Charlie Potatoes said:
I know exactly what happened fella....as did most of the people BEFORE Spurs even employed the PIs.
For you to try and darken the water to make it look like it was the right thing to do says everything about the sort of person you are.
I refer to the list of reasons posted earlier as evidence of why Spurs were fully entitled to believe that something very fishy was up and that they had no choice but to order an investigation.
I've asked 3 times now about would you like it done to you...and guess what you've done ??
You've still failed to ask a relevant question.
Here's a relevant question for you:
Do you believe that potentially corrupt behaviour or suspicious events should never be investigated?
The two people the PIs found out were "together" used to work with each other for Newham Council...nothing was ever hidden. Ever
Not true. The OPLC claimed to have had no prior knowledge of Dionne Knight working for West Ham.
And if you know anything about public organisations or directorships in general, then you should know that all potential conflicts of interest must be clearly and publicly declared. The fact that an OPLC director was earning a large sum of money while working simultaneously for West Ham was, at best, incredibly stupid on her part and the part of West Ham and, at worst, dodgy as hell.
Newham's loan was part of the deal (and the only monetary thing) they bought to the table. It was a great deal for the people of Newham and all of the local community.
It was illegal. Which is, of course, why Sir Robin Wales rushed and forced it through the committee stage without affording members a chance to examine the agreement in any detail.
THFC and LOFC didn't want WHUFC winning the deal because they knew what would happen...as David Dein famously admitted, "I don't want to think how big West Ham could be if they get the Olympic Stadium".
I fully agree that Spurs didn't want West Ham to gain a huge competitive advantage by being gifted the stadium and then being allowed to go back on their word to keep the track - as they would most certainly have tried to do but for the thoroughness of Spurs' legal team. Thankfully, that is no longer an option. The track is safe.
Spurs HAVE acted illegally, are in the High court as we speak....and no amount of bow locks from a Spurs fan will change the fact that THFC as a club have shown exactly what they think of the OS and its legacy...and the cobblers they are trying to pull now with Haringay council.
Being in court is not, in itself, evidence of having acted illegally. I really shouldn't have to tell you that.
-- Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:27 am --
Charlie Potatoes said:
I suggest you look at your current debt and put it against ours...they are about the same after the Pimps invested some more in the summer (seems facts are not your strong point)
Spurs' £56 million net debt has been accumulated because:
a) they have bought some £70-80 million worth of property around White Hart Lane over the past four years, in anticipation of building the new stadium and associated developments.
b) they have spent £40 million on building a new training ground and academy over the past year and a half.
In other words, Spurs have spent (borrowed) money on buying and building assets. And these assets appear on the balance sheet every bit as much as the net debt. And happily, I am able to report that Spurs' net asset situation is consequently exceedingly healthy.
By contrast, West Ham's debts were accumulated by paying too many average players too much money and by botching the construction and payment schedule of a new stand.
In other words, West Ham frittered their money away. They have nothing to show for their debt.
But really, this is getting too far off topic now. I should have resisted the urge. Apologies to all.
Levy was played by Boris...the OPLC would never have the stadium being pulled down.
I'm glad that you admit as much. You can therefore have no further complaint about the fact that Levy played Boris and the OPLC right back.
