Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

All you need to know about West Ham United FC's potential move to Stratford.

Moderators: Romford, Rio, Gnome, Northern Paulo, Lost Hammer, bonehead, chalks, goes2eleven, Alf Garnett's (Ex) Missus, bristolhammerfc, Wheels, sicknote

Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby Korea Hammer on Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:54 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/17629661" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

West Ham's latest bid to move into the Olympic Stadium is "fundamentally flawed" and should be disqualified, according to Leyton Orient chairman Barry Hearn.
West Ham have declared their renewed application to move from Upton Park after the collapse of their original attempt following legal challenges from Orient and Tottenham Hotspur.
The Championship club have applied for a 99-year lease of the stadium, but Hearn is now demanding the bid is rejected.
"I am 100% certain that West Ham do not have the permission of the Football League, a fundamental criteria of the bid process" Hearn told the BBC.
"The Olympic Park Legacy Company [OLPC] have no choice but to disqualify them."

In December 2011 the OPLC listed certain minimum requirements for bidders, including "governing body consent".
According to the OPLC's Invitation to Tender document: "Each bidder who proposes content of a sporting nature must have written confirmation from the relevant governing body that the said governing body supports fixtures being played at the stadium..."
Hearn believes West Ham failed to meet that condition by 23 March, the deadline for bids.

"We have now, through our lawyers, written to the OPLC, asking if this clause was satisfied as we believe it wasn't, and we've asked for West Ham's bid to be disqualified" he said.
Leyton Orient are challenging the legality of the Premier League's decision last year to allow West Ham to move to the stadium on the basis it failed to take into consideration the adverse effect on Orient.
West Ham were relegated last season.
"I think they've relied on a Premier League letter saying that they're quite happy," said Hearn.
"But the Premier League are irrelevant because West Ham are now a Football League club, of which we're also a member. So we're looking for our rights to be upheld.
"I don't think the Football League have made any ruling on this at all. The case would be heard by the league's board. It makes West Ham fundamentally flawed in their bid process."
"The OPLC has constantly moved the goalposts, but this is one where they've really put a noose round their own neck. If they move the goal-posts again, Leyton Orient will once again seek a judicial review against them."
Leyton Orient themselves considered moving to the Olympic Stadium, but withdrew on the basis that it was "not fit for football".
Hearn fears West Ham's move to the 2012 stadium, which will be converted into a 60,000-seater venue after the Games, will jeopardise the League One club's future by tempting fans away from Brisbane Road.
"We're totally opposed to West Ham taking occupancy of the stadium," said Hearn.
"My mind boggles at the problems they will give us. It would be extremely harmful to Leyton Orient.
"All the shenanigans over the stadium have gone on for years and years and years. It's fundamentally flawed in design. They should knock it down and start again."
West Ham face competition from three other bidders.
The club told the BBC: "West Ham United has submitted a bid to play matches at the Olympic Stadium from 2014. The rules of the competition impose duties of confidentiality which all bidders must abide by and therefore we make no further comment."
A spokesperson for the London Legacy Development Corporation said: "We have said all along we would not be commenting on what is a confidential process."
The Football League declined to comment.
User avatar
Korea Hammer
 
Posts: 3090
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:23 pm
Location: The Land Of The Morning Calm

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby bonzosbeard on Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:18 pm

I dont want the olympic stadium on current knowledge, but if we get it I will be very happy its upset Mr Hearn.
User avatar
bonzosbeard
 
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:48 am
Location: somerset

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby smuts on Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:09 pm

One of the only reasons I want to see us actually move in is to see this annoying ****ing twerps face.
User avatar
smuts
 
Posts: 12098
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:28 am
Location: East, East, East London

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby Westbourne Bill on Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:12 pm

I would suggest Leyton Orient's future interests are being better fought for by Hearn than WHU's are by Gold and Sullivan.
User avatar
Westbourne Bill
 
Posts: 2559
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 5:49 pm
Location: W Sussex

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby trick88 on Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:48 pm

Hearn lacks a brain cell.. when is he and his two bob pub club gonna give it a rest??
User avatar
trick88
 
Posts: 2521
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:53 am
Location: West Lower

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby bagpuss on Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:10 pm

All he wants is a wad of cash for himself and Orient, as if a true fan will bail on their club to watch better football !!!!
User avatar
bagpuss
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:37 am
Location: Luton

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby fireman on Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:26 pm

bagpuss wrote:All he wants is a wad of cash for himself and Orient, as if a true fan will bail on their club to watch better football !!!!


Better?
User avatar
fireman
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:38 pm
Location: By the river!!

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:52 pm

Evidence Barry?
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 8878
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: The dry again leafy lanes of Surrey

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby Doc H Ball on Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:09 pm

Johnny Byrne's Boots wrote:Evidence Barry?


Football League rules:

13.6 Each Club shall register its ground with the Executive and no Club shall remove to another ground without first obtaining the written consent of the Board, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.

13.7 In considering whether to give any such consent, the Board shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and shall not grant consent unless it is reasonably satisfied that such consent:

13.7.1 would be consistent with the objects of The League as set out in the Memorandum of Association;

13.7.2 would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the locality with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is traditionally associated and that in which such Club proposes to establish its ground;

13.7.3 would not adversely affect such Club’s Officials, players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors and others having an interest in its activities;

13.7.4 would not have an adverse effect on visiting Clubs;

13.7.5 would not adversely affect Clubs having their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location; and

13.7.6 would enhance the reputation of The League and promote the game of association football generally.


13.7.3 - applies to us
13.7.5 - is what Bazza is relying on
User avatar
Doc H Ball
 
Posts: 5397
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: in nick

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby Pop Robson on Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:56 pm

I wonder if Brady has missed this one ?

There's probably a get out clause if we go up.
User avatar
Pop Robson
 
Posts: 13312
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:12 pm

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby Hammer110 on Fri Apr 06, 2012 12:10 am

And these are near identical:

Premier league Rules:

In considering whether to give any such consent, the Board shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and shall not consent unless reasonably satisfied that such consent:

6.1 would be consistent with the objects of the Company as set out in the Memorandum;

6.2 would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the locality with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is traditionally associated and that in which such Club proposes to establish its ground;

6.3 would not adversely affect such Club’s Officials, Players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors and others having an interest in its activities;

6.4 would not have an adverse effect on Visiting Clubs;

6.5 would not adversely affect Clubs (or Football League clubs) having their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location; and

6.6 would enhance the reputation of the League and promote the game of association football generally.


Which means it could be argued that the PL permission for us to move sets a precedent, which the FL which be hard pushed to go against
User avatar
Hammer110
 
Posts: 2485
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:56 pm
Location: Looking forward to the new season, new league, new challenges, bring it on. 父 父

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby Doc H Ball on Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:29 am

Hammer110 wrote:Which means it could be argued that the PL permission for us to move sets a precedent, which the FL which be hard pushed to go against


That is true and something the Club are relying upon. However there are some important differences:

1..Orient are a FL club. The FL might take their position rather more into account than the PL did. They are quite different organisations.

2.. When the PL granted permission, Orient were bidding as well and now they are not. They might be said to be more adversely affected now than then.

3.. Tottenham were also granted PL permission despite an objection on the point from West Ham. Bit ripe for them now to say that they themselves would have no impact on the Os.

4.. Orient intended to challenge the PL decision but things never got that far. Lawrence's complaint to the Commissioner stopped proceedings.

5.. Orient have now adopted the anti-subsidy point adding it to their grounds. If we win the bid they (and others) will challenge the FL, bring a JR against the OPLC and ask the Commissioner to reconsider.

6.. West Ham have yet to seek the FL's permission.
User avatar
Doc H Ball
 
Posts: 5397
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: in nick

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby kitthehammer on Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:07 am

This smacks of desperation to me. It's also a little dig at us and i must admit this twat is beginning to annoy me now.
User avatar
kitthehammer
 
Posts: 8949
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 2:11 am
Location: way out west in hounslow

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby MD_HM on Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:59 am

kitthehammer wrote:This smacks of desperation to me. It's also a little dig at us and i must admit this twat is beginning to annoy me now.


Hearn or some of our "fans"? :lol:
User avatar
MD_HM
 
Posts: 3546
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:00 pm
Location: London

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby Fortunes always on Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:36 pm

Wasn't Hearn apparently ok for Spurs to move to Stratford with a new stadium on the OS site & yet doesn't want us moving there.He was even interviewed on Sky Sports news (after the last bid win was overturned) saying it was a great day for the little teams & the reporter asked about the new bid & possible ground sharing with West Ham & hearn replied that he didn't know but maybe it could happen.
Fortunes always
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:52 am

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby beckton on Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:08 am

Fortunes always wrote:Wasn't Hearn apparently ok for Spurs to move to Stratford with a new stadium on the OS site & yet doesn't want us moving there.





Yes. He wrote letters to both Spurs and the PL backing their bid. Morally he hasn't a leg to stand on but is just looking for a taxpayers handout similar to Spurs.
User avatar
beckton
 
Posts: 12339
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:41 pm
Location: Hanging on by my fingertips.

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby brownout on Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:46 am

If I recall correctly, initially he didn't want either West Ham or Spurs to move there (or Orient), but backed Spurs bid on the basis that them moving to Stratford would harm Orient less than West Ham moving.
User avatar
brownout
 
Posts: 6637
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 9:26 pm

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby beckton on Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:19 am

Originally Hearn said West Ham's bid should win but that well before Spurs put their late bid in.


I think he called it a "no-brainer". I've not been able to find the original quotes with all the crap he's spouted since.
User avatar
beckton
 
Posts: 12339
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:41 pm
Location: Hanging on by my fingertips.

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby Fortunes always on Sat Apr 07, 2012 2:12 pm

beckton wrote:Originally Hearn said West Ham's bid should win but that well before Spurs put their late bid in.


I think he called it a "no-brainer". I've not been able to find the original quotes with all the crap he's spouted since.



Let's hope that Brady,Gold & Sullivan have done their homework this time round & have ALL the legalities tied up so that When Hearn starts shouting we can just swat him like you would a fly.Also still unsure about the move but with Gold & Brady telling everyone that this stadium is gonna be everything West Ham fans would want & expect i feel that if this move turns into a complete disaster i fail to see how Brady,Gold & Sullivan could retain their positions as owners etc.So they are putting a hell of a lot on the line for this move.I personally hope they do deliver the goods.
Fortunes always
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:52 am

Re: Hearn claims West Ham lack Governing Body Consent

Postby N1Andy on Sun Apr 08, 2012 11:12 am

Fortunes always wrote:Wasn't Hearn apparently ok for Spurs to move to Stratford with a new stadium on the OS site & yet doesn't want us moving there.He was even interviewed on Sky Sports news (after the last bid win was overturned) saying it was a great day for the little teams & the reporter asked about the new bid & possible ground sharing with West Ham & hearn replied that he didn't know but maybe it could happen.

If I remember right, he prefered Spuds because he thinks they can sell out a 60k at full price, whereas he presuposes that we'd need to discount tickets and these cheap price would impact on his fanbase. To be fair to the guy, on that basis he's probably right, but he's still an irritating prick!
I'd be very surprised if we haven't crossed the t's and dotted the i's this time around, but with Gilbert & Sullivan in charge, it's always a musical comedy!
N1Andy
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:50 pm

Next

Return to The Olympic Stadium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests