This tickled me: http://spendmatters.co.uk/procurement-exec-centre-west-ham-olympic-stadium-crisis/ Quote - "Let’s start with an extract from the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply ethical code (although I have no idea whether Knight is a member). As a member of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing & Supply, I will… …declare any personal interest that might affect, or be seen by others to affect, my impartiality or decision making The key words here are “be seen by others to affect”. Even if Knight believes she acted totally properly , gave great value for the £20K fee from West Ham, and has had no influence whatsoever on the stadium decision, how does this look to “others”? " And they point out, Knight was previously Head of Procurement for Newham Council! What a bunch of mugs. And I'd add to list of Levy's aims - keeping Wham honest about not destroying the whole above ground structuer at the OS. They made such a play about how terrible it would be to see Spurs completely demolish a stadium just built with so much public money. But if they want removeable seats, they'll have to do a very similar job themselves.
Indeed. Re the OS superstructure, that one slipped by me. Not being an civil eng bod, is it actually possible to build a 55,000 seater stadium with an 8 lane track, with movable structures that would : 1.enable the first row of seats to have the proximity to a football pitch that we typically enjoy 2. satisfy all structural/HS reqs for an audience of that size 3. not damage the running track area
Ensil, Here temporarily (mainly due to the OS saga - and wishing to get info from all sources) . I am 606 format to the bone. BTW, if G&S reappears, where he decides to nest will determine IMHO where we all go.
I wouldn't know either, but Brady hinted as much soon after they won preferred bidder status, and the were rumours on the Wham boards as well. Whatever, the more we can pin them in, the more it hurts them.
But the OS is built from public money. If tis possible, the planning stage was the moment to consider it. And I bet THFC PLC would have contributed seriously to the cost of constructing such a beast, as long as it satisfied their reqts regarding the football audience "experience" . The word in vogue at the moment in the press is "vainglorious" . That is exactly what the OS is untilthe momentthe Olympics is over. Then those who hoisted their colours on it will be gone faster than the proverbial rats on a ship ...
Their opinion seems to be that you are a bit too much of an agitator/catalyst for WUMs. And Mich specifically (who BTW is now completely owned by me) . Hard as it can be, bite the bottom lip hard, trust in the collective will (me, THudd etc) to deal with them, and have faith in their WUM filter (which better be ready come the new season - I have praised it often enough to date - and even downed tools on my precursor variant on the theme) .
If it was my reply that was confucing, yes I'm talikng civil eng (which I know little about). As soon as they got preferred bidder status, Brady started backtracking on the idea of leaving the 25,000 seats untouched, started talking about the possibility of removeable seats, and speculating on the cost of removing some of the existing 25,000 particularly behind the goals. And you could be correct about us being willing to do something similar if we thought that it would be a) acceptable, and b) affordable. In the event, we essentially bid for putting our NPD stadium in Stratford, and the OS' track at Crystal Palace. If Levy had his time over again, knowing what we know now, maybe he'd submit a plan with removeable seats, a la Stade France?
But presumably (and I'm not a civil engineer) that would only matter if the existing foundations were'nt strong enough. They must be strong enough for our 56,000 design, surely, by your reasoning. The OS is built as an 80,000 seater, (although the top 55,000 are temporary) so there must be some chance that they woukld be strong enough for a redesigned NPD stadium with removeable seats? I guess we'll have to wait and see what (if anything) Wham decide to do.
Yep, the time to have considered this was before a stone was dug up. Athletics does not have the popularity/frequency of event in the modern age to have an exclusive stadium. Football does. You have two clubs nearby. One definitely with plans to expand. The other perhaps. One with the financial credibility/solvency to probably actually cough up significant private money to alleviate the public costs. The other not really. And a great stadium for the Olympics/future athletics. And a great stadium for football. An opportunity gone begging. How very British. FWIW, I don't begrudge WHU saying/doing anything to get the OS. They don't have the money, credibility etc to undertake a new stadium build alone. But they, the OLPC etc, made their bed. That track stays there FOREVER. The owners can PAY THEMSELVES for any surrounding structural config they see fit to improve the football experience. I can live with the embarrassment any of the above causes to past statements by the bastions of business integrity that are WHU and Newham council. As long as the TAXPAYER DON'T HAVE TO PAY A PENNY MORE FOR IT.
Oh, mate, I keep saying this to anyone who'll listen. For the Olympics, the second greatest sporting event in the world, the entire athletics community had to go cap in hand to the taxpayer to build a TEMPORARY stadium. meanwhile, a SINGLE football club is expected not omly to fund its own Stadium, a stadium that will be state of the art decades, a stadium that will be ground-breaking in terms of sustainability and evironmental-friendliness, but that single football club is also expected to regenerate the most run-down borough in London and one of the most deprived areas in the UK. It makes me sick.
Crack on boys, nothing to see here, all that time and money to bring to light some consultancy work and NOTHING to do with the bid process. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jul/04/boris-johnson-olympic-stadium-row Oh and here's an update on why you are spending all that time and money to drag up...........err............very little in fact. http://www.kumb.com/article.php?id=2909
You have yet to say anything new, your posts thus far suggest you haven't bothered to read/understand any of the thread and most just involves copy & pasting articles and links to articles. If you don't understand then it's better not to speak, let alone trying to insult other users' intelligence. Is this your second account on here? I seem to remember your name from before but your 8 posts suggests you're new.
Dear oh dear....when all else fails, try and look for another reason as to why people may post or go about their business. Clearly this is a trait that flows from the top of the club right down to the lowest form of fans. Wait for it, you'll be calling me a WUM next? Just trying to keep you boys up to date on an article you decided was important enough to discuss. "Don't understand"?? Well so far we have had one of you lot that doesn't like what he hears and gets abusive (so it's okay for PNP to throw it out there but not take it? I suggest you go back a read/understand the thread, no?), and now another that questions my membership, to support what argument exactly? Seriously you couldn't make it up! For the record, no it's not my second account on here, and yes I have only posted recently, happy now? And I probably won't remember you.
I've yet to read an insult thrown by PNP, on this thread, that he cannot back up. You questioned another users intelligence without showing any interlect yourself. I asked you a simple question on your membership but your level of comprehension again fails you and you've totally misunderstood. You've yet to put together an intelligible post and as your involvement in this thread increases so does your inabillity to understand it. Why would we not assume that you've only come to cause an argument?
You're contributing nothing to the article, bar links to stories that everyone's already seen and anti-Spurs rhetoric, so why would you expect an 'interlectual' reply? You opened up with a statement from West Ham, then started calling Spurs fans thick and, when my first reply to you was perfectly civil and completely non-aggressive, you decided to attack me. You're a bitter little Essex prick, like most of your fellow Irons, frankly. Contribute something worthwhile, stop insulting everyone and engage your withered, damaged brain or piss off back to your empty board. It'll be good practice for your empty stadium, next season.
They do when they're undeclared, you ****ing moron. Hang on, if the dual roles that Dionne Knight was performing were above board, wouldn't they be on her CV? If that's the case, a simple perusal of her LinkedIn account would suffice. By saying that Spurs acted illegally, that is a libellous comment - which has yet to be backed up with any proof. It should be pointed out that The Sunday Times is, comparatively at least, independent within the Murdoch Empire - it took some serious levels of bullying to force their website to install the paywall that the Times' website has, and there is conflicting views between the Times and Sunday Times. The Sun, meanwhile, doesn't have views...unless you count Page Three. The simple reason that Seb Coent wasn't adamant that UK Athletics would get their grubby hands on Eastlands once the Commonwealth Games had finished.
