|All you need to know about West Ham United FC's potential move to Stratford.
Plenty of plans. Just none of them work or are affordable.
Please would you explain how it is that without seeing them plans for seating over the track won't work and/ or won't be affordable.
What an astonishing coincidence! A journalist from a big Sunday paper is in her office, and those 'plans' just happen to be on her desk.
[quote]So, the penny has dropped, nobody wants an Athletics stadium ...........or at least nobody is willing to pay for it .[/quote]
Absolutely correct. The granting of a 99 year lease to UK athletics to use the stadium for 21 days a year was a serious mistake and I would bet a clever lawyer could build a huge case about THAT being a misuse of public money.
Why should a minority sport have that kind of favourable treatment and guaranteed access to a publicly funded stadium.
It's laughable that the minuscule by comparison amount Newham wanted to give us was the reason for abandoning the first process.
BUT personally I think the delay is more likely because AEG have come in with a hefty bid and the legacy company are wrangling to get out of the athletics lease because of that.
What I was told by a family member who works for a commercial lawyers in London told today backs this up. Basically she said the reason the other interested parties who failed to bid have been invited back to the table, is that legal advisers have said the deal negotiated with the main candidate (presumably us) could be subject to a legal challenges as it contains elements not in the original bid papers, therefore they have to be given the opportunity to review what is now on offer.
That could actually be very good news. It could mean, for instance, that West Ham have managed to negotiate something that was specifically excluded from the original offer, like naming rights for example.
Yes and the one thing that pisses me off about the anti-brigade and their poll is that they have had a poll purely on YES vs NO with the stadium as is, the worst possibly scenario, and not how it might be. Stating like spoiled brats that is because the club have not come forward with their demands for any meaningful information on our bid, even though the club are legally committed to confidentiality during the bid negotiation and decision process. They even know Spurs and Orient scuppered our previous bid on a technical argument in our bid response but choose to ignore the commercial T&C's we are having to work to and be squeakily clean with.
Why don't you all let the board get on with their job which is all about the long term security of West Ham. Let the club work through a very complex commercial and political agenda that is ring fenced with confidentiality and legal constraints to prevent anything happening like it did the first time. Which could inevitably end up with Barry Boy crying out for a legal challenge and a judicial review if we mess it up. Stop acting like a bunch of prima donna's and let the club come up with the best possible outcome and then have a vote ~ if it remains with a track and no retractable solutions I will be voting No. I will then expect the board to honor their commitment of only moving to Stratford if its right for West Ham.
Last edited by MEM on Tue May 15, 2012 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
No they didn't. It was a complaint to the Commissioner about unfair trading by the Olympic Park planning architect that scuppered it.
Hey, don't let the facts stand in the way fella.
Corrected your facts for you, he never had anything to do with the project at all!
No? He might disagree.
I can forward you the legal argument which scuppered the bid if you want. It never came from Tottenham or Orient, which was the point raised.
Well he is deluded if he did, when it originally came out I posted a link to an article where his exact relationship with the Olympic project was detailed, I also demonstrated how he was a fairly small fry architect being a partner in a business normally associated with upmarket house refurbishments and he runs a small rent a desk business.
No need I wasn't arguing with what scuppered the bid, just his role, here you go:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/olympics/ ... 43864.html
Oh please let me write this slowly for you ......
Orient asked for a judicial review because David Gold openly stated we were going to offer cheap tickets to the whole community and they put their case forward on the premise that we were breaking league rules moving on to their patch and targeting their supporter base.
Spurs put their legal claim forward because David Sullivan openly revealed West Ham could only afford the stadium because of the Newham government backed loan and claimed we were being unfairly given state aid.
Both Dave's were naive they should have kept their mouths shut until the contracts were signed ~ they have learnt from their mistake this time and that is why they are sticking to the rules, keeping their mouths shut and adhering to the "confidentiality" clause
You conveniently forgot to mention that on appeal Spurs won the right to a judicial review. That judicial review brought was due to go ahead just hours after the governments decision to halt the process. I don't suppose the government took into account they had a very good chance of losing that and that in any case Spurs would most likely challenge any decision that went against them in Europe.
The complaint to the European courts was just the last straw
Facts are Facts
Last edited by MEM on Tue May 15, 2012 10:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
My understanding is that Lawrence was tasked to consider the feasibility of the Olympic Park from its outset - quite a job for a desk renter. When the O.S. was moved from its original site with a plan to dig down to create a proper multi purpose venue, because of complex land ownership issues, he immediately thought that it was flawed and would reqiuire huge expenditure to be turned into a football stadia. Guess what? He was right.
When he then saw millions of pound of taxpayers' money from an impovirshed Borough being ploughed in to support a private business owned by multi millionaires he complained and, guess what, he was right.
The complaint to the Commission sits there like a pregnant writ. It will be opened just as soon as the public purse pays for private profit. Not bad for a desk renter...
As a partner in a large legal practice, let me ask you a simple question MEM based on your previous post.
What 'scuppered' West Ham's bid?
A Spurs' Judicial Review?
B Orient's Judicial Review?
C A complaint to The Commission?
Simple question. Simple answer please.
His profile on linkedin http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/steve-lawrence/b/3a1/599" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
His rent a desk business: http://www.milkstudios.biz/facilities.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Carrick Howell & Lawrence Architects of which he is a partner in doesn't even have a website that I can find. https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&gs_nf=1 ... 40&bih=775" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A and C
A as Spurs had a good chance of winning a judicial review and we also had the stated commitment by Daniel Levy to leave no stone un-turned in his quest for "justice" As did Barry Hearn
Do you not think a European challenge would have been Spurs next step if they had lost the review? Clearly the government were advised they could lose the judicial review otherwise why not let it go ahead in the next few days after the European court announcement before addressing the European considerations with the knowledge that British law had found no case to answer..
Having asked me a few questions here are two for you :
Do you think the government thought they might lose the judicial review around state aid having lost the appeal previously
Do you think West Ham would be compromising their T&C's commitments of the bid if they revealed the details of their bid to the West Ham community?
We have had this discussion before I am not a trained lawyer [does O level in English law count : ) ] but I am a contract director working with corporate lawyers, on a daily basis, for a very large multi-national I have dealt with tens of Government PQQ's, RFI's and ITT's worth hundreds of millions and know inside out how the process works. Knowing your career I cant believe you think the board should be more open with information about the bid bearing in mind the legal history, politics and commercial restraints placed around it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests