The more I read the more I conclude that the deal stinks. Prague comes across as an honorable man trying to uncover the truth and Gravis and the german guy as 5th columnists trying to persuade everyone to leave it alone and are now trying to suggest it is an ego trip by Prague and the others.
Sorry chaps, but your interest in our site is way out of proportion. I am now convinced that the deal stinks and it is being covered up to prevent the crooks involved being prosecuted. As for WHU, you are just cheats.
The same as benefit cheats nicking taxpayers money. Except Gold, Sullivan and Brady are nicking more of it! To be fair- it isn't West Ham - who are a great club with great tradition, but them.
So reading that Newham were happy for the deal to be published, Boris was happy for the deal to be published, West Ham were happy for the deal to be published, the ICO ordered it to be published and at least 10,000's of taxpayers (if not 100,000's) wanted the deal published. Yet somehow, even though everyone says they want it published we find ourselves potentially months away from a final decision. I believe the appropriate expression is 'beyond parody'...
It doesn't need to be published now. I mean this cynical appeal, when we were told it would be West Ham appealing proves what Prague has been saying all along. Actions speak louder than words. A total disgrace and one the LLDC won't escape. Totally shameful!
The same as benefit cheats nicking taxpayers money. Except Gold, Sullivan and Brady are nicking more of it! To be fair- it isn't West Ham - who are a great club with great tradition, but them.
Capitalists sponge off the national purse. Who'd have thought it was possible. Especially by pornographers.
Why are the scroungers vilified (rightfully) and these hypocrites lauded? What is the difference? Hard earned tax payers money is effectively making them richer!
It is not possible to introduce "new reasons" for withholding the information since the reasons a public body is permitted to withhold information is set down in law. If that press release came via the lawyers I want to see how much they charged. The only thing that is relevant is "new evidence" beyond that rejected by the Commissioner.
The permitted reasons are listed in the act and the only one available to LLDC is "Prejudice" LLDC must prove, by producing evidence, that release would be likely to prejudice national interests.
I cannot believe LLDC can produce evidence of an inability to conduct effective negotiations apart from evidence that they are crap negotiators - worrying myself now! Hypothetical assertions will carry little weight. This cannot be a realistic appeal and as Prague says it is a pure delaying tactic.
What intrigues me is what is realistically gained by delay. It is only fuelling more speculation - is there something unconnected to anything we currently suspect. Is there something even more significant to be revealed that none of us could have guessed?
More than enough to keep this stoked up for six months benefitting no one.
I don't have any doubts the truth will out and we will see the full contract in due course.
It will be either a damp squib or an earthquake, can't see anything in between.
Is it possible to dig up the old excuse they made saying non disclosure was a matter of 'national security', is it in writing somewhere?
Yes its in writing, if you simply follow the thread on What Do They Know, and see their reply of 17 July 2014.
I have learnt that, shamefully, the LLDC are still trying to bully the BBC over the inclusion of this fact in the documentary. So the more people who read that indeed they said it, and the context in which they said it, the better.
Is it possible to dig up the old excuse they made saying non disclosure was a matter of 'national security', is it in writing somewhere?
Yes its in writing, if you simply follow the thread on What Do They Know, and see their reply of 17 July 2014.
I have learnt that, shamefully, the LLDC are still trying to bully the BBC over the inclusion of this fact in the documentary. So the more people who read that indeed they said it, and the context in which they said it, the better.
Hope it is ok to paste this:
Further to the below email and following further review of the document, additional exemptions are under consideration for a specific section of the agreement you have requested. The exemptions in question are s.24(1) National Security, s.31(1)(a) Law Enforcement and s. 38(1)(b) Health and Safety in relation to detailed plans of the Stadium which form part of the agreement. These are all qualified exemptions and prejudice based, so a public interest test and the prejudice test will be undertaken for each plan with input from our security team and the police. This will be done alongside the other public interest test as mentioned below and should not impact on the response time.
Yes it is one of the things mentioned then!
To me this is a lot to do with vanity, and the notion of 'legacy' as seen by the vain.
Now legacy can mean area regeneration, housing, modest sporting development, public access community work, small scales local enterprise and stuff, and I would think there is at least lip service, maybe a bit more, paid to those more mundane aspects of legacy.
However I believe one force motivating a lot of the high ups was to be associated with the iconic factors, to create and preserve a new London symbol, to mingle with the reflected glory and status of it all.
All well and good, unless to that end they throw whatever amount of our money at it to make it all happen for the big nobs.
The financial decisions can be traced to a few movers and shakers, probably controlled by the decisions of the politicians and QUANGO's, so the egotists can chuck on tons of fairy dust known as taxpayers money so they can make the magic happen for themselves.
This is a bit I have lifted from that article, and I have put some of it in bold.
'The Government also confirmed that the company made a "last minute and unrealistic" request for the taxpayer to make an open-ended funding commitment to maintain the coke ovens in Redcar.
"The Government cannot accept the request," said Mr Javid.
"On the basis of the limited business case it was given, the Government has no confidence that this is a realistic proposal for taxpayers to support.
"In addition, it would be illegal and in breach of state aid rules.
"The company has never made a profit and the board’s proposal would do nothing to address the huge debts outstanding to local suppliers and other parties.'
I would have thought there would have been an eagerness to preserve the legacy of steelworking in Redcar, but apparently not partly because of the issue of illegal state aid.
This is a bit I have lifted from that article, and I have put some of it in bold.
'The Government also confirmed that the company made a "last minute and unrealistic" request for the taxpayer to make an open-ended funding commitment to maintain the coke ovens in Redcar.
"The Government cannot accept the request," said Mr Javid.
"On the basis of the limited business case it was given, the Government has no confidence that this is a realistic proposal for taxpayers to support.
"In addition, it would be illegal and in breach of state aid rules.
"The company has never made a profit and the board’s proposal would do nothing to address the huge debts outstanding to local suppliers and other parties.'
I would have thought there would have been an eagerness to preserve the legacy of steelworking in Redcar, but apparently not partly because of the issue of illegal state aid.
So the Government won't do it for steel, but they will for the irons.
This won't go the full fifteen rounds. For fear of WHU's retribution LLDC can't afford to break ranks, and are counting on a journalist and/or whistle-blower to by-pass the legal formalities and do the job for them. If the story runs into the New Year expect a Deep Throat to slide forward, but it's unlikely to take that long.
Everyone needs to get rid of this irritating stone in the shoe. BJ wants a clear run at nr.10. Cameron is facing big battles on several fronts. There are Mayoral and local elections in 2016. Of the original crowd Labour is now out of the game apart from Newham Council, whose turn in the spotlight will assuredly come, and Lord Coe is now busy running the pharmaceutical industry's Sports Days.
It will take only one copy of the contract to get loose, remember. My guess is that the chosen document has already been pugged away and as with all things political it will all come down to the timing ....
Who are their Auditors? They need to be named and shamed!
The Government auditors are, of course, the National Audit Office (NAO). They do work quite independently from other Govt depts, and have been known to get upset with departmental inefficiences!
Hmmm. Do you think the LLDC would come under the NAO remit? That could make thing interesting.
Here is the thread, containing the question and answer. Would be grateful for all thoughts and ideas; maybe consider first whether you want to share them with @gavros but I think he's just a freelancer. To be fair to him, unlike his mate Sean Whetstone, he does not claim to sit down with Gullivan every other week, not proclaim on the BBC that he can guarantee Gullivan will never sell :-)
One of the reasons behind my request was to try and prove a suspicion I have, that the LLDC didn't have any specific advice from within the commercial football sphere. It seems that indeed they didn't. That looks like a reasonable conclusion from their reply. Of course, as we've discussed before, there is nothing a commercial lawyer does not think he is the master of, but it looks like the geniuses at Allen & Overy and PwC gave away the overheads because they simply didn't understand their monetary significance.
Yes, LLDC would fall under NAO remit as part of DCMS. I have PM'ed you details from their website which may be of interest after the contract is published. It could be yet another line of attack if the contract looks unfavourable to the tax payer, for whatever reason.
Thanks mate, got it. I think first I should request an internal review under FOI of the LLDC's answer. I think I'd complain that the answer is not credible; and that if it is to be taken as credible it indicates an extremely lack approach to cost control. I'd be grateful for any more thoughts on this from people with experience. Is it really reasonable that you just engage such an expensive law firm like A&O and then not have them organise their invoices so that each one, or part of one is clearly related to one legal issue or another? Otherwise all you end up with in the P&L is "legal services, £5m" or whatever. That could hide all kinds of stuff. Is this really how it works in the UK public sector?
I've now sent a request under FOI law for an internal review of their Denial Notice. Several of you will notice the influence of your own inputs, derived from what you wrote above. Thank you for your assistance!
Prague, Allen & Overy are bound to have created a code for costs charged to LLDC relating to FOI request dodging. Maybe the LLDC can check in on the costs incurred so far against this code when they're looking for the answer to your other FOI.
I doubt they will provide you with what you ask - they will make some excuse like it isn't economically reasonable/viable to collect all that info in the detail you request. We know they are running scared.
We now have the task of going through 2 x 207 pages to establish what is actually new, and what it tells us. Goes without saying that all help with that is appreciated.
Other field event lines not being visible will rule out rugby during the football season. Similarly, anything that would/could affect the playing surface (ie use by another club for a season) is ruled out.
Other field event lines not being visible will rule out rugby during the football season. Similarly, anything that would/could affect the playing surface (ie use by another club for a season) is ruled out.
Don't they just paint the lines not being used green?
Other field event lines not being visible will rule out rugby during the football season. Similarly, anything that would/could affect the playing surface (ie use by another club for a season) is ruled out.
Don't they just paint the lines not being used green?
Other field event lines not being visible will rule out rugby during the football season. Similarly, anything that would/could affect the playing surface (ie use by another club for a season) is ruled out.
Don't they just paint the lines not being used green?
But they are still visible.
Yeh, but it's seems to be ok for everyone else. Are West Ham saying that's not good enough for them?
On the plus side we get a (redacted) bonus* if WHU win the Champions League...but we will have to pay for any stadium improvements if there's even just a reasonable expectation of them qualifying at some point in the future and the stadium needed a bit of an upgrade to meet the competitions requirements.
*clearly this amount is commercially sensitive and will hinder the negotiations with all those other Champions League contenders likely to be queueing up to ground share with WHU. Not.
Had to stop reading that, it was spoiling my lunch hour...
Comments
Sorry chaps, but your interest in our site is way out of proportion. I am now convinced that the deal stinks and it is being covered up to prevent the crooks involved being prosecuted. As for WHU, you are just cheats.
Keep up the good work though Prague et al.
The permitted reasons are listed in the act and the only one available to LLDC is "Prejudice"
LLDC must prove, by producing evidence, that release would be likely to prejudice national interests.
I cannot believe LLDC can produce evidence of an inability to conduct effective negotiations apart from evidence that they are crap negotiators - worrying myself now! Hypothetical assertions will carry little weight. This cannot be a realistic appeal and as Prague says it is a pure delaying tactic.
What intrigues me is what is realistically gained by delay. It is only fuelling more speculation - is there something unconnected to anything we currently suspect. Is there something even more significant to be revealed that none of us could have guessed?
More than enough to keep this stoked up for six months benefitting no one.
I don't have any doubts the truth will out and we will see the full contract in due course.
It will be either a damp squib or an earthquake, can't see anything in between.
I have learnt that, shamefully, the LLDC are still trying to bully the BBC over the inclusion of this fact in the documentary. So the more people who read that indeed they said it, and the context in which they said it, the better.
Further to the below email and following further review of the document,
additional exemptions are under consideration for a specific section of
the agreement you have requested. The exemptions in question are s.24(1)
National Security, s.31(1)(a) Law Enforcement and s. 38(1)(b) Health and
Safety in relation to detailed plans of the Stadium which form part of the
agreement. These are all qualified exemptions and prejudice based, so a
public interest test and the prejudice test will be undertaken for each
plan with input from our security team and the police. This will be done
alongside the other public interest test as mentioned below and should not
impact on the response time.
Yes it is one of the things mentioned then!
To me this is a lot to do with vanity, and the notion of 'legacy' as seen by the vain.
Now legacy can mean area regeneration, housing, modest sporting development, public access community work, small scales local enterprise and stuff, and I would think there is at least lip service, maybe a bit more, paid to those more mundane aspects of legacy.
However I believe one force motivating a lot of the high ups was to be associated with the iconic factors, to create and preserve a new London symbol, to mingle with the reflected glory and status of it all.
All well and good, unless to that end they throw whatever amount of our money at it to make it all happen for the big nobs.
The financial decisions can be traced to a few movers and shakers, probably controlled by the decisions of the politicians and QUANGO's, so the egotists can chuck on tons of fairy dust known as taxpayers money so they can make the magic happen for themselves.
Oh, and to keep it all a secret.
Here is an article:
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/business/business-news/ssi-government-aid-ministers-rule-10178798#rlabs=2 rt$category p$2
This is a bit I have lifted from that article, and I have put some of it in bold.
'The Government also confirmed that the company made a "last minute and unrealistic" request for the taxpayer to make an open-ended funding commitment to maintain the coke ovens in Redcar.
"The Government cannot accept the request," said Mr Javid.
"On the basis of the limited business case it was given, the Government has no confidence that this is a realistic proposal for taxpayers to support.
"In addition, it would be illegal and in breach of state aid rules.
"The company has never made a profit and the board’s proposal would do nothing to address the huge debts outstanding to local suppliers and other parties.'
I would have thought there would have been an eagerness to preserve the legacy of steelworking in Redcar, but apparently not partly because of the issue of illegal state aid.
This won't go the full fifteen rounds. For fear of WHU's retribution LLDC can't afford to break ranks, and are counting on a journalist and/or whistle-blower to by-pass the legal formalities and do the job for them. If the story runs into the New Year expect a Deep Throat to slide forward, but it's unlikely to take that long.
Everyone needs to get rid of this irritating stone in the shoe. BJ wants a clear run at nr.10. Cameron is facing big battles on several fronts. There are Mayoral and local elections in 2016. Of the original crowd Labour is now out of the game apart from Newham Council, whose turn in the spotlight will assuredly come, and Lord Coe is now busy running the pharmaceutical industry's Sports Days.
It will take only one copy of the contract to get loose, remember. My guess is that the chosen document has already been pugged away and as with all things political it will all come down to the timing ....
I've now sent a request under FOI law for an internal review of their Denial Notice. Several of you will notice the influence of your own inputs, derived from what you wrote above. Thank you for your assistance!
:-)
You can view and download it here.
We now have the task of going through 2 x 207 pages to establish what is actually new, and what it tells us. Goes without saying that all help with that is appreciated.
*clearly this amount is commercially sensitive and will hinder the negotiations with all those other Champions League contenders likely to be queueing up to ground share with WHU. Not.
Had to stop reading that, it was spoiling my lunch hour...