Enquiry

This is about a rich football club not a house or regular kind of tennant.

It's also about a boat load of public money that's the difference.

Legally you can't have a special case.

Yes it is different to the man in the street, but legally it's the same.

comment by Sane is back (U21166)
posted 1 minute ago
Legally you can't have a special case.

Yes it is different to the man in the street, but legally it's the same.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would the legislation have to change just for a one off case? I doubt it.

Exceptions can be made in extraordinary circumstances.

This is such a case, someone should start a petition to to sue West Ham to get all that public money back

"Exceptions can be made in extraordinary circumstances."

Well actually no they can't. As I said before English law works on the basis of precedence.

This means it what be unlikely that West Ham could be forced to pay additional monies. However if they were it would mean that any landlord could then try to increase rent during a previous agreed rental period.

Fair enough Sane, I don't know enough about law to argue

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37843313

"However, there is nothing in the tenancy agreement to force West Ham to pay any more than they currently do."

"the threat of being forced to play behind closed doors is understood to be a long way off"

______________


suck it up people.

I'm sure nothing will change for West Ham. Nothing for anyone involved in the deal to worry about.

Oh I wouldn't say that, I'm sure those that brokered the deal on the legacy side, both with West Ham and with the contractors will get a severe dressing down.

Sure that brokers of the deal on both side will be coming out of this clean as a whistle