What you're saying is that Dionne Knight might have a case against us for invasion of privacy, as she was being investigated by someone we hired. We didn't report the story, so you've got nothing to sue us for in those regards. By the way, "passing off as fact"? It's already been established as a that she worked for West Ham and the OPLC at the same time, and there's record of £20k being placed into her bank account by West Ham. If that's the case, David Sullivan and Karren Brady should be hearing from our lawyers very soon for repeatedly slandering Tottenham Hotspur and our bid throughout the bidding process in numerous press interviews and articles. Paying a bung of £20k to someone with a foot in both camps is a classy way to act now, is it? Nearly as classy as your comments that, for the sake of humanity, I removed when quoting your "contribution" to this thread.
"What you're saying is that Dionne Knight might have a case against us for invasion of privacy, as she was being investigated by someone we hired. We didn't report the story, so you've got nothing to sue us for in those regards." Well, that's clearly rubbish, isn't it. If (and I say IF) we have invaded her privacy, then it matters not a F whether we have reported it it or published it at all. " "Slander and defamation are litigable." If that's the case, David Sullivan and Karren Brady should be hearing from our lawyers very soon..." " And this is a very interesting point, because we haven't made a reply yet at all. Wham's statement said " The newspaper's statement that Tottenham Hotspur employed the investigators who obtained private information illegally is one we are treating with the utmost seriousness and no doubt data protection and prosecution agencies may also do so". This is much stronger than the statements made by the Times about Wham, and yet we have not responded. We are a PLC, and are required to respond to such statements, whereas Wham could just ignore them. "Paying a bung of £20k to someone with a foot in both camps is a classy way to act now, is it?" Now that IS very close to libel, unless you know that it was a bung. It seems she was paid to do a job that was unrelated to the bidding process. Fishy, yes, and maybe against the terms of her contract with the OPLC, but that doesn't make it a bung. I expect a statement from Spurs pretty soon that tries to distance us from the Times report, and tries to distance us from the evidence that our PIs have reportedly turned up. Damage limitation, in other words. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope there is more evidence yet to be uncovered, as Ensil seems to be suggesting. But so far, eveything I've heard and read suggests we could be at least embarrassed by this.
It matters because if we are accused of invading her privacy, it has nothing at all to do with West Ham, so they cannot take action for it. The reason we haven't repsonsed is because... a.) We're looking into these claims before responding one way or the other b.) Our lawyers have told us not to respond/are preparing a response in case our response is cited at a later date c.) West Ham's claims are utter bollocks, and responding would give them legitimacy Payments by West Ham totalling £20k appearing in her bank account certainly looks like a bung to me. It has been established that she worked for both camps (both of whom are trying to preten this isn't a conflict of interest...), and that's only going to embarass West Ham and the OPLC.
CN - until one of the PI's that we've allegedly used and that has allegedly broken laws in gathering information can prove that they were acting on our direct orders then we have very little to worry about, or indeed. If it were the case then someone at the club has made a monumental cock-up but it's very unlikely. There's nothing really for us to respond to at the moment, West Ham rattling their sabre is nothing more than attempt to deflect attention from the real story, if we took the bait and turned in to a slanging match then the Porno-boys will have their wish. OPLC have acted quickly in removing those with the allegations against them whilst providing a rather porous excuse, I have no doubt they're currently in contact with Spurs trying to find out what we want in exchange for reducing further embarrasment. We are the ones in a position of strength, we know it, the government know it, the OPLC know it and West Ham may or may not know it - it's very difficult to tell, they may truly believe they have a case to sue us with afterall.
Ensil - I thought I was on your ignore list. What did I do to get back in your good books? What do I have to do to get ignored again? BTW, I said it was CLOSE to libel, and the comment made it clear who the commenter was taliking about. humanbeing - "It matters because if we are accused of invading her privacy, it has nothing at all to do with West Ham, so they cannot take action for it." Agreed, but the comment was "What you're saying is that Dionne Knight might have a case against us for invasion of privacy, as she was being investigated by someone we hired" and my response was intended to imply that she would still have a case against us whether or not we published what we found. "The reason we haven't repsonsed is because... a.) We're looking into these claims before responding one way or the other b.) Our lawyers have told us not to respond/are preparing a response in case our response is cited at a later date c.) West Ham's claims are utter bollocks, and responding would give them legitimacy" Yes, as said I expect a statement shortly, but I was implying that the fact we hadn't responded immediately suggests we have to think very carefully what we say. In other words, Wham's comments may not be complete bollocks. And BTW, not responding is not an option for a quoted company, even if we know that there is no truth in the allegations. And finally "Payments by West Ham totalling £20k appearing in her bank account certainly looks like a bung to me." ****wit - Do payments from you employer appearing in your bank account look like bungs to you?
Am I missing something here? Whatever the 20 grand is called, bung, salary or money for shoes, Dionne Knight was doing work for West Ham and making a decision on the clubs future. This is clearly a conflict of interests. The fact that this future involves the use of public money and the association was not declared until we (or whoever) discovered it, makes the process unsafe. Who knows how many of the other 13 she influenced? The fact this was all done away from the glare of publicity means we cannot possible know. The OPLC and the process as a whole, cannot be trusted to make this decision. I suggest the mayor's office and the government sort out this mess. Sebastian Coe feeling smug is not really a good enough reason to let this white elephant survive.
"Each day I clear my ignore list in case I misjudged people - obviously I didn't in your case. " So, can I take it youl'll be ignoring me in future? "It's libellous or it's not libellous - it can't be "close" to libel." Yes it can. "She's not employed by WHUFC, she's a Director of OPLC and a Consultant to WHUFC." Wham employed her as a consultant. "Tell me - are you really a Spurs fan? " Would that make any difference?
I thought this thread was about the OS. If you want to have a ruck why not do it on email? This is of absolutely no interest to anybody else here.
Yes, you are missing something. She told the OPLC before they employed her that she had a "relationship" with a Director of Wham, and as a result, they say, they excluded her from everything to do with the OS bid, hence no conflict of interest. Fishy, yes. A clear conflict of interest, no. More circumstantial evidence of a bidding process that was potentially flawed - seems like it to me. But unless there is more evidence that we haven't yet heard, as Ensil has suggested, I doubt there is much for Wham or the OPLC to worry about. I'm much more concerned about our own position.
By that, I assume you mean they were planned? The implication would be that Levy planned it, and that he arranged for the information that the PIs uncovered to be passed to the Times. That is my nightmare scenario, because if any of that info was gained illegally, then we could be in big trouble. The timing of the first application for a review was determined by the law itself - we left it until the last minute. I don't know how long we had to renew the application, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Times had held off publishing until the first Sunday after our decision to renew our application for review. In that case, it wouldn't really be planned.
Errm, I said "I wouldn't be surprised if the Times had held off publishing until the first Sunday after our decision to renew our application for review. ". Meaning that the Times had this information for some time, but waited until we renewed our application for review in order to get the best publicity for it. How is that random? The timing would, in that case, have been determined by Levy's decision to renew application, but that doesn't mean he planned for the Times to publish anything. Also, our RGF application went in on the last posible day, as did our bid for the OS. And our bid for VDV, and many of our bids for players in every window. There's a pattern there...
The only way for the conflict of interest to be resolved is for her to have resigned and taken a leave of absence from West ham. How do we know she didn't have access to information about the bid or that she didn't influence her erstwhile colleagues? The whole thing stinks.
I totally disagree with that. Our position is strong on several fronts: The use of a huge, interest free council loan raised entirely by public funds to back a bid that had no case to show more benefit to the council or the borough, when compared to the other serious option(our bid). Their decision was based on West Ham keeping the stadium. Yet now that they have been awarded the stadium there is nothing to lock them into any of their promises. We were being encouraged at every stage to put together our bid, with a farcicle delay of the final decision only to lead to a white wash of a vote. West Ham were paying a director of the OPLC. The OPLC, West Ham and Dione Knight have each come out with their vague description of the work she undertook - Dione's version however contradicts West Ham's. West Ham's version also implies that they were already spending money on securing construction contracts long before any decision was made. The only things against us are a hollow threat from West Ham and our so far unsuccesful appeals against the validity of the decision aswell as West Ham's bid. We've shown we have the abillity to discredit and embarrass all organisations involved in the West Ham bid and OS selection. This is very much the beginning but the government have the opportunity to finish and sweep it all under the rug if they choose to cooperate with Levy and Spurs.
I like you, Ensil, I really do. Hours of fun. Reading your previous comment carefully - "THFC have requested an oral JR. Within days of doing so The Sunday Times prints a story about possible collusion and as a result an OPLC director, also a contractor to WHUFC, is suspended. Don't tell me that those 2 events weren't planned to happen when they did." I naturally assumed that you meant both these events were planned by the same person(s). Otherwise I can't see why you bothered mentioning it. And that is why I said "By that, I assume you mean they were planned? The implication would be that Levy planned it... ". If that's not what you meant, you only had to say so. And Chirpy - "The only way for the conflict of interest to be resolved is for her to have resigned and taken a leave of absence from West ham. How do we know she didn't have access to information about the bid or that she didn't influence her erstwhile colleagues? The whole thing stinks. " No one resigns because of a conflict of interest - they simply declare their interest and that gets taken into account, as happened here. Many companies have people on the Board of Directors that are actually Directors of their biggest competitors as well. They just don't get involved in decisions that involve both companies. Businesses wouldn't be able to operate if no one had outside interests. But this one IS fishy, it WILL embarrass the OPLC and Wham, but it is nowhere near sufficient in itself to prove that the bidding process was unfair. IMO.
Actually, if you go back through my comments, you'll see I was only talking about this present situation - i.e Whams payments to the Knight woman, and our alleged connections to PIs and allegedly illegal acquisition of personal data. The rest of what you say I broadly agree with.
I don't know if it's how Ensil meant it but all I read into his comments is that atleast one of the parties was aware of the others intentions. It's entirely plausible that Levy, or indeed the Times based their actions around the other. Frankly I'd be very disappointed if Levy didn't have any prior knowledge of The Times getting hold of the story.
Apologies, if I misread/misunderstood you. As it stands with the information that is out there, I can't see how we will be in for any real trouble. It'd take a significant revelation to change that.
West Ham United statement The club is to take legal action in relation to allegations made in the Sunday Times 03.07.2011 West Ham United can confirm the club are taking legal action in relation to allegations made in today's Sunday Times. We are certain of the robustness of our successful bid for the Olympic Stadium. The newspaper's statement that Tottenham Hotspur employed the investigators who obtained private information illegally is one we are treating with the utmost seriousness and no doubt data protection and prosecution agencies may also do so. The only wrongdoing here is by those who have broken the law and obtained private information. It would appear that no stone has gone unturned trying to find a way to undermine our bid including apparently targeting the 14 Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) Board members who had voted unanimously on the bid in our favour. The suggestion of 'secret cash' in the Sunday Times article is absolutely and categorically denied. As such, legal action is being taken against the Sunday Times, as well as Tottenham Hotspur. Dionne Knight's work for the Legacy Stadium Partnership (LSP) owned 50% by London Borough of Newham and 50% by West Ham United was in relation to the procurement of a construction partner after the Olympic Games. A number of companies applied for the procurement contract. It was awarded to Ms Knight as she was able to provide expertise at a significantly competitive price. The work that she subsequently undertook for the LSP was of a very high standard. The OPLC has confirmed that Ms Knight had absolutely no involvement in the bidding process and we repeat that secret cash was not paid to her. Her work was very transparent and the bidding process was never compromised. The work was never hidden, for example she personally attended meetings. There is considerable documentation to confirm the existence and quality of her work. Two firms of solicitors are able to confirm those facts. The price we paid for the work was extremely competitive. The LSP, including Karren Brady who is named in the offending article, has not paid any member of the OPLC for any information in relation to the bid process, and has not received any unauthorised information from the OPLC or any other source in relation to its bid. The OPLC has further confirmed that she and other employees of the OPLC did not have access to confidential information as it was held at the OPLC's external solicitors' offices. The LSP believed Ms Knight had authority to do the work as that was what it was informed. The fact that the work was undertaken is wholly irrelevant to the Olympic Stadium bid process and only raises issues of employment law. To reiterate, the allegations are the subject of legal action. If there is any further publication of the allegations, further action will be taken. We are so confident in the probity of our actions that we will take the strongest action possible against any suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of West Ham United or its officers, as well as involve the police and the data protection registrar in regard to the accessing of private information by illegal means. SEE YOU IN COURT SPUDS
