Maybe they should put the rent up so they can afford to police it properly
You don't pay more than what you have been agreed to your landlord, do you?
comment by Ahoy Pirates (U8613)
posted 22 seconds ago
You don't pay more than what you have been agreed to your landlord, do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm no pikey so own my house
Good on you for being born with silver spoon.
comment by Ahoy Pirates (U8613)
posted 4 minutes ago
Good on you for being born with silver spoon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sureky WHU see they are paying a very cheap rate and will come in and out security of thier fans over saying money?
LLP doesn't have to spend anymore if they don't want
If anyone goes wrong then they will be sued. And why should West Ham interfere with their job?
comment by Ahoy Pirates (U8613)
posted 1 minute ago
If anyone goes wrong then they will be sued. And why should West Ham interfere with their job?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can they be sued? The security would have been signed off by the club at start of season
Yes, but they could be sued for NOT enough protection.
comment by Ahoy Pirates (U8613)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, but they could be sued for NOT enough protection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
doubt that
Just look at the amount they are spending compare to other clubs, then, you a have case here.
Thought I should just add that if there was a (safety) incident at the stadium, and it was discovered there wasn’t sufficient measures in place to deal with/manage/prevent, the club would be liable.
I would have thought that WHU are only renting the stadium and it would be up to them to pay for security & policing.
Every other club in the land has to pay for security at their own ground so why not the spanners?
comment by sᴉɥƃuǝlפ (U19365)
posted 17 seconds ago
I would have thought that WHU are only renting the stadium and it would be up to them to pay for security & policing.
Every other club in the land has to pay for security at their own ground so why not the spanners?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems WHU pay a flat rate all inclusive deal
posted 4 minutes ago
Thought I should just add that if there was a (safety) incident at the stadium, and it was discovered there wasn’t sufficient measures in place to deal with/manage/prevent, the club would be liable.
---
I doubt we are reliable as it clearly their responsibility.
Hmm, the more you look into this rental deal the spanners got, the more you have to wonder what incriminating evidence Karen Brady holds over the management of LLDC.
The deal should be made public and scrutinised to find out how such a deal was allowed to be rushed through. It would appear that blackmail may have been a motivation.
Never mind, the deal has been made public.
http://queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/~/media/lldc/concession%20agreement%202016.pdf
comment by Ahoy Pirates (U8613)
posted 1 minute ago
posted 4 minutes ago
Thought I should just add that if there was a (safety) incident at the stadium, and it was discovered there wasn’t sufficient measures in place to deal with/manage/prevent, the club would be liable.
---
I doubt we are reliable as it clearly their responsibility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WH would have to have taken out public liability insurance.
It's akin to a land lord giving a tenant carte blanche with their property. It's simply not going to happen
Still they will be (owners) prosecuted for the adequate security measurements. We have seen in the past.
Comment deleted by Article Creator
Start helping by stop throwing bottles?
Ahoy Pirates
I would imagine if an action was brought against the stadium owners, they would in turn sue West Ham for breach of contract.
Should also add that there is a legal requirement for all football (UK) clubs to have an appropriate amount of stewards.
After Hillsborough, and the Taylor report, a number of new laws came into force. Each club is responsible for adhering to the law regardless of stadium ownership.
what are you yapping on about this time maf?
you have to remember that due to most west ham fans being about as civilised as the average prehistoric caveman, then policing costs are 3 times higher at west ham than at any other ground in the country
Comment deleted by Article Creator
Comment deleted by Article Creator
Sign in if you want to comment
E20 stadium LLP are disgrace
Page 1 of 4
posted on 16/9/16
Maybe they should put the rent up so they can afford to police it properly
posted on 16/9/16
You don't pay more than what you have been agreed to your landlord, do you?
posted on 16/9/16
comment by Ahoy Pirates (U8613)
posted 22 seconds ago
You don't pay more than what you have been agreed to your landlord, do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm no pikey so own my house
posted on 16/9/16
Good on you for being born with silver spoon.
posted on 16/9/16
comment by Ahoy Pirates (U8613)
posted 4 minutes ago
Good on you for being born with silver spoon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sureky WHU see they are paying a very cheap rate and will come in and out security of thier fans over saying money?
LLP doesn't have to spend anymore if they don't want
posted on 16/9/16
If anyone goes wrong then they will be sued. And why should West Ham interfere with their job?
posted on 16/9/16
comment by Ahoy Pirates (U8613)
posted 1 minute ago
If anyone goes wrong then they will be sued. And why should West Ham interfere with their job?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can they be sued? The security would have been signed off by the club at start of season
posted on 16/9/16
Yes, but they could be sued for NOT enough protection.
posted on 16/9/16
comment by Ahoy Pirates (U8613)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, but they could be sued for NOT enough protection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
doubt that
posted on 16/9/16
Just look at the amount they are spending compare to other clubs, then, you a have case here.
posted on 16/9/16
Thought I should just add that if there was a (safety) incident at the stadium, and it was discovered there wasn’t sufficient measures in place to deal with/manage/prevent, the club would be liable.
posted on 16/9/16
I would have thought that WHU are only renting the stadium and it would be up to them to pay for security & policing.
Every other club in the land has to pay for security at their own ground so why not the spanners?
posted on 16/9/16
comment by sᴉɥƃuǝlפ (U19365)
posted 17 seconds ago
I would have thought that WHU are only renting the stadium and it would be up to them to pay for security & policing.
Every other club in the land has to pay for security at their own ground so why not the spanners?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems WHU pay a flat rate all inclusive deal
posted on 16/9/16
posted 4 minutes ago
Thought I should just add that if there was a (safety) incident at the stadium, and it was discovered there wasn’t sufficient measures in place to deal with/manage/prevent, the club would be liable.
---
I doubt we are reliable as it clearly their responsibility.
posted on 16/9/16
Hmm, the more you look into this rental deal the spanners got, the more you have to wonder what incriminating evidence Karen Brady holds over the management of LLDC.
The deal should be made public and scrutinised to find out how such a deal was allowed to be rushed through. It would appear that blackmail may have been a motivation.
posted on 16/9/16
Never mind, the deal has been made public.
http://queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/~/media/lldc/concession%20agreement%202016.pdf
posted on 16/9/16
comment by Ahoy Pirates (U8613)
posted 1 minute ago
posted 4 minutes ago
Thought I should just add that if there was a (safety) incident at the stadium, and it was discovered there wasn’t sufficient measures in place to deal with/manage/prevent, the club would be liable.
---
I doubt we are reliable as it clearly their responsibility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WH would have to have taken out public liability insurance.
It's akin to a land lord giving a tenant carte blanche with their property. It's simply not going to happen
posted on 16/9/16
Still they will be (owners) prosecuted for the adequate security measurements. We have seen in the past.
posted on 16/9/16
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 16/9/16
Start helping by stop throwing bottles?
posted on 16/9/16
Ahoy Pirates
I would imagine if an action was brought against the stadium owners, they would in turn sue West Ham for breach of contract.
posted on 16/9/16
Should also add that there is a legal requirement for all football (UK) clubs to have an appropriate amount of stewards.
After Hillsborough, and the Taylor report, a number of new laws came into force. Each club is responsible for adhering to the law regardless of stadium ownership.
posted on 16/9/16
what are you yapping on about this time maf?
you have to remember that due to most west ham fans being about as civilised as the average prehistoric caveman, then policing costs are 3 times higher at west ham than at any other ground in the country
posted on 16/9/16
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 16/9/16
Comment deleted by Article Creator
Page 1 of 4