It’s going to be called The Sosueme.
Good morning fight fans and welcome to another installment of Two Dirty Old Men & A Brady.
So West Ham are to take time out from a busy schedule of selling season tickets to street urchins at £90 a pop and embark upon a course of legal action against The Sunday Times and Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.
Lord Sugar must be laughing so hard right now that the task for Wednesday night will be to design & market him a ventilator. ‘And remember teams, none of that Amstrad rubbish. This must be robust.’
Robust is the buzz word. West Ham’s official statement is adamant that their bid was robust. I’m always fascinated by the the use and frequent corruption of language. And I’m not just talking about my typos.
Robust. Webster’s tells us this means vigorous. Sturdy. Exhibiting strength.
Not words I would have immediately associated with a relegated outfit of chancers soon to be stripped of their best players whilst staring down the barrel of a stadium they are never going to fill unless they replace their entire back four with Take That. And this from within the quicksand like depths of the Championship.
Lord Sugar called it right. They are indeed blowing more than bleedin’ bubbles now. And even sooner than even the most sceptical of us might have imagined.
In a ‘Club Statement’ West Ham say,
“We are so confident in the probity of our actions that we will take the strongest action possible against any suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of West Ham United or its officers, as well as involve the police and the data protection registrar in regard to the accessing of private information by illegal means.”
That sounds quite bullish; like they may just be onto something. But then if you let a few facts get in the way, let a few pivotal pieces of information through all the bluster you get a very different picture.
A soon to be relegated football club, that cannot sell out in it’s existing ground, up to it’s crotchless frillies in debt, manages to convince their local council in a time of austerity to rustle up £40million in used notes and back their application to become tenants of an Olympic Stadium.
Then it transpires that the West Ham Bidding Director is shacked up with the Corporate Director of the Olympic Park Legacy Company.
This only turns out to be half the tale. The missing piece of this puzzle which incidentally a chimpanzee with a saucepan stuck on it’s head could solve is that this Corporate Director at the Olympic Park Legacy Company, who’s shacked up with the West Ham Bidding Director turns out to have been on the payroll of West Ham as a consultant, wait for it… in relation to West Ham’s bid for the Olympic Stadium.
If that’s robust, then everyone one Facebook actually knows every single one of their friends. It’s not been in the public interest to disclose this information I’ll eat my hat.
The funniest element (aside from the West Ham statement in full, which is available in HERE) is that West Ham suing The Sunday Times has to raise the question in Rupert Murdoch’s mind, ‘How happy am I signing cheques in favour of a person who works for an organization that’s taking a legal action against me?’ Karren #facelikeakickedinfridge will probably decry getting binned by Rupe as a sexist outrage.
BIOYC!
Devonshire – I’m still not entirely clear what they are suing us for. The Times printed the story. If its wrong sue them.
They are robustly indignificant that we have surrepticiaciously and hithermore and thereto with magnifiable & wantonious unscrupulocity, breached in a most heinousamonious manner the data protection act and sanctification of their dustbins, instigaticated by Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.
In doing so, they question with robustlyforthrightlyness, the verisimilitude of the information herintheretofore gathered and represent in robustlybustyDDstraighttoDVDness the veracityfication of an accumoniousness made by the Newspaper.
That, and other balderdash in an equally pompous manner.
All clear now?
I told you not to swallow that dictionary.
yep
I agree with Astro’s comment, earlier:
– This has the stench of the porn barons acquiring W Sham solely to access the new Olympic Stadium, making W Sham a highly marketable asset and ripe for picking by the next overseas billionaire who decides he wants an EPL plaything…
…from memory, the Porn Barons have only guaranteed some of the debt being incurred, they haven’t actually put any cash in: so, they’ll be quids in, once any sale occurs…
So, W Sham was never a Football deal for them & Shady Brady, it was always a property deal…
Hmmmm… this is getting murkier by the minute – thank God for relegation and the investigations of DL… ;)
…erm, clearly I meant Astro’s comment at 9.24am, not the one at 1.18pm… ;)
I haven’t a clue what either of them meant :blink:
It was a Robust affair, all done in the Queens name mind.
I’m pretty sure the loan from Newham is for £80m, with £40m of it repayable from the proceeds of the Boleyn Ground sale :pinch:
I’d be interested to see what an estate agent estimates the current value of that prime piece of real estate to be. Aldi and Lidl will be ‘pistols at dawn’ over it.
I’m sure I read somewhere that the Vikings had pillaged that particular asset when the long boat sank.
‘Aldi and Lidl will be ‘pistols at dawn’ over it.’
HH, I reckon you could make a book out of some of the comments today. Awesome work you mighty ‘Y words’.
It would appear they built a Lidl store near us.
They didn’t want a big one.
I am a little puzzled as to why we should be getting sued as a result of these revelations.
As was pointed out on here early on Sunday I think, the disgraced director in question took steps to update his profile from Linkedin, which detailed his previous associations with Newham.
The OPLC suspended this bloke’s squeeze after it was revealed that West Ham made payments to her.
The statement from WHUFC is standard fodder from them, keen to deflect the attention from their own devious dealings to point the finger in other directions, namely at ourselves and the Sunday Times.
If anyone should be launching a suit it should be us that is suing West Ham, for their dirty tricks political campaign in which Brady and co. sought to persuade the neutral that our proposal was laying waste to £500 million worth of Stadium, which was far from the truth, and that this very building was designed to be temporary in the first instance – a wholly sensationalised tale and one which was baseless. Yet, along with the “running track issue”, it certainly was effective in making the neutral think the West Ham bid was better serving to the existing area. And the overly exaggerated (in numbers) “WeAreN17” campaign also provided them with additional firepower – regardless of the reality of how minor their view was.
Levy was entirely justified in seeking a judicial review, whether to secure leverage in our NDP plans or to void the initial decision – regardless of these revelations.
The suit from them is ridiculous. As ridiculous as any footballer/celebrity attempting to hide their “indiscretions” behind a Super Injunction.
I say counter sue. Just buy any copy of the Sun with Brady’s column in it from this year and there’s surely more than enough ammunition in there, lie after sensationalised lie.
The Porn Pikey’s have tried to launch the cover-up. They are the ones that appear to be in the wrong, not us.
There was a very nasty stench of East End bigotry about the whole campaign that I didn’t like from beginning to end. The constant referencing of them being representatives of England & Englishness made me shudder. Nasty, foul people.