Date: Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 9:20 AM
Subject: mySociety: West Ham stadium ruling: a win for transparency
You may have seen the blanket press coverage last week: the London Legacy
Development Corporation (LLDC), the publicly-funded authority which owns
the Olympic Stadium, lost its recent tribunal and was ordered to publish
its contract with West Ham football club.
This is a story which goes back to last August, when we first blogged
<http://ift.tt/1J69SBw> that WhatDoTheyKnow <http://ift.tt/s6Yxrj> user
Richard Hunt had submitted a request for the contract via the site, on
behalf of a group of Football Supporters’ Trusts.
In September, we updated the story as LLDC pushed back from publishing the
full contract <http://ift.tt/1NFxvlY>, citing ‘commercial confidentiality’.
It seems the subsequent tribunal dismissed this as a valid reason to
withhold the information — information which has now been pored over in
detail by the nation’s media.
Many concluded that the authority have struck a poor deal on behalf of the
general public; we particularly enjoyed a statement from Barry Hearn,
former chairman of Leyton Orient, who reportedly stated, “My dog could have
negotiated a better deal for the taxpayer.”
Whatever your opinion on the deal itself, we think it’s right that the
information should be firmly in the public domain, so that people can
clearly see the financial affairs of the authorities they pay for.
Richard Hunt, whose request kickstarted this whole affair, says that it
represents a good result for football, too:
The effort to get the contract released under FOI was started by a football
fan and then, as the LLDC resisted disclosure, mushroomed into a full scale
campaign run by a coalition of football club Supporters Trusts.
It gained such wide support precisely because football fans are taxpayers
too, and there was a widespread perception that one such club was receiving
public funds to get a new stadium, whereas other clubs had funded new
stadia themselves (or more accurately from the revenues earned from their
fans ).
It was a rare example of football fans overcoming tribal divisions to work
together, and is expected to be showcased at the Supporters Summit meeting
organised by the Football Supporters Federation this coming July.
Well done to all involved! You can see the original Freedom of Information
request here <http://ift.tt/1J69SBu>.
—
Image: Daniel Coomber <http://ift.tt/1qZqJhW> (CC <http://ift.tt/1hIskOn>)
from mySociety http://ift.tt/240naGA
via IFTTT <http://ift.tt/1bODNcb>
Subject: mySociety: West Ham stadium ruling: a win for transparency
You may have seen the blanket press coverage last week: the London Legacy
Development Corporation (LLDC), the publicly-funded authority which owns
the Olympic Stadium, lost its recent tribunal and was ordered to publish
its contract with West Ham football club.
This is a story which goes back to last August, when we first blogged
<http://ift.tt/1J69SBw> that WhatDoTheyKnow <http://ift.tt/s6Yxrj> user
Richard Hunt had submitted a request for the contract via the site, on
behalf of a group of Football Supporters’ Trusts.
In September, we updated the story as LLDC pushed back from publishing the
full contract <http://ift.tt/1NFxvlY>, citing ‘commercial confidentiality’.
It seems the subsequent tribunal dismissed this as a valid reason to
withhold the information — information which has now been pored over in
detail by the nation’s media.
Many concluded that the authority have struck a poor deal on behalf of the
general public; we particularly enjoyed a statement from Barry Hearn,
former chairman of Leyton Orient, who reportedly stated, “My dog could have
negotiated a better deal for the taxpayer.”
Whatever your opinion on the deal itself, we think it’s right that the
information should be firmly in the public domain, so that people can
clearly see the financial affairs of the authorities they pay for.
Richard Hunt, whose request kickstarted this whole affair, says that it
represents a good result for football, too:
The effort to get the contract released under FOI was started by a football
fan and then, as the LLDC resisted disclosure, mushroomed into a full scale
campaign run by a coalition of football club Supporters Trusts.
It gained such wide support precisely because football fans are taxpayers
too, and there was a widespread perception that one such club was receiving
public funds to get a new stadium, whereas other clubs had funded new
stadia themselves (or more accurately from the revenues earned from their
fans ).
It was a rare example of football fans overcoming tribal divisions to work
together, and is expected to be showcased at the Supporters Summit meeting
organised by the Football Supporters Federation this coming July.
Well done to all involved! You can see the original Freedom of Information
request here <http://ift.tt/1J69SBu>.
—
Image: Daniel Coomber <http://ift.tt/1qZqJhW> (CC <http://ift.tt/1hIskOn>)
from mySociety http://ift.tt/240naGA
via IFTTT <http://ift.tt/1bODNcb>
