Gold and Sullivan ???

Does exactly what it says on the tin - the forum for football-related discussion.

Moderators: bristolhammerfc, sicknote, -DL-, Rio, Gnome, chalks, the pink palermo

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby SBB on Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:08 pm

Mega Ron wrote:No I'm suggesting that we chose the cheapest option and that there were many other options open to us.

I believe we could have negotiated a deal where we paid say £5 million a year (or more), were responsible for stewarding, and the cost of the seats being retracted.

For that we might have been able to keep the revenue for sponsorship as well as for the food a drink concessions.


How do you know what th options if any were? Have you seen something the rest of us haven't?

All of tthe above would be in breach of an existing contractors contract. The stewarding and structural detail surrounding the seating would also contravene health and safety law, venue licenses, and insurance policies.
F&B could have been on the table but is small potatoes so who cares and sponsorship of the venue covers more than one tenant.
None of the above can have been on the negotiating table regardless of the rent you pay for legal, contractual and ethical reasons.
SBB
 
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:29 am

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Mega Ron on Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:13 pm

What do you think they negotiated over?
User avatar
Mega Ron
 
Posts: 6238
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: 2014 KUMBowl Champion

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby SBB on Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:35 pm

I haven't a clue, I wasn't there.

You however seem to know more than I and have skillfully avoided the issue by throwing a question back at me.

Regardless, the points you raise cannot be any of the negotiating points as they would have broken a handful of laws, rendered the venue insurance void, and broken existing contracts.
SBB
 
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:29 am

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Mega Ron on Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:45 pm

I happen to be extremely close with someone privy to all the information from the negotiations.

In terms of cost the club may have chosen the best route but I believe it could really limit us in the near future with regards to earning potential.

It remains to be seen if they acted wisely in choosing to be less involved in the stadium or whether they dropped a bollock in doing so.

I just think it would have been worth the club spending some money ensuring they could control the match day experience of their long suffering fans.

Yes it might have cost money but sometimes a business should pay the extra to keep their customers happy.
User avatar
Mega Ron
 
Posts: 6238
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: 2014 KUMBowl Champion

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby SBB on Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:01 pm

I agree with all of that but none of has anything to do with our last few posts.

If you are extremely close with someone involved then you will already know that the points you raised were not on the negotiating table for the reasons I have stated twice now.

It makes me wonder why if you have access to the facts you would post fiction.
SBB
 
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:29 am

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Mega Ron on Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:05 pm

I'm not putting anything online at all that comes from them.

I don't believe I've posted anything fictional. Hypothetical perhaps.
User avatar
Mega Ron
 
Posts: 6238
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: 2014 KUMBowl Champion

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby SBB on Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:09 pm

Really, hypothetical?

The hypothetical situation of raising points of negotiation that cannot legally or ethically possibly have anything to do with the deal?

Oh and if you have no intention of posting anything that comes from these people you mention, why have you brought them up to defend a challenge to the points you raised.
SBB
 
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:29 am

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Mega Ron on Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:18 pm

I was just responding to you asking if i knew things about it you and others don't.

You're assuming details of the negotiations based on the deal we signed.
User avatar
Mega Ron
 
Posts: 6238
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: 2014 KUMBowl Champion

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby SBB on Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:20 pm

Im assuming nothing.

This hole is deep enough and you clearly have a firm grip on the shovel.

I'll leave it there
SBB
 
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:29 am

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Fishdo on Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:52 pm

Surely what buggered up the original purchase of the OS was the court case that the spuds and Os took the deal to..

Originally we were going to be leaseholders and that was agreed but with the appeal by spuds and Os that agreement was torn up and forced us to become tenants ....
Fishdo
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:23 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Kialos on Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:04 pm

Yes, I thought that was what happened at the start as well. The club were going to buy. Was to do with the money Newham were going to loan the club I think.
Kialos
 
Posts: 5848
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:11 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby sanchoz on Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:18 pm

Olympic Stadium: Newham mayor defends £40m loan for West Ham bid

Sir Robin Wales has been a key player in the club’s attempt to take on the ground after the Olympics, and committed the council to borrowing the money to support the cost of reconfiguring the stadium for football.

Newham is the most deprived borough in the country and is facing cuts to its government funding of 14 per cent this year and a further eight per cent next year, leading some to question how it can justify borrowing on behalf of a Premier League club.

If successful the council would have a 50 per cent stake with the club in the stadium lease. Football club and other revenues would pay off the loan, and Newham would receive a share of revenues once it is repaid. The council is liable for half of the loan in the case of default.

Wales dismissed critics of the deal, tellingy Telegraph Sport that there was very little risk in the loan and it represented value for Newham residents.

“This is not just for a Premier League football club, this is for community benefit. If it was purely about the football club I could not justify doing it.

“We are not sacrificing anything for this. We are doing prudential borrowing [from the Treasury at preferential rates], but we cannot use this borrowing for anything else and it does not affect our borrowing capacity or what we can spend. It has no negative impact.

“Even on the most disastrous figures, even if everything goes wrong we still make a profit on this. The risk is really, really minimal.

“The debt, which costs our residents nothing, will be repaid and then we start to share in the profit. It may take a few years but we will benefit.

“As our finance director said, we are putting no equity in and we get a profit out.”

Wales also said the negative impact on football of retaining the running track would be minimal, though he did admit that it would have been preferable to design in an alternative such as retractable seats.

Earlier this week The Daily Telegraph disclosed how this option was actively opposed by the Olympic Board.

“It is a shame that we did not design this for joint use in the first place, but we are where we are, and it will be a better stadium for football than a lot of people think.”

Wales’s comments came as Tottenham distributed drawings of how Upton Park would look superimposed on the Olympic Stadium, intended to demonstrate the increased distance from the pitch in Stratford.

West Ham said the drawings ignored the fact that the Olympic Stadium capacity would be twice that of Upton Park, with one source dismissing them as “barrel scraping”.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... m-bid.html


Judge grants Olympic Stadium legal challenge

Tottenham Hotspur and Leyton Orient have been granted a second appeal for a judicial review to block West Ham’s move to the Olympic Stadium.

After the Olympic Park Legacy Company ruled in favour of West Ham United’s move to the Olympic stadium, a second hearing for Tottenham Hotspur FC and Leyton Orient’s bid to block the move has been granted.

A hearing will start in October after Judge Mr Justice Collins agreed Tottenham had an arguable case.

The two clubs started the legal battle after the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) board voted 14-0 in February to make the Hammers the first choice to move in to the £486 million Populous-designed stadium after the 2012 Games.

Justice Davis had initally rejected Tottenham and Leyton Orient’s application to seek a judicial review.

West Ham, in a joint bid with Newham Council, intended to convert the 80,000-seater stadium into a 60,000-capacity facility which retains an athletics track. The club plans to move from Upton Park in 2014/15 with a 250-year lease, and give a 250-year lease to UK Athletics (UKA).

Tottenham Hotspur FC have been granted permission for a judicial review into the decision to allow West Ham to move into the Olympic Stadium following next year’s Games.

Spurs have challenged the role of several parties in awarding West Ham the use of the Populous-designed stadium after the 2012 Games.

The board of the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) voted 14-0 in February to make the Hammers their preferred choice to take over the £496 million stadium in Stratford, east London.

The decision was backed by both the Government and the London mayor.

However, the Premier League club said in a statement: ‘The club has sought permission from the High Court to bring a claim against the Olympic Park Legacy Company Limited, the mayor of London, the Minister for Sport and the Olympics and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for judicial review of a series of decisions made by them to appoint a joint bid by the London Borough of Newham and West Ham United Football Club as preferred bidder in a competition for the lease of the Olympic Stadium.

‘The club continues to hold discussions with both local and national government bodies in order to seek to agree a feasible stadium solution.”

Last month Spurs applied for a judicial review into Newham Council’s role in arranging a £40 million loan to finance West Ham’s move to the £486m stadium, which was constructed by Sir Robert McAlpine and the Team Stadium consortium.

Spurs already have approval for plans to transform their current White Hart Lane home as part of the wider £450 million Northumberland Development Project (NDP) designed by Make and KSS.

However it is understood the Olympic Stadium move could prove a much cheaper option for the North London football club which, having been forced to amend and shrink its NDP scheme to allay heritage fears, has admitted having doubts over the viability of the project (see AJ 26.01.11).

Tottenham Hotspur is set to take court action over the decision to hand the Olympic Stadium to West Ham after the 2012 Games

West Ham was chosen as the preferred bidder by the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC), ahead of its Premier League rivals last month (see below).

The North London club club has now issued a letter before action ahead of an attempt to judicially review that decision - a move which coincides with the completion of construction on the £537 million stadium (see AJ 29.03.11).

An OPLC spokesman told the BBC: ‘We can confirm that a letter before action in relation to potential judicial review proceedings has been issued.

‘The Olympic Park Legacy Company ran a very rigorous and transparent process in its selection of the recommended preferred bidder.

‘We have been supported by independent experts in their field in terms of legal, financial, commercial and technical advice.

He added: ‘We have been consistent, fair, objective and entirely equal in our dealings with the bidders from start to finish. We are confident that if these judicial review proceedings are pursued, our approach will be entirely vindicated by the courts.’

Spurs already have approval for plans to transform their current White Hart Lane home as part of the wider £450 million Northumberland Development Project (NDP) designed by Make and KSS.

However it is understood the Olympic Stadium move could prove a much cheaper option for the North London football club which, having been forced to amend and shrink its NDP scheme to allay heritage fears, has admitted having doubts over the viability of the project (see AJ 26.01.11).

West Ham United are to move into the Olympic Stadium after the London 2012 Games, the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) has announced

The Hammers were officially named as the preferred bidder for the showpiece £537 million venue ahead of London Premier League rivals Tottenham Hotspur.

OPLC chair Baroness Ford said the board had considered really carefully and come to a unanimous decision that West Ham United, in the London borough of Newham, should be the long-term tenant.

She said it was a ‘cracking decision for the community of east London’.

The unanimous decision was made after a vote by 14 members of the OPLC board at a special meeting where the future of the venue in Stratford, east London, was the only topic. The meeting started at 8am and the announcement was made soon after it ended just after 12.20pm.

The decision still has to be rubber-stamped by the Government and the London mayor’s office, but it would be a major surprise if it was not accepted.

West Ham’s success, even in the face of relegation, means an athletics track will stay inside the stadium.

The club, in a joint bid with Newham Council, wants to convert the 80,000-seater stadium into a 60,000-capacity arena for football, athletics, concerts and community use.

Tottenham’s plans, part of a joint bid with AEG sport and entertainment group, was to create a football-only stadium without the track and redevelop Crystal Palace for athletics.

West Ham’s success means that ministers and London mayor Boris Johnson, who might have been accused of breaking athletics legacy promises to the International Olympic Committee, have been saved potential embarrassment .

London 2012 chairman Lord Coe was among those calling for the track to be maintained.

Tim Leiweke, president of Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), has claimed the Olympic Stadium will ‘go broke in 10 years’ if an athletics track is retained.

The OPLC is aiming for a deal to be struck on the stadium and contracts signed by the end of the financial year.

In a joint statement, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said: ‘Today’s recommendation by the OPLC board marks an important milestone for the future of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park and the whole of the Olympic project.

‘We would like to thank Baroness Ford and all her board members for the conscientious and thorough way they have approached the decision-making process.

‘We will look through their recommendation in detail before coming to our own decision. We aim to make a formal announcement to Parliament shortly.’


https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/hom ... 46.article


Olympic Stadium deal with West Ham collapses

The collapse of the deal for West Ham to buy the Olympic Stadium has left a funding gap of up to £60million needed to transform the venue before it can be leased out.

The stadium will now remain in public ownership and be rented out - almost certainly to West Ham again, according to London mayor Boris Johnson - but that is likely to mean more public money used to make the changes to the venue after the 2012 Games.

The collapsed deal would have seen the £95million cost split with £35million from the Olympics budget, £20million from West Ham and £40million from Newham Council. If similar changes are to be made then only the £35million is guaranteed and a gap of £60million will have to be filled.

Olympics minister Hugh Robertson said the Government pulled the plug on the West Ham deal due to "legal paralysis" caused by court action brought by Tottenham and Leyton Orient. The biggest issue concerned an anonymous complaint to the European Commission that the £40million from Newham was effectively 'state aid' and therefore broke competition rules.

Robertson said keeping the running track in the stadium would be "non-negotiable" under the new tender process, with bids having to be in by January.

The move should now remove uncertainty over the stadium ahead of London's bid for the 2017 world athletics championships.

It was, however, condemned as "a catastrophe" by Andrew Boff, Olympic spokesman for the Conservative Group on the London Assembly, who blamed London 2012 chairman Sebastian Coe for insisting the running track be kept.

The decision came after Newham sent a letter to the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) last night saying they could not guarantee the stadium being ready for 2014. That was "the straw that broke the camel's back", according to Robertson.

The minister said the public ownership of the stadium would now allow Newham to commit that money - though they have yet to say they will do so - and that any gap would be covered by rental income.

Robertson said: "It is a little bit which way you cut it. There is £35million in the public sector funding package already for legacy conversion.

"Then you have got the £40million that Newham were prepared to commit to the original project. They can now commit that to this model without a state aid issue because it goes public body to public body.

"Then you have to get the all-round figure up to £95million and then you have a gap of £20million, which was originally going to be filled by West Ham's sale of their ground at Upton Park.

"That will be replaced by an annual rental charge by whoever the end tenant is."

Robertson and Johnson both insisted the stadium would not become a burden on the taxpayer.

The mayor said: "I think we have come up with a very good solution. We will keep it in public hands but we will effectively rent it to a football club, almost certainly West Ham, and that will cover the costs and I think it will be a very good deal for the taxpayer."

West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady confirmed the club will bid again to become tenants at the stadium and Robertson said there were no concerns about a lack of takers for the venue.

He said: "We know there is huge interest in the stadium out there from private operators and football clubs and crucially we remove any uncertainty.

"This is not a white elephant stadium where no-one wants it. We have had two big clubs fighting tooth and nail to get it.

"The new process will be more like how Manchester City took over the Commonwealth Games stadium, which is regarded as a leading example of how to do it."

The tenants would pay an annual rent to the OPLC which should actually prove to be less costly for the likes of West Ham.

Robertson added: "This is potentially a much more attractive deal - you are able to sign a straightforward lease and not depend on a loan from Newham."

Tottenham, who announced in the summer they intend to remain in north London next to White Hart Lane, welcomed the decision to scrap the current deal with West Ham.

The club said in a statement: "We welcome the OPLC decision to end the current Olympic Stadium bid process. We firmly believe that the bid we put forward was, in fact, a realistic sporting solution for the stadium, along with a substantial return to the taxpayer, community programming and athletics provision."

UK Athletics chairman Ed Warner welcomed the announcement as "a bold and decisive move", adding: "I'm very hopeful that we will get the nod for 2017."

But Boff demanded that the running track now be scrapped.

He said: "This catastrophe is entirely down to Sebastian Coe's insistence that the stadium should retain an athletics track after the Olympics.

"Coe's masterplan has turned the Olympic legacy into the Millennium Dome Mark II but with a financial climate that gives it a less positive future."

Kim Bromley-Derry, Newham chief executive, said the Olympic legacy had been put at risk by the legal challenges.

He said: "The Olympic legacy has been put at risk by the uncertainty caused by the anonymous complaint to the European Commission and ongoing legal challenges.

"As a result of this uncertainty, Newham Council informed the OPLC that we could not maintain a commitment to achieving conversion of the stadium by the summer of 2014.

"We have never said that we did not want to proceed. We welcome the decision to introduce a new process to secure the Olympic legacy and deliver a football, athletics and community stadium by 2014. That legacy promise is still achievable but it will require quick and decisive action."


http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 68787.html
User avatar
sanchoz
 
Posts: 9671
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 3:41 am
Location: Founder of the Carlton Cole Fan Club - Rainham & Guildford Branch

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Hayden on Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:14 pm

Jedi Al Khalaas wrote:Toshiba are looking to diversify so might have legs


Toshiba has already diversified to include legs.

http://crybytes.com/wp-content/uploads/2679078_Tinhte.vn-Toshiba-robot-CES-2015-1.jpg

Can't do much worse than some of our current crop have been performing.
Last edited by Up the Junction on Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Image too large, changed to link.
User avatar
Hayden
 
Posts: 5656
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:48 am

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby hammer1975 on Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:28 pm

Can she play right back?
User avatar
hammer1975
 
Posts: 7708
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:16 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Rocketron on Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:28 pm

The keyboard stand looks promising. :lol:
User avatar
Rocketron
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 7:45 pm
Location: Slaven To The Rhythym

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby 1860OnceMoore on Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:49 am

So the Japanese Warchest has obviously disappeared then?
User avatar
1860OnceMoore
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:46 am

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby thejackhammer on Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:53 am

1860OnceMoore wrote:So the Japanese Warchest has obviously disappeared then?


Or they're waiting until our safety is assured.
User avatar
thejackhammer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 11:49 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby 1860OnceMoore on Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:56 am

I guess it could be the case! I just not sure how season ticket sales are going - maybe the impetus needed for people to go would be a chance of actually moving forward sometime soon!
User avatar
1860OnceMoore
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:46 am

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby fjthegrey on Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:10 am

1860OnceMoore wrote:maybe the impetus needed for people to go would be a chance of actually moving forward sometime soon!

Better still (and when I say better, I mean easier) as owners you could just release some misinformation regarding a potential investment to stir up some fervour and intrigue.

It cuts back on having to find real people willing to invest money, negotiating with them and relinquishing any actual power, whilst maintaining the potential boost in sales.
User avatar
fjthegrey
 
Posts: 16551
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: What Cheese May Come?

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby sosc67 on Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:50 am

As of this year here are the top ten companies in Japan with real financial muscle

10.Hitachi

9. Miotsubishi Corp

8. Nissan Motors

7. Mizuho Financial

6. Softbank

5. Honda Motors

4. Nippon Telegraph and Tel

3. Sumitomo Mitsubishi Financial

2. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial

1. Toyota Motors

Toshiba did not make the top 12 either.
User avatar
sosc67
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:26 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Boooogers!, Colours never run, Hamburger, Majestic-12 [Bot], MKD and 54 guests