I keep seeing " it's not West Hams fault" or " i dont blame West Ham".
Well Gold and Sullivan are West Ham's owners therefore they are West Ham and they negotiated the deal so who's bloody fault is it then!!! I sometimes get the feeling certain people are closet hammers.
Perhaps what you should be saying is it's not West Hams supporters fault which is entirely different.
The people Gold/Sullivan negotiated the deal with, there are two sides in every negotiation - in this one one of the parties is answerable to the taxpayers of this nation and it isn't Gold & Sullivan.
It goes without saying that the Government officials are to blame as well ( they are Tories so what would you expect ) but i'm saying West Ham are not blameless as others have said.
I'm not sure that it does go without saying, we should say it loudly and often.
What would you have had West Ham do ? Say "sorry guys, this deals way too good, let us pay you more" ? I know where any blame squarely lies and it doesn't make me a "closet Hammer" to say it.
I would imagine they thought that none of this would even come out, or if it did it wouldn't look bad on them (the owners), after all it was a commercial contract with the government. I guess the fact that it's in essence a commercial contract with the government funded by the taxpayer which is the problem. Do/should they have shown more foresight? What are the deals with companies that supply the NHS say? Do they have to be a bit more clued up from a PR/ethical perspective than they would in the private sector.
As far as my understanding goes unless a term is breached in a private sector contract, everyone is a big boy and should enter into an agreement with their eyes open. There's very little sympathy in the world of business as both parties know the score.
West Ham knew the score (a bloody good one), does that mean there is an extra duty of care based on the fact it's public money.
As an idealist I do have issue with the hammers' owners knowing they got such a good deal using PUBLIC money. Others will not blame them based on the fact that's what was offered to them. Of course whoever structured this on behalf of the authorities has screwed up, but my personal stance is that West Ham have spotted the opportunity and exploited it when they should've had a bit more consideration for the wider issues.
Others will see it differently on the bare facts
So are you genuinely saying that it's reasonable to suggest that West Ham should have turned down the Government's proposal and offered to pay more ? Do you pay more than the statutory PAYE ? NI ? Council Tax ?
Well,a lot of people in this country seem to resent public sector workers - most of whom work very hard and haven't had a pay rise in over 5 years- from I can gather, mainly because they are paid from taxes. There is a respect for the private sector so the bankers who have taken more than their fair share of public money and were to blame for the Sh*t we are in seem to now get less of a rough ride than they do. And at the very top of our respect tree are the wealth creators. The people like Sullivan who.... oh wait a minute - happily take millions in public money to assist their businesses. outside West Ham you have the big companies who pay their staff so little the tax payer picks up the shortfall!
We have it all wrong in this country. And yes, it is reasonable to suggest that from the outset that there was a respect that this is tax payers' money. And it should be just as reasonable that the public are more angry about this than some poor sod who works his/her socks off to put food on the table in a government office.
I keep seeing " it's not West Hams fault" or " i dont blame West Ham".
Well Gold and Sullivan are West Ham's owners therefore they are West Ham and they negotiated the deal so who's bloody fault is it then!!! I sometimes get the feeling certain people are closet hammers.
Perhaps what you should be saying is it's not West Hams supporters fault which is entirely different.
The people Gold/Sullivan negotiated the deal with, there are two sides in every negotiation - in this one one of the parties is answerable to the taxpayers of this nation and it isn't Gold & Sullivan.
It goes without saying that the Government officials are to blame as well ( they are Tories so what would you expect ) but i'm saying West Ham are not blameless as others have said.
I'm not sure that it does go without saying, we should say it loudly and often.
What would you have had West Ham do ? Say "sorry guys, this deals way too good, let us pay you more" ? I know where any blame squarely lies and it doesn't make me a "closet Hammer" to say it.
I would imagine they thought that none of this would even come out, or if it did it wouldn't look bad on them (the owners), after all it was a commercial contract with the government. I guess the fact that it's in essence a commercial contract with the government funded by the taxpayer which is the problem. Do/should they have shown more foresight? What are the deals with companies that supply the NHS say? Do they have to be a bit more clued up from a PR/ethical perspective than they would in the private sector.
As far as my understanding goes unless a term is breached in a private sector contract, everyone is a big boy and should enter into an agreement with their eyes open. There's very little sympathy in the world of business as both parties know the score.
West Ham knew the score (a bloody good one), does that mean there is an extra duty of care based on the fact it's public money.
As an idealist I do have issue with the hammers' owners knowing they got such a good deal using PUBLIC money. Others will not blame them based on the fact that's what was offered to them. Of course whoever structured this on behalf of the authorities has screwed up, but my personal stance is that West Ham have spotted the opportunity and exploited it when they should've had a bit more consideration for the wider issues.
Others will see it differently on the bare facts
So are you genuinely saying that it's reasonable to suggest that West Ham should have turned down the Government's proposal and offered to pay more ? Do you pay more than the statutory PAYE ? NI ? Council Tax ?
When you put it like that se9 of course if I were West Ham's owners then no, it's in West Ham's best interest to take the deal.
My thoughts were mainly around is that because it is a deal using public money, should they have been more 'ethically aware' (I use that term loosely). Because they knew that they were getting such a good deal, should they have thought, hang on a minute, are there any wider issues we should take into account?
For me personally it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm being too overly idealistic I know, and there's no obligation on West Ham apart to act in the best interests of West Ham. But systems are broken all over the world, we know that when we look at the likes of Google with their corporation tax. People say with things like that it's up to the government to simplify etc and make it fair which I agree with, but companies can do their part as well.
I keep seeing " it's not West Hams fault" or " i dont blame West Ham".
Well Gold and Sullivan are West Ham's owners therefore they are West Ham and they negotiated the deal so who's bloody fault is it then!!! I sometimes get the feeling certain people are closet hammers.
Perhaps what you should be saying is it's not West Hams supporters fault which is entirely different.
The people Gold/Sullivan negotiated the deal with, there are two sides in every negotiation - in this one one of the parties is answerable to the taxpayers of this nation and it isn't Gold & Sullivan.
It goes without saying that the Government officials are to blame as well ( they are Tories so what would you expect ) but i'm saying West Ham are not blameless as others have said.
I'm not sure that it does go without saying, we should say it loudly and often.
What would you have had West Ham do ? Say "sorry guys, this deals way too good, let us pay you more" ? I know where any blame squarely lies and it doesn't make me a "closet Hammer" to say it.
I would imagine they thought that none of this would even come out, or if it did it wouldn't look bad on them (the owners), after all it was a commercial contract with the government. I guess the fact that it's in essence a commercial contract with the government funded by the taxpayer which is the problem. Do/should they have shown more foresight? What are the deals with companies that supply the NHS say? Do they have to be a bit more clued up from a PR/ethical perspective than they would in the private sector.
As far as my understanding goes unless a term is breached in a private sector contract, everyone is a big boy and should enter into an agreement with their eyes open. There's very little sympathy in the world of business as both parties know the score.
West Ham knew the score (a bloody good one), does that mean there is an extra duty of care based on the fact it's public money.
As an idealist I do have issue with the hammers' owners knowing they got such a good deal using PUBLIC money. Others will not blame them based on the fact that's what was offered to them. Of course whoever structured this on behalf of the authorities has screwed up, but my personal stance is that West Ham have spotted the opportunity and exploited it when they should've had a bit more consideration for the wider issues.
Others will see it differently on the bare facts
So are you genuinely saying that it's reasonable to suggest that West Ham should have turned down the Government's proposal and offered to pay more ? Do you pay more than the statutory PAYE ? NI ? Council Tax ?
Perhaps Brady should have stepped down, as she had a conflict of interests. She didn't and she is more guilty than ours in my eyes.
I don't think cabbies is able to negotiate what he pays in NI, PAYE, Council Tax - but if he did he may well ensure it was fair. I don't know, but that is entirely possible.
I don't think cabbies is able to negotiate what he pays in NI, PAYE, Council Tax - but if he did he may well ensure it was fair. I don't know, but that is entirely possible.
It seems odd to me that anyone would expect a business to pay more than they are asked to by the Government. Maybe if you are imagining some sort of utopian dream world, but in reality business pay the taxes/rates/rents that are asked of them and no more. It's up to the people who set the taxes/rates/rents to ensure they are sufficient - in this case I believe they failed in that matter to a spectacular extent and that's where the blame lies.
Well, we will have a different view of what fair is of course. So you can't quantify it and that is why the state tries to quantify it. But if the state decides you have to pay triple your council tax or none at all, is that fair because they have decided it. The moral element is understanding the value of tax payers money and accepting it should be used in the right way.
Well, we will have a different view of what fair is of course. So you can't quantify it and that is why the state tries to quantify it. But if the state decides you have to pay triple your council tax or none at all, is that fair because they have decided it. The moral element is understanding the value of tax payers money and accepting it should be used in the right way.
Quite, but in this case which of the two parties has the most pressing case to "understand the value of tax payers money" the Government or David Gold ?
You can say both have a moral obligation to the tax payer (which I don't really agree with) but only one has a fiduciary duty to.
Basically I agree with @se9addick ...so long as the negotiation was purely commercial and not enhanced by significant political...what shall we call it...chicanery.
Which is a timely moment to highlight this article on the Stadium in the Mail that came out last night. At first sight it doesn't seem much different to most of the others, certainly it has no new information.
However the significance is the identity of the journalist. His name is Stephen Wright, and as I discovered only when he contacted us middle of this week, he is the guy who won awards for his work on the Steven Lawrence case. All the others on the case up to now have a sports brief. He doesn't. He described himself to us as an investigative journalist. He told us he goes on holiday now for three weeks, and wanted to talk to us when he returns. This article therefore is just a marker. Note though the very sharp references to Brady. I think this guy is on her case.
The 'Spurs' element of this puzzles me...and concerns me to a degree.
Its well documented that the proposal that Levy put on the table to LLDC was that the stadium was knocked down, a purpose-built football stadium rebuilt and Crystal Palace athletics stadium would be rebuilt for the legacy element. All at no additional expense to the tax payer.
It was by far the most financially viable option but Coe & Co wanted the track to remain. I understand that and to a degree it done us a favour as it finally gave Haringey Council a proverbial kick up the backside to get the new WHL back on track.
Now as far as I understand, Spurs have already raised the issue with the EU. I've read that in a few places on Spurs boards. Was it an official complaint? I dont know.
If Levy really did go to the lengths of hiring private investigators over the stadium, I doubt he'd let this go uncontested. It really makes me wonder if Boris and the LLDC has offered Levy some kind of sweetener to let it go? There's no love lost between the two boards going back years. This is now the ultimate opportunity for Spurs to kick West Ham in the balls.
Lets be quite clear here. No one blames West Ham at all. You dont look a gift horse in the mouth but they're getting a substantial push up the financial ladder at the cost to the tax payer.
If the Government want to give Spurs and every other club in the football pyramid the same financial boost then its a fair playing field.
Coincidentally I've just seen Max Rushden interview David Sullivan on the fantasy football show on Sky Sports. He came across as a perfectly likeable chap in the interview. He talked about how difficult running a football club is due to player power and agents etc and his main focus is to balance the books. He said that every player has about 6 agents touting their client and they seem to think if they mention a player and West Ham sign him, then they're entitled to money just for mentioning him. He used the word greed a few times.
Interesting interview albeit a light hearted one in the context of the programme, and the timing of everything that has gone on with the revelations this week
Sorry people if i came across too harsh yesterday, i obviously agree that the real criminals are the people involved on the other side of the table who allowed this to happen on our behalf.
Just to to try and explain, as someone who has worked with some of the poorest & weakest members of ours and a number of other countries citizens in the last few years, i personally find it hard not to get angry when other citizens so casually dismiss any blame upon the part of two millionaires who are trying to add even more to their vast wealth from the tax payers pocket.
Apologies again for getting this thread off topic, this is meant to be about all the great work our trust has done in getting us to this point on the behalf of us fans of this club we all love, once again fantastic work.
I get you GGA, but we have to accept that some people think that when it comes to money, anything legal goes, morals do not come in to it at all. Others don't.
I get you GGA, but we have to accept that some people think that when it comes to money, anything legal goes, morals do not come in to it at all. Others don't.
Sums it up. Fairness is subjective as well. That's why West Ham's actions don't sit right with me. To others they have done nothing wrong and have acted in the best interests of their club
I get you GGA, but we have to accept that some people think that when it comes to money, anything legal goes, morals do not come in to it at all. Others don't.
I think that's a little harsh. I don't see anything that West Ham have done that is in business terms wrong. It's a fact, a sad fact perhaps but we live in a society where the free market and profit motive are supported by the majority of the electorate. Ask Ed Milliband if you don't believe me.
It's morally wrong that huge profit making companies pay the minimum wage and let the state pick up the tab to make sure those workers can survive. It's morally wrong that multi billion pound companies like Nike pay the worker that produce their garments a pittance. There are lots more examples.
Sullivan and Gold are good businessmen and they ran rings around the buffoon and Coe who in business terms are Olympic village idiots. I'm surprised that West Ham didn't get a couple of water cannons ( for the pitch of course) and the colours of the Boris Bikes changed to claret and blue as part of the deal.
Heads should roll over this but can anyone really see Boris or Seb taking a fall ? This scandal will be slowly crushed under the weight of the establishment cover up and embarrassment and the EU will be placated.
It's only football and as we all know that is hardly important.
To go off topic even more it's worth pointing out that we don't have any citizens in this country. We are subjects of her majesty.
Not since 1983; we are citizens now, not subjects. This change was a result of the British Nationality Act 1981 which I believe was prompted chiefly by the changing needs of the EU. So, British Citizenship, just one more thing to thank the EU for ;-)
I dont think West ham care one iota what people may think of them over this, unless spurs make a formal complaint I can't see it going anywhere,
I reckon we wouldn't say anything and in return we will see West hame fringe players coming our way
They will offer orient a tie up like Swindon had with spurs, loads of their younger players will end up there on long term loans
The only ones who won't benefit from any form of player link ups will be spurs so if they don't put something into that European Court then I can't see anything happening about it
John boy you may have just answered why I think this will just disappear into one of the most annoying UK cover ups,
Nothing will come of it Imo, solely due to more people taking offers that enhance their business that are highly beneficial and will negate any Ill feeling
Basically I agree with @se9addick ...so long as the negotiation was purely commercial and not enhanced by significant political...what shall we call it...chicanery.
Which is a timely moment to highlight this article on the Stadium in the Mail that came out last night. At first sight it doesn't seem much different to most of the others, certainly it has no new information.
However the significance is the identity of the journalist. His name is Stephen Wright, and as I discovered only when he contacted us middle of this week, he is the guy who won awards for his work on the Steven Lawrence case. All the others on the case up to now have a sports brief. He doesn't. He described himself to us as an investigative journalist. He told us he goes on holiday now for three weeks, and wanted to talk to us when he returns. This article therefore is just a marker. Note though the very sharp references to Brady. I think this guy is on her case.
Good stuff. I note from that article WHU are claiming they rent 25 days per year, which was one of the questions we asked ourselves.
The 'Spurs' element of this puzzles me...and concerns me to a degree.
Its well documented that the proposal that Levy put on the table to LLDC was that the stadium was knocked down, a purpose-built football stadium rebuilt and Crystal Palace athletics stadium would be rebuilt for the legacy element. All at no additional expense to the tax payer.
It was by far the most financially viable option but Coe & Co wanted the track to remain. I understand that and to a degree it done us a favour as it finally gave Haringey Council a proverbial kick up the backside to get the new WHL back on track.
Now as far as I understand, Spurs have already raised the issue with the EU. I've read that in a few places on Spurs boards. Was it an official complaint? I dont know.
If Levy really did go to the lengths of hiring private investigators over the stadium, I doubt he'd let this go uncontested. It really makes me wonder if Boris and the LLDC has offered Levy some kind of sweetener to let it go? There's no love lost between the two boards going back years. This is now the ultimate opportunity for Spurs to kick West Ham in the balls.
Lets be quite clear here. No one blames West Ham at all. You dont look a gift horse in the mouth but they're getting a substantial push up the financial ladder at the cost to the tax payer.
If the Government want to give Spurs and every other club in the football pyramid the same financial boost then its a fair playing field.
I can only imagine such a sweetener would involve the new WHL - but I can't see Haringey bending over backwards to accommodate Boris. Does Boris have final say on planning disputes in London?
In her so called Football Diary in the Sun yesterday Karen Brady wrote;
" A TV documentary on our move to the Olympic stadium airs in London. Alongside the revelation the landlord will be providing some of the goalposts and corner flags, there are a series of half claims and innuendo. To save you watching it , here are the main talking points; The taxpayer benefits as much as we do, we already have the fanbase and demand to sell out the stadium each week and David Sullivan and David Gold have absolutely no intention of selling the club "
Comments
We have it all wrong in this country. And yes, it is reasonable to suggest that from the outset that there was a respect that this is tax payers' money. And it should be just as reasonable that the public are more angry about this than some poor sod who works his/her socks off to put food on the table in a government office.
My thoughts were mainly around is that because it is a deal using public money, should they have been more 'ethically aware' (I use that term loosely). Because they knew that they were getting such a good deal, should they have thought, hang on a minute, are there any wider issues we should take into account?
For me personally it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm being too overly idealistic I know, and there's no obligation on West Ham apart to act in the best interests of West Ham. But systems are broken all over the world, we know that when we look at the likes of Google with their corporation tax. People say with things like that it's up to the government to simplify etc and make it fair which I agree with, but companies can do their part as well.
Will never happen I know
It seems odd to me that anyone would expect a business to pay more than they are asked to by the Government. Maybe if you are imagining some sort of utopian dream world, but in reality business pay the taxes/rates/rents that are asked of them and no more. It's up to the people who set the taxes/rates/rents to ensure they are sufficient - in this case I believe they failed in that matter to a spectacular extent and that's where the blame lies.
You can say both have a moral obligation to the tax payer (which I don't really agree with) but only one has a fiduciary duty to.
Which is a timely moment to highlight this article on the Stadium in the Mail that came out last night. At first sight it doesn't seem much different to most of the others, certainly it has no new information.
However the significance is the identity of the journalist. His name is Stephen Wright, and as I discovered only when he contacted us middle of this week, he is the guy who won awards for his work on the Steven Lawrence case. All the others on the case up to now have a sports brief. He doesn't. He described himself to us as an investigative journalist. He told us he goes on holiday now for three weeks, and wanted to talk to us when he returns. This article therefore is just a marker. Note though the very sharp references to Brady. I think this guy is on her case.
Its well documented that the proposal that Levy put on the table to LLDC was that the stadium was knocked down, a purpose-built football stadium rebuilt and Crystal Palace athletics stadium would be rebuilt for the legacy element. All at no additional expense to the tax payer.
It was by far the most financially viable option but Coe & Co wanted the track to remain. I understand that and to a degree it done us a favour as it finally gave Haringey Council a proverbial kick up the backside to get the new WHL back on track.
Now as far as I understand, Spurs have already raised the issue with the EU. I've read that in a few places on Spurs boards. Was it an official complaint? I dont know.
If Levy really did go to the lengths of hiring private investigators over the stadium, I doubt he'd let this go uncontested. It really makes me wonder if Boris and the LLDC has offered Levy some kind of sweetener to let it go? There's no love lost between the two boards going back years. This is now the ultimate opportunity for Spurs to kick West Ham in the balls.
Lets be quite clear here. No one blames West Ham at all. You dont look a gift horse in the mouth but they're getting a substantial push up the financial ladder at the cost to the tax payer.
If the Government want to give Spurs and every other club in the football pyramid the same financial boost then its a fair playing field.
Interesting interview albeit a light hearted one in the context of the programme, and the timing of everything that has gone on with the revelations this week
Just to to try and explain, as someone who has worked with some of the poorest & weakest members of ours and a number of other countries citizens in the last few years, i personally find it hard not to get angry when other citizens so casually dismiss any blame upon the part of two millionaires who are trying to add even more to their vast wealth from the tax payers pocket.
Apologies again for getting this thread off topic, this is meant to be about all the great work our trust has done in getting us to this point on the behalf of us fans of this club we all love, once again fantastic work.
It's morally wrong that huge profit making companies pay the minimum wage and let the state pick up the tab to make sure those workers can survive. It's morally wrong that multi billion pound companies like Nike pay the worker that produce their garments a pittance. There are lots more examples.
Sullivan and Gold are good businessmen and they ran rings around the buffoon and Coe who in business terms are Olympic village idiots. I'm surprised that West Ham didn't get a couple of water cannons ( for the pitch of course) and the colours of the Boris Bikes changed to claret and blue as part of the deal.
Heads should roll over this but can anyone really see Boris or Seb taking a fall ? This scandal will be slowly crushed under the weight of the establishment cover up and embarrassment and the EU will be placated.
It's only football and as we all know that is hardly important.
https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship
John boy you may have just answered why I think this will just disappear into one of the most annoying UK cover ups,
Nothing will come of it Imo, solely due to more people taking offers that enhance their business that are highly beneficial and will negate any Ill feeling
" A TV documentary on our move to the Olympic stadium airs in London.
Alongside the revelation the landlord will be providing some of the goalposts and corner flags, there are a series of half claims and innuendo. To save you watching it , here are the main talking points; The taxpayer benefits as much as we do, we already have the fanbase and demand to sell out the stadium each week and David Sullivan and David Gold have absolutely no intention of selling the club "
No firm denials there then.