Ground sharing the OS or Wembley [yes they can / no they can't]
This discussion was created from comments split from: All things Olympic Stadium related including the count down.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Not sure that's what at least one of the board had us believe?
;hmm
She said it in a meeting I was in.
I'm seeing her tomorrow, clarification will be sort.
“In reality they probably could – but only with our permission,” West Ham’s vice-chairman said at the launch of their Club London hospitality packages for the new stadium. “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. We are the anchor tenant for the winter matches and nothing else can happen in that time without our permission and our football matches take priority over everything else.”
The chair of the London assembly budget and performance committee, John Biggs, has previously said that a temporary groundshare with Tottenham would be beneficial to the LLDC. Yet the agreement with West Ham means that they have primacy of use and it is understood that they effectively have the power of veto over who uses the stadium.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/sep/23/karren-brady-olympic-stadium-west-ham-united-tottenham-hotspur
That's from over a year ago.
I think I paraphrased.
No such thing as 'gentleman's agreement' in contract law.
WHU have the right of veto on any activity which might impact adversely on their ability to fulfil all of their 'FA football commitments' - this specifically includes sharing the ground with anybody else (football team or otherwise) during the EPL season - also the club are obliged to pay an additional fee if we qualify, and play games, in cup or European competition. That's not to say WHU wouldn't agree to 'ground share' - but they would have to be satisfied that they were still able to fill their FA commitments.
Mind you if the Sun or the Internet says differently I stand to be corrected ;wink
As I say - the Internet or the Sun may prove me wrong but I'm happy to await the result of appeal hearing in full - I may find that the contract draft I read changed substantially before signature - who knows?
A decision will rule on whether or not they have to reveal all details or can keep some secret.
So I wouldn't expect any 'new' info about the terms of the contract to be put into the public domain today. That's not what the hearing is about.
Only after appeal is decided, and only IF the appeal is rejected, will further, previously 'secret' details be released.
So anything not already in the public domain will remain confidential until the outcome of the case, surely?
Yes, sorry, LLDC appealing against the FOI request, not the other way around. So if appeal is successful...
So, no actual 'veto', but ground-share requires teams to co-operate before it can happen.
Call it what you like, that's EFFECTIVELY a veto in my book.
There has always been the option for another team to share the ground.
But the point as Mrs Grey points out is that we have to agree to it.
That is a veto in all but name....
I will make a polite enquiry.
Stand up tall, deep breath and shout out from the bottom of your lungs
"DID YOU MISLEAD US ABOUT THE OLYMPIC STADIUM!!!!"