Post by Macmoish on Apr 15, 2011 6:29:00 GMT
Telegraph/Paul Kelso
London 2012 Olympics: Tottenham and Orient join forces to challenge West Ham's move to Olympic Stadium
West Ham United’s proposed tenancy of the Olympic Stadium faces a barrage of legal challenges after Leyton Orient joined Tottenham in arguing that the financial basis of their bid is illegal, and challenged the Premier League to withdraw its approval for the move from Upton Park.
Tottenham and Orient join forced to challenge West Ham's move to Olympic Stadium: Olympic Stadium
West Ham are relying on a £40 million loan from Newham Council to convert the Olympic Stadium following the 2012 Games, but Orient and Tottenham, whose bid for the stadium was rejected in February, argue that the loan breaches British and EU law preventing state aid for private companies.
Tottenham and Orient are seeking a judicial review of the council’s decision to agree the loan to West Ham. Orient chairman Barry Hearn revealed his intentions yesterday, 24 hours after Tottenham informed Newham they were bringing legal action.
Spurs are seeking to overturn the Olympic Park Legacy Company’s decision to recommend West Ham for the stadium, or failing that, pressure London mayor Boris Johnson and the Government into providing them with more support for an alternative ground development in Haringey.
Hearn, who is funding the legal challenge with the £1 million proceeds of Orient’s FA Cup fifth-round replay at Arsenal, is acting because he believes West Ham’s move, and their promise to give away free or heavily discounted tickets to fill the stadium, will put Orient out of business.
“This is about one thing only, stopping West Ham getting occupancy of the Olympic Stadium,” he said yesterday. “It’s not about compensation, alternative stadiums, it’s about stopping them getting in there because it will put us out of business.”
Hearne is also challenging the Premier League’s decision to approve West Ham’s move from Upton Park, an issue that will be heard by an arbitration panel under FA rules in the next two weeks.
League rules state that the impact on other clubs has to be considered when a club propose to move ground, and Hearn believes Orient’s circumstances have not been given proper weight.
Newham Council agreed to borrow the money over 25 years at preferential rates available to local government and forward it to West Ham, who will make repayments from ticket receipts. Newham taxpayers will be liable for the debt in the event of default, but their mayor, Sir Robin Wales, has argued that the borough is gaining a community asset.
Telegraph Sport understands that both clubs will argue that the loan breaches state aid law because public money is being used to give West Ham, a private company, advantage over its rivals.
Tottenham argue that Newham did not act equitably because the loan constitutes state resources that were offered only to West Ham, conferring on them an advantage over their rivals. They and Orient argue that the loan was secured at a far better rate than West Ham could have achieved privately, and that without the loan the club could not have made the bid that they did.
Spurs and Orient also argue that Newham’s support for West Ham, already based in the borough, was irrational because were Tottenham to move to the Olympic Stadium, it would double the benefits to the council and the community. They also claim that the council had acted beyond its powers — ultra vires – by using public funds to assist a commercial entity. At the very least the challenges will further delay the agreement of a lease between West Ham and the Olympic Park Legacy Company, which was scheduled for completion by March 31.
If Tottenham or Orient are successful in arguing that Newham’s funding is illegal, or in any of a series of other challenges being considered, the OPLC could be forced to withdraw its support for West Ham and restart the bidding process.
The applications for judicial review against Newham are part of a slew of legal challenges against the Olympic Stadium decision.
Hearn is also seeking judicial review of the Government and Johnson’s decision to approve West Ham as preferred bidder for the Olympic Stadium.
Tottenham, meanwhile, are considering seeking judicial review of the Government and mayor’s decision, as well as the process by which the OPLC came to recommend West Ham.
Among possible grounds of complaint is how the OPLC applied five criteria on which the decision was based. Originally these were weighted in favour of financial criteria only for the rules to be changed for the latter stages of the bid.
Newham Borough Council, the OPLC and West Ham all declined to comment.
www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/west-ham/8452053/London-2012-Olympics-Tottenham-and-Orient-join-forces-to-challenge-West-Hams-move-to-Olympic-Stadium.html
London 2012 Olympics: Tottenham and Orient join forces to challenge West Ham's move to Olympic Stadium
West Ham United’s proposed tenancy of the Olympic Stadium faces a barrage of legal challenges after Leyton Orient joined Tottenham in arguing that the financial basis of their bid is illegal, and challenged the Premier League to withdraw its approval for the move from Upton Park.
Tottenham and Orient join forced to challenge West Ham's move to Olympic Stadium: Olympic Stadium
West Ham are relying on a £40 million loan from Newham Council to convert the Olympic Stadium following the 2012 Games, but Orient and Tottenham, whose bid for the stadium was rejected in February, argue that the loan breaches British and EU law preventing state aid for private companies.
Tottenham and Orient are seeking a judicial review of the council’s decision to agree the loan to West Ham. Orient chairman Barry Hearn revealed his intentions yesterday, 24 hours after Tottenham informed Newham they were bringing legal action.
Spurs are seeking to overturn the Olympic Park Legacy Company’s decision to recommend West Ham for the stadium, or failing that, pressure London mayor Boris Johnson and the Government into providing them with more support for an alternative ground development in Haringey.
Hearn, who is funding the legal challenge with the £1 million proceeds of Orient’s FA Cup fifth-round replay at Arsenal, is acting because he believes West Ham’s move, and their promise to give away free or heavily discounted tickets to fill the stadium, will put Orient out of business.
“This is about one thing only, stopping West Ham getting occupancy of the Olympic Stadium,” he said yesterday. “It’s not about compensation, alternative stadiums, it’s about stopping them getting in there because it will put us out of business.”
Hearne is also challenging the Premier League’s decision to approve West Ham’s move from Upton Park, an issue that will be heard by an arbitration panel under FA rules in the next two weeks.
League rules state that the impact on other clubs has to be considered when a club propose to move ground, and Hearn believes Orient’s circumstances have not been given proper weight.
Newham Council agreed to borrow the money over 25 years at preferential rates available to local government and forward it to West Ham, who will make repayments from ticket receipts. Newham taxpayers will be liable for the debt in the event of default, but their mayor, Sir Robin Wales, has argued that the borough is gaining a community asset.
Telegraph Sport understands that both clubs will argue that the loan breaches state aid law because public money is being used to give West Ham, a private company, advantage over its rivals.
Tottenham argue that Newham did not act equitably because the loan constitutes state resources that were offered only to West Ham, conferring on them an advantage over their rivals. They and Orient argue that the loan was secured at a far better rate than West Ham could have achieved privately, and that without the loan the club could not have made the bid that they did.
Spurs and Orient also argue that Newham’s support for West Ham, already based in the borough, was irrational because were Tottenham to move to the Olympic Stadium, it would double the benefits to the council and the community. They also claim that the council had acted beyond its powers — ultra vires – by using public funds to assist a commercial entity. At the very least the challenges will further delay the agreement of a lease between West Ham and the Olympic Park Legacy Company, which was scheduled for completion by March 31.
If Tottenham or Orient are successful in arguing that Newham’s funding is illegal, or in any of a series of other challenges being considered, the OPLC could be forced to withdraw its support for West Ham and restart the bidding process.
The applications for judicial review against Newham are part of a slew of legal challenges against the Olympic Stadium decision.
Hearn is also seeking judicial review of the Government and Johnson’s decision to approve West Ham as preferred bidder for the Olympic Stadium.
Tottenham, meanwhile, are considering seeking judicial review of the Government and mayor’s decision, as well as the process by which the OPLC came to recommend West Ham.
Among possible grounds of complaint is how the OPLC applied five criteria on which the decision was based. Originally these were weighted in favour of financial criteria only for the rules to be changed for the latter stages of the bid.
Newham Borough Council, the OPLC and West Ham all declined to comment.
www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/west-ham/8452053/London-2012-Olympics-Tottenham-and-Orient-join-forces-to-challenge-West-Hams-move-to-Olympic-Stadium.html
