Olympic Stadium; our day in court
Comments
-
it was when I last saw it several years ago, but was very well disguised...aliwibble said:Isn't that a Tesco now?0 -
Apparently it's near Upton Garden Underground station - presumably not to be confused with Covent Park ....
3 -
Problem is the area is still a shit hole, I'm sure those setting the prices would know better than me but they seem very high for the location.2
-
Is that a typo in brochure or are they gonna change station name ?GlassHalfFull said:
Apparently it's near Upton Garden Underground station - presumably not to be confused with Covent Park ....0 -
Can only be a typo - I doubt TfL would allow a name change based on a commercial development. To the best of my knowledge that's only happened once before...MrOneLung said:
Is that a typo in brochure or are they gonna change station name ?GlassHalfFull said:
Apparently it's near Upton Garden Underground station - presumably not to be confused with Covent Park ....
The "Why choose Upton Gardens" list of benefits are poorly written and the author needs to go on a classic "features and benefits" sales course:-- One, two and three bedroom apartments
- Exceptional open-plan accommodation
- Constructed on the former stadium of West Ham
- Terraces giving a flow of space from inside to outside
- Contemporary kitchens with a range of modern appliances
- Concierge, fully equipped gym and underground parking
- Just moments from Upton Garden Underground Station
- Ten-year NHBC Buildmark Warranty
1 -
Probably to make is sound more poncy. I'm old enough to remembers Surrey Docks station.3
-
I'm sure it's just a typo. However, they do seem to have changed the post code. It's now E13, whereas I'm sure it used to be E6.MrOneLung said:
Is that a typo in brochure or are they gonna change station name ?GlassHalfFull said:
Apparently it's near Upton Garden Underground station - presumably not to be confused with Covent Park ....0 -
So how on earth can a nurse on even 30k a year before stoppages afford to save a deposit, get a mortgage, and pay the monthly cost of living there?
The days of working and being able to afford a place as a result are long gone.1 -
Was listening to the price of football podcast (think Prague might have recommended it in her before, whoever it was thank you it's very good). Kieran Maguire mentioned the holding company that bought Upton Park, made a £20m profit and paid it's directors £16m. Absolutely disgusting.5
-
Looks like the tax payer is funding moving the seats closer to the pitch.
Seating areas behind the goals at London Stadium are going to be squared off in time for the start of next season in an effort to make the arena more ‘football friendly’.
The move, which is being paid for by stadium operators E20, will have no impact on the 60,000 capacity. However, with seats moving forward by as much as four metres, West Ham hope fans will notice an improvement at the stadium, which has been heavily criticised due to the distance of its seats from the pitch.
The seating arrangement is being constructed in a way that would be compatible with rail seating should government guidelines on all-seater stadiums change.
West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady said: “Reconfiguring London Stadium to bring the stands closer to the action was always something we have wanted to do, and we understand how important this is for our fans.”
2 - Sponsored links:
-
Listen carefully and you can hear those two brain cells rattling around her head!Dansk_Red said:Looks like the tax payer is funding moving the seats closer to the pitch.Seating areas behind the goals at London Stadium are going to be squared off in time for the start of next season in an effort to make the arena more ‘football friendly’.
The move, which is being paid for by stadium operators E20, will have no impact on the 60,000 capacity. However, with seats moving forward by as much as four metres, West Ham hope fans will notice an improvement at the stadium, which has been heavily criticised due to the distance of its seats from the pitch.
The seating arrangement is being constructed in a way that would be compatible with rail seating should government guidelines on all-seater stadiums change.
West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady said: “Reconfiguring London Stadium to bring the stands closer to the action was always something we have wanted someone else to pay for, and we understand how important this is for our fans.”
4 -
@PragueAddick this is from www.fnlondon.com this morning...
London Stadium owners sue law firm Allen & Overy over West Ham’s 99-year lease
West Ham and the London Stadium’s owners have fought a series of legal battles over the lease of the ground
By James Booth
Updated: Tuesday October 6, 2020 11:20 am
The owners of London’s former Olympic stadium have kicked off a legal fight with Magic Circle law firm Allen & Overy over its drafting of Premier League club West Ham United’s 99-year lease of the arena.
The stadium’s public sector owners – London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) and E20 Stadium LLP – have brought a professional negligence suit against the City law firm for its work on the 2013 concession agreement with West Ham, which has been the subject of a series of expensive lawsuits.
LLDC and E20 Stadium launched the High Court claim on 29 September, according to filings at the Commercial Court.
LLDC and E20 are set to argue that the law firm’s poor drafting of the agreement contributed to their difficult relationship with West Ham and a series of costly legal disputes over the interpretation of the agreement, a person with knowledge of the situation said.
“The whole case will revolve around the drafting of the concession agreement and the problems that has caused,” the person said.
West Ham and the stadium’s owners have fought several legal disputes stemming from disagreements over the contract that governs the club’s lease of the ground. The issues related to the colour of the materials surrounding the pitch, the number of draught beer pumps in the stadium’s bars and the number of televisions showing Sky TV in the ground.
Allen & Overy acted for E20 Stadium on the drafting of the 2013 concession agreement that governed West Ham’s lease of the ground. At the time, E20 was a joint venture between LLDC and Newham Council. It is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of LLDC.
The stadium’s owners have lost millions of pounds annually under the terms of the agreement, which a 2017 report – commissioned by London mayor Sadiq Khan – concluded represented poor value for taxpayers.
The report found that the concession agreement with West Ham would not cover the cost of running the stadium and would leave taxpayers with a hefty annual bill.
“The West Ham agreement... does not recover from West Ham by way of rent and other charges a sum sufficient to cover the associated running costs of the stadium,” it said.
“Presently, the investment by the public purse in the stadium transformation is not only unlikely ever to be recovered, it will on present figures be likely to worsen year by year at the rate of some £10m to £20m per year, due to expected operating losses,” the report added.
An LLDC spokesperson said: “We are in dispute with A&O over the drafting of the West Ham United concession agreement and despite our attempts to resolve this dispute with A&O have been unable to do so.
“We have a responsibility to protect taxpayers’ interests and so have had no alternative but to seek redress through the courts.”
A spokesperson for A&O said: “This claim is entirely without merit and we will defend it vigorously.”
The stadium’s owners and West Ham settled out of court in 2018 over whether the concession agreement allowed for the stadium’s match-day capacity to be increased from 57,000 to 66,000.
West Ham was contacted for comment.
9 -
Great spot, @TelMc32, thanks for flagging, we will need to revive the Coalition's social media machine for this..
In one sense I am not surprised. It seemed obvious to us lay people that it was full of holes, and indeed at the Tribunal, and afterwards, the LLDC side referred obliquely to its deficiencies. And then you think, though, a top drawer law firm..aren't you supposed to get what you pay for, as in any other line of business? Do these law firms take the piss when the "client" is a public sector authority? Is that what it is?
Well either way, hats off to Lyn Garner the current CEO. She came in after we had effectively won the day and Khan had ordered the inquiry. The moment I saw her in action for the first time, I thought, "aha, different gravy" compared to the hapless predecessor David Goldstone. I presume this move is her work and if so, she deserves respect and support , even though I am sure sueing such a law firm is a hopeless task. All of a sudden they really will find the capacity to field their "A" team, won't they?8 -
great to see ... at some stage, it has to be realised that the public purse should not be supporting a football team, especially at this time when so many other clubs ... and the public themselves ... are struggling.TelMc32 said:@PragueAddick this is from www.fnlondon.com this morning...
London Stadium owners sue law firm Allen & Overy over West Ham’s 99-year lease
West Ham and the London Stadium’s owners have fought a series of legal battles over the lease of the ground
By James Booth
Updated: Tuesday October 6, 2020 11:20 am
The owners of London’s former Olympic stadium have kicked off a legal fight with Magic Circle law firm Allen & Overy over its drafting of Premier League club West Ham United’s 99-year lease of the arena.
The stadium’s public sector owners – London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) and E20 Stadium LLP – have brought a professional negligence suit against the City law firm for its work on the 2013 concession agreement with West Ham, which has been the subject of a series of expensive lawsuits.
LLDC and E20 Stadium launched the High Court claim on 29 September, according to filings at the Commercial Court.
LLDC and E20 are set to argue that the law firm’s poor drafting of the agreement contributed to their difficult relationship with West Ham and a series of costly legal disputes over the interpretation of the agreement, a person with knowledge of the situation said.
“The whole case will revolve around the drafting of the concession agreement and the problems that has caused,” the person said.
West Ham and the stadium’s owners have fought several legal disputes stemming from disagreements over the contract that governs the club’s lease of the ground. The issues related to the colour of the materials surrounding the pitch, the number of draught beer pumps in the stadium’s bars and the number of televisions showing Sky TV in the ground.
Allen & Overy acted for E20 Stadium on the drafting of the 2013 concession agreement that governed West Ham’s lease of the ground. At the time, E20 was a joint venture between LLDC and Newham Council. It is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of LLDC.
The stadium’s owners have lost millions of pounds annually under the terms of the agreement, which a 2017 report – commissioned by London mayor Sadiq Khan – concluded represented poor value for taxpayers.
The report found that the concession agreement with West Ham would not cover the cost of running the stadium and would leave taxpayers with a hefty annual bill.
“The West Ham agreement... does not recover from West Ham by way of rent and other charges a sum sufficient to cover the associated running costs of the stadium,” it said.
“Presently, the investment by the public purse in the stadium transformation is not only unlikely ever to be recovered, it will on present figures be likely to worsen year by year at the rate of some £10m to £20m per year, due to expected operating losses,” the report added.
An LLDC spokesperson said: “We are in dispute with A&O over the drafting of the West Ham United concession agreement and despite our attempts to resolve this dispute with A&O have been unable to do so.
“We have a responsibility to protect taxpayers’ interests and so have had no alternative but to seek redress through the courts.”
A spokesperson for A&O said: “This claim is entirely without merit and we will defend it vigorously.”
The stadium’s owners and West Ham settled out of court in 2018 over whether the concession agreement allowed for the stadium’s match-day capacity to be increased from 57,000 to 66,000.
West Ham was contacted for comment.
14 -
Not sure it is a totally hopeless task. Law firms have to have Professional Indemnity Insurance just for this sort of thing and there are firms sued by clients all the time. Whether they get to court, or win, is another matter. After the money already wasted and being lost on this project, you would hope that they have what they feel is a good case to bring against A&O. Otherwise this is just throwing more good money after bad.PragueAddick said:Great spot, @TelMc32, thanks for flagging, we will need to revive the Coalition's social media machine for this..
In one sense I am not surprised. It seemed obvious to us lay people that it was full of holes, and indeed at the Tribunal, and afterwards, the LLDC side referred obliquely to its deficiencies. And then you think, though, a top drawer law firm..aren't you supposed to get what you pay for, as in any other line of business? Do these law firms take the piss when the "client" is a public sector authority? Is that what it is?
Well either way, hats off to Lyn Garner the current CEO. She came in after we had effectively won the day and Khan had ordered the inquiry. The moment I saw her in action for the first time, I thought, "aha, different gravy" compared to the hapless predecessor David Goldstone. I presume this move is her work and if so, she deserves respect and support , even though I am sure sueing such a law firm is a hopeless task. All of a sudden they really will find the capacity to field their "A" team, won't they?0 -
as long as the argument is again in the public domain, it has to be worth it even if A&O do not lose ... at some stage, it will be picked up by politicians that this is a non-supportable situation and has to stopPragueAddick said:Great spot, @TelMc32, thanks for flagging, we will need to revive the Coalition's social media machine for this..
In one sense I am not surprised. It seemed obvious to us lay people that it was full of holes, and indeed at the Tribunal, and afterwards, the LLDC side referred obliquely to its deficiencies. And then you think, though, a top drawer law firm..aren't you supposed to get what you pay for, as in any other line of business? Do these law firms take the piss when the "client" is a public sector authority? Is that what it is?
Well either way, hats off to Lyn Garner the current CEO. She came in after we had effectively won the day and Khan had ordered the inquiry. The moment I saw her in action for the first time, I thought, "aha, different gravy" compared to the hapless predecessor David Goldstone. I presume this move is her work and if so, she deserves respect and support , even though I am sure sueing such a law firm is a hopeless task. All of a sudden they really will find the capacity to field their "A" team, won't they?3 -
https://www.london-stadium.com/news/2020/november/london-stadium-to-transform-experience-for-games-concerts-with-new-led-lighting-system.html
The floodlights are being changed to LED, which will save £0.5m a year. Can't believe that they are not LED already.7 -
guinnessaddick said:https://www.london-stadium.com/news/2020/november/london-stadium-to-transform-experience-for-games-concerts-with-new-led-lighting-system.html
The floodlights are being changed to LED, which will save £0.5m a year. Can't believe that they are not LED already.
Saw it on BBC news this morning .
What they didn't say was how much it cost to install1 -
And who's paying?2
-
Well, it’s not the hamsters.iaitch said:And who's paying?0 - Sponsored links:
-
Surely their personalties would light up any event?
Neez up muver bran...
3 -
The landlord, of course. AKA, you and me.guinnessaddick said:
Well, it’s not the hamsters.iaitch said:And who's paying?1 -
soapy_jones said:Surely their personalties would light up any event?
Neez up muver bran...
'kin hell. Brady's looking a bit rough round the edges. The Dildo man don't change tho'.
3 -
I note Karren Brady is heading up the Tide charity with the Daily Mail and the Federation of small businesses.
The charity is designed to allot £1000 chunks to small businesses who are struggling in the present crisis. I couldn't think of a more appropriate role for her. After all, who has more experience than her when it comes to using and distributing other people's money?
https://www.tidecharity.org.uk/
9 -
An interesting development, although it looks like E20 Stadium left it until just before the expiration of the primary six year limitation period to sue, which may be telling. I suspect that the claimants were wetting themselves at the time to get some sort of deal done, as there was enormous political pressure to avoid the London Stadium becoming a 'white elephant', as the Public Accounts Committee put it back in March 2012 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17302068TelMc32 said:
Not sure it is a totally hopeless task. Law firms have to have Professional Indemnity Insurance just for this sort of thing and there are firms sued by clients all the time. Whether they get to court, or win, is another matter. After the money already wasted and being lost on this project, you would hope that they have what they feel is a good case to bring against A&O. Otherwise this is just throwing more good money after bad.PragueAddick said:Great spot, @TelMc32, thanks for flagging, we will need to revive the Coalition's social media machine for this..
In one sense I am not surprised. It seemed obvious to us lay people that it was full of holes, and indeed at the Tribunal, and afterwards, the LLDC side referred obliquely to its deficiencies. And then you think, though, a top drawer law firm..aren't you supposed to get what you pay for, as in any other line of business? Do these law firms take the piss when the "client" is a public sector authority? Is that what it is?
Well either way, hats off to Lyn Garner the current CEO. She came in after we had effectively won the day and Khan had ordered the inquiry. The moment I saw her in action for the first time, I thought, "aha, different gravy" compared to the hapless predecessor David Goldstone. I presume this move is her work and if so, she deserves respect and support , even though I am sure sueing such a law firm is a hopeless task. All of a sudden they really will find the capacity to field their "A" team, won't they?
Although the dispute relates to the concession agreement (which I assume is distinct), why, for example, did LDDC agree to meet practically all the enormous costs of converting the stadium for West Ham's use unless it reflected their weak negotiating position and anxiety to cut a deal ? Their problem, of course, is that, unlike the City of Manchester Stadium (now the Etihad), which was originally designed to host the 2002 Commonwealth Games and subsequently converted for use by Manchester City, no prior agreement was in place for the Olympic Stadium.
It is the client’s responsibility to negotiate the terms of the commercial deal. A solicitor's core duty is to then negotiate an agreement which gives legal effect to the client's instructions and its understanding of that commercial deal. There is also an obligation to provide such advice as is required to enable the client to make a decision to proceed with the transaction and, if so, on what terms.
It all depends upon the facts but, if there were negligent shortcomings in the advice, there is then a two-stage test: first, on the balance of probabilities, what would the claimant have done (i.e. would it have acted differently ?); and, secondly, what would the third party (in this case, West Ham) have done if the issue had been raised ? If a claimant can show it had a real and substantial (rather than speculative) chance of achieving a more favourable outcome, damages are assessed on the basis of the loss of a chance, with the court applying a percentage discount to reflect any factual or legal uncertainties.
There is clearly a lot of political pressure to pass on at least some of the blame on for what was, on any view, an extremely poor deal and this, together with the difficult backcloth to the original negotiations, are points that the solicitors won't be shy about making should the action be pursued.1 -
Its an interesting one. Knowing the contract rather better than is healthy for my sanity, I’ve always felt that it was so rubbish because of the complete lack of specialist commercial expertise that underpinned it. In plain language, if they had contracted e.g. Peter Varney to design and negotiate the deal, it would have been a lot better for the taxpayer. For example he would never have let West Ham keep 100% of the corporate hospitality revenue.
But whose fault it was, that such football commercial expertise was so lacking, is a question. I tend to think it was the LLDC’s fault.0 -
You'd have thought so and the very low annual rent (around £2 million ?) was surely another reason for LDDC and E20 to have driven a hard - or, at least, a respectable - bargain on the other elements.PragueAddick said:Its an interesting one. Knowing the contract rather better than is healthy for my sanity, I’ve always felt that it was so rubbish because of the complete lack of specialist commercial expertise that underpinned it. In plain language, if they had contracted e.g. Peter Varney to design and negotiate the deal, it would have been a lot better for the taxpayer. For example he would never have let West Ham keep 100% of the corporate hospitality revenue.
But whose fault it was, that such football commercial expertise was so lacking, is a question. I tend to think it was the LLDC’s fault.
I can see that the solicitors could be criticised if the drafting of a clause or formula did not achieve its intended effect or if there was an ambiguity which exposed the client to a dispute with the other party. Maybe the article from James Booth which @TelMc32 posted is suggesting the latter when it says that "LLDC and E20 are set to argue that the law firm’s poor drafting of the agreement contributed to their difficult relationship with West Ham and a series of costly legal disputes over the interpretation of the agreement, a person with knowledge of the situation said."
On the other hand, if the clients negotiated a bum commercial deal, that is entirely on them. I wonder also whether they had access to any other professional advice at the time which might be relevant - e.g.from financial advisors ?
You know more about these agreements than any sensible humanoid should know, but it's obviously unclear at present which bits LLDC and E20 are complaining about. It will be interesting to see how things pan out.1 -
Probably cheaper then the maintenance of old system, which used a lot of kit from the Olympics and was a cheaper install when the stadium was reconfiged.IT_Andy said:guinnessaddick said:https://www.london-stadium.com/news/2020/november/london-stadium-to-transform-experience-for-games-concerts-with-new-led-lighting-system.html
The floodlights are being changed to LED, which will save £0.5m a year. Can't believe that they are not LED already.
Saw it on BBC news this morning .
What they didn't say was how much it cost to install
LED price has fallen through the floor in recent times0 -
The cancellation of planned showpiece events at London Stadium last year will help save the London taxpayer £7.4m, a new report has found.
The document looks at the London Legacy Development Corporation's (LLDC) handling of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, including West Ham's home ground.
It shows how costs fell as the Covid-19 crisis led to events, most notably Major League Baseball in June 2020 and athletics' Anniversary Games the following month, being called off.
Despite a reduction in trading revenue of 30% across the park, the report says London Stadium is responsible for 70% of the £7.4m spending reduction demanded by the Greater London Authority and expected to be made this financial year.
The report says this is evidence of medium-term "structural funding pressures" and that "it saves the LLDC money when it's not running events".
However, the report also suggests the general financial outlook of the park is a "ticking time bomb" for the next London mayor.
1 -
I think this is the best thread to mention something that is only tangentially connected to the Stadium itself, but which I hope many will find as worrying as I do.
"Somebody"- I'll deal with who, in a moment - has initiated a move by which an Information Tribunal (the "court" in the thread name) is to consider whether people from outside the UK should be barred from making Freedom of Information requests. This came to light a couple of months ago, but I only just heard about it. The main media report comes from a relatively obscure computer magazine.
Obviously if this were the law (and currently it is clearly not the law) I would not have been able to make the request and the entire contract might today still be a matter of secrecy. As it happens though, I have never been aware that anyone involved knew I lived abroad - I reckon Karren Brady for starters would have kicked off about it. Even the goons on KUMB never twigged.
I am working with the activists who run the UK FOI site to find out the motivation behind this move. The journo who wrote the article has so far reported no luck in doing so, his current guess is that it is a way to reduce workload on the tribunals. I don't think that's a good way at all. After all this case only went to Tribunal because Johnson needed time to cover his tracks and reverse away from the project (he was chair of the LLDC when the ICO ruled in our favour), and there were further delays and extensions due entirely to the LLDC side playing with procedure and requiring more time. Not me. I delivered everything seamlessly, had no problems with any dates, and pitched up without any problem.
However when I saw the name of the "clerk" who has apparently initiated this, I thought that name rang a bell, so I went through all the emails from the time and..she was the Clerk of Court who set up my Tribunal!!. As far as I can see from the correspondence, she too had no reason to note that I lived abroad. At some point, I'm probably going to confront her with all this, but first we want to try and find out whether she is acting on her own initiative. I can't help but see this as another exmaple of the UK turning in on itself, but I hope I am wrong. Either way, it needs to be rejected, nothing good will come of it.4
