Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Olympic Stadium; our day in court
Comments
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5492751/West-Ham-security-firm-wont-sacked-30-year-deal.htmlPragueAddick said:
Whoooah, where is that from, can you get me a link?harveys_gardener said:I see the LDDC can't sack their useless stewards because they gave them a THIRTY year contract. Their incompetence knows no bounds.
The thing is, they should be employed by Vinci/LS185, the private stadium operator, not directly by the LLDC
1 -
Great, thanks for the link.Starinnaddick said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5492751/West-Ham-security-firm-wont-sacked-30-year-deal.htmlPragueAddick said:
Whoooah, where is that from, can you get me a link?harveys_gardener said:I see the LDDC can't sack their useless stewards because they gave them a THIRTY year contract. Their incompetence knows no bounds.
The thing is, they should be employed by Vinci/LS185, the private stadium operator, not directly by the LLDC
It looks a pretty shoddy article to me.
LS185 isn't a security agency. It is the stadium operating company, and part of Vinci which operates stadia in various countries. The 30 year contract would be for the whole stadium operation. But it is true that in order to make West Ham take over and pay for the stewarding (as we have today recommended to City Hall) the contract between E20 and LS185 would need to be amended. But since the stewarding is clearly faulty, there may well be contractual redress.
What we don't want is loads of police in there. They have far better things to do in London which benefit taxpayers.
0 -
5
-
LB Newham boss Sir Robin Wales ousted after 23 years as leader.
Implications for the OS investigation?
http://www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk/2018/03/18/newham-boroughs-mayor-and-leader-of-23-years-is-out-lessons-for-elsewhere/
2 -
From today's Times. I've copied in full as you need an account to access it.
"West Ham United are embroiled in a fresh legal dispute with the London Stadium’s landlords over who should pick up the bill for a series of costs including providing draught beer, Sky TV and hospitality staff.
The club are already involved in a lengthy court case with the publicly-owned London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) over increasing the stadium capacity, and the latest legal clash shows relations are at an all-time low over the tenancy agreement signed in 2013.
The stadium is facing a £140 million loss over the next ten years and the LLDC says that it is determined to minimise costs to the London taxpayer. The club claim they are being denied services promised to them under their £2.5 million annual rental agreement.
The dispute, to be resolved by an independent senior legal figure via an “expert determination” process, covers several issues:
•The club have asked for draught beer to be provided in all the stadium’s bars but the LLDC insists the cost of installing the pumps should be covered by West Ham.
•There is a disagreement over Sky Sports being shown on TVs inside the stadium. West Ham pay the business licence fee of around £150,000 and want all TVs to show Sky but the LLDC has adverts playing on some of the screens and says the club should pay for those to be displaced.
•West Ham are claiming that the LLDC should pay for the hosts/hostesses in the directors’ and corporate boxes, while the landlords insist the club should pay.
•West Ham want to replace the green cover which goes over the running track with a claret-coloured one, showing the club’s logo, as part of their efforts to make the stadium “look and feel” like the club’s home on match days. The club have offered to pay the £200,000 cost but LLDC argues that it would impact on the appearance of the stadium for other events and there are issues over who owns the branding rights.
There is also a separate dispute between the parties that is not part of the “expert determination” process over the advertising rights in the stadium, especially in the “TV arc”, the area that is mostly shown on television.
A West Ham spokesman told The Times: “We are seeking no more than we are entitled to under our contract and for which we pay rent. If you entered into a contract to rent the whole of a house and afterwards the landlord said that you could not use one of the bedrooms without paying extra, you would not pay up.
“No business would pay twice for rights to which it is already entitled. We are mindful of the impact on the taxpayer. We have underwritten the future of the stadium for 99 years. Many stadiums become white elephants after the Olympic Games have moved on.
“We did not hold anyone to ransom. We signed a deal that was subject to scrutiny and approval. It is a pity that we now find ourselves having to take steps to secure the rights that were promised to us under that deal.
“It’s time to set the record straight. We pay our way. The cost over-runs in developing the stadium are not our fault. The deal was offered to us and we pay for a fully-serviced stadium. If the landlord cannot operate the stadium to its own budget, then we are not responsible. They want us to pay more for less. We are not receiving our full entitlement under the contract, yet we are being wrongly portrayed as the bad guys.”
An LLDC spokesman said: “We believe West Ham is claiming rights under the Concession Agreement that are not theirs. We would much prefer to resolve these matters through negotiation but West Ham has chosen a legal route. There is great value in these rights over the lifetime of the agreement and we have a duty to defend our rights.”
Club insiders say that there has been a hardening of the mood against them after the Moore Stephens report, commissioned by the London mayor Sadiq Khan, which predicted a £140 million loss over ten years. West Ham, whose £2.5 million rent would be halved in the event of relegation, receive the income from tickets and corporate boxes.
The agreement, which was signed when Boris Johnson was the mayor of London, also makes the LLDC liable for security costs, and Mr Khan is to meet Karren Brady, the West Ham vice-chairman, for talks on Monday after crowd trouble led to safety chiefs increasing the number of police and stewards.
Meanwhile, the LLDC is poised to announce that the stadium will host two games between two of the biggest teams in Major League Baseball. Plans for the series between the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox for June 2019 are close to being finalised. It will be the first time the sport has played competitive fixtures in Europe.
The stadium is also hosting a rugby union Aviva Premiership match between Saracens and Harlequins on Saturday, which is expected to be a sell-out."
Absolutely ridiculous and so petty. The amounts they are talking about are probably less than one of their top players' weekly salary. They are opening themselves up to even more ridicule and showing themselves to be nothing more than greedy, ungrateful bastards. I had no idea that the rent would be halved in the event of relegation (awful negotiations from someone that possibly doesn't understand football finances and parachute payments). Regardless, I still hope they go down!
The board are forever finding fault with the deal, the fans don't like the stadium. Simple answer should be: "fuck off and find somewhere else to play and we'll find someone that will be grateful for a practically free 70,000 seater stadium".12 -
We pay our way.
FFS6 -
If the landlord cannot afford the stadium then maybe they should shut it down and evict the tenant.7
-
I love how West Ham pretend to care about the taxpayer but then take the LLDC to court.11
-
Only in it for the coin that lot, will do anything to save spending a penny. Thank our lucky stars they didn’t move forward with us3
-
I’d try to throw that back saying as whu sold season tickets, those season ticket holders are a kind of sub-tenant and the behaviour of some sub tenants are in breach of the tenancy agreement so terminate it and renegotiate.Bangkokaddick said:
A West Ham spokesman told The Times: “We are seeking no more than we are entitled to under our contract and for which we pay rent. If you entered into a contract to rent the whole of a house and afterwards the landlord said that you could not use one of the bedrooms without paying extra, you would not pay up.3 - Sponsored links:
-
At last..... perfectly explained with a housing transaction analogy
7 -
Thanks for the heads up @Bangkokaddick , I had not seen that one. We are now seeing a clear pattern of West Ham using legal action to get their way on everything. Two weeks ago it was the seating expansion. We had seen evidence of their bullying approach in previous documents leaked to us. They now seem to be going industrial on it. Maybe they think they can afford the legal fees whereas the LLDC can't because the taxpayers will get upset.
We need to make sure the taxpayers know about this tactic.8 -
.
You probably wouldn’t want to be a West Ham fan going to that stadium if the locals start thinking their services are going to get cut or their rents/rates are going up just to pay for the upkeep of the stadium.PragueAddick said:Thanks for the heads up @Bangkokaddick , I had not seen that one. We are now seeing a clear pattern of West Ham using legal action to get their way on everything. Two weeks ago it was the seating expansion. We had seen evidence of their bullying approach in previous documents leaked to us. They now seem to be going industrial on it. Maybe they think they can afford the legal fees whereas the LLDC can't because the taxpayers will get upset.
We need to make sure the taxpayers know about this tactic.1 -
Certainly looks like bullying tactics to me with the long term aim of owning the stadium themselves.
Currently the taxpayer is liable for long term losses and that is not in the in the best interest of the taxpayer, so I haven't got a glue what WHU are on about.
Praque and everyone else concerned, keep up the good work.
1 -
From the BBC Sports site
“A senior West Ham source said: "We have bought a new house but it doesn't feel like a home yet because we can't get all our stuff in it and get it the way we want it. Also, if you buy a house and agree a price, you don't expect to start getting charged more once you have moved in."
Except they haven’t bought s house, they’ve rented some rooms for few days a week. But it’s an insight into their thinking - the stadium belongs to them.23 -
Is it a few days a week ? I thought it was just for the games...sort of booking a room for a a few Saturday nights and asking premier inn to install a load of stuff for the days you will be thereSomervilleAddick said:From the BBC Sports site
“A senior West Ham source said: "We have bought a new house but it doesn't feel like a home yet because we can't get all our stuff in it and get it the way we want it. Also, if you buy a house and agree a price, you don't expect to start getting charged more once you have moved in."
Except they haven’t bought s house, they’ve rented some rooms for few days a week. But it’s an insight into their thinking - the stadium belongs to them.0 -
Hopefully it’ll be a championship Inn next season.letthegoodtimesroll said:
Is it a few databases a week ? I thought it was just for the games...sort of booking a room for a a few Saturday nights and asking premier inn to install a load of stuff for the days you will be thereSomervilleAddick said:From the BBC Sports site
“A senior West Ham source said: "We have bought a new house but it doesn't feel like a home yet because we can't get all our stuff in it and get it the way we want it. Also, if you buy a house and agree a price, you don't expect to start getting charged more once you have moved in."
Except they haven’t bought s house, they’ve rented some rooms for few days a week. But it’s an insight into their thinking - the stadium belongs to them.5 -
Have they agreed to pay the rates now it is their house?SomervilleAddick said:From the BBC Sports site
“A senior West Ham source said: "We have bought a new house but it doesn't feel like a home yet because we can't get all our stuff in it and get it the way we want it. Also, if you buy a house and agree a price, you don't expect to start getting charged more once you have moved in."
Except they haven’t bought s house, they’ve rented some rooms for few days a week. But it’s an insight into their thinking - the stadium belongs to them.3 -
-
So, taxpayers have paid to build it; now we give it to them.The Red Robin said:
They then charge us when we want to use it, and I suppose they keep all the profits.
Sounds sort of fair, but I think we should give them back any rent they have paid as a gesture of goodwill.
My preference is that taxpayers stop funding immediately, the stadium is raised to the ground, and the land sold to the highest bidder.10 - Sponsored links:
-
My preference would be to use much of the Olympic Park to build affordable housing (preferably Council).Redrobo said:
So, taxpayers have paid to build it; now we give it to them.The Red Robin said:
They then charge us when we want to use it, and I suppose they keep all the profits.
Sounds sort of fair, but I think we should give them back any rent they have paid as a gesture of goodwill.
My preference is that taxpayers stop funding immediately, the stadium is raised to the ground, and the land sold to the highest bidder.10 -
It's a dodgy motel, renting out rooms by the hour, to allow WHU f**k the tax payer...letthegoodtimesroll said:
Is it a few days a week ? I thought it was just for the games...sort of booking a room for a a few Saturday nights and asking premier inn to install a load of stuff for the days you will be thereSomervilleAddick said:From the BBC Sports site
“A senior West Ham source said: "We have bought a new house but it doesn't feel like a home yet because we can't get all our stuff in it and get it the way we want it. Also, if you buy a house and agree a price, you don't expect to start getting charged more once you have moved in."
Except they haven’t bought s house, they’ve rented some rooms for few days a week. But it’s an insight into their thinking - the stadium belongs to them.4 -
This has been their plan all along.The Red Robin said:1 -
How high would you raise it?Redrobo said:
So, taxpayers have paid to build it; now we give it to them.The Red Robin said:
They then charge us when we want to use it, and I suppose they keep all the profits.
Sounds sort of fair, but I think we should give them back any rent they have paid as a gesture of goodwill.
My preference is that taxpayers stop funding immediately, the stadium is raised to the ground, and the land sold to the highest bidder.1 -
Careful though, this only relates to West ham taking over what LS185/Vinci does - not taking ownership, which of course we are all working to stop.cafc999 said:
This has been their plan all along.The Red Robin said:
There is some merit in this idea. It would mean a pretty fundamental re-working of the Agreement, which currently West Ham are resisting. If they take over the stewarding they will do a better job than LS185. But then they logically have to bear the costs.
This could work, provided that the LLDC equip themselves with someone on their negotiating team with experience of the commercial side of football (no jokes about KM, please).
0 -
The Red Robin said:
"Clearly there is an option that could be done whereby West Ham would operate the stadium. That could be an option. It would require a fundamental renegotiation of all the agreements.
I'm not sure it's humanly possible for Wet Sham to benefit any more from a future deal than they do from the current one!
"I'm not necessarily saying that would be a bad thing. It would be essential in any such process that both parties benefited from that renegotiation."1 -
Thanks for this too. Greatly appreciate when people post relevant articles.Red_in_SE8 said:
This article covers yesterday's GLA meeting where the Budget Committee invited the two former chairs, messrs Coleman and Edmonds, to answer questions. While they are both intelligent men who shed some interesting light on aspects of the affair, they both also displayed arrogance, a sense of entitlement and a complete detachment from the concept that they were answerable to taxpayers in their work. When asked why they thought Mayor Khan called the Inquiry, neither remotely referenced the ongoing public disquiet as a reason. Edmonds reasoning for his refusal to give evidence to Moore Stephens, mentioned in this Times article, was the most jaw dropping example of their attitude. Still, when you can attach a CBE to your name, I suppose you don't have to worry about the concerns of ordinary people any more.
AMs Bacon and Prince continued their splendid (hopefully unpaid) work conducting PR spin on behalf of Gullivan and Brady, while Len Duvall as usual presented his impersonation of a gobby taxi driver on an LBC phone -in. Which one could live with if he hadn't in the process hi-jacked the floor from Caroline Pidgeon, who as usual was the only one asking anything close to pertinent questions.
3 -
Why buy a house that wasn't the way you want it?SomervilleAddick said:From the BBC Sports site
“A senior West Ham source said: "We have bought a new house but it doesn't feel like a home yet because we can't get all our stuff in it and get it the way we want it. Also, if you buy a house and agree a price, you don't expect to start getting charged more once you have moved in."
Except they haven’t bought s house, they’ve rented some rooms for few days a week. But it’s an insight into their thinking - the stadium belongs to them.
Once you've bought the house then the maintenance, upkeep, improvements are down to you.0 -
Saracens v Harlequins at the taxpayers stadium today. The more other events the better to remind West Ham it’s not their stadium7
