I'm sorry I don't understand the relevance of your last post.

You don't understand a lot of things It seems.

You just think the press and TalkSport make things like this up? Transfer tales are fabrications of player, agents and clubs.....

Things like this, well it must be driven by the Daily Mail and they made the Mayor look into it

Oh I see now.

You are making a leap of logic. The London Mayor wants an enquiry into all the costs of the Olympic Stadium conversion and you have made the leap that despite an existing legal binding rental contract now being in place this could somehow lead to West Ham being forced to pay more.

The one does not in any way inevitably lead to the other.

I suggested that a little look at the contract will possibly find a way to increase the amount paid by West Ham.

But as you said, it's been on talk sport so it can't lead to anything really.

"possibly"

That about sums it up

The point is and I'm not being sarcastic or deliberately rude, but just think about the legal end point should West Ham be forced to now pay more.

All English law works on the idea of precedent, what one court decides HAS to be taken in consider in any new related cases, it's what we have instead of a written constitution.

So say, it's decided that the stadium conversion cost however more million pounds than envisaged and we now feel West Ham should pay more.

Under precedent any landlord could then try to increase there rent to make back any costs from alterations and/or improvements made to their own property before rental.

I think it's very doubtful anyone will wish to open that can of worms.

The tax payer cannot be expected to carry West Ham, this deal should be challenged and West Ham should be made to pay up.

LQ

But how would that impact on every other current rental agreement in England, if we were to suddenly say "yes you agreed this rental deal but now we are changing it"?

comment by Sane is back (U21166)
posted 18 minutes ago
The point is and I'm not being sarcastic or deliberately rude, but just think about the legal end point should West Ham be forced to now pay more.

All English law works on the idea of precedent, what one court decides HAS to be taken in consider in any new related cases, it's what we have instead of a written constitution.

So say, it's decided that the stadium conversion cost however more million pounds than envisaged and we now feel West Ham should pay more.

Under precedent any landlord could then try to increase there rent to make back any costs from alterations and/or improvements made to their own property before rental.

I think it's very doubtful anyone will wish to open that can of worms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You keep mentioning housing rent and rental agreements between landlords.

Not sure the rental of a ground for a fixed number of days and offices is linked

comment by Sane is back (U21166)
posted 3 minutes ago
LQ

But how would that impact on every other current rental agreement in England, if we were to suddenly say "yes you agreed this rental deal but now we are changing it"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No impact at all because the Olympic Stadium is a special case.

It the same set of legislation.

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