$hoguN
Well-Known Member
- Jul 25, 2005
- 26,680
- 34,826
Actually I think the press did say we had issued letters to the OPLC and the rest of the parties, in regards to taking legal action
Tottenham Hotspur are taking Olympic chiefs to court
- Thread starter james82mckay
- Start date
Actually I think the press did say we had issued letters to the OPLC and the rest of the parties, in regards to taking legal action
RichieS
Well-Known Member
- Dec 23, 2004
- 11,916
- 16,436
Here's a message I just sent to my brother as we were arguing about this via text because he's an athletics fan 
duh
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/articles/club-statement-300311.html
So we have another instance of media interference in the process.
Re: "Legacy" - What do you (or I, or anybody) actually know about the West Ham plans? Their entire bid was based on a massive media campaign where they spouted constant drivel about keeping a track and some bollocks about "promises made in the Queen's name".
So the OPLC chose their much safer (in the eyes of the media) bid because it retains the temporary (i.e. the actual post-games plan was to dismantle all of the stadium you can see, leaving just the subterranean part as an athletics arena) structure with a track inside. This is a massive over simplification of the 'legacy'. So when does the stadium actually get to be used for track and field? I don't think West Ham are going to let people stick javelins in their pitch during the season. And all the temporary seating they're going to put over the track isn't exactly going to make it accessible.
In contrast, our £25m (of club money) redevelopment of Crystal Palace into the National Athletics Stadium would have been available 365 days a year for track and field. Yes, it's smaller (25,000 as opposed to the 40,000 that West Ham plan) but that only matters to delusional people such as yourself and Seb Coe who think more than 8 people in this country are interested in athletics (and don't start spouting off about all the applications for Olympics tickets - people want to go because it's the Olympics, not because it's athletics).
The legacy was never about the stadium anyway - it was about trying to get people enthused about athletics rather then it being something that you have to do at school and then mercifully goes away afterwards. West Ham successfully made it about the stadium and nothing more.
Ultimately, West Ham ran a much better PR campaign, to the point where the OPLC had no option but to choose them to avoid getting destroyed by the press. Oh, and it may have had something to do with the number of people who are involved with both the OPLC and Newham Council.
Did I mention as well that the £40m loan that Newham have taken out on behalf of West Ham is underwritten by the taxpayer? And that West Ham are taking up the £35m redevelopment fund, again provided by the taxpayer on top of the £500m the Olympic Park (yes, park, not stadium like the media get away with saying - the stadium was £80m) which, while avaiable to Spurs, we weren't going to use. Do we not think that instead of being given to West Ham, that £75m might have been better spent, I dunno, keeping teachers' final salary pensions so that they aren't forced to retire early?
And finally, as yet there have been NO guarantees from anybody that West Ham will be forced to retain the track. How stupid are people going to feel in a few years time when they tear it up? Oh wait, everyone except you, Seb Coe and the other 6 won't care because athletics will have been forgotten about again.
The specific bit about teachers' pensions is because our dad is having to retire from teaching this year in order to keep the pension he was promised when he signed up.
duhhttp://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/articles/club-statement-300311.html
So we have another instance of media interference in the process.
Re: "Legacy" - What do you (or I, or anybody) actually know about the West Ham plans? Their entire bid was based on a massive media campaign where they spouted constant drivel about keeping a track and some bollocks about "promises made in the Queen's name".
So the OPLC chose their much safer (in the eyes of the media) bid because it retains the temporary (i.e. the actual post-games plan was to dismantle all of the stadium you can see, leaving just the subterranean part as an athletics arena) structure with a track inside. This is a massive over simplification of the 'legacy'. So when does the stadium actually get to be used for track and field? I don't think West Ham are going to let people stick javelins in their pitch during the season. And all the temporary seating they're going to put over the track isn't exactly going to make it accessible.
In contrast, our £25m (of club money) redevelopment of Crystal Palace into the National Athletics Stadium would have been available 365 days a year for track and field. Yes, it's smaller (25,000 as opposed to the 40,000 that West Ham plan) but that only matters to delusional people such as yourself and Seb Coe who think more than 8 people in this country are interested in athletics (and don't start spouting off about all the applications for Olympics tickets - people want to go because it's the Olympics, not because it's athletics).
The legacy was never about the stadium anyway - it was about trying to get people enthused about athletics rather then it being something that you have to do at school and then mercifully goes away afterwards. West Ham successfully made it about the stadium and nothing more.
Ultimately, West Ham ran a much better PR campaign, to the point where the OPLC had no option but to choose them to avoid getting destroyed by the press. Oh, and it may have had something to do with the number of people who are involved with both the OPLC and Newham Council.
Did I mention as well that the £40m loan that Newham have taken out on behalf of West Ham is underwritten by the taxpayer? And that West Ham are taking up the £35m redevelopment fund, again provided by the taxpayer on top of the £500m the Olympic Park (yes, park, not stadium like the media get away with saying - the stadium was £80m) which, while avaiable to Spurs, we weren't going to use. Do we not think that instead of being given to West Ham, that £75m might have been better spent, I dunno, keeping teachers' final salary pensions so that they aren't forced to retire early?
And finally, as yet there have been NO guarantees from anybody that West Ham will be forced to retain the track. How stupid are people going to feel in a few years time when they tear it up? Oh wait, everyone except you, Seb Coe and the other 6 won't care because athletics will have been forgotten about again.
The specific bit about teachers' pensions is because our dad is having to retire from teaching this year in order to keep the pension he was promised when he signed up.
dvdhopeful
SC Supporter
- Nov 10, 2006
- 7,626
- 6,061
Genuine question, if they overturn it and give the stadium to us, won't WH then lodge a complaint? And won't the entire process take a long time? Don't see what this is going to achieve in the long run
Riandor
COB Founder
- May 26, 2004
- 9,421
- 11,637
We have not taken any action as yet other than filed a letter of complaint... It's important that decisions as big as this are made impartially and with the best interests of the public and the sport at heart and not through lined pockets and false promises.
My fear is the sensationalist press will ignore this part and concentrate on what appears on the surface to be sour grapes and joe public will buy it hook line and sinker.
In short we might be dragging our name through the mud, have to question a little what the cost of this might be.
It could of course be a prelude to trying to get the decision overturned, but if we thought Arsenal invading our territory was bad, hate to think what a certain element of West Ham "fans" will say or do.
R.
My fear is the sensationalist press will ignore this part and concentrate on what appears on the surface to be sour grapes and joe public will buy it hook line and sinker.
In short we might be dragging our name through the mud, have to question a little what the cost of this might be.
It could of course be a prelude to trying to get the decision overturned, but if we thought Arsenal invading our territory was bad, hate to think what a certain element of West Ham "fans" will say or do.
R.
kevinfish
Well-Known Member
- Mar 26, 2010
- 546
- 366
u wouldnt even be able to tell if there was a goal scored if you sat here
thekneaf
Well-Known Member
- Jan 18, 2011
- 1,935
- 3,878
I'm interested in these investment plots that the government are looking to hand out in the next 6 months. I've read that Boris has earmarked Tottenham for one of them as it is a deprived area of London that needs to attract new business. I feel this is more promising than chasing after the shadows of a dream.
kaz Hirai
Well-Known Member
- Nov 5, 2008
- 17,692
- 25,340
i seriously doubt west ham would lose it now after winning the bid. the best levy could hope for is some compensation i think
Welshiespursboyo
Banned
- Feb 19, 2009
- 17,009
- 2,830
I was just starting to move past this incident. FFS let it go.
Bus-Conductor
SC Supporter
- Oct 19, 2004
- 39,837
- 50,713
Here's a message I just sent to my brother as we were arguing about this via text because he's an athletics fan
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/articles/club-statement-300311.html
So we have another instance of media interference in the process.
Re: "Legacy" - What do you (or I, or anybody) actually know about the West Ham plans? Their entire bid was based on a massive media campaign where they spouted constant drivel about keeping a track and some bollocks about "promises made in the Queen's name".
So the OPLC chose their much safer (in the eyes of the media) bid because it retains the temporary (i.e. the actual post-games plan was to dismantle all of the stadium you can see, leaving just the subterranean part as an athletics arena) structure with a track inside. This is a massive over simplification of the 'legacy'. So when does the stadium actually get to be used for track and field? I don't think West Ham are going to let people stick javelins in their pitch during the season. And all the temporary seating they're going to put over the track isn't exactly going to make it accessible.
In contrast, our £25m (of club money) redevelopment of Crystal Palace into the National Athletics Stadium would have been available 365 days a year for track and field. Yes, it's smaller (25,000 as opposed to the 40,000 that West Ham plan) but that only matters to delusional people such as yourself and Seb Coe who think more than 8 people in this country are interested in athletics (and don't start spouting off about all the applications for Olympics tickets - people want to go because it's the Olympics, not because it's athletics).
The legacy was never about the stadium anyway - it was about trying to get people enthused about athletics rather then it being something that you have to do at school and then mercifully goes away afterwards. West Ham successfully made it about the stadium and nothing more.
Ultimately, West Ham ran a much better PR campaign, to the point where the OPLC had no option but to choose them to avoid getting destroyed by the press. Oh, and it may have had something to do with the number of people who are involved with both the OPLC and Newham Council.
Did I mention as well that the £40m loan that Newham have taken out on behalf of West Ham is underwritten by the taxpayer? And that West Ham are taking up the £35m redevelopment fund, again provided by the taxpayer on top of the £500m the Olympic Park (yes, park, not stadium like the media get away with saying - the stadium was £80m) which, while avaiable to Spurs, we weren't going to use. Do we not think that instead of being given to West Ham, that £75m might have been better spent, I dunno, keeping teachers' final salary pensions so that they aren't forced to retire early?
And finally, as yet there have been NO guarantees from anybody that West Ham will be forced to retain the track. How stupid are people going to feel in a few years time when they tear it up? Oh wait, everyone except you, Seb Coe and the other 6 won't care because athletics will have been forgotten about again.
The specific bit about teachers' pensions is because our dad is having to retire from teaching this year in order to keep the pension he was promised when he signed up.
The irrationality of awarding West ham the bid preference really was staggering wasn't it ?
- Aug 18, 2005
- 6,527
- 267
It's going to be very difficult to discuss Spurs potentially appealing or requesting a JR independently of whether we are for or against a move to the OS. I'm pro the OS move, which I don't think will happen irrespective of how the current developments turn out, so I'm all for the club obtaining more information about the nature of the bidding process to see if we were treated fairly. I assume the club already have more information that we do because we know very little about how our bid was views bar rumours we didn't satisfy all the criteria.
Anyhoo, I think the 'best' outcome that we could get would be some kind of compensarion. However Ibthink the only reason we could challenge would be because of some irregular procedures. If the review is just based on the criteria, I don't see how we could successfully challenge as they are aol subjective.
Anyhoo, I think the 'best' outcome that we could get would be some kind of compensarion. However Ibthink the only reason we could challenge would be because of some irregular procedures. If the review is just based on the criteria, I don't see how we could successfully challenge as they are aol subjective.
- Oct 2, 2004
- 48,327
- 47,570
- Staff
- #37
We're unlikely to get any compensation on Judicial Review. It'll focus on the process used and if they find that there's a problem then they'll probably negate the decision and we'll all have to start again.
MattyP
Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes
- May 14, 2007
- 14,041
- 2,980
Maybe I am missing something, but haven't all we've done is sent a few letters asking for things to be provided to us / questions answered.
Based on what we get back, we will then decide whether or not to ask for a judicial review.
Despite my objections to moving, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for THFC to ask the decision makers to explain their decision further.
That said, I'm hoping that once the answers have been provided, they are sufficient for us not to persue this any further and spend the money on a new stadium, not on lawyers fees.
Based on what we get back, we will then decide whether or not to ask for a judicial review.
Despite my objections to moving, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for THFC to ask the decision makers to explain their decision further.
That said, I'm hoping that once the answers have been provided, they are sufficient for us not to persue this any further and spend the money on a new stadium, not on lawyers fees.
- Aug 18, 2005
- 6,527
- 267
Based on my new found knowledge, I find it unlikely that the decision was illegal or irrational and the only grounds we would have would be if there were any procedural impropriety in the decision process. This is presumably why the OPLC stress that they consulted experts. We'd probably argue that the influence of Coe and Wham in the media put lots of pressure on the OPLC to choose Wham so it was no longer 'natural justice' because the committee was effectively biased. We would also challenge why the OPLC had a dialog with Wham about some of the criteria and allowed then to improve their offering but didn't give us the same treatment.
Similar threads
