Are they? I thought I was just pointing out where you're misdirecting the discussion to the point of tedium again. If you saw these things as discussions, rather than a battle to be won or a foe defeated, you may just find it a bit more fun on here. You seem to add some twisted version of events in order to steer things toward your own personal gripe. It's dull. You used to be far better than that.
West Ham got the stadium because no one else put in a serious bid that complied with the main stipulations, which were the Stadium staying and having athletics there. Maybe if Trotterham hadn't put demolishing the stadium and having no athletics there they may actually have a point. The second L in LLDC stands for LEgacy, something none of the other bids offered. We all know the Olympic stadium was a huge white Elephant that no one really wanted, and that it should've been originally built with football in mind, but it wasn't and isn't, it's all about the Athletics legacy, football is the unwanted bedfellow and they were never ever going to agree to anything that didn't have Athletics legacy. On a side note, where is the petition to stop the government giving trotterham £40m in taxpayers money to build their stadium? that's a far worse deal for the taxpayer. We get a stadium cheap and supply an Athletics legacy, they get a stadium cheaper because the locals rioted when the local yardie crack dealer got shot.
tl;dr: Don't question us. Got this today: The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Hold public inquiry into West Ham & LLDC deal for rental of Olympic Stadium”. Government responded: West Ham United has a concession at the Stadium and their contributions reflect that status. The contract, awarded after an open public competition, has been widely scrutinised and tested in court. Following the completion of its transformation programme the Stadium will be - unlike so many previous Olympic Stadiums - a world-class multi-use arena with a long-term future, and one that won’t require continuous support from the taxpayer. The stadium remains in public ownership (E20 Stadium LLP – a joint venture between the London Legacy Development Corporation and Newham Council) and the profits from its multiple uses will flow to the taxpayer. As a long-term concessionaire West Ham United will only access the full stadium facilities for and shortly ahead of home matches, anticipated to be an average of 25 games a year. The stadium’s other anchor concession-holder, British Athletics, has a concession for one month a year. The stadium will be available for commercial and other uses at all times outside of these existing commitments. The Stadium is a multi-use venue, which has already hosted a major athletics meet this year, the Sainsbury’s Anniversary Games, and will host a range of other events in 2015 including five matches during the Rugby World Cup this autumn, a Rugby League international between England and New Zealand and the Race of Champions motorsport event. In addition the Stadium will host elite athletics including the IAAF and IPC Athletics World Championships in 2017. A world class stadium operator has been appointed and it is part of the operator agreement that the Stadium will host concerts and other events. None of these events will financially benefit West Ham United. All revenues from these events will be shared by the operator and the Stadium owners. The stadium operator has a proven international track record of success in managing and maximising revenue from multi-use stadia and is contractually incentivised to generate maximum income. The agreement with West Ham United, including their contribution to transformation costs and rent, followed an open competitive process, which was delivered under EU rules, conducted visibly and exposed to significant scrutiny. The outcome has been tested in the courts and upheld. As the winning bid this constituted the best available return for the taxpayer and secures the commercial viability of a national asset for the next 100 years. The European Commission (EC) is responsible for assessing whether public investment distorts the competitive market. The EC has considered this issue on more than one occasion and has done so with full sight of the contractual terms, comprehensive detail of the tender exercise and in depth legal opinion on compliance with UK and EU law. It has found no case to answer. Therefore we do not believe that a public inquiry is necessary. The detail of the rental agreement between the Stadium owners and West Ham United is commercially sensitive. Disclosing details of the contract would undermine the future negotiating position of the Stadium's operator, Vinci, who are working hard to bring in future events to get the greatest possible return and ensure that the Stadium is a commercial success. It is important that the stadium owners and operator are able to negotiate future contracts in a way that derive maximum value and are not constrained by any one agreement. Such arrangements are standard practice and are designed to both protect the previous public expenditure and maximise the return on this investment. Department for Culture, Media and Sport Click this link to view the response online: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106355?reveal_response=yes The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate. The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee Thanks, The Petitions team UK Government and Parliament
Good on them, it wasn't them that monumentally cocked up when building the stadium and planning its legacy. They've just got themselves the best possible deal from a bad situation.
Not strictly true as there were several bidders for the use of the stadium. West Ham's was judged to be the "best" deal.
There were only two realistic bids, the West Ham one and the Spurs one and there was pretty much the same deal on offer from both.
wrong. Spurs offer was to knock the whole thing flat and move the athletics to a smaller venue a couple of miles down the road. in other words, they made a completely inappropriate offer knowing it would get turned down, then started all this PR bullshit, all so they could get the government to help pay for their new stadium, which they are to the tune of £40m. west Ham rent a public building, which will see a profit for the taxpayer. Spurs get given £40m.
I meant the net result to the public purse, rather than the physical changes proposed, knocking it down was never going to be considered anyway.
West Ham should **** off the cheeky ****s. Ive stopped paying tax as of today. Except for income tax, council tax, VAT, breathing tax, being alive tax, not being dead tax, having money to be taxed on tax... Etc.
