West Ham ordered to reveal details of Olympic Stadium deal i

[the bubble hammer]

No surprises then that the LLDC have decided to appeal that decision. Although apparently will reveal some of the financial details.

[Johnny Byrne's Boots]

LLDC appeal disclosure decision

Managers of the Olympic Stadium are to fight a decision to make public the details of a rental deal with West Ham.
The London Legacy Development Corporation says it does not want sensitive financial figures revealed.
However, it says it will publish some more information about the arrangement.
West Ham, who move to the Olympic Stadium for the start of the 2016-17 season, say they would be happy for the entire document to be released, apart from shareholder details.
Last month, the Information Commissioner said the corporation must comply with a Freedom of Information request seeking details of the tenancy agreement, but it is now appealing against that decision.
"The appeal relates only to information which, if released, could significantly reduce the level of financial return to the taxpayer as it would undermine negotiations with future users of the stadium and other partners," said a spokesperson.
The LLDC says it is committed to "maximising transparency" and is preparing to publish more details of the agreement that fall outside the terms of its appeal.
A West Ham spokesman said they support the decision to lodge an appeal, but added: "Other than the personal affairs of our shareholders, we are happy to disclose the entire document, the details of which have been accurately reported widely enough already."

more.

[Wembley1966]

Full document of agreement now just published:
http://www.queenelizabetholympicpark.co ... %20v10.pdf

But quite a bit redacted - including all of the financial amounts are not visible!

For example:

[mdennis]

Not sure if this will appease the vocal minority. They'll not be happy until all documents are laid out with no redaction whatsoever... Then they'll go in for the kill...

[Crouching Peeky]

I don't think we have any say in the naming rights at all.

11.1
"The concessionaire acknowledges and agrees that nothing in the Concession Documents shall grant the concessionaire any rights in relation to the Reserved Naming and Association Rights..."

[-DavidC-]

Imagine the Charlton supporters and Barry Hearn will be furious with the redacted release. Anything of any interest to them has been blanked out

[devtobrooking]

There was a statement earlier up on the official site from KB which was pulled. Anyway, not before Google cached it :http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=uk
Not sure about having a guided tour if we had visited???

I visited for the Barbarians game and as others have said is mint. Was in Lower tier of the West Stand Row 9... a bit too low that for me, and not sure if others have mentioned but I found the lights there quite dazzling when looking up. Also went to find my season ticket seat in the East Stand Upper and a friends. V Impressed - not its not the same as the East Stand Upper at the Boleyn, it is more like being at Wembley or Millennium Stadium IMHO but it is immense. That stand will be amazing (with the right punters). Its not all gravy I know, but I still think that we will make it proper special. A different special to the Boleyn but special nonetheless.

[the pink palermo]

^^^^

That's a great spot squire , I stuck a thread up on the GD section but the mods have moved it to here .

Why would the club pull a comment on the OS ?

Legal advice ?

Inaccuracy ?

Part of the whole cloak and dagger nonsense ?

Who knows , but as someone who asked at the very first SAB meeting a direct question of the Vice Chair

How much more money will flow into the Managers budget as a result of the move ?

It would appear to be relatively little .Which begs the question , what has it all been for ?

Who will benefit , how many trophies will we see ? No less than Tony Cottee was reeled out for one meeting to support the move and making the statement "I want to win something" .

Are alarm bells not ringing for anyone yet ?

[Georgee Paris]

I think we might have agreed to come 10th forever unless a multi billionaire comes in and buys the whole of Stratford. This has been done and dusted during a messy orgy hosted by big Dave, Percy pig, boris, the dildo daves, baroness and someone itk. It was also part of the carrick, Parker, Davenport deal to ensure Spurs got the nfl deal and transport upgrades...West Ham were always just a pawn and the Boleyn might be converted to a mega mosque depending on gentrification attempts on the Upton Park area perhaps.

[westham,eggyandchips]

^^^^

That's a great spot squire , I stuck a thread up on the GD section but the mods have moved it to here .

Why would the club pull a comment on the OS ?

Legal advice ?

Inaccuracy ?

Part of the whole cloak and dagger nonsense ?

Who knows , but as someone who asked at the very first SAB meeting a direct question of the Vice Chair

How much more money will flow into the Managers budget as a result of the move ?

It would appear to be relatively little .Which begs the question , what has it all been for ?

Who will benefit , how many trophies will we see ? No less than Tony Cottee was reeled out for one meeting to support the move and making the statement "I want to win something" .

Are alarm bells not ringing for anyone yet ?

Are you still adamant about staying away PP?

[the pink palermo]

WHEANC , I'm going as a conscript, not as a volunteer .It's what I do, it's my only hobby and my one way of meeting certain groups of friends .

Through time though we'll all drift away , and join the legion of armchair fans .

[StiffUpper]

The pitch might be able to take two teams a season, and it might not. We won't be able to tell until after a season of use. That uncertainty might give us a de facto veto for year 2

[gavrosh]

Levy said to the TH Supporters Trust that they had until March 2017 to make a decision, so that may be enough time for the LLDC to determine whether the pitch can take the stress.

[MilkyBarKid16]

West Ham are paying £15m towards the renovation costs, which accounts for about 5.5% of the total £272m.

West Ham will be using the stadium for around 20 days per year, which works out at (you guessed it) 5.5% of the total days in a year.

Am I missing something?

[LondonTaxpayer]

West Ham are paying £15m towards the renovation costs, which accounts for about 5.5% of the total £272m.

West Ham will be using the stadium for around 20 days per year, which works out at (you guessed it) 5.5% of the total days in a year.

Am I missing something?

Milkybarkid, I like the elegance of your conclusion.

[clawhammer]

Thank goodness that's settled!

[sanchoz]

http://www.thstofficial.com/thst-news/t ... rd-summary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Ground share options for the team’s season away from White Hart Lane prompted intense discussion and showed a range of views held by the members present. The possibility of playing in Milton Keynes loomed large, with some stating strong opposition to any prospect of going there, others expressing reservations, and others saying one season there wouldn’t be a problem if there was no alternative.

There was a fair degree of pragmatism on display, with an acknowledgement that if Spurs did end up at MK, the Trust would need to help negotiate the best practical deal for fans. But there was also a strong preference for staying in London if at all possible. The Trust’s position here is that we are for keeping the Club in London, and that we won’t enter into discussions about theoretical situations. The London Ground for a London Club campaign was strongly endorsed.

The Club’s comment during our recent Board to Board meeting that the deadline for deciding where we would be playing in the 2017/18 season is March 2017 was met with disbelief. Trust Board members reported they had expressed concern to the Club over the amount of work that would need to be done to implement a ground share and the time available to do this, and continue to push the point.

There was some discussion over the likelihood of playing at Wembley or the Olympic Stadium. The update on Wembley published in the Board to Board meeting minutes made sense to members, and there was little further discussion on that option. Questions were asked about whether the Club was considering the Olympic Stadium and it was explained that the situation was complex. The Trust was involved in the Olympic Stadium Coalition fan campaign, seeking to get details of the rental agreement between the London Legacy Development Corporation and West Ham United, partly because it wanted to see if the OS was potentially an option, as well as to uncover details of what looked very much like an unfair competitive advantage being given to a rival club via taxpayer subsidy. It was stressed that this was an initiative the Trust was pursuing entirely independently of the Club.

So the fact THST joined the campaign to have details of our Olympic Stadium deal made public is not all down to a "taxpayer subsidy" query.

[sanchoz]

Also:

http://www.thstofficial.com/thst-news/t ... ember-2015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Olympic Stadium

•KL also updated on the work of the 14 Trust-strong fan coalition seeking to get the details of the deal between the London Legacy Development Corporation and West Ham United over the Olympic Stadium made public. It was stressed that the coalition’s approach here was twofold, to seek to address the issue of unfair competitive advantage being given to one club, and to ease the burden on the taxpayer that helped provide that competitive advantage
•KL asked if the possibility of the Olympic Stadium being a potential ground share venue was being considered
•KL and MC said that information already received as a result of Freedom of Information requests indicated that, whilst West Ham United may have a priority usage clause, they did not have a veto over who used the stadium: the club was merely a tenant
•DL said that, should the Olympic Stadium become a possibility, THFC had a responsibility to consider it, but Wembley was the preferred venue as it was a neutral venue
•KL put the view that the financial damage done to the THFC brand by not staying in London while West Ham United were aggressively being marketed as ‘West Ham United London’ would be considerable
•KL sought clarification of THFC’s current position
•DL reiterated his view that the Club’s Board had a responsibility to secure a venue for the ground share season wherever it could, accepting that we might not be able to find an option to suit all
•THST reiterated its Pro London position over this matter and the Club acknowledged this

KL and MC are members of the THST board, DL is Daniel Levy

[Johnny Byrne's Boots]

From today's Telegraph

Tottenham Hotspur chairman Daniel Levy has revealed that Chelsea have made a four-year bid to land Wembley as their temporary home at a meeting with Spurs supporters.
That will only further damage the chances of Tottenham playing at Wembley for a season, with Chelsea insistent they are not interested in a groundshare and effectively offering four times the amount Spurs would pay for a single campaign.

more..

While we can all chuckle at this, it may increase Tottenham's efforts to play at the OS.

[Georgee Paris]

Strange that there's a thread on glory-glory proclaiming West Ham are not there rivals...^^^ that suggests otherwise eh.