• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Canning Town Bingo Club

Yes, the inner concrete bowl was meant to be permanent and the outer steel structure temporary. You couldn't have designed things to have been more backwards.

Here is what the stadium would have looked like as a permanent athletics facility:

1d7afdf174f9870483e57e1225be5405f805d313.jpg


I'm not sure how much of the "permanent" structure remains. Possibly only those two blocks at the ends that remain behind the retractable movable seating.

medium_640_seating.jpg
I was thinking the inner permanent bowl is still there under the scaffold stands.

How temporary was the outer structure supposed to be? Just for the games?
 
I think it was temporary as in it was designed to be dismantled later - not in that it wasnt built to last.

Its a steel structure, should have a pretty long shelf life.

A lot of the event venues were dismantled and sold off after the games werent they?
 
Ha. The woman on the left (facing) is clearly less than impressed.

And can't he buy himself a suit jacket that actually fits?
 
If the suit fitted it would reveal how small he is. It's the opposite of Trump who uses oversized suits to hide how fat he is.
 
The body responsible for running London Stadium spent £100,000 developing a communications strategy for the stadium despite having three senior communications staff paid more than £260,000 combined.

London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), which lost more than £20m last year, has been criticised for the way it spends taxpayers' cash.

But LLDC says the £100,000 helped to avoid higher costs down the line.

"This was a one-off project," it added.

The figure, from July 2018, is contained in detailed expenditure published by the LLDC. As a taxpayer-funded organisation, it has to publish details of all contracts in excess of £5,000.

LLDC also spent £4m on legal costs in an acrimonious dispute with the core tenant, Premier League side West Ham United.

That dispute was brought to an end minutes before a lengthy court case was due to begin on 12 December, when a deal was brokered between the club's managing director Karren Brady and LLDC chief executive Lyn Garner.

James Roberts, political director of lobby group the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "You would have thought the LLDC would have been doing everything they could to keep costs to a minimum.

"Instead, their accounts show they've splashed taxpayers cash on expensive PR strategies and pointless wheezes like award ceremonies. Before kicking off again at West Ham about their costs, the LLDC really need to get their own house in order."

LLDC also spent £32,000 on "media planning and buying services" for its 2018 Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park summer campaign, while using the London Stadium and its catering and security facilities for last year's East Works Awards cost another £19,650.

An LLDC spokesman said: "The LLDC has a wide remit and responsibility and in line with similar organisations will buy in specialist services as required. All contracts over £5,000 are published and there is an audit and procurement process. The LLDC operates within its agreed annual budgets."

And on the £100,000 spent on an outside agency developing a communications strategy, it added: "Specialist research, stakeholder and communication advice was procured when the director of communication post was vacant during a time when multiple legal actions were under way against the London Stadium.

"This was a one-off project involving research and development and was part of the strategy which avoided a prolonged and expensive court case and provided information to inform the commercial strategy. There is no ongoing outside communication support."

London Stadium's owners E20, a wholly owned subsidiary of LLDC, reported losses of £22.7m in the year to 31 March 2018.

In a critical review of the stadium's finances in December 2017, London mayor Sadiq Khan said he would be taking control of the situation in a bid to reduce the losses.

London Stadium was built for the 2012 Olympics and has been dogged by controversy over its finances. Converting it into a football ground cost £323m when the original estimate was £190m.
 
West Ham to fundraise
West Ham are set to try and raise summer transfer funds by off-loading a number of players.

According to the Evening Standard, the Hammers will listen to offers for Lucas Perez, Pedro Obiang, Reece Oxford, Sam Byram and Jordan Hugill.

They are already set to let Andy Carroll and Adriano leave when their contracts expire at the end of the season.


That will raise enough for the whole squad to get a McDonalds lunch I suppose...
 
The body responsible for running London Stadium spent £100,000 developing a communications strategy for the stadium despite having three senior communications staff paid more than £260,000 combined.

London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), which lost more than £20m last year, has been criticised for the way it spends taxpayers' cash.

But LLDC says the £100,000 helped to avoid higher costs down the line.

"This was a one-off project," it added.

The figure, from July 2018, is contained in detailed expenditure published by the LLDC. As a taxpayer-funded organisation, it has to publish details of all contracts in excess of £5,000.

LLDC also spent £4m on legal costs in an acrimonious dispute with the core tenant, Premier League side West Ham United.

That dispute was bought to an end minutes before a lengthy court case was due to begin on 12 December, when a deal was brokered between the club's managing director Karren Brady and LLDC chief executive Lyn Garner.

James Roberts, political director of lobby group the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "You would have thought the LLDC would have been doing everything they could to keep costs to a minimum.

"Instead, their accounts show they've splashed taxpayers cash on expensive PR strategies and pointless wheezes like award ceremonies. Before kicking off again at West Ham about their costs, the LLDC really need to get their own house in order."

LLDC also spent £32,000 on "media planning and buying services" for its 2018 Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park summer campaign, while using the London Stadium and its catering and security facilities for last year's East Works Awards cost another £19,650.

An LLDC spokesman said: "The LLDC has a wide remit and responsibility and in line with similar organisations will buy in specialist services as required. All contracts over £5,000 are published and there is an audit and procurement process. The LLDC operates within its agreed annual budgets."

And on the £100,000 spent on an outside agency developing a communications strategy, it added: "Specialist research, stakeholder and communication advice was procured when the director of communication post was vacant during a time when multiple legal actions were under way against the London Stadium.

"This was a one-off project involving research and development and was part of the strategy which avoided a prolonged and expensive court case and provided information to inform the commercial strategy. There is no ongoing outside communication support."

London Stadium's owners E20, a wholly owned subsidiary of LLDC, reported losses of £22.7m in the year to 31 March 2018.

In a critical review of the stadium's finances in December 2017, London mayor Sadiq Khan said he would be taking control of the situation in a bid to reduce the losses.

London Stadium was built for the 2012 Olympics and has been dogged by controversy over its finances. Converting it into a football ground cost £323m when the original estimate was £190m.


Is anyone surprised? it's a public finances project they are there to make money for the people (companies) that look after politicians.
 
West Ham to fundraise
West Ham are set to try and raise summer transfer funds by off-loading a number of players.

According to the Evening Standard, the Hammers will listen to offers for Lucas Perez, Pedro Obiang, Reece Oxford, Sam Byram and Jordan Hugill.

They are already set to let Andy Carroll and Adriano leave when their contracts expire at the end of the season.


That will raise enough for the whole squad to get a McDonalds lunch I suppose...
Regular size though, none of this supersize brick. And definitely no milkshakes
 
Is anyone surprised? it's a public finances project they are there to make money for the people (companies) that look after politicians.

What’s wrong with any of those spend items? If you’re an organisation that is scrutinised and queried by the press, you need comms people. If that demand is peaky then it’s more sensible to buy them in than to use FTEs, evn if that costs well north of a grand a day for a while. And if you are running a campaign then of course you need ad planners and buyers, who pay for themselves anyway.

I understand why the TPA want to pretend that all spend by public bodies is wasteful, it’s because they are libertarian scum funded by US republicans and Putin on their joint mission to destroy the European social compact. Quite why other people need to join in with populist cynical gonad*s suggesting that evidence of spend is evidence of corruption, that’s beyond me.
 
What’s wrong with any of those spend items? If you’re an organisation that is scrutinised and queried by the press, you need comms people. If that demand is peaky then it’s more sensible to buy them in than to use FTEs, evn if that costs well north of a grand a day for a while. And if you are running a campaign then of course you need ad planners and buyers, who pay for themselves anyway.

I understand why the TPA want to pretend that all spend by public bodies is wasteful, it’s because they are libertarian scum funded by US republicans and Putin on their joint mission to destroy the European social compact. Quite why other people need to join in with populist cynical gonad*s suggesting that evidence of spend is evidence of corruption, that’s beyond me.

Because most public projects are run by politically bodies with people who will do what they are told rather than people who can deliver on time and within budget, if I had performed in such a poor way with the building projects I was responsible for within the company where I was employed I would have been sacked.
 
Back