I understand if they are relegated that the yearly rental can be re-negotiated. The directors are also saying that they are on the verge of signing a striker for a club record fee.
Premier League football is the only sport that could make it viable without burdening the tax payer with an unreasonable and indefinite bill for maintenance and capital repayments.
That's the point though, we as taxpayers are still effectively burdened with the bill yet now have WHU calling the shots instead. For the sake of just £2m a year in rent, as in peanuts in the scheme of things.
I'd rather it was still 100% publically controlled but downgraded to the 25k as planned, retaining athletics, even if it did cost us a little more than it will now in the end.
It's all political in the end of course but contrast this approach with the governments decision to give that huge rolling stock contract to Siemens on the basis that we weren't allowed under EU law to illegally subsidise/favour the UK company (Bombadier?).
You and I would prefer to bear the extra expense because we are concerned about a rival club. That isn't an issue for most tax payers, or for the people who represent them.
This isn't the reason at all. I would hold the same opinion if we were talking about a stadium 300 miles from the Valley and as it happens I don't really agree that it will have any significant effect on us.
How can it not be anti-competitive when the government is preparing to spend another £100m plus to convert it for their use when there is no feasible chance ever getting that money back in the medium term? As Prague points out, what to stop other clubs demanding the same level of government support?
When friends of mine are on notice of redundancy at Newham council and they are passing £40m to WHU, which we just know is going to be wasted on inflated wages and transfer fees (one way or another) I'm going to take a lot of convincing this is an appropriate use of limited public funds.
I think you will find the 40 million Newham are paying is for a share in the ground not a gift to west ham.
What exactly are they getting for that money. A part share in a gift to west Ham. The rent will not even pay for the upkeep so no return there ? What exactly are the residents of Newham getting ?
The following, apparently. A very expensive running track and tickets that West Ham can't sell, plus a dubious claim about jobs.
Community benefits The stadium deal and Newham’s investment secures one hundred years of community benefits for Newham residents including:
A minimum 35% equity share in the Olympic Stadium and island site; Year round access to the 400m community track; Ten exclusive mass participation events in the Stadium per year for Newham residents; Millions of tickets to West Ham United matches held in the stadium from 2016; Additional tickets to sports and other entertainment events held in the Stadium; A training and education centre in the Stadium; A majority of new jobs created on the site will be filled by Newham residents.
The following, apparently. A very expensive running track and tickets that West Ham can't sell, plus a dubious claim about jobs.
Community benefits The stadium deal and Newham’s investment secures one hundred years of community benefits for Newham residents including:
A minimum 35% equity share in the Olympic Stadium and island site; Year round access to the 400m community track; Ten exclusive mass participation events in the Stadium per year for Newham residents; Millions of tickets to West Ham United matches held in the stadium from 2016; Additional tickets to sports and other entertainment events held in the Stadium; A training and education centre in the Stadium; A majority of new jobs created on the site will be filled by Newham residents.
Not being flippant but it sounds like a raw deal to me.
The more I think about it, the more I think this is a serious competition law issue. Just this week the EU competition commissioner announced he was looking into Spanish taxpayer money propping up most of the La Liga clubs. Could be a good time to draw this deal to his attention. I might just do that, or perhaps it would be better if I drop a line to Barry Hearn, suggesting he do it. It would be interesting to find out what Richard Murray thinks about it. I know he is very sceptical about the stadium's suitability for football, so he may feel West Ham are just going to shaft themselves, but that was before we all saw the terms of the deal.
"How can it not be anti-competitive when the government is preparing to spend another £100m plus to convert it for their use when there is no feasible chance ever getting that money back in the medium term? As Prague points out, what to stop other clubs demanding the same level of government support?
When friends of mine are on notice of redundancy at Newham council and they are passing £40m to WHU, which we just know is going to be wasted on inflated wages and transfer fees (one way or another) I'm going to take a lot of convincing this is an appropriate use of limited public funds".
With respect, that's missing the point. Keeping an athletics stadium of that size in Stratford never made commercial sense, but having committed to it for political reasons, paying extra money to West Ham is the only realistic option for mitigating the inevitable cost. The people to blame are the politicians (and not the current ones) and the olympic bidding process, which seems to be a pretty dubious process in itself. Complaining that it is in some way anti-competitive will get nowhere. Other clubs can't do it because they don't have any Olympic white elephants in the neighbourhood.
Whether or not Newham Council should, or have to, get involved I don't know.
Sorry 24 Red, you are the one that is missing the point. Charlton, Orient, Millwall, as well as the other London clubs, are all businesses. To some extent they all compete for floating supporters and tourists.
West Ham are being assisted to get hold of 24,000 more of them per game by the taxpayer. Why should they get this assistance because of some cock-up over the Olympic legacy? Why should not Charlton get the same amount of taxpayer money, to balance out the West Ham effect, because of the same cock up, which happened just six miles from the Valley?
Can I just say, I've never brought the stuff about it killing Orient, West Ham are hardly moving 20 miles onto the O's patch, and Leyton/Waltham Forest won't be the main area for West Ham's huge increase in support.
As for the state aid issue, that's already been resolved following the first process where Spurs went whining to the European Commission, and especially now Spurs are receiving GLA funding for the WHL redevelopment
PragueAddick I don't wish to sound rude But Charlton, Millwall and Orient have plenty of seats in their grounds now to attract floating supporters. Yes I know West Ham don't sell out every week but out of everyone you named they are more likely to fill that ground than the rest.. The only option you could argue for is no one go there.... But please tell me how that would benefit anyone? The West Ham option was the best available, as for Mr Hearn, while your dropping him a line you might want to ask him why at the very beginning before this was built he was asked for his input and if he would want to move their and he declined. It wasn't till building was underway and west ham showed interest he saw a way of making a few quid. Lets face it, Orient would do well to sell out the velodrome.
The more I think about it, the more I think this is a serious competition law issue. Just this week the EU competition commissioner announced he was looking into Spanish taxpayer money propping up most of the La Liga clubs. Could be a good time to draw this deal to his attention. I might just do that, or perhaps it would be better if I drop a line to Barry Hearn, suggesting he do it. It would be interesting to find out what Richard Murray thinks about it. I know he is very sceptical about the stadium's suitability for football, so he may feel West Ham are just going to shaft themselves, but that was before we all saw the terms of the deal.
Wish I'd put some of this stuff in my email to my MP, still, when he responds to the initial one with a brush-off I can put it in the reply.
Teams that move to snazzy new grounds do attract bigger gates. These will not be the diehard old fans they'll be new fans with a bit of dosh to splash around. As far as we're concerned, how do we get our sons and daughters to come to the Valley and watch Championship or L1 football, when a few miles up the road West Ham are playing Premiership football in a fantastic stadium?
They should go and watch Charlton because they want to. West ham having a nicer ground shouldn't sway your sons and daughters. You cant stop people expanding just because your sons and daughters may be tempted away. If that was the case why aint they all over the emirates? Lets face it, its not a million miles away. Do we now make everyone have a standard size/type ground so everyone keeps their local support. I don't think it will have any baring on future Charlton supporters, kids are more swayed by the stick they get in the playground than a pretty new stadium.
Didn't greenwich council sponsor the club for £250k per year when we first came back to The Valley in 1992... I'm sure it lead to community stuff eventually but at the beginning wasn't it basically a handout
PragueAddick I don't wish to sound rude But Charlton, Millwall and Orient have plenty of seats in their grounds now to attract floating supporters. Yes I know West Ham don't sell out every week but out of everyone you named they are more likely to fill that ground than the rest.. The only option you could argue for is no one go there.... But please tell me how that would benefit anyone? The West Ham option was the best available, as for Mr Hearn, while your dropping him a line you might want to ask him why at the very beginning before this was built he was asked for his input and if he would want to move their and he declined. It wasn't till building was underway and west ham showed interest he saw a way of making a few quid. Lets face it, Orient would do well to sell out the velodrome.
I think your "how would that benefit anyone?" question is precisely the point. It shouldn't benefit any one club over another. If this goes through, then West Ham will get a big benefit whilst other clubs whose supporters have paid equally to fund the stadium will get no benefit. In fact, things will be worse for them because a local competitor is effectively getting a massive subsidy.
As for Matchroom Bazza, of course Orient had no interest in using the Olympic Stadium. As you say yourself, they'd do well to sell out the velodrome. That said, there's no way anyone in their right mind who's associated with Orient would think it's somehow acceptable to have a bigger club with more attractive fixtures playing in a state of the art stadium on their doorstep. I'm sure they aren't worried about their existing fan-base; once you're committed to a club you're committed. But for future generations growing up in Leyton, what's going to be more attractive League 1 football you can walk to or Prem football one stop away on the tube? I think Hearn and co have every right to be concerned.
They should go and watch Charlton because they want to. West ham having a nicer ground shouldn't sway your sons and daughters. You cant stop people expanding just because your sons and daughters may be tempted away. If that was the case why aint they all over the emirates? Lets face it, its not a million miles away. Do we now make everyone have a standard size/type ground so everyone keeps their local support. I don't think it will have any baring on future Charlton supporters, kids are more swayed by the stick they get in the playground than a pretty new stadium.
My sons are safely indoctrinated into the Charlton fold it's too late for them :-). However, I would say a lot of younger fans and their offspring do enjoy the atmosphere at the Emirates these days.
In my view this will have an effect in the playground - "ew, why do you go to that rubbish ground to watch Charlton nil when you could come and see West Ham in the Olympic stadium?!".
No one wants to touch it mog we tried to much at stake put it this way levy paid 6k as a good will gesture and hoped it wOuld go away
I won't say a name but he had an employee who's son played for us who was involved in the initial meetings and involved in the move who was convinced if we had the clout to challenge we would've got an out of court the money needed was in excess of 50 k and as a club we just didn't have it
We have gone from producing kids that have gone through to academy's like Charlton arsenal orient Watford Chelsea barnet regularly , Charlton had 2 of the kids I coached and 1 of them is still there a young goalie called Craig
To losing players to teams we regularly beat And finished above In the league before this situation
The club no longer has trial days to get players it literally goes actively looking throughout the course of the season
It will soon cease to exist
On the west ham front I see them no more of a threat to our support base than they currently are
Stig West ham will be moving a mile, they must already be on their doorstep. And my comment about benefiting anyone.... Everyone benefits more by West Ham being there than it being an empty stadium, surely that's clear to see.
Saga that's the first time I've seen Emirates and atmosphere said in the same sentence.. I understand what you are saying but It would be no different if West Ham wasn't there. It's not hard to travel around London so you still have chelsea, arsenal, and spurs all in the top 6 of the prem and got european football. People are already saying that in the playground. I know people on here who's kids have had their heads turned in the playground. That's just something that comes with dropping out of the top flight, not something to do with west ham moving.
Granted, a mile doesn't sound very much Unc, but for a lot of potential Os fans that could be a crucial mile in putting West Ham within what they consider to be walking distance or not. It also puts West Ham bang on the Central Line which is Orient's main transport route.
The fact is that the whole world was free to bid but presumably failed to see any sound business reason to do so. The two nearest PL teams bid out of bravado and/or self-protection, and there were a few other offers, but the Arabs, the Orientals, the septics and the Russians all stayed away.
The O2 must be worth a mint to AEG, to the severe detriment of the British taxpayer. Lesson duly NOT learnt, and so after a typical messy British fudge/compromise more of the country's hard-earned gurgles down the plug-hole.
If Mr One Hung Low from Shanghai had come along and offered say Dave Whelan x squillion quid for Wigan on the strength of moving them MK Dons-style to the White Elephant Arena at his own expense, BJ and the rest of the good ol' boys would have been on the next plane East to shake him warmly by the wallet.
This should have been a prime opportunity to bring inward investment into the Thames Gateway. Instead, the money has mainly had to come from down the back of countless public sofas at a time of extreme financial hardship. The community is the loser, and West Ham is for once a winner. Still, at least 2016 gives them time enough to manage their next relegation.
and on Newham Council, yes it's a loan, but Newham are notoriously badly run. When all 60 councillors are from the same political party scrutiny and oversight is something that doesn't happen much. Again, Private Eye has had long running coverage of their private police force. If the EU competition commissioner starts looking at football, then it's more than just Spanish clubs that will be looked at (and one article I read suggested it was only Real, Barca and Bilbao who weren't in trouble for this). Loads of clubs in Italy get low rents in municipal stadia and I doubt that is restricted to Italy. Here, with the exception of Newham, councils have either long stopped subsidising football clubs (Lewisham once sponsored Millwall, Greenwich for Charlton etc) or are actively hostile (Barnet, Coventry).
To be fair to the Newham councillors, how could they be expected to have the expertise to deal with such a situation - it might as well have been a spaceship that landed in their manor.
And what indeed about the 40 mil ? Did they just happen to have it pugged away, or are they actually borrowing it to participate in a speculative venture that failed to attract absolutely anyone else ? What are the safeguards to the public purse, what is the security and where are the guarantees behind it all ? Understandably they've been dazzled by the whole thing - after all, it's a bit of a step up from organising the garbage collection at Queen's Market. But there are gigantic risks.
I just don't get the Newham Council "investment". In my mind investment usually implies a return. The benefits to Newham as described earlier in the thread by Airman seem paltry. The year round access to the running track ? Apart of course from the Friday afternoon to the Sunday afternoon every other weekend when the seats cover it for West Ham fixtures. No yearly revenue from the rent. Some free tickets to PL football which no doubt they already get for Upton Park and all for a whopping 40million ! That money could have built a new running/ sports facility owned and run at a profit for the borough residents. Add to this the additional money being spent out of the general taxpayers purse by the government and as far as I can tell the only people to have significant benefit are the spivs that own West Ham.
The more I think about it, the more I think this is a serious competition law issue. Just this week the EU competition commissioner announced he was looking into Spanish taxpayer money propping up most of the La Liga clubs. Could be a good time to draw this deal to his attention. I might just do that, or perhaps it would be better if I drop a line to Barry Hearn, suggesting he do it. It would be interesting to find out what Richard Murray thinks about it. I know he is very sceptical about the stadium's suitability for football, so he may feel West Ham are just going to shaft themselves, but that was before we all saw the terms of the deal.
The EU competition angle is complex, but I doubt that you (or I) would have sufficient standing to bring a case, only a business affected by the move would be considered to have enough standing to bring a case and that means Orient, Spurs (or a Blue Sq Prem team in the vicinity) or at a push Charlton.
The rules on who has standing are to prevent frivolous and time consuming cases - for example a small busines federation appealed a decision by the taxman to give taxbreaks to Fleet St printers and were ruled to be too remote from the issue (their claim was that they too should get the same breaks), but local businesses or pressure groups who have a strong interest could bring a claim.
What I think the plaintiff (whoever they may be) would have to do is to bring a claim for unfair state aid being given to WHU, personally I think that such a claim could succeed, but the issues are complex.
Essentially a number of hurdles would have to be negotiated: - Aid is granted by a Member State or through a State resource; - The aid favours certain undertakings or production of certain goods; - It is aid which distorts or threatens to distort competition: and - The aid affects trade between Member States or internally.
As you can see...the first three boxes get a tick but it would potentially fail on the last criteria as the plaintiffs would have to demonstrate that the aid given to WHU would allow them to dominate the local market, that will be very tricky to prove.
Are West Ham not just moving into a local stadium that has already been bought and paid for? Are they not just taking over a building and will be paying the upkeep on it instead of it standing empty the taxpayer having to pay for the gaffiti to be cleaned off of it... No one really seems to be saying what should be done with it now all that money was spent on it, just that West Ham shouldn't have it... What are the options? Knocking it down? Football is the only viable option.
Is this more about the law, the taxpayers money or just the fact you don't want West Ham to have it.
Comments
How can it not be anti-competitive when the government is preparing to spend another £100m plus to convert it for their use when there is no feasible chance ever getting that money back in the medium term? As Prague points out, what to stop other clubs demanding the same level of government support?
When friends of mine are on notice of redundancy at Newham council and they are passing £40m to WHU, which we just know is going to be wasted on inflated wages and transfer fees (one way or another) I'm going to take a lot of convincing this is an appropriate use of limited public funds.
Community benefits
The stadium deal and Newham’s investment secures one hundred years of community benefits for Newham residents including:
A minimum 35% equity share in the Olympic Stadium and island site;
Year round access to the 400m community track;
Ten exclusive mass participation events in the Stadium per year for Newham residents;
Millions of tickets to West Ham United matches held in the stadium from 2016;
Additional tickets to sports and other entertainment events held in the Stadium;
A training and education centre in the Stadium;
A majority of new jobs created on the site will be filled by Newham residents.
"How can it not be anti-competitive when the government is preparing to spend another £100m plus to convert it for their use when there is no feasible chance ever getting that money back in the medium term? As Prague points out, what to stop other clubs demanding the same level of government support?
When friends of mine are on notice of redundancy at Newham council and they are passing £40m to WHU, which we just know is going to be wasted on inflated wages and transfer fees (one way or another) I'm going to take a lot of convincing this is an appropriate use of limited public funds".
With respect, that's missing the point. Keeping an athletics stadium of that size in Stratford never made commercial sense, but having committed to it for political reasons, paying extra money to West Ham is the only realistic option for mitigating the inevitable cost. The people to blame are the politicians (and not the current ones) and the olympic bidding process, which seems to be a pretty dubious process in itself. Complaining that it is in some way anti-competitive will get nowhere. Other clubs can't do it because they don't have any Olympic white elephants in the neighbourhood.
Whether or not Newham Council should, or have to, get involved I don't know.
West Ham are being assisted to get hold of 24,000 more of them per game by the taxpayer. Why should they get this assistance because of some cock-up over the Olympic legacy? Why should not Charlton get the same amount of taxpayer money, to balance out the West Ham effect, because of the same cock up, which happened just six miles from the Valley?
As for the state aid issue, that's already been resolved following the first process where Spurs went whining to the European Commission, and especially now Spurs are receiving GLA funding for the WHL redevelopment
Teams that move to snazzy new grounds do attract bigger gates. These will not be the diehard old fans they'll be new fans with a bit of dosh to splash around. As far as we're concerned, how do we get our sons and daughters to come to the Valley and watch Championship or L1 football, when a few miles up the road West Ham are playing Premiership football in a fantastic stadium?
As for Matchroom Bazza, of course Orient had no interest in using the Olympic Stadium. As you say yourself, they'd do well to sell out the velodrome. That said, there's no way anyone in their right mind who's associated with Orient would think it's somehow acceptable to have a bigger club with more attractive fixtures playing in a state of the art stadium on their doorstep. I'm sure they aren't worried about their existing fan-base; once you're committed to a club you're committed. But for future generations growing up in Leyton, what's going to be more attractive League 1 football you can walk to or Prem football one stop away on the tube? I think Hearn and co have every right to be concerned.
In my view this will have an effect in the playground - "ew, why do you go to that rubbish ground to watch Charlton nil when you could come and see West Ham in the Olympic stadium?!".
I won't say a name but he had an employee who's son played for us who was involved in the initial meetings and involved in the move who was convinced if we had the clout to challenge we would've got an out of court the money needed was in excess of 50 k and as a club we just didn't have it
We have gone from producing kids that have gone through to academy's like Charlton arsenal orient Watford Chelsea barnet regularly , Charlton had 2 of the kids I coached and 1 of them is still there a young goalie called Craig
To losing players to teams we regularly beat And finished above In the league before this situation
The club no longer has trial days to get players it literally goes actively looking throughout the course of the season
It will soon cease to exist
On the west ham front I see them no more of a threat to our support base than they currently are
Saga that's the first time I've seen Emirates and atmosphere said in the same sentence.. I understand what you are saying but It would be no different if West Ham wasn't there. It's not hard to travel around London so you still have chelsea, arsenal, and spurs all in the top 6 of the prem and got european football. People are already saying that in the playground. I know people on here who's kids have had their heads turned in the playground. That's just something that comes with dropping out of the top flight, not something to do with west ham moving.
The O2 must be worth a mint to AEG, to the severe detriment of the British taxpayer. Lesson duly NOT learnt, and so after a typical messy British fudge/compromise more of the country's hard-earned gurgles down the plug-hole.
If Mr One Hung Low from Shanghai had come along and offered say Dave Whelan x squillion quid for Wigan on the strength of moving them MK Dons-style to the White Elephant Arena at his own expense, BJ and the rest of the good ol' boys would have been on the next plane East to shake him warmly by the wallet.
This should have been a prime opportunity to bring inward investment into the Thames Gateway. Instead, the money has mainly had to come from down the back of countless public sofas at a time of extreme financial hardship. The community is the loser, and West Ham is for once a winner. Still, at least 2016 gives them time enough to manage their next relegation.
If the EU competition commissioner starts looking at football, then it's more than just Spanish clubs that will be looked at (and one article I read suggested it was only Real, Barca and Bilbao who weren't in trouble for this). Loads of clubs in Italy get low rents in municipal stadia and I doubt that is restricted to Italy. Here, with the exception of Newham, councils have either long stopped subsidising football clubs (Lewisham once sponsored Millwall, Greenwich for Charlton etc) or are actively hostile (Barnet, Coventry).
And what indeed about the 40 mil ? Did they just happen to have it pugged away, or are they actually borrowing it to participate in a speculative venture that failed to attract absolutely anyone else ? What are the safeguards to the public purse, what is the security and where are the guarantees behind it all ? Understandably they've been dazzled by the whole thing - after all, it's a bit of a step up from organising the garbage collection at Queen's Market. But there are gigantic risks.
I have no doubt that this will have a long term negative effect upon our club.
The EU competition angle is complex, but I doubt that you (or I) would have sufficient standing to bring a case, only a business affected by the move would be considered to have enough standing to bring a case and that means Orient, Spurs (or a Blue Sq Prem team in the vicinity) or at a push Charlton.
The rules on who has standing are to prevent frivolous and time consuming cases - for example a small busines federation appealed a decision by the taxman to give taxbreaks to Fleet St printers and were ruled to be too remote from the issue (their claim was that they too should get the same breaks), but local businesses or pressure groups who have a strong interest could bring a claim.
What I think the plaintiff (whoever they may be) would have to do is to bring a claim for unfair state aid being given to WHU, personally I think that such a claim could succeed, but the issues are complex.
Essentially a number of hurdles would have to be negotiated:
- Aid is granted by a Member State or through a State resource;
- The aid favours certain undertakings or production of certain goods;
- It is aid which distorts or threatens to distort competition: and
- The aid affects trade between Member States or internally.
As you can see...the first three boxes get a tick but it would potentially fail on the last criteria as the plaintiffs would have to demonstrate that the aid given to WHU would allow them to dominate the local market, that will be very tricky to prove.
Is this more about the law, the taxpayers money or just the fact you don't want West Ham to have it.