This will make your head spin
Sunday, July 3, 2011 at 6:55AM This is satire at it's very best. From West Ham site, KUMB:
Tottenham's dirty tricks exposed
Filed: Sunday, 3rd July 2011
By: Staff Writer
The full extent of the dirty tricks played by Tottenham in the 'cash-for-stadium' row have been exposed.
Today's Sunday Times revealed how the OPLC's director of corporate services was paid circa £20,000 for 'consultancy work' by West Ham - work sanctioned by the club's Olympic Director, said to be in a relationship with the aforementioned. More details on that can be seen here.
However it also reveals the depths that Tottenham were prepared to sink to in order to derail West Ham's move into the Olympic Stadium, which was ratified by the Government earlier this year.
1. Hired 'corporate intelligence' company: The Times claimed that Spurs hired the intelligence agency two days before the OPLC declared their preferred bidder to investigate the 14 members of the adjudicating panel in order to unearth any potential conflicts of interest.
2. Hired private investigators: Having struck gold, Tottenham ordered investigators to place Dionne Knight, the OPLC director at the centre of the storm under personal surveillance. This included a 'stake-out' of the single mother's home, where she lives with her 14-year-old daughter.
3. Accessed personal information: Tottenham's investigators admitted procuring sensitive documents - including personal bank statements belonging to both Knight and the West Ham employee - along with other sensitive personal information usually protected by data protection laws.
West Ham fans posting on forums across the web tonight have urged the club to immediately halt any future transfer dealings with Tottenham in response to the revelations - including any potential move for Scott Parker.
Sorry, I lied. It's not satire. Honestly, hand on heart.
West Ham's response to The Sunday Times article that revealed the 'conspiracy' can be found on their official site. They're going to sue us.
All kicking off. Again.
Reader Comments (52)
West Ham supporter - we are clearly on the same side here in one sense: neither your nor I want Spurs to move to Stratford. However you cannot trot out the banal nonsense above and not expect comeback. Firstly you assert that obtaining personal details through illegal means is more serious than bribing a public official. You might want to think that through. Just for your information, as a qualified (albeit not practicing) lawyer, please take it from me that you are mistaken - quite severly so. The latter is a very serious criminal offense carrying jail time for sure (so Ms Brady better be sure of herself when she says she was fully aware of payments that were made to the 'consultant'). The former probably isnt a criminal offence at all (illegal means is hard to prove: going through someone's bins is not actually illegal, regardless of the morality. And if Levy can show that the actions were in the public interest, privacy laws are irrelevant).
Secondly you assert that the WHam bid will ensure that public money is returnd through the lease. Read my post above. I - and I am hardly alone in this - find it unlikely in the extreme that WHam will stick to the terms of the lease. Firstly they will plead poverty due to relegation and seek reduced terms for the initial period of the lease (no doubt promising to pay the defecit upon promotion). Interestingly this poverty will be pleaded while paying Kevin Nolan 60k a week and refusing 4m offers for Carlton Cole. Secondly, I cannot see them raising the necessary financing to upgrade the stadium in line with their current committments. Again - I am hardly alone in this. Independent auditors hired by the Telegraph stated the WHam proposal to be 'financially flawed', and even the OPLC acknolwedge that it is not the strongest case financially. Where exxactly is this money to be raised? Who is supposed to lend to a club with revenue roughly half their expenditure (while in the Championship at least) and current debts of 100m? Dont fool yourself that the Newham loan and the OPLC grant will pay for the refurbishment of a 60k seat stadium that currently has no toilets, permanent roof, bars, restaurants, hospitality suites or indeed permanent seating above 25k.
Few people want Spurs to move to Stratford, but that doesnt mean WHam should be given the stadium. It should be sold to the highest bidder willing to pay upfront - full stop. If that meant Man U buying it for a second home, I'd be perfectly happy. As long as I get my fking tax back
Paul F, I agree with you on some points but not on others, you are assuming that the stadium was built to make a profit short term, this was not the case it was built to create a legacy for athletics, as a tax payer we can all have an opinion on that and if it was built to be profitable short term no doubt it would have been designed differently. As for the woman being bribed I am not so ignorant to say that she wasn't but at this stage, both the OPLC and West Ham are claiming that the woman was kept entirely isolated from any information relating to the bid and from the process. At this early stage it appears that the woman did additional work not notifying her employers which is an issue of employment law, the work she carried out is documented so I think the truth will come out.
You say that you don't think that West Ham will stick to the terms of the lease but they don't have a choice other than going to court and as stated they can't afford it and wouldn't win, the leaseholder is King and if a lease is signed WHU are bound by those terms.
Good luck all