West Ham ordered to reveal details of Olympic Stadium deal i

[gavrosh]

Any deal between a football club and a public body would naturally generate the sort of heat that would eventually lead to the publication of the deal in full. If people at the club thought they could hold this back they are more than naive. However of what I've heard is true, it is West Ham fans who are going to be angry about the publication of this.

[AlfieG]

Any deal between a football club and a public body would naturally generate the sort of heat that would eventually lead to the publication of the deal in full. If people at the club thought they could hold this back they are more than naive. However of what I've heard is true, it is West Ham fans who are going to be angry about the publication of this.

Oooh you little tease gavrosh....... :lol:

[Georgee Paris]

However of what I've heard is true, it is West Ham fans who are going to be angry about the publication of this.

Well that was the likely outcome...so those supporters of other clubs will get to have a laugh at the West Ham supporters that thought they were getting a good deal.

[scotnob]

There really is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to football is there?

In every other instance where public money and private commercial interests are connected, I'd feel it was 100% correct that the details should be open to the public for everyone to see.

But because it's WHU my instinct is the opposite. But my instinct is wrong. Of course it should all be made public.

I have no doubt we will have nothing to be ashamed of. So why oppose it? In all conscience, we should be welcoming openness and transparency when it comes to the use of public money. But football loyalty is an odd and powerful thing.

[Red Kens Slave]

Freedom of Information is a pretty simple process.

The Information Commissioner's Decision Notices allow two further chains of appeal, the first tier tribunal and the upper tier tribunal.

without knowing the specifics of the initial request or the nature of the exemptions being applied to the LLDC it is impossible to determine exactly what is covered by the request.

it is extremely unlikely that the entire deal would be ordered for disclosure because of the obvious commercial interests that would be prejudiced (not just WHU and LLDC but suppliers, third parties, contractors etc as well) and so a compromise will probably be a redacted set of documents but, again, without knowing the specifics of what has been asked for, it is impossible to know how 'sensitive' the information being withheld actually is.

it may simply be that the arguments put forward by the LLDC have been amateurish or it could be that they know they'll need to disclose what has been asked for but are using the ICO and appeals process to delay disclosure - perhaps for political reasons. it might even be that the ICO case handler hasn't properly considered something and that is why the appeals process is there. i know of numerous instances where ICO decision notices have been overturned at the first tier tribunal.

storm in a teacup, i expect.

[Red Kens Slave]

In every other instance where public money and private commercial interests are connected, I'd feel it was 100% correct that the details should be open to the public for everyone to see.

except Section 43(2) of the FOI Act allows specifically for detailed aspects of this information to be withheld from disclosure.

for example, (and on a very basic level) you could disclose that Public Authority A paid Private Company B £1m to build something for them. but to provide a breakdown of the costs which add up to that £1m would prejudice the commercial interests of Private Company B as it would skew the competitiveness of future tender processes both for the Private Company and Public Authority.

however, the Section 43(2) exemption is subject to the 'Pubic Interest Test' so you'd also need to argue why it is in the greater public interest to withhold the information rather than disclose it. in almost all cases this is supported simply by the inevitable cost to the public purse because it allows other bidders to shape their bids around the existing one rather than speculate with a bid which is more beneficial to taxpayers on future tenders. of course this argument diminishes over time so arguments that are valid now will probably not be valid in 5/10 years.

[Red Kens Slave]

How can the Information Commissioner not see that releasing all the details will be exploited by any other potential customer of the stadium? Is he stupid?

if i had to put money on what is being asked for and argued against then that is what i'd lump it on.

if the breakdown of our rates are made public, whether it is favourable or not, it would have an impact on the earning potential for the LLDC from others, which would obviously hurt the public purse.

The LLDC will sell the use of the stadium for different costs depending on the event and the duration. what the LLDC wont want is our deal being used as a benchmark as it would affect every deal they made afterwards. any concessions given to us would be stripped off the earning potential from other users.

long term, the losses to the public purse from this is potentially massive. what intrigues me is that i've not seen any clamour for the details regarding Athletics UK using the stadium or the Rugby WC organisers. the arguments from the LLDC would be the same in terms of why they wouldn't want to disclose the information so this assertion that somehow WHU are complicit with some sort of cover up seems disingenuous at best.

[scotnob]

.............................
however, the Section 43(2) exemption is subject to the 'Pubic Interest Test' so you'd also need to argue why it is in the greater public interest to withhold the information rather than disclose it. in almost all cases this is supported simply by the inevitable cost to the public purse because it allows other bidders to shape their bids around the existing one rather than speculate with a bid which is more beneficial to taxpayers on future tenders. ..............

You may well be right. I have no idea whether it applies in our case. That's for the experts to decide.

But my point was not so much to do with the detail as much as the emotion: if there is a proper justification for non-disclosure, then fine. But it's interesting that for many of us as WHU supporters our first, non-expert reaction was not "Oh good, let's see the truth of the matter" but a far more defensive and tribal circling of the wagons.

I think it sheds a lot of light on how we think as supporters, and how subjective and partisan we really are, even when we think we're being reasonable.

[clawhammer]

£2m is not the full story. As just 1 example West Ham will not have the catering rights except in our own executive areas. No naming rights either. Without a full stadium the whole Olympic Park would be tarnished.Who would use a 25k stadium? Orient couldn't fill it. Athletics no more than twice a year. Arguments from the Jezza School of Economics!

Sicknote. I cannot believe what I am reading. The first mod on here to be nominated for Hackett of the Year?

[Red Kens Slave]

here are the specific contentious points:

Q1. The structure and amount of the annual rental, including
a. reduction, in the event of relegation
b. extra rental based on team performance
c. inflation adjustment over the period of the tenancy
d. tenancy termination

LLDC’s position: information withheld under section 43(2) of FOIA.

2. Payment for overheads normally paid by clubs who own their own
stadia, for example
a. ticket sales and turnstile personnel
b. security personnel
c. police
LLDC’s position: information withheld under section 43(2), although
LLDC was prepared to disclose that WHUFC’s annual Usage Fee
covers all match day costs associated with their use of the stadium

3. Match day revenue
a. what % of ticket sales is kept by West Ham?
b. what % of catering revenue is kept by West Ham?
c. what % of ‘hospitality’ revenue is kept by West Ham?
LLDC’s position: information withheld under section 43(2), although
LLDC was prepared to disclose that WHUFC retains all ticket sales
revenues from its home matches held at the stadium.

Capital cost of stadium conversion contributed by West Ham, and
when the payment falls due.
LLDC’s position: WHUFC’s payment of £15m towards the
transformation works is already in the public domain. The date of
payment is prior to the WHUFC’s relocation to the stadium.

5. Any other agreements which allow West Ham to earn revenue as a
direct outcome of their tenancy (such as sponsorship of the
stadium, naming rights, etc).
LLDC’s position: information outside the scope of the original
information request. The LLDC did, however, clarify that the areas of
the tenancy agreement that related to sponsorship and naming
rights were being withheld under section under section 43(2) of
FOIA.

6. Any other costs which West Ham have to bear, not already
covered above, which they would not bear if they were still at their
current (owned) stadium.
LLDC’s position: information outside the scope of the original
information request.

7. Any clause which allows West Ham to have a veto over or other
influence over other tenants of the stadium or one-off uses of the
stadium.
LLDC’s position: provisions for WHUFC’s use of the stadium, referred
to under the defined term ‘Overriding Priority Principle’ and
associated clauses, were disclosed in the version of the agreement
supplied to the complainant. This states that the WHUFC has priority
use of the stadium and WHUFC has rights to enforce this principle.
Under the agreement, however, WHUFC does not have a veto over
other uses/users of the stadium in addition to the Overriding Priority
Principle.

[Red Kens Slave]

summary of arguments put forward by WHUFC:

24. WHUFC states that the Agreement is a unique agreement, in that no
other Premier League football club has or will relocate to the Olympic
Stadium. New ground has therefore been broken, which in WHUFC’s
view amplifies the sensitivity of the commercial terms which were
agreed. WHUFC also highlights that no other football club’s tenure at its
home stadium is subject to such scrutiny.

25. To place the issue in context, WHUFC reminds us that its rights as a
concessionaire of the Olympic Stadium were secured following a
competitive tender administered by the LLDC. The letting followed a
rigorous procurement process undertaken over several years, which was
tested in the courts upon application for judicial review and WHUFC
states that the process was open and transparent. The tendering
process was, however, conducted in confidence insofar as the tender
was based on confidential information provided by the WHUFC and it
was understood that the information should remain confidential. WHUFC
argues that it would not have bid to use the Olympic Stadium without
enforceable provisions regarding confidentiality.

26. With regard to the withheld information, WHUFC stresses that it
operates in a highly competitive sector of the economy and argues that
there is an obvious and clear risk that details of WHUFC’s utilisation of
the Olympic Stadium would be used against it in sensitive negotiations
relating to the transfer of players and the commercial brand
partnerships and sponsorship. Third parties, armed with this knowledge,
would be able to reverse engineer the financial circumstances relating to
WHUFC and to adjust their own payment demands accordingly.

27. WHUFC considers that FOIA was not intended to be used as a way of
challenging the awards of contracts under a procurement process but
suggests instead that the correct form for such challenges is the courts.
It states that guidance to FOIA includes various examples of information
which may have the potential to damage commercial interests, in
respect of which the following apply in this situation:
- Information relating to the preparation of a competitive bid.
Reference: FS50556618
9
- Information about the financial and business viability of a
company.
- Information provided to a public authority in respect of an
application for a licence or as a requirement of a licence condition
or under a regulatory regime.
- Strategic business plans.
- Marketing plans.

28. WHUFC, the letter explains, is deeply concerned that disclosure of the
commercially confidential and sensitive information will inevitably have
an adverse impact on the stadium partnership.

29. In WHUFC’s view the timing of the request is also a critical
consideration, with disclosure in the circumstances having the very real
potential to damage the perception of WHUFC in relation to the stadium.
This, WHUFC contests, would ultimately affect the club’s ability to sell
tickets and prejudice WHUFC’s negotiating position with customers and
suppliers alike.

[Red Kens Slave]

from what i can gather WHU and LLDC simply didn't argue strongly enough to justify the use of Section 43(2). again, its difficult to comment without seeing the nature of the specific information that is the subject of disclosure but since it boils down to a matter of opinion, rather than a matter of FOI legislation there are plenty of grounds to appeal and present a stronger case to the First Tier Tribunal.

it may be that there are no justifiable reasons for the continued redaction of the terms of the deal but, whatever the case, it doesn't look like this is over just yet.

[goof]

What are the chances of us not being allowed to move in now or a pesky ground share.

[Red Kens Slave]

What are the chances of us not being allowed to move in now or a pesky ground share.

Zero.

[a86]

West Ham will not be affected by the deal as they are the legal tenants for 99 years.

imho I feel that a sponsorship deal has already been put in place and West Ham will be made a bigger cash cow than man city. if the deal is going to be released then it will just tell everyone that we will be rich and if we do go out and buy players the prices will be inflated dramatically. Stones for £40m could be cheap this time next year.

[Rasp]

Apparently full disclosure could lead to a renegotiation of the contract.


http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... ic-stadium" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LondonTaxpayer]

I am proud that I signed the online petition. This issue is not just about football or West Ham, and I feel most posters on here should stop being so defensive or taking it personally. The deal may be shown to be not as good for WHU as people expected and could even hold the club back.

My issue is that in these austere times £250M of public money is being spent to keep a high capacity athletics venue in London with no chance of financial return and little actual legacy.

So what Legacy or Financial return do we get for £250M? Very little. Reports suggest that income will only cover running costs, and UK Athletics only gets the Stadium for a few weeks a year but has given up Crystal Palace which it had year round access to. Rugby, Cricket, motor sport and concerts are not legacy, they are just more income opportunities to cover running costs.

We don't have to start from "This was the only option to avoid a white elephant". We could have followed the approved plan for a smaller stadium, or even other more radical ideas like reducing the stadium even further and creating community sports facilities. If the public has spent £250M then I want every junior school in the "olympic Boroughs" to have access to the facilities. I would even have considered spending more money if it had created very fast turn around between football and athletics.

What is the lifetime of this (or other modern stadia). Who will pay for ongoing development and renovations? One recent stadium was designed for post games use - Atlanta, but that is being knocked down after 20 years of frequent use.

So what legacy does £250M get for the taxpayer? My fear is that the only real athletics legacy will be the community track next to the stadium. That is the scandal here

[Discobar]

Apparently full disclosure could lead to a renegotiation of the contract.


http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... ic-stadium" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That`s from Richard Hunt, I think he is clutching at straws- at best.

Richard Hunt, the Charlton supporter who brought the original complaint, said: “Our argument has never been with West Ham. It has been with the politicians and the authorities who made a very bad deal for the taxpayer. We simply seek full disclosure, which could lead to a renegotiation of the contract.”

[MD_HM]

Premier League football and the money that comes with it was the only financial option it's as simple as that

All this legacy b*llocks is a smokescreen, in a few years everyone will go back to not being interested in athletics anymore.

Should have just been built with plans to turn it into a football stadium after the Olympics from the start just like with Man City

The details of the deal should remain confedential as its a business deal, although from a personal viewpoint and not a professional one I'd be interested to see it

The government have and are wasting far more of taxpayers money than the conversion costs of the OS but it's not headline news as its not got football rivalry attached to the feelings of unjust or there are those hammers that are against the move and are using it as another stick to bash the club with. No one seems to be questioning other uses or deals to use the stadium, just West Ham and football.... It stinks

How much of our taxes are going to benefit scrounges? Where's the outcry, petitions and protests?

[WestHamIFC]

We could have followed the approved plan for a smaller stadium

Are you completely crazy??

Why do you think this whole panicked U-Turn was made in the first place?? It’s because the penny eventually dropped that the original plan to downgrade the stadium from 80k to 25k and use it for Athletics was undeniably the most stupid, ill-thought, totally unviable ‘plan’ that could have been possibly conceived!

Do you seriously think the concerned authorities would have gone through this entire painful process if it was at all possible to simply execute the original concept?