Results for Olympic Stadium Bid

Olympic Stadium Rent, Select Committee given different story to West Ham fans

8:00 pm
Karren Brady gave evidence to The House of Lords Select Committee on Olympic and Paralympic Legacy on 24 July 2013

Karren Brady: First, good morning and thank you for inviting me here today. David Sullivan and David Gold took ownership of the football club in 2010, when in fact I was installed as the vice-chairman, which in effect was the CEO. When we arrived we made a commitment 2 that we would do three things. We would stabilise the club that we had inherited—we inherited £100 million of debt—we would put the culture and integrity back into West Ham, both on and off the pitch, and we would try to make the Olympic stadium our new home. We publicised that on the very first day that we took ownership of the club. 

If that were the case then why did she not report a conflict on interest when OPLC director, Dionne Knight was also doing 'paid consultancy' work for West Ham and she and a West Ham employee were having a relationship. How is not revealing a clear conflict of interest enhancing integrity? The they did'nt talk excuse simply isn't plausible, especially in light of the deceit to keep it secret.

In this series of articles you now know that West Ham have a PERMANENT right of veto and instructed the Independent to retract a statement and write that in it's place, as well as emailing me to tell me and asking me to make it clear.

You also now knows that co-owner David Gold and vice chairman Karren Brady have told West Han fans they get a share of the income from naming rights yet Karren Brady tells the House of Lords Select Committee that they do not, so who is telling the truth? Are West Ham fans being lied to or was the Select Committee mislead, which is a criminal offence I believe.

West Ham, as West Han fans like to point out, do not actually own the stadium so there is no way they should be receiving a share of the naming rights, that should go to the owner, but West Ham stitched the taxpayer up because they had the LLDC over a barrel and could demand what they want, which is why they pay a token rent and a virtual free ride.

WHUFC.com Statement on Olympic Stadium decision dated March 2013
Vice-Chairman Karren Brady said: “Anyone who thinks we got a free ride, we most certainly haven’t. We want to pay our way and accept that we have to pay our way and the two owners of West Ham have been very clear on that. We will put in a lump-sum and pay a rent that will cover most of the running costs and then we will share naming rights and other revenues.”

Yet to the House of Lords Select Committee just 3 months later she painted a very different picture.

Baroness King of Bow: When do you think that taxpayers might be able to see a return on their investment?

Karren Brady: I do not know what the running costs of the stadium are.

The two statements are once again totally at odds with each other, one appears to be misleading, so which one is it?

You will note that she tells West Han fans they will pay a rent that will cover most of the running costs and just 3 months later claims to the House of Lords Select Committee she does not know what the running costs of the stadium are! She did 3 months earlier or was she lying to the West Ham fans.

You can see that it isn't just one aspect of her testimony to the House of Lords Select Committee that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, to the man on the street i would suggest it paint a very different picture to the one she and the club are painting West Ham fans. It is hardly surprising to me that details of this deal should be made public, quite frankly the who West Ham bid needs investigation given the number of discrepancies in the testimony to the House of Lords Select Committee.

The full unrevised transcript can be read at the link below and while you are reading it ask yourself a question, does Karren Brady want to share the stadium with another football team or does she want to control the usage of it, given West Ham have the PERMANENT right of veto to anyone else using it and has only agreed to the 'principle' of sharing because she had to. Do you get the impression she had any intention of sharing it, Leyton Orient being the local club wanted to use it. - Karren Brady Transcript


Do you interpret the testimony and the discrepancies the last three articles on the subject have uncovered to be bringing back the 'integrity' to West Ham?


Dubious West Ham Olympic Stadium deal must be published


Olympic Stadium Rent, Select Committee given different story to West Ham fans Olympic Stadium Rent, Select Committee given different story to West Ham fans Reviewed by THBlogNews on 8:00 pm Rating: 5

WHU DO get naming rights income, they told The Select Committee they don't

9:00 pm
West Ham taking over a taxpayer funded stadium in itself isn't a great issue, but the events surrounding it are and the deal that was struck is certainly not in the best interests of the taxpayer so one has to ask why. 

Karren Brady went before a House of Lords Select Committee and the information she gave them appears to be at odds to the information she gave to West Ham United fans in a question and answer sessions posted on their official website.

Surely answers to a House of Lords Select Committee should correspond with answers she gave to the club's official site because the differences suggest either a misleading of the House of Lords Select Committee or the misleading of West Ham United fans, neither of which would conform to her stated desire to bring the integrity back to West Ham both on and off the field.

The West Han United Vice-Chairman gave evidence to The Select Committee on Olympic and Paralympic Legacy on 24 July 2013 yet when you compare her remarks with the WHU official website and David Gold statements in March, April and 22 July 2013, significant and startling differences appear that cast new light on answers given to that Committee.

Olympic Stadium Q+A dated March 2013
Question - Can you tell me more about the deal between West Ham United and the LLDC?
Karren Brady Answer - An upfront capital contribution of £15m which along with a share of Naming rights income will assist with the cost of the overall transformation works.

WHUFC.com Statement on Olympic Stadium decision dated March 2013
Vice-Chairman Karren Brady said: “Anyone who thinks we got a free ride, we most certainly haven’t. We want to pay our way and accept that we have to pay our way and the two owners of West Ham have been very clear on that. We will put in a lump-sum and pay a rent that will cover most of the running costs and then we will share naming rights and other revenues.”

Olympic Stadium Master Q+A dated April 2013
Question - Will the move affect the Club in a negative way commercially?
Karren Brady Answer - The full terms of the agreement cannot be disclosed at this stage. We retain full commercial control of our business. Catering and naming rights revenue is shared. The Club has no current naming rights partner at the Boleyn Ground.

David Gold said in two tweets that West Ham do get a share of the naming rights income.




T

That's all pretty clear West Ham receive an income from the naming rights from the Olympic Stadium, confirmed by their co-owner David Gold. Why then did Karren Brady tell the Select Committee that all revenue goes to the LLDC for naming rights just 2 days later?

The statements of March and April also appear to state the opposite to her testimony.

Lord Bates: You mentioned the naming rights of the stadium. Could you just say a little bit 
about how that will work and how the bidding process will work? If you are able to say so, 
how much do you think you will get for the naming rights of the stadium?

Karren Brady: The naming rights are not West Ham’s to sell; they are the LLDC’s to sell. 
The LLDC will operate that process. It will probably appoint somebody to sell them for it, 
and it will determine the value and the amount of money that they take for them.

Lord Bates: That will all go to the LLDC.

Karren Brady: Yes.

This is an extract of her opening address: 'we would put the culture and integrity back into West Ham, both on and off the pitch.'

West Ham United tell their fans they are getting money from naming rights but appear to withhold that information from a House of Lords Select Committee when asked point blank about it. Why did Karren Brady not tell them West Ham would be getting an income if, as David Gold says, they would have refused any deal that didn't include an income from naming rights?

I must point out here that I have had email correspondence back and forth with West Ham United on this and other elements of her testimony that I'll raise over the coming days. West Ham refuse to furnish me with any written answers, offering only the option of verbal answers, which unless recorded would retain deniability. 

Why so secretive if everything is all above board and enhances the integrity Karren Brady told the House of Lords Select Committee that she is bringing back to West Ham both on and off the pitch?


WHU DO get naming rights income, they told The Select Committee they don't WHU DO get naming rights income, they told The Select Committee they don't Reviewed by THBlogNews on 9:00 pm Rating: 5

WHU have PERMANENT right of veto, didn't tell The Select Committee that

10:06 am
The Daily Mail are suggesting Tottenham could share the Olympic Stadium with West Ham and that talks were held 18 months ago with owners with the London Legacy Development Company (LLDC).

'Olympic Stadium owners are still open to Tottenham sharing the Stratford venue in 2017-18 with long-term tenants West Ham, with Spurs needing to move out of White Hart Lane while their new ground is built. 
A season at the Olympic Stadium looks the most sensible option for Tottenham now that the FA are set to prefer Chelsea’s three-year relocation to Wembley from 2017-18.'

The Daily Mail are acting under a misapprehension, one which they confirm later, I am in possession of an email from West Ham United that tells me a different story. Tottenham can talk to the LLDC as much as they like, but it isn't the LLDC who determine who uses the stadium, it is West Ham United. 

Karen Brady made it clear previously that she will not share with Tottenham when she told the press about ground sharing:

"In reality they probably could - but only with our permission. No-one has asked us for our permission and if they did we would probably say no, depending on who it is - if you get my drift."

That was widely interpreted as meaning she would not share with Tottenham, but it also indicated she wouldn't share with anyone else either, she isn't interested in the taxpayer, only West Ham and wants a taxpayer funded stadium all to herself, in football terms.

The Daily Mail writes: 'West Ham are said to have no veto as the primary tenants but do have fixture-list priority, which Spurs could work around.'

According to West Ham that simply isn't true. West Ham have emailed me, responding to a specific question, telling me that West Ham have a permanent right of veto, they don't have a one year right, but a permanent right of veto for the duration of the lease..

That isn't what Karren Brady told a House of Lords Select Committee back on 24 July 2013 though, she said it is the LLDC's decision.

Baroness King of Bow: It does seem a bit strange from the outside, hearing that it is impossible to accommodate such a small club [Leyton Orient] next to your own. So you would not have a problem with it.
Karren Brady: It is not in my gift. These are questions more suited to the LLDC.



However, it is your 'gift' if you have a permanent right of veto. If West Ham doesn't have a permanent right of veto then why have they emailed me to tell me they do? It isn't just me they informed either, the Independent were asked to write a retraction and point out West Ham have a 'permanent right of veto', here is that retraction insisted upon by West Ham - The Independent Retraction

Now that doesn't say it is a retraction, but the email from West Ham to me tells me it is a retraction, it is West Ham who gave me the link to it to, in their eyes, prove it to me, as they asked me to print the same retraction!

Nobody can use the stadium without West Ham approval. West Ham, the tenant, dictate to the LLDC who can and who can't use the stadium, not the other wat around. The tenant controls the owner or management company if you believe it is a taxpayer-owned stadium.

Why has West Ham asked the Independent to point out they have a permanent right of veto when Karren Brady ensures the House of Lords Select Committee goes away with the opposite view?

It is not for me to determine the answer, but the question has to be raised, does this constitute misleading a House of Lords Select Committee, do you think that is what has happened here or have we seen open transparency?

Who has the 'gift' to determine who uses the stadium? West Ham says West Ham have got it, Karren Brady says they don't. 

How is it in the taxpayers best interests to hand over control of the stadium to West Ham?

WHU have PERMANENT right of veto, didn't tell The Select Committee that WHU have PERMANENT right of veto, didn't tell The Select Committee that Reviewed by THBlogNews on 10:06 am Rating: 5

Dubious WHU olympic Stadium deal must be released

10:20 pm
The Information Commissioner has recently ruled that a freedom of information request over the dubious West Ham Olympic Stadium deal should be made public.

You'll remember the hullabaloo about the Newham council loan to be funded by the Treasury and an Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) Director having a relationship with a West Ham employee which neither he, nor she, nor West Ham, nor the OPLC thought it responsible or ethical to declare, despite a clear conflict of interest.

The same OPLC director, Dionne Knight was doing 'paid consultancy' work for West Ham while the bidding process was going on and without telling her manager it was claimed. She was suspended and the rest just ignored, swept under the carpet. Few people believe a couple in a relationship do not talk about something they are both involved with, despite the claims at the time.

Once that deal had collapsed a new process was started that from the outside appeared to have one aim in mind and appeared to be amended along the way to fit in with a West Ham bid, at least that is the impression one got from reports at the time. It appeared as if there was a deliberate attempt to ensure West Ham would get the votes, which as it turned out they did, all of them.

It is a scandal that West Ham have been given a taxpayer-funded stadium that they control the use of. The London Legacy Development Cor[poration (LLDC) may well have broken European state-aid rules, as it failed to apply to the European Commission for an exemption. It is almost as if the LLDC would take any deal to get West Ham rather than Leyton Orient, who are the nearest club, in there.

It was the Charlton Athletic Supporters Trust who began the freedom of information request that the Information Commissioner has now ruled on, deciding that the details of the tenancy deal must be published. Naturally West Ham and the LLDC do not want transparency with taxpayers money, it isn't in their best interests and in my view could have very serious consequences for one individual at least.

To only pay £15-million for a stadium is preposterous, the taxpayer has clearly been stitched up, the rent doesn't cover the cost of running the stadium, West Ham are getting an income from naming rights and they have a veto on anyone else using the stadium for the whole of their lease period. West Ham and not the LLDC effectively control the use of the stadium, yet they are only a tenant.

How is that good for the taxpayer, especially given Karren Brady's remarks to the media where she made it plain she was talking about us when she said they would veto sharing? Clearly the taxpayer was not at the forefront of her thinking and it gave as clearer a demonstration as anyone could wish for that West Ham should not be controlling who uses the Olympic Stadium and who doesn't.

I don't find that surprising given her testimony to the House of Lords Select Committee which I'll look at in an upcoming article. I'm surprised a newspaper or the Taxpayers Alliance haven't picked up on it, but then again perhaps they didn't do the digging I did.

Now seems an appropriate time to raise questions over that testimony given West Ham's offer to give me verbal answers, which would, of course, have be deniable answers, but their refusal to give me written answers which would not have been deniable.



Dubious WHU olympic Stadium deal must be released Dubious WHU olympic Stadium deal must be released Reviewed by THBlogNews on 10:20 pm Rating: 5

Daniel Levy vs. Karren Brady

11:53 am
Bitter?
In her diary, which can be found in the Sun, poor Mrs. Brady says that Daniel Levy has been a very mean man indeed.

"Oh well, it's amazing how friends can surprise you. Spurs have slipped into the AEG bid for residency at the Olympic Stadium.

"Their chairman Daniel Levy recently called me 'one of his closest friends'. But he hasn't mentioned the counter-bid. However, he wasn't at our Saturday match and hasn't been answering the phone to me. So perhaps that's why. If Daniel fancies going into the Irons' Den - Newham borough - that's up to him.

"No argument with competition but most importantly, he's forgotten the unwritten Premier League rule preventing clubs moving from one borough to another. But that, I guess, is in the detail."

Is that the same "unwritten rule" which allowed Woolwich Wanderers to move to North London, be it before the inception of the Premier League?

Also in the diary, we find an excerpt which says, "Prior to the game Harry Redknapp, probably after my comments about his public interest in Scott Parker, complains we tried to poach Jamie O'Hara in the summer. I wouldn't know Jamie O'Hara if I stood next to him at the bus stop."

And you're supposed to be a Premier League club Managing Director, yet you don't know who Jamie O'Hara is? First off, that's a tad disrespectful, and secondly, let's face it, you're lying. With Jamie's acquired taste in fashion, you would know it if he say next to you.

Going back to the Olympic Stadium bid; even if this is bid relates to us forcing Boris' and the Secretary of States' hand, so what! As Levy said, we've got to keep our options open.

When are the members of the West Ham board going to learn to keep their mouths shut?

PS. Karren, it's not always wise to discuss your own players personal information. We'll see how well Cole performs in his next game for you.





Subscribe to THBN

Read our latest Evening Standard Blog


Have you got an iPod or mp3 player? If you love listening to audiobooks, click here....

Big Chiv: My Goals in Life - Get it now!
Daniel Levy vs. Karren Brady Daniel Levy vs. Karren Brady Reviewed by Jaymes on 11:53 am Rating: 5
Powered by Blogger.