EU Precedent (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
Liquid Gold

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
Hey @better days in the last couple of days I’ve seen you mention the West Ham ruling as precedent for the Ricoh case for the EU. I didn’t want to clog up the other thread but do want to know more. What happened with them and why would the UK courts have found differently?
 
C

CCFC88

Well-Known Member
Just been reading this, 4 years old so I'm not sure what the outcome was, if there has even been one yet, interesting read though.

Would love a proper journo like this to do some work on the current Ricoh situation.

West Ham face compensation risk over state aid for Olympic Stadium refit

Seems as though there's an agreement/paperwork that they should have got signed off to cover their backs that they didn't. Would not surprise me if the numpties at our council missed this also and this is why they are so worried.
 
C

CCFC88

Well-Known Member
Leyton Orient drops state aid claim against West Ham

Leyton Orient has decided not to pursue a claim of illegal state aid against West Ham’s rental of the former Olympic Stadium.

US businessman and new owner of Orient, Nigel Travis allowed a complaint with the European Commission to lapse recently meaning the case against West Ham will finally be closed with the state aid investigation dropped.

Leyton Orient made the complaint to the European Commission on 24th May 2016 while under the previous ownership of Francesco Becchetti.

This is the second time an alleged state aid complaint has been lodged with the European Commission and West Ham will now hope it is the last and this will now be the end of it. Architect Steve Lawrence became the first to raise state aid claims in 2012 which caused the first bid for the stadium to collapse and for the tender process to run again. Previous Orient owner Barry Hearn also filed a judicial review against the stadium owners at the same time.
 
better days

better days

Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold said:
Hey @better days in the last couple of days I’ve seen you mention the West Ham ruling as precedent for the Ricoh case for the EU. I didn’t want to clog up the other thread but do want to know more. What happened with them and why would the UK courts have found differently?
Click to expand...
There were two complaints
The one CCFC88 mentioned in his post which is about the rental agreement but also one in 2011 when the stadium was being sold in its entirety to West Ham
Spurs Deny Scuppering Olympic Stadium Bid Spurs Deny Scuppering Olympic Stadium Bid

24/06/2019
09:36

Spurs Deny Scuppering Olympic Stadium Bid
This is what I suspect is worrying Duggins and his associates
 
O

OffenhamSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
I've done a few searches on the EC State Aid cases database, but nothing coming up for West Ham, etc.

*Edit: Or Newham.
 
Last edited:
O

OffenhamSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
CCFC88 said:
Leyton Orient drops state aid claim against West Ham

Leyton Orient has decided not to pursue a claim of illegal state aid against West Ham’s rental of the former Olympic Stadium.

US businessman and new owner of Orient, Nigel Travis allowed a complaint with the European Commission to lapse recently meaning the case against West Ham will finally be closed with the state aid investigation dropped.

Leyton Orient made the complaint to the European Commission on 24th May 2016 while under the previous ownership of Francesco Becchetti.

This is the second time an alleged state aid complaint has been lodged with the European Commission and West Ham will now hope it is the last and this will now be the end of it. Architect Steve Lawrence became the first to raise state aid claims in 2012 which caused the first bid for the stadium to collapse and for the tender process to run again. Previous Orient owner Barry Hearn also filed a judicial review against the stadium owners at the same time.
Click to expand...
What does it mean by "drops state aid claim"? Presume they had shouted about intending to take it to the EC, since as we are well aware, the case cannot be "dropped" by the complainant!
 
Liquid Gold

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
better days said:
There were two complaints
The one CCFC88 mentioned in his post which is about the rental agreement but also one in 2011 when the stadium was being sold in its entirety to West Ham
Spurs Deny Scuppering Olympic Stadium Bid Spurs Deny Scuppering Olympic Stadium Bid

24/06/2019
09:36

Spurs Deny Scuppering Olympic Stadium Bid
This is what I suspect is worrying Duggins and his associates
Click to expand...
Do you have any idea why this is more likely to be successful than the complaints to UK courts?
 
better days

better days

Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold said:
Do you have any idea why this is more likely to be successful than the complaints to UK courts?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately no idea
But the difference is that in the UK courts the complainant has to put the case and pay the legal costs
My understanding is that if the EC takes up the case whoever makes the complaint isn't on the hook for costs but the defendant will be
 
O

OffenhamSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
better days said:
Unfortunately no idea
But the difference is that in the UK courts the complainant has to put the case and pay the legal costs
My understanding is that if the EC takes up the case whoever makes the complaint isn't on the hook for costs but the defendant will be
Click to expand...
That's my understanding too, although the defendant could be ordered to pay the claimants' costs if the court finds in their favour.
 
better days

better days

Well-Known Member
OffenhamSkyBlue said:
What does it mean by "drops state aid claim"? Presume they had shouted about intending to take it to the EC, since as we are well aware, the case cannot be "dropped" by the complainant!
Click to expand...
Don't know on this one but as the deal wasn't solely with West Ham it would have been more complicated
British Athletics had a long lease for a period in the summer months and it's also used for concerts and other events by the stadium operators
The earlier complaint was against the sale in its entirety to West Ham
 
M

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
better days said:
Don't know on this one but as the deal wasn't solely with West Ham it would have been more complicated
British Athletics had a long lease for a period in the summer months and it's also used for concerts and other events by the stadium operators
The earlier complaint was against the sale in its entirety to West Ham
Click to expand...
And the earlier complaint must have had some success if the tender exercise was repeated.
 
better days

better days

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
And the earlier complaint must have had some success if the tender exercise was repeated.
Click to expand...
It caused both sides to pull out
They probably had legal advice to do so
As the sale didn't go through the complaint would have died as the deal the complaint was about didn't happen
 
B

Badger

Well-Known Member
Would there be a difference because the UK courts will only look at what was mentioned in the original complaint and no other evidence will be taken into consideration. Could the EU look at anything that is related?
I don't know, does anyone have any legal expertise?
 
better days

better days

Well-Known Member
Badger said:
Would there be a difference because the UK courts will only look at what was mentioned in the original complaint and no other evidence will be taken into consideration. Could the EU look at anything that is related?
I don't know, does anyone have any legal expertise?
Click to expand...
My take-away from the 2011 complaint was the lawyers for West Ham and the Legacy Company (who must have been expensive and high powered) advised both sides that the EC complaint had a good chance of success
That's why they pulled what would have been the most sensible outcome for the stadium
I'm not legally trained but from what I've seen of the cases SISU brought in the UK courts they centred on the sale price being undervalued and that it wasn't a fair process
The EC complaint is about State Aid which is an EU law, not a UK one
 
better days

better days

Well-Known Member
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold said:
It does seem to have rattled them way more than the other cases. Asking for indemnification looks very suspicious.
Click to expand...
This is the key point for me. If there's nothing to it and a guaranteed victory for the council just let SISU keep wasting their time in the background while dealing day to day with the football club. A relationship both sides have said is good until it reaches the level of Sepalla and Eastwood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top