Gold, Brady and co...Utterly committed to the OS

[hammersk]

Make no mistake, Gold, Brady and Co. remain uniquely committed to the OS.

... Gold has timed this very, very well. (and it has Brady’s fingerprints all over it)

SPURS COSTING THE TAXPAYER
There was some concern that the best way forward for us as a club was to publicly pull out of the running for the stadium the moment that the initial process was scuppered. That would have put the spotlight of blame for failure firmly on THFC (and quite rightfully so).

However, the comments in committee yesterday from Baroness Ford have identified the culprits for all to see, desctibing THFC's actions as "reprehensible" and "absolutely disgraceful". She named and shamed Daniel Levy publicly.

BACK TO THE OS
We are very much being counted upon to rescue the Olympic Stadium - the OPLC is committed to both a mixed use stadium,
and reducing the burden on the public purse.

However, on Nov 17 London is looking to secure the World Athletics Championships in 2017.
The fear is that continued uncertainty over the future of the OS would count against us this time.
Therefore, much has been made of how the track must come first before football, but the reality is that track meets are not going to supercede football given that it will be the anchor.

UK Athletics Chairman is on record that London is not interested in the 2019 games.
'From London's perspective we are in no position to accept 2019 if we were offered it.
… Now Gold has set out his stall. He’ll take the stadium - but on his (our) terms.

well done indeed.

[the pink palermo]

.

[joyful]

the whole process is a huge, huge, mess. My money at the moment is that the OS will go back to the original plan of a 25,000 seater athletics stadium with the only football there from Leyton Orient on a rental basis.

When there was a nod and a wink to athletics until after 2017 with us getting naming rights to help fund a redevelopment it was a reasonable venture, but us paying to rent an unsuitable stadium? Why would we want to do that?

Stratford as an area has a fantastic potential now because of the transport links and the city/canary wharf proximity but the OS with a permanent athletics track is going to be a no go.

[AJ]

Are we utterly committed to the OS anymore with what Gold said on Talksport today and with the OS media removed from the official site, and a cast iron 99 year guarantee for a running track to remain?

I can appreciate Gold's comments on needing to move 'due to the local area' as the opportunity to move into the canary wharf / stratford area to secure more corporate money is a big business opportunity, its probably harder selling the club in its current location if you step out of upton park tube, and get hit with an occassional smell of sewers and see the market (not knocking it but when you are trying to seduce city business).

Today seems the first chink in the armour in the all out assault on getting the OS and the first hint of perhaps going to a purpose built stadium instead somewhere either in the olympic park or potentially still the old royal mail site next to west ham station?

[the pink palermo]

the whole process is a huge, huge, mess. My money at the moment is that the OS will go back to the original plan of a 25,000 seater athletics stadium with the only football there from Leyton Orient on a rental basis.

.

That wouldn't suprise me Joyful .

One potential fly in the ointment though , is it isn't just the OS they have an issue with finding a use for .

The giant media centre - one of the largest office blocks in London , but a 25 minute walk away from the station cannot find a post games owner .

There is a very real risk the committment to Athletics will leave 50 acres of almost nothing happening .........all those small businesses cleared out of the way .

For what ? A 2 week jamboree ?

[eastsider]

Make no mistake, Gold, Brady and Co. remain uniquely committed to the OS.

... Gold has timed this very, very well. (and it has Brady’s fingerprints all over it)

SPURS COSTING THE TAXPAYER
There was some concern that the best way forward for us as a club was to publicly pull out of the running for the stadium the moment that the initial process was scuppered. That would have put the spotlight of blame for failure firmly on THFC (and quite rightfully so).

However, the comments in committee yesterday from Baroness Ford have identified the culprits for all to see, desctibing THFC's actions as "reprehensible" and "absolutely disgraceful". She named and shamed Daniel Levy publicly.

BACK TO THE OS
We are very much being counted upon to rescue the Olympic Stadium - the OPLC is committed to both a mixed use stadium,
and reducing the burden on the public purse.

However, on Nov 17 London is looking to secure the World Athletics Championships in 2017.
The fear is that continued uncertainty over the future of the OS would count against us this time.
Therefore, much has been made of how the track must come first before football, but the reality is that track meets are not going to supercede football given that it will be the anchor.

UK Athletics Chairman is on record that London is not interested in the 2019 games.
'From London's perspective we are in no position to accept 2019 if we were offered it.
… Now Gold has set out his stall. He’ll take the stadium - but on his (our) terms.

well done indeed.

I agree good job well done!!

[Pop Robson]

Are we utterly committed to the OS anymore with what Gold said on Talksport today and with the OS media removed from the official site, and a cast iron 99 year guarantee for a running track to remain?

I can appreciate Gold's comments on needing to move 'due to the local area' as the opportunity to move into the canary wharf / stratford area to secure more corporate money is a big business opportunity, its probably harder selling the club in its current location if you step out of upton park tube, and get hit with an occassional smell of sewers and see the market (not knocking it but when you are trying to seduce city business).

Today seems the first chink in the armour in the all out assault on getting the OS and the first hint of perhaps going to a purpose built stadium instead somewhere either in the olympic park or potentially still the old royal mail site next to west ham station?

and the city business all f**ked off when we get relegated

Corporate £49 + vat the other week, meal and padded seat.

[paulhs1]

Today's club statement from the OS;

http://www.whufc.com/articles/20111110/ ... 84_2511778" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jiminy_Cricket]

Looks like they are slightly winding their necks in to me, subtly telling the Olympic Committee that we are still keen only if we can agree terms hopefully they have had enough of being held to ransom by Sebastian & Co.

...wishful thinking?

[beckton]

The statement suggests they're not quite as committed as they were before.

[Johnny Byrne's Boots]

Is it not the case that if we leased the OS like we were going to, we would rent it out for the other events and pocket the fees. Now that we would be mere tenants, that income stream has vanished and the OPLC would trouser the cash.


Unless the 'issues' referred to by Gold include how the money from Boyzone concerts and Aussie Rules extravaganzas is divvied up?

[the bubble hammer]

I think this is the million dollar question that the daves are waiting to find out from the oplc. Be it buying the lease or being mere tenants surely exactly the same thing can be written into the contracts. i.e naming rights, concerts, cricket, etc.... The way i see it is that its just a different way of us getting it so as to minimalise the threat of further legal challenge to the oplc. we could have exactly the same possiblities to bring in revenue but just as tennants.

[mywhufc]

Is it not the case that if we leased the OS like we were going to, we would rent it out for the other events and pocket the fees. Now that we would be mere tenants, that income stream has vanished and the OPLC would trouser the cash.


Unless the 'issues' referred to by Gold include how the money from Boyzone concerts and Aussie Rules extravaganzas is divvied up?

There won't be a divvy up, Tax payers want there money back. We get what were given and have to pay rent for the honour of playing in it.

[Orange Hammer]

I'm glad Gold and now the club have said we don't want it on poor terms. I was for it, if we could sort the seating out at either end. If this is not a possibility I'd rather leave it.

Plus if we don't earn from the other events, what's the point.

[paulhs1]

But now the proposal is that we are tenants and not co owners with newham council so why would the government pay the annual shortfall in running costs and yet allow us to pocket any money from revenue on other events. I think the OPLC are proposing that we pay a yearly rent and that's it! With the only possible compromise being that we get a share of the naming rights based on the number of days we fill the stadium the rest will cover the running costs! I think all bets are off with regards to the old deal that was on the table!

[the bubble hammer]

Youd be surprised what can be sorted out in the terms and conditions of a deal

[paulhs1]

Youd be surprised what can be sorted out in the terms and conditions of a deal

Boris and the OPLC pulled out of their original offer due to the £40m loan that was deemed to be unlawful. But allowing us to keep profits whilst the government have to make up the shortfall is the same thing, I don't think the OPLC can offer the same deal as before as they are wary of further legal challenges should the deal be structured inappropriately! We genuinely run the risk of this stadium being a white elephant, tearing it down to a 25k athletic stadium must be a serious option on the table for the OPLC now.

[the bubble hammer]

Baroness ford stated yesterday that they pulled out because of the maliciuos complaint. She said: "Their bid did not collapse. We closed it down because we could be held to ransom by vexatious claims. The advice we had was that the £40million from Newham was fine, but the legal challenges meant we missed the planning application window.
"The end of the deal was hugely disappointing for West Ham but they understood it was the best decision in the end. The time scale just made it impossible to continue."
This on its own shows to me that we were in consultation with them regarding the deal collapse and they didnt just spring it on us. I believe they want us there ( boris has already pretty much said that ) and they are just literally gonna call us tenants instead of leaseholders for legal reasons. I wouldnt be suprised if they said - "Ok west ham, this is how we are gonna kick spurs and the O's into touch. we gonna shut it down and start again but dont worry you will still win the bidding process but this time we will call you our anchor tennants. that way the spuds and the o's cant make any legal challenges and we still get you, you still get us and we still love each other. But just dont tell anyone"
. They need a football club there as no other anchor tennant could sustain the stadium and they also know that no football club would ever move there unless they would be able to make some serious reddies out of it.

[paulhs1]

Baroness ford stated yesterday that they pulled out because of the maliciuos complaint. She said: "Their bid did not collapse. We closed it down because we could be held to ransom by vexatious claims. The advice we had was that the £40million from Newham was fine, but the legal challenges meant we missed the planning application window.

The baroness has certainly tried to paint the collapse of our the bid in a good light in fact most of her comments yesterday appeared to be nothing more than a PR exercise, but I think it common knowledge that in addition to the threat of years of legal disputes, one of the reasons for the collapse was due to the judicial review being one week away and the OPLC and Newham both knew it stood a chance of failing in the courts. The fact that she says that “the advise we had from Newham” sounds more like a passing of the buck rather then a statement of innocence indeed why did she not come out and say that there was nothing wrong with the loan?

"The end of the deal was hugely disappointing for West Ham but they understood it was the best decision in the end. The time scale just made it impossible to continue."
This on its own shows to me that we were in consultation with them regarding the deal collapse and they didnt just spring it on us. I believe they want us there ( boris has already pretty much said that ) and they are just literally gonna call us tenants instead of leaseholders for legal reasons. I wouldnt be suprised if they said - "Ok west ham, this is how we are gonna kick spurs and the O's into touch. we gonna shut it down and start again but dont worry you will still win the bidding process but this time we will call you our anchor tennants. that way the spuds and the o's cant make any legal challenges and we still get you, you still get us and we still love each other. But just dont tell anyone".

The fact that the club announced that we would be continuing with the bid process only hours after the OPLC announcement that we lost the bid backs up your theory. But I believe the about turn by Gold yesterday was not only an attempt at a negotiation on our part, but also perhaps the club now genuinely believe that the deal may well change from the one originally on the table.
Perhaps the OPLC may well have their hands tied with what they can actually offer, perhaps they know that any state funding or anything similar will cause years of legal battles and perhaps fall down in court. So perhaps they want to drag us along, giving the impression to the club that all is fine so that we are still on side, as they want our £2m per year but under considerably worse terms (no naming rights, no retractable seating, no share of profits from events). Perhaps this is what the club are now realising!
I think you can quite easily read into Baroness Fords comments in a number of ways but either way, as it stands the deal on the table has changed and the fact that Gold and the club have made yesterdays and today’s comments/statements tells you that they are now jockeying for position and sense that a change to the deal could be on the cards!

[beckton]

Baroness ford stated yesterday that they pulled out because of the maliciuos complaint. She said: "Their bid did not collapse. We closed it down because we could be held to ransom by vexatious claims. The advice we had was that the £40million from Newham was fine, but the legal challenges meant we missed the planning application window.

The fact that she says that “the advise we had from Newham” sounds more like a passing of the buck rather then a statement of innocence indeed why did she not come out and say that there was nothing wrong with the loan?

She did come out and say there wasn't anything wrong with the loan. It's in the post above yours, the one you replied to.

And she didn't say the advice was from Newham, that advice would have come from the OPLC's own lawyers.