Dapablo
12:57 Tue Apr 21
Re: : A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
Nonsense article having a pop at the Tories at Election time!
|
Baggins
12:57 Tue Apr 21
Re: : A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
Comma - Im sure they would, but it aint gonna happen.
They should be fucking thanking us, not picking holes and moaning.
|
ForeverHammers
1:01 Tue Apr 21
Re: : A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
Has that Owen Gibson ever wrote anything positive about West Ham? Same for Rob Harris. They probably post on here,
|
,
1:02 Tue Apr 21
Re: : A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
Two interesting points here;
It also argues that the LLDC will receive a “significant uplift” in naming rights income as a result of West Ham’s presence and that there is a “significant community benefits arising from West Ham’s use of the stadium” including 100,000 free tickets per annum to be distributed to locals.
It also highlights the so-called Threshold Amount deal with West Ham ensuring that the LLDC will receive a slice of the proceeds if the club is sold within a certain time frame (although it will only receive “a share of that increase in value above a certain threshold”).
|
icwhs
1:06 Tue Apr 21
Re: The Guardian: A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
ManorParkHammer 12:12 Tue Apr 21
Re: The Guardian: A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
I read every word, and they may have a point, why are they not showing then the stuff, if its free to get to Joe public???
Fishy and won't go away,watch this space
|
Gavros
1:07 Tue Apr 21
Re: : A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
Yes this is timed to cause damage for the tories politically. Theres nothing actually new here.
|
Arko
1:12 Tue Apr 21
Re: : A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
Yes Gavros, but do you reckon it will go away soon ?
Or will this start a massive investigation now that will set back the opening of the OS for years and throw our sale of Upton Park into disarray ?
|
,
1:14 Tue Apr 21
Re: : A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
How can this article damage the tories? Some people are politically paranoid if they can see something. Next we'll be told that Sir Robin Wales and his Newham cronies are all tories on here. The left wing Borough of Newham has also subsidised stadium work.
|
Gavros
1:25 Tue Apr 21
Re: : A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
wont change anything.
|
Arko
1:26 Tue Apr 21
Re: : A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
Why not Gavros ? Things involving legal matters tend to blow up in our faces, it's the West Ham way...
|
Gavros
1:30 Tue Apr 21
Re: : A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
well we bid in a public tender to use a public stadium for about 25 days a year.
If by some miracle were this deal to be declared inadmissible, the club is in a fantastic position to sue the LLDC for what its put the club through and the loss of the ground.
This will of course get mongy fans everywhere excited about suing us, but if there's any suing to be done, it'd be us doing the suing.
|
Arko
1:32 Tue Apr 21
Re: : A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
Yes, but West Ham in the past have been crap in court, haven't we ? So while we may sue the LLDC knowing our luck and legal expertise we will end up without a stadium, legal costs of 25 million and a compensation amount payable by the LLDC to the tune of 5 million Pounds...
|
Lily Hammer
1:32 Tue Apr 21
Re: : A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
As Boris says, they can BOGG OFF!
Two major points not mentioned. 1. We will no longer own our own stadfium, which we only sold when it had been AGREED that we could RENT this new stadium. 2. West Ham offered to help pay for the stadium before they started buildong it but were knocked back by Coe because he didn't want horrible football wootball being involved.
FUCK EM ALL!
|
Gavros
1:33 Tue Apr 21
Re: : A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
No.
This 'prior approval' technicality is bollocks anyway, but it wasnt our responsibility to sort out. The risk, whatever there is of it, is all in the LLDC/ government court.
|
Arko
1:37 Tue Apr 21
Re: : A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
Hope you're right Gavros. In the past those matters used to bite West Ham firmly on the backside...
|
Gavros
1:39 Tue Apr 21
Re: : A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
the club have been asked to participate in a public tender, which the club won. Everything is legal and above board as far as the club is concerned. Dont let silly headlines and long words confuse you.
|
Lewisham_Hammer
2:17 Tue Apr 21
Re: : A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
Bitter Charlton Athletic, just concentrate on your own pathetic shitty team bunch of mongs.
|
percyd
2:54 Tue Apr 21
Re: The Guardian: A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
Nothing much new here. Seems to me the only possible live issue is the amount of rent WHU pay. The comparison with Ajax implies our rent is too low, but fails to make other pertinent comparisons (e.g. frequency of usage, alternate usage by other codes/events, income-sharing, naming rights and so on). If the EC bods want to look into that aspect and determine that we are underpaying, so be it. The club may have to pay more rent: hardly the end of the world nor an issue that would see WHU excluded from the stadium.
|
Saul Bollox
3:18 Tue Apr 21
Re: The Guardian: A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
This article stinks of tottenham.
|
Joke Whole
7:34 Tue Apr 21
Re: : A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
I'd agree that this is an anti-government piece with an opportunistic pop at West Ham thrown in with the hope of getting a bite.
From what I see, West Ham have acted properly both times they were asked to bid (witness the underhand tactics needed to attempt to try and find a non-existent issue in the first case).
It is hardly the fault of the football club if those setting up the contract fucked up along the line - and neither did they have any obligation to point out if any such fuck-up was beneficial to them at the expense of the tax payer - the government employs a team of legal experts to perform that task.
To try and pull a fast one on the deal now would be a very high risk strategy, leaving the government open to all sorts of legal and financial challenges - who knows? If the deal collapses through no fault of what West Ham did, the club could end up after all, as part of a compensation package, with it's own purpose built football stadium, paid for at the government's expense all due to the government's incompetence.
The government cannot now allow the deal to fail, especially given the additional investment they've had to make to adapt the stadium for football use.
In any case, all this is going to seem like deafening silence when the government reveal it's plans to dispose of the site in order to realise it's assets.
|
Joke Whole
7:35 Tue Apr 21
Re: : A lack of transparency in the deal that led to Premier League club’s move to the Olymp
|
I'd agree that this is an anti-government piece with an opportunistic pop at West Ham thrown in with the hope of getting a bite.
From what I see, West Ham have acted properly both times they were asked to bid (witness the underhand tactics needed to attempt to try and find a non-existent issue in the first case).
It is hardly the fault of the football club if those setting up the contract fucked up along the line - and neither did they have any obligation to point out if any such fuck-up was beneficial to them at the expense of the tax payer - the government employs a team of legal experts to perform that task.
To try and pull a fast one on the deal now would be a very high risk strategy, leaving the government open to all sorts of legal and financial challenges - who knows? If the deal collapses through no fault of what West Ham did, the club could end up after all, as part of a compensation package, with it's own purpose built football stadium, paid for at the government's expense all due to the government's incompetence.
The government cannot now allow the deal to fail, especially given the additional investment they've had to make to adapt the stadium for football use.
In any case, all this is going to seem like deafening silence when the government reveal it's plans to dispose of the site in order to realise it's assets.
|
| 
