Are we right to look for legal assurance?

stevenurse

Palacios' neck fat
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
5,245
Thread starter #1
Do you think we are well within our rights to seek legal assurances from west ham to keep the running track? I believe the porn barons, despite being adamant it will stay have a sneaky plan. The mock ups of the stadium etc with no track makes me think they are up to something.

Although this is of course just for illustration purposes I can see them applying for the track to be removed in 5 years when it's proven not to work.
 

sweetness

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
1,116
#2
Certainly!
And its not just schadenfreude if we do either. Not removing the track was the deciding factor for them to win, so it would be hypocritical of the OPLC not to enforce the "...promise in the queens name" properly.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
456
#3
Certainly!
And its not just schadenfreude if we do either. Not removing the track was the deciding factor for them to win, so it would be hypocritical of the OPLC not to enforce the "...promise in the queens name" properly.
Yep, Levy is well within his rights to want assurances, for the reason you mentioned alone
 

HodisGawd

Active Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
423
#5
Ok, I loved Levy coming out and saying this straight after - it made me chuckle. But how exactly can he get a legally-binding assurance?
 

stevenurse

Palacios' neck fat
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
5,245
Thread starter #6
All sorts of clauses can be inserted. You just have to look at some players contracts etc. After seeing the latest news about seating being able to be replaced to cover the track i find the decision even more infuriating. my preffered choice would be to stay at whl but this would have been a very good alternative and for the whole running track, queens name bullshit to be ignored after being the reason for giving it to them then something needs to be done
 

SpurSince57

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
45,214
#7
All sorts of clauses can be inserted. You just have to look at some players contracts etc. After seeing the latest news about seating being able to be replaced to cover the track i find the decision even more infuriating. my preffered choice would be to stay at whl but this would have been a very good alternative and for the whole running track, queens name bullshit to be ignored after being the reason for giving it to them then something needs to be done
The sneaky bastards! Why didn't we think of that?
 
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
9,377
#8
This all seems to be leading to a potential allegation from us that the Spam bid was made on the basis of false representation. So, from that point of view, I'd say its worth it as if no such assurance is given I can see us trying to force a reconsideration of the bids.
 

bigturnip

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
1,640
#9
I think it would just be a case of sour grapes, we would be doing it purely to spite West Ham, it's not like we'd actually gain any advantage from it. If it's one of the criteria why the OPLC chose West Ham then it is up to the OPLC to ensure it is kept, it's not our place to interfere.
 

SpurSince57

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
45,214
#11
And OPLC and the government have made that plain to West Ham. If you want Levy to make the club a laughing stock, then by all means urge him to proceed with something that's totally redundant.
 

spurette

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
28
#13
Looks like they're going with retractable seating: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12443992 I'm curious whether the 60,000 capacity will be with or without the retractable seating and also what the gradient of any retractable seating will be, surely it can't be much at all.
I read a little while back (can't find the article now) that retractable seating can't be put in now without it being extremly expensive, it is something that had to be decided before building started. No idea how true that is .
 

spurs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
666
#14
If West Ham get relegated will they be able to afford it / pay the rent? If that is in doubt - it would be interesting to know when the goverment panels will ratify the decision
 

beats1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
26,147
#15
The sneaky bastards! Why didn't we think of that?
because we found out it cant be done cheaply and ten million :rofl:

Looks like they're going with retractable seating: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12443992 I'm curious whether the 60,000 capacity will be with or without the retractable seating and also what the gradient of any retractable seating will be, surely it can't be much at all.
The reason why all of a sudden they are looking in to this is because 15 rows may have to be will be covered, as kids cant see over the advertising boards cause of the shallow angle of the stand

Initially they found out they couldn't do a retractable stand cause of the concrete structure now they have found they have look at it again because of this

I read a little while back (can't find the article now) that retractable seating can't be put in now without it being extremly expensive, it is something that had to be decided before building started. No idea how true that is .
No it isn't going to be cheap, basically if they build temporary stands on top of the track, it will damage it and causing the track most likely to be shit and crystal palace as a better venue

They would have build the temporay stand on top of the current tier as this cant be moved without demolition

To build temporary stands properly, foundations will be built around the track to allow the weight to be transfered upon, this will involve tearing up the track that was made in the queens name or taking a bit of the pitch

Also their whole design is flawed as they plan to change the temporary stand in to a permanent stand whilst trimming a bit of the top and adding the weight of Vip boxes in top

If this does come in at 90 million then they fucking brilliant but it is likely it will be one total cock up also expect them to lobby the idea of removing the current temporary tier
 

bigturnip

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
1,640
#16
I read a little while back (can't find the article now) that retractable seating can't be put in now without it being extremly expensive, it is something that had to be decided before building started. No idea how true that is .
There are only 2 ways I can see it being done, either they have to sink the whole pitch and track or they have to raise the height of the current seating, otherwise surely the seats over the track will just be flat.
 

Chinaspur

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
2,274
#17
By the time the Olympics are over it's a £5 entry and stand round the edge situation -the way they are currently playing. The retractable solution they need is a bit of tarpaulin to cover the track.
 
Top