I might have to accept that West Ham having it is the least worst option for the taxpayer. Although I am not yet convinced.
What I'm getting at is that is that they are getting MORE money from taxpayers. 40m from Newham for starters. The country is in recession and the FAPL is awash with money. And west ham get taxpayers money???
On this basis we should ask Greenwich to buy the Valley from Jiminez.
On a technical note I think you mean that the Council should buy the Valley from CAFC which could then use the money to either pay off director loans or strengthen the team to attain Premier League status.
This is the precedent which has been set with the West Ham deal and one which I believe the Trust should seek to replicate south of the river
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.
If a company receives unfair state aid which adversely affects local competition then they could be deemed to have broken EU competition rules. Over and above that should the government be subsidising WHU in a way that gives them an advantage over local clubs? it's not as though WHU are in a unique position or are a vital national industry. When the next Sky TV deal kicks in they will be in a position to pay a market rate for the stadium.
I thiink they will have to price tickets accordingly to fill it as they have said the will do.also think it foolish to think it will not affect us in the long term.as has been said the transport links to stratford are now great from most places.
The stadium's design was never going to appeal to a post-Games user. West Ham won the prize by default, and their owners are shrewd enough, tough enough and the club well-connected enough to get extraordinarily favourable terms. The whole deal is flawed and soon enough will end in tears. No-one will admit this gross misjudgement in the Games' legacy, and it also makes you wonder whether there could have been a better location. After all, Chelsea have been looking for a new ground for years, and Abramovitch could have shaken down for a very tidy sum. QPR are now also looking, doubtless West London-wise as well, and their owners certainly have deep enough pockets,
Further to my earlier comment, instead of a Franchise FC moving in perhaps the sweetest thing would have been for a patient benefactor to have bought up Orient and the stadium, paid out on players Anzhi/PSG-style to get two promotions by 2016, and moved in on Dave and Dave's doorstep as a bona-fide PL team.
I think Charlton are right to be very concerned. Competition for every leisure pound is going to get harder and harder. WHU have been given a massive boost.
Thanks for your very useful comments. You may well be right that I do not qualify as an interested party ( which is why I might drop Barry Hearn a line, and also find out what Richard Murray thinks about it).
However I have been on the competition commissioners website, and as well as making it very easy to register a complaint - you fill out an on-line form - there is the very interesting news that he is investigating State aid to several Dutch clubs, and that this comes after they were alerted by "concerned citizens".
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.
Mate if this had gone to Spurs, I'd have imploded by now. As Callum says above, they can have it, but not at that price.
On a cautionary note. Please correct me if I am wrong but wasn't / isn't the Royal Borough of Greenwich Peninsular blueprint to include a multi functional stadium owned either by The Council or in partnership with a suitable tenant i.e. local football club. ?
NLA's comments show D Levy in a deservedly harsh light, who no-one could consider to be a sentimentalist. Spurs' radical plans were shocking at first, but they have a good deal of logic.
I don't subscribe to the crocodile tears about provision for Athletics. No-one has bothered for years about the moribund stadium at Cr .... in SE19, because the general London public's interest in athletice is
1) The London Marathon 2) er, that's it
Contrast that, for example, with the immense interest nowadays in the Wiggins lot, who drew colossal crowds to the highway - on wet days as well as fine.
Tottenham's startling plan - to flatten a brand-new building and re-erect a replacement with a clearly-defined purpose, together with a lavish makeover of the athletics stadium - was worthy of serious study. Stratford has been a one-event experience - there is not yet any sense of history ; better to admit the building's shortcomings now, and move on. (I like the new Wembley very much but it is not the place of my memories - 1966 WC Final and 1998 POF amongst many.)
WHU have faced formidable challenges and many obstacles, but they have always shown an uncanny certainty in their anticipation of success. This really begins to look like a done deal from the outset. (Perhaps they will take the two towers from the front of The Boleyn and they can call the new stadium The White Elephant & Castle.)
In football alone London has 14 PL/FL clubs - 15 if you include Udine Del Nord. It also has Wembley and Twickenham. Yet another new stadium ? I long for a successful bid for a true budget Olympics - one that any deserving country could afford. The grandiose ambitions of the IOC and the arrogance of politicians and administrators are unlikely to foster any semblance of fairness or democracy, however. One of the results is the Stratford farce. (Another you can say is the cable-car - whoever signed off on that !!?)
It's too late to stop the show now but I'm certain that only part of the story has been told so far.
If so called Charlton fans all of a sudden switch allegiance to West Ham, then they were never Charlton fans in the first place, so you may as well say good riddance to them.
Well it was freezing outside yesterday, so I spent a pleasant 40 minutes or so filling out my complaint to the Competition Commissioner. Quite easy to do, and despite BFR's concern, it seems I have every right to do so, as "an EU citizen", although I am sure it will have far more weight coming from a club. Its quite long, so probably a bit self-indulgent to post it in this thread, but if anyone is interested, please send me a message. Also sent it to the Trust boys, as one of the many things they want to keep an eye on.
It's not state aid, as the money isn't going to a private company which was the problem first time, its going to the Legacy Company, part of the GLA to convert the stadium into a multiuse arena. Because the stadium stays in public ownership, it rules out the state aid issue.
You might not think its fair, and thats fine, but the commission won't intervene.
the other thing is, if we want to retain and grow the support, we need a succesful team on the pitch. If we're doing well in the Premier League in the future, and the speculators who run the club find someone who will invest and take us up, we'll then be able to compete in north Kent for support. But lets not confuse this with a bit of envy over West Ham getting a great stadium in a fantastic location, in there own area.
West Ham are very welcome to play in that stadium. I am not remotely envious of them. It was a beautiful stadium but not for football, and that was Richard Murray's very clear opinion too.
The point, pure and simple, is that West Ham should be paying far more than they are doing, for the privilege.
You may be right, or you may not be, about the Commission's interest. When you say the money is going to the Legacy company, the press reports do not say that, and on the contrary say that the LLDC is divvying up the balance of the amount needed.
And the point is the money is only needed because the stadium is to be converted for football. And not for Leyton Orient football either. The money spent benefits no members of the public significantly other than those interested in watching West Ham.
I suspect Barry Hearn is still going to be the single most effective voice against this. I'm sure he has his own agenda and fair enough but he will I'm sure take the issue as far as he possibly can.
That's good for Richard, who I respect, but has made a lot of bad misjudgements in recent years, and maybe he's wrong on this.
LLDC are in a no win, don't declare the numbers and they'll be accused of hiding the deal, and then when they do, it's questioned.
The conversation of the stadium, will help as a multi use stadium, I wouldn't be surprised if LLDC are eyeing up a possible London NFL franchise for example.
The deal isn't that much different from the one that City got when they left Maine Road for the City of Manchester stadium, where Manchester City Council and East Manchester regeneration company fronted up a lot of the costs towards the stadium conversion.
That's good for Richard, who I respect, but has made a lot of bad misjudgements in recent years, and maybe he's wrong on this.
LLDC are in a no win, don't declare the numbers and they'll be accused of hiding the deal, and then when they do, it's questioned.
The conversation of the stadium, will help as a multi use stadium, I wouldn't be surprised if LLDC are eyeing up a possible London NFL franchise for example.
The deal isn't that much different from the one that City got when they left Maine Road for the City of Manchester stadium, where Manchester City Council and East Manchester regeneration company fronted up a lot of the costs towards the stadium conversion.
You obviously know a lot about the stadium, certainly far more than I do. So maybe you can sort me out on this:
I thought the plan was to reduce the capacity to 25,000 with athletics as the main sporting activity. Why couldn't the smaller stadium have been multi-use? 25,000 is just fine for NFL and for rock concerts (capacity above the Dome but way less than Wembley)? And what study actually exists that says the smaller stadium would have been financially not viable (as the press keep vaguely claiming)?
@Rothko are the details of the deal in the public domain? If yes, do you have a link?
Apparently, apart from the 15 million up front and the 2.5 million per annum paid by West Ham, some of money from the catering and tickets will go to LDDC. LDDC will also get the bulk of the money from naming rights (according to the FT). Another paper has stated LDDC will also get some of the money from hospitality.
Without seeing the details it is hard to say whether the deal is good for West Ham. I do suspect the move could be damaging for us, but how damaging remains to be seen. We, if we return to the top flight, we would offer a match day experience similar to West Ham and they may be able to undercut us on price and offer easier transport links to potential fans.
There has been a lot of talk regarding the effect on Orient. However Orient have always been near West Ham and in my opinion offer a different match day experience. Orient can continue to offer an alternative, initimate, more friendly and with the benefits of smaller crowds (compare and contrast your experiences in the top flight to those in the third tier). Orient may not be as badly affected as some think. Whether the owner uses West Ham's move as an excuse to move the club to a venue where more money can be made remains to be seen.
On a side note a 25000 capacity stadium may not be great for generating money from music. Bands that can play to bigger audiences than those accommodated by arenas tend to want the maximum possible capacity and would therefore not be so enthusiatic to play at a 25000 capacity venue. This apparently was a failing of the Don Valley Stadium.
I suspect NFL would only have a limited number of franchises and would therefore wish to maximise revenue. To move into a 25000 capacity stadium is unlikely to fit their business plan.
The plans for the 25,000 seat stadium were taken in 2008, and were a cop out by those at the ODA who thought they could build the stadium far far cheaper then was in the bid book, they were right, but it was a sloppy legacy idea, as it was based on Orient moving in (which as much as Hearn bleats on, he turned down because of the track) Wasps and Saracens weren't interested in moving east, and the running costs didn't add up, in the same way the Velodrome and Swimming pool convertions are.
The only solutions were to knock it down (maybe the right idea, but appaling politics as much as anything) or find a solution where a football club moved in, and you retrofitted bits of the stadium (costly, but you retain a better large scale athletics stadium for big events), and the sums add up as you earn cash for multiple sources, be it football (and associated rights), concerts or other sport.
Being smaller then Wembley and Twickenham actually helps with concerts, there is no where in London you can do 40-50,000 for a gig easily, and the Olympic Stadium will be where Hyde Park gigs go.
the only bad bit is that the stadium might lose it's 'Olympic' name due to the naming rights.
If so called Charlton fans all of a sudden switch allegiance to West Ham, then they were never Charlton fans in the first place, so you may as well say good riddance to them.
I'm more concerned about the next generation who may choose West Ham over Charlton or Leyton Orient or Millwall, not "floating" football fans.
PragueAddick You say West Ham should pay more! How much more? And if they say no and it stands empty, is that a better thing? In my opinion no. My guess is they tried for more but West Ham would only agree to 2 million a year.
Your other point about Orient.... Fine let them ground share! At the same cost as West Ham though, do you really think they could afford that? My guess is no so Orient aren't really in the running are they?
If so called Charlton fans all of a sudden switch allegiance to West Ham, then they were never Charlton fans in the first place, so you may as well say good riddance to them.
I'm more concerned about the next generation who may choose West Ham over Charlton or Leyton Orient or Millwall, not "floating" football fans.
All the more reason for existing fans to do their bit by taking their own kids, nephews, friends sons, friends of their sons etc.
There was no need to gift the Olympic Stadium to Wet Spam. Had the potential to make a profit serving the community and hosting events. The problem is, politicians don't think they have the nous to run these sort of projects and have to sell it off. Mind you most of them don't.
Comments
This is the precedent which has been set with the West Ham deal and one which I believe the Trust should seek to replicate south of the river
If a company receives unfair state aid which adversely affects local competition then they could be deemed to have broken EU competition rules. Over and above that should the government be subsidising WHU in a way that gives them an advantage over local clubs? it's not as though WHU are in a unique position or are a vital national industry. When the next Sky TV deal kicks in they will be in a position to pay a market rate for the stadium.
It would also appear to break the government's own rules on state aid:
https://www.gov.uk/state-aid
Further to my earlier comment, instead of a Franchise FC moving in perhaps the sweetest thing would have been for a patient benefactor to have bought up Orient and the stadium, paid out on players Anzhi/PSG-style to get two promotions by 2016, and moved in on Dave and Dave's doorstep as a bona-fide PL team.
I think Charlton are right to be very concerned. Competition for every leisure pound is going to get harder and harder. WHU have been given a massive boost.
Thanks for your very useful comments. You may well be right that I do not qualify as an interested party ( which is why I might drop Barry Hearn a line, and also find out what Richard Murray thinks about it).
However I have been on the competition commissioners website, and as well as making it very easy to register a complaint - you fill out an on-line form - there is the very interesting news that he is investigating State aid to several Dutch clubs, and that this comes after they were alerted by "concerned citizens".
NLA's comments show D Levy in a deservedly harsh light, who no-one could consider to be a sentimentalist. Spurs' radical plans were shocking at first, but they have a good deal of logic.
I don't subscribe to the crocodile tears about provision for Athletics. No-one has bothered for years about the moribund stadium at Cr .... in SE19, because the general London public's interest in athletice is
1) The London Marathon
2) er, that's it
Contrast that, for example, with the immense interest nowadays in the Wiggins lot, who drew colossal crowds to the highway - on wet days as well as fine.
Tottenham's startling plan - to flatten a brand-new building and re-erect a replacement with a clearly-defined purpose, together with a lavish makeover of the athletics stadium - was worthy of serious study. Stratford has been a one-event experience - there is not yet any sense of history ; better to admit the building's shortcomings now, and move on. (I like the new Wembley very much but it is not the place of my memories - 1966 WC Final and 1998 POF amongst many.)
WHU have faced formidable challenges and many obstacles, but they have always shown an uncanny certainty in their anticipation of success. This really begins to look like a done deal from the outset. (Perhaps they will take the two towers from the front of The Boleyn and they can call the new stadium The White Elephant & Castle.)
In football alone London has 14 PL/FL clubs - 15 if you include Udine Del Nord. It also has Wembley and Twickenham. Yet another new stadium ? I long for a successful bid for a true budget Olympics - one that any deserving country could afford. The grandiose ambitions of the IOC and the arrogance of politicians and administrators are unlikely to foster any semblance of fairness or democracy, however. One of the results is the Stratford farce. (Another you can say is the cable-car - whoever signed off on that !!?)
It's too late to stop the show now but I'm certain that only part of the story has been told so far.
here
Try this
If i remember rightly when a similar thing happened with City, they had to give Maine Road to the council. Will west ham be doing the same?
You might not think its fair, and thats fine, but the commission won't intervene.
West Ham are very welcome to play in that stadium. I am not remotely envious of them. It was a beautiful stadium but not for football, and that was Richard Murray's very clear opinion too.
The point, pure and simple, is that West Ham should be paying far more than they are doing, for the privilege.
You may be right, or you may not be, about the Commission's interest. When you say the money is going to the Legacy company, the press reports do not say that, and on the contrary say that the LLDC is divvying up the balance of the amount needed.
And the point is the money is only needed because the stadium is to be converted for football. And not for Leyton Orient football either. The money spent benefits no members of the public significantly other than those interested in watching West Ham.
We will see...
LLDC are in a no win, don't declare the numbers and they'll be accused of hiding the deal, and then when they do, it's questioned.
The conversation of the stadium, will help as a multi use stadium, I wouldn't be surprised if LLDC are eyeing up a possible London NFL franchise for example.
The deal isn't that much different from the one that City got when they left Maine Road for the City of Manchester stadium, where Manchester City Council and East Manchester regeneration company fronted up a lot of the costs towards the stadium conversion.
I thought the plan was to reduce the capacity to 25,000 with athletics as the main sporting activity. Why couldn't the smaller stadium have been multi-use? 25,000 is just fine for
NFL and for rock concerts (capacity above the Dome but way less than Wembley)? And what study actually exists that says the smaller stadium would have been financially not viable (as the press keep vaguely claiming)?
Apparently, apart from the 15 million up front and the 2.5 million per annum paid by West Ham, some of money from the catering and tickets will go to LDDC. LDDC will also get the bulk of the money from naming rights (according to the FT). Another paper has stated LDDC will also get some of the money from hospitality.
Without seeing the details it is hard to say whether the deal is good for West Ham. I do suspect the move could be damaging for us, but how damaging remains to be seen. We, if we return to the top flight, we would offer a match day experience similar to West Ham and they may be able to undercut us on price and offer easier transport links to potential fans.
There has been a lot of talk regarding the effect on Orient. However Orient have always been near West Ham and in my opinion offer a different match day experience. Orient can continue to offer an alternative, initimate, more friendly and with the benefits of smaller crowds (compare and contrast your experiences in the top flight to those in the third tier). Orient may not be as badly affected as some think. Whether the owner uses West Ham's move as an excuse to move the club to a venue where more money can be made remains to be seen.
On a side note a 25000 capacity stadium may not be great for generating money from music. Bands that can play to bigger audiences than those accommodated by arenas tend to want the maximum possible capacity and would therefore not be so enthusiatic to play at a 25000 capacity venue. This apparently was a failing of the Don Valley Stadium.
I suspect NFL would only have a limited number of franchises and would therefore wish to maximise revenue. To move into a 25000 capacity stadium is unlikely to fit their business plan.
The only solutions were to knock it down (maybe the right idea, but appaling politics as much as anything) or find a solution where a football club moved in, and you retrofitted bits of the stadium (costly, but you retain a better large scale athletics stadium for big events), and the sums add up as you earn cash for multiple sources, be it football (and associated rights), concerts or other sport.
Being smaller then Wembley and Twickenham actually helps with concerts, there is no where in London you can do 40-50,000 for a gig easily, and the Olympic Stadium will be where Hyde Park gigs go.
the only bad bit is that the stadium might lose it's 'Olympic' name due to the naming rights.
Your other point about Orient.... Fine let them ground share! At the same cost as West Ham though, do you really think they could afford that? My guess is no so Orient aren't really in the running are they?