it's not like they're moving TO charlton... if they get a few more fans, then so be it. they are a decent sized club & they can do that.
Maybe we should focus more on surrounding areas & gaining support from them instead of giving tickets to schools in kent & hoping they come back.
Most tickets given to schools go to schools in Greenwich, the neighbouring London boroughs or Dartford - schools further out can attend as paying groups, with or without coach travel. There are exceptions, usually involving Kent schools that the community trust is active in, but as a general principle it's the locals who get the free tickets now.
I know we were desperate to get the olympics but to spend hundreds of millions to build a stadium that was then to be dismantled down to 25.000 ,also at what cost is massive waste of money in itself.
Must be right as I have just seen walking past my front door three blokes who look respectively like Max Byraves,Phil Mitchell and the banjo player from the film Deliverance.Where else could they have come from ?
So..I sent a complain to the European Commission about State Aid for West Ham in the stadium deal, and today I got a reply. The first thing to say is that the EC system works. It is not their fault that it has taken so long (I sent my complaint on Mar.24) to get a reply. It can be seen in the attached correspondence that they moved smartish, and the Brits dragged their feet. The answers however are pretty comprehensive and add to our understanding of the decision. Len/Disco please note :-). There is a lot to go through, I haven't gone through it all myself, and would be grateful if others can join in with their comments on the material. The one item i cannot upload is the EC letter back to me, as it includes my personal data, but their summary is:
In particular. the UK authorities explain that WHU has been selected as concessionaire following an open, fair and non-discriminatory bidding process, so that it pays a market price for the use the Stadium. Moreover, acting as a private market operator would have, LLDC negotiated a commercial deal with WHU going beyond what was originally offered during the bidding process. Furthermore. the Stadium infrastructure will operate as a facility, open for community use and benefits and also hosting other events, such as athletics championships, concerts and the like (see attachments to this letter). On that basis, the competent departments the Directorate General for Competition have come to the preliminary conclusion the measure objected to a priori does not constitute aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.
However the EC goes on to say that their decision is not definitive, and I can raise further issues within one month.
The items for download are:
- my initial complaint - LLDC response to the EC re my complaint (worth reading and thinking about re Charlton) - two documents which LLDC had already submitted to the EC which they claim already answered my complaint
I don't understand who's paying for the seats? and the figure of £190 million which is what the seats cost.
also, not impress with their whole it's a shame you didn't relies there will be all kinds of events on during the year. when you look at what they got planned most of it will only take up a few weeks of the year.
"following a sufficiently well-publicised, open and unconditional bidding procedure, comparable to an auction, accepting the best or only bid is by definition at market value and consequently does not contain State aid." - yeah but it can be classed as a knocked down price for a world class stadium. they also pay a "nominal" rental fee - being trifling in comparison with the actual value then.
they can get away with all this not state funded because the stadium has already been built its then given to spv to handle on the behalf of the government. It then gets sold/rented (keeping in mind the legacy so we need at least a few run round the track days) for a nominal price, no where near the valuation so it's basically been paid for by the state but not intentionally. "anyone could of bided" - yeah right, like who? who could be able to fill at least half the stadium regularly? apart form a football club? a PL football club?
any money made out of the deal will be given back to the public sector owners it states. I wonder if any will be given back to the tax payers?
I could be completely missing the answers to all above mainly because I just skimmed read the response that they gave you. I hope I haven't made myself sound to stupid.
I don't understand who's paying for the seats? and the figure of £190 million which is what the seats cost.
also, not impress with their whole it's a shame you didn't relies there will be all kinds of events on during the year. when you look at what they got planned most of it will only take up a few weeks of the year.
"following a sufficiently well-publicised, open and unconditional bidding procedure, comparable to an auction, accepting the best or only bid is by definition at market value and consequently does not contain State aid." - yeah but it can be classed as a knocked down price for a world class stadium. they also pay a "nominal" rental fee - being trifling in comparison with the actual value then.
they can get away with all this not state funded because the stadium has already been built its then given to spv to handle on the behalf of the government. It then gets sold/rented (keeping in mind the legacy so we need at least a few run round the track days) for a nominal price, no where near the valuation so it's basically been paid for by the state but not intentionally. "anyone could of bided" - yeah right, like who? who could be able to fill at least half the stadium regularly? apart form a football club? a PL football club?
any money made out of the deal will be given back to the public sector owners it states. I wonder if any will be given back to the tax payers?
I could be completely missing the answers to all above mainly because I just skimmed read the response that they gave you. I hope I haven't made myself sound to stupid.
From memory - Newham Council was part of the West Ham 'bid' and is putting in £40 million.
Thanks for the comments Karim and Mick. More appreciated. I think there could still be grounds for me to go back to the Commission, and I have month. Note that a crucial page of LLDC response is missing, hasn't been scanned. I've asked them to urgently send me a revised file.
I am amused to note that they refer to my complaint in quite aggressive language in places. Good. That indicates they are a bit touchy. Note also that they keep referring to seeking a further dialogue with the EC on the subject.
Does anyone know if Barry Hearn/Orient gave up on this, or is he still fighting?
Prague, you may wish to bring your complaint and their preliminary response to the attention of someone like Christopher Brooker at the Sunday Telegraph. He loves to bash the EU wherever possible and local authorities too if he can. The presence of Newham council tax payers money assisting in the process and the close connection of Sir Robin Wale, Mayor of LB Newham to WHU may wet his interest in runnnig a piece.
He is still fighting for both clubs to ground share. Recently he has said he still hasn't been given an answer by WHU as to why they are against the idea, bearing in mind they are encroaching onto their patch!
When I worked for Newham Council they did a survey of how many Hammers fans actually lived in the East End now. The result was very, few with the vast majority coming from all points Essex. Kent mops up a few but they tend to be East End or Essex removed so no worries.
It is a total scandal in relation to how it could affect Orient. West Ham will have a ground that is too big for them to fill and they will introduce all sorts of offers to get new fans in - this will affect Orient badly. There were rules to protect Orient and there has to have been some corruption somewhere for these to be ignored!
The thing is, West Ham are constantly advertising in the Standard so clearly have problems filling their existing ground - so why do they need to move! It is because they have been heavily subsidised and have been given an advantage over competitors by the tax payer - most of whom do not support them and many of whom will actually dislike them!
Comments
Maybe we should focus more on surrounding areas & gaining support from them instead of giving tickets to schools in kent & hoping they come back.
Try this
Try this
In particular. the UK authorities explain that WHU has been selected as concessionaire following an open, fair and non-discriminatory bidding process, so that it pays a market price for the use the Stadium. Moreover, acting as a private market operator would have, LLDC negotiated a commercial deal with WHU going beyond what was originally offered during the bidding process. Furthermore. the Stadium infrastructure will operate as a
facility, open for community use and benefits and also hosting other events, such as athletics championships, concerts and the like (see attachments to this letter).
On that basis, the competent departments the Directorate General for Competition have come to the preliminary conclusion the measure objected to a priori does not constitute aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.
However the EC goes on to say that their decision is not definitive, and I can raise further issues within one month.
The items for download are:
- my initial complaint
- LLDC response to the EC re my complaint (worth reading and thinking about re Charlton)
- two documents which LLDC had already submitted to the EC which they claim already answered my complaint
also, not impress with their whole it's a shame you didn't relies there will be all kinds of events on during the year. when you look at what they got planned most of it will only take up a few weeks of the year.
"following a sufficiently well-publicised, open and unconditional bidding procedure, comparable to an auction, accepting the best or only bid is by definition at market value and consequently does not contain State aid." - yeah but it can be classed as a knocked down price for a world class stadium.
they also pay a "nominal" rental fee - being trifling in comparison with the actual value then.
they can get away with all this not state funded because the stadium has already been built its then given to spv to handle on the behalf of the government. It then gets sold/rented (keeping in mind the legacy so we need at least a few run round the track days) for a nominal price, no where near the valuation so it's basically been paid for by the state but not intentionally. "anyone could of bided" - yeah right, like who? who could be able to fill at least half the stadium regularly? apart form a football club? a PL football club?
any money made out of the deal will be given back to the public sector owners it states. I wonder if any will be given back to the tax payers?
I could be completely missing the answers to all above mainly because I just skimmed read the response that they gave you.
I hope I haven't made myself sound to stupid.
I am amused to note that they refer to my complaint in quite aggressive language in places. Good. That indicates they are a bit touchy. Note also that they keep referring to seeking a further dialogue with the EC on the subject.
Does anyone know if Barry Hearn/Orient gave up on this, or is he still fighting?
Ebbsfleet to the east, West Ham to the north, we'll be lucky to see out the end of the year.
The thing is, West Ham are constantly advertising in the Standard so clearly have problems filling their existing ground - so why do they need to move! It is because they have been heavily subsidised and have been given an advantage over competitors by the tax payer - most of whom do not support them and many of whom will actually dislike them!