Olympic Stadium; our day in court

guinnessaddick said:

https://twitter.com/oscoalition/status/1052320387097395200?s=21

seth plum said:

The Geoff Pike stand.

PragueAddick said:

JohnBoyUK said:

I note tonight's BBC London News covered Brady's meeting and it was made to sound that LLDC were the cause of all the problems.

Brady said West Ham should be allowed to search for the naming rights as they are the main draw of 4bn eyeballs watching the PL

That pisses me off. Was it TV? Early evening?

I met Amy Lewis of ITN as planned before the Brady meeting, and we recorded an interview in front of City Hall which I was happy with and she seemed to be too. Her cameraman stayed to get footage of Brady attending the meeting. Later got a text from her "I’m so sorry but Wembley completely changed day and I was put on that."

Which of course was frustrating but more so because BBC London news had the same info from us as Amy, but ignored it.

But that's the world of news today.

The meeting was dominated by AMs who are west Ham fans and /or Tories, but I managed to collar one of them afterwards -Sue Hall- and had a decent dialogue. Turns out she's a Spurs fan...

Then had a couple of very interesting meetings with insolvency experts.

We are still on track.

Dippenhall said:

rikofold said:

I did some research on concession contracts a while ago, and I struggled to find any examples where the bankruptcy of the grantor was provisioned in contract. I imagine this is because those contracts available will be government or other public bodies and there's an assumption it will not fail. It may be explained as simply as that, Occam's razor and all that.

That said, there is a principle in a lease arrangement in such cirumstances of the leaseholders right of first refusal, which gives the leaseholder the right to buy the property in the event of the landlord company going bust. It may be that West Ham are considering that may apply to their arrangement, but they are not the only concessionaires, of course, and the legal basis is somewhat different.

There's an assumption here that West Ham would be better off should they own the stadium, but I think that might need testing. Right now their sole operating costs re the stadium are £2.5m per year, half that if they were relegated - and will be for 99 years (subject to indexation). Given they already retain all the revenues from the most profitable opportunities, and that they think they can order E20 to do whatever they want next in the stadium, do we really think owning it is what they want? Not convinced, frankly - rather I suspect that their legal threats to a grantor who seems to roll over whenever Brady breathes in their direction are aiming to milk it for as much as they can get away with.

By the way, if E20 were placed into the hands of liquidators, is the stadium legally their asset? It's owned by the GLA/LLDC, who are of course the major partner in the LLP - but it's a legally different entity, right?

Bankruptcy provisions are irrelevant for normal concession which can be terminated st any time eg a stall in Greenwich market. The liquidator of Greenwich market would be able to exercise the termination clause.

The concession is granted for 99 years with no power under the agreement for early termination. The liquidator has acquired no termination power to exercise.

Transfer of the benefit of the concession by the Liquidstor requires the consent of WH.

This concession bears no comparison to a conventional concession. Neither is it a lease as it does not involve sole uninterrupted use of a property 24/7 so no statutory protection exists for either grantor or grantee, it is entirely a contractual matter.

The asset of value is the Concesdion agreement which gives.99 year’s rental income, not the freehold interest in the stadium. Ownership of the freehold is a worthless asset if you can’t issue a new unemcumbered lease or concession.

LLDC will have inherited an agreement which for 99 years cannot be touched if WH pay the rent and LLDC can’t sell it on without consent of WH.

rikofold said:

This is an unrelenting shit show isn't it.

PragueAddick said:

Eynsfordaddick said:

Typical reporting on the BBC site: poor West Ham according to Brady. All they want to do is help the LLDC and they don't cost the taxpayer the amounts quoted. Right!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45891527

I was certainly very disappointed. Chris Slegg, who did that, received our press release and knows me from his decent coverage when we went to the Tribunal.

They are all under ridiculous pressure though. Amy Lewis, the ITN reporter ( who came with us to Sint-Truiden) is over 7 months pregnant. She was fretting over getting it all done at City Hall in time to get back and edit it in time for 6.00. In the event when she got back she was told to go and cover another breaking story instead. Watching her work I could only admire the energy and the precision under time pressure.

Come to think of it though, whereas Amy had a cameraman with her, Chris Slegg at the Tribunal interviewed me using his IPhone! I guess that BBC local news is becoming a real low rent operation.

The Red Robin said:

Interesting VIP MLB prices for the London series next year - http://www.csmcorporatehospitality.com/baseball/csm-baseball-mlb-london-series