Wait....

A lot of people have read the headlines on the BBC and The Guadian and ignored the story. The decision is on Friday, the stories have been that they belive the West Ham bid will be recommended but until the vote nobody knows who's actually won.

If they pick West Ham they'd better have a lot of safeguards in place

camaj said:

A lot of people have read the headlines on the BBC and The Guadian and ignored the story. The decision is on Friday, the stories have been that they belive the West Ham bid will be recommended but until the vote nobody knows who's actually won.

If they pick West Ham they'd better have a lot of safeguards in place

Click to expand...

But the leak says that we've not met two of the criteria. Community access and quick reopening. If they appoint us, West Ham will judicially review it and bang- decision reversed. At a core level, they've got a football tenant, which is all they wanted, and Spurs' interest has meant that tenant accepting a load of conditions that they otherwise wouldn't. In fact, West Ham are going to have a hard time doing the dirty, because if they need to remove the track, they won't be able to pay for it and claim they need to remove it, if that makes sense.

I am surprised to hear aspersions cast on the funding of Spurs' bid next to West Ham's. Whatever its merits, West Ham's bid is reliant on public funding- on the country borrowing more money, in fact. It is an entirely perverse outcome for a regeneration exercise to end with £250 million of private investment turned away for £40 million of public and 20 in public.

And don't get me started on Crystal Palace FC's ludicrous intervention in all this.