. Business to business transactions are generally exempted because both parties are held to be big and ugly enough to look after themselves and have access to legal advice.
Obviously in this case the law doesn't take account of the fact our half of the deal was being negotiated by a bunch of f##knuggets...3 -
Fortunately our own angle on the contract is nothing like what is being discussed above. It's something much more practical.
I have no idea what or whom gavros is on about, we certainly have no lawyers in our team,nor easy access to them and I must admit that what we are looking at, I am kind of surprised if Brady has missed it.
If there are any regulars reading who are lawyers or at least fancy their knowledge on this kind of contract, and would be prepared to look at our proposal, would you PM me please. @cafcfan , for example?
Don't worry, we don't need to be legally watertight, it will not be us who takes this forward, we just need something to hand to the politicians for them to follow up, and which is not obviously a waste of time. We do have plenty of political skills in our team, and it was explained to me that we have to just give the politicians the bullets and let them fire them (and let them take the credit).
The other thing to report to regular readers is that about an hour before it was published, my new GLA Tory friend Gareth Bacon (or rather his assistant, he being terribly important) responded to my third prod, and offered the meet we had requested. Unfortunately not on a date when I am in London so others will stand in (possibly a good thing :-) ). But this and other developments taken together lead my colleagues who are close to the politics to conclude that this release of the report has really put the cat among the pidgeons where Johnson is concerned. Kevin Rye believes this is the final nail in his career coffin, and he will never be able to hold high office again when you pile this on top of the other stuff (Brexit Bus, Nazarin in jail, etc).
It may be a bit premature to assume that, but let's just pause and let that sink in. 27 years ago, we Charlton fans terminated the local political careers of Simon Oelman and Quentin Marsh. Now we have the Rt.Hon. Sec of State for Foreign Affairs in our sights. Be you ever so high, you do not mess with the Charlton :-))))
Well, I think we've earned the right to that little bit of hyperbole, no?
35 -
Johnson is losing it big time. There is a huge problem with him seeking to criticise the athletics -only option which he stepped in to "fix". We know from the LLDC's submission to the European Commission that the athletics only option would not operate at a profit, and was expected to cost the taxpayer £2m per annum.
Enter Boris in a plume of hubris, with a new deal he signed off. Net result: Cost to the taxpayer of £20m per annum. Great work Boris, you platinum grade fraud.11 -
I don't remember Boris blaming things on Livingstone et al previously when he was going on about 'legacy' and the stadium in Athens, and all the redacted stuff.
All of a sudden now there is a fan shit interface happening he is looking to blame others.
Unusual for him as he tends to simply brazen things out, so this mess must be getting to him.
I notice that so far he has done feck all about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, this very afternoon he is probably settling back in a warm and cosy room with a glass of expensive, whilst she disintegrates in a Tehran hell hole.
Boris Johnson is a certified cnut of the highest order, why can't everybody see that?
17
