Rothko, I think you will find this is a Charlton forum, so no surprise most people on it are interested in what affects Charlton and will have some bias towards that.
I'm glad I carried on reading that article as I very nearly closed it. It became very good and has raised a lot of questions in my mind that will need answering. However, I do have a slight issue with the headline and the opening of the article. To me the main points of the article are the financial support WH are receiving for the stadium. This therefore isn't a case of "flooding" South London with free tickets. Even if we do want to take issue with the free tickets they will likely give out, it does feel a bit like crying wolf.
Other than that I thought it was very thought provoking.
The headline is a bit Daily Mail (any excuse to use "and YOU'RE paying for it"), but the point about the free tickets is the one that makes it relevant to CAFC.
The general issue is that the taxpayer is paying far too much for this, and West Ham should pay far more. It's our objective to make that happen. Importantly, any taxpayer and any London politician could sympathise with and support that goal, regardless of whether they are Charlton fans or even football fans at all.
However the consequence of West Ham paying far less than they should, is that they can be very cavalier with how they use their extra capacity. That's because of the executive boxes. The capacity is 5,000, it's huge, and what always interested Gullivan. Messrs Murray and Varney have always stressed that this is where clubs make decent money on match days - and the Valley has relatively low capacity in this area, BTW. So if you assume that 35,000 would turn up to watch West Ham at prices similar to at Upton Park, and then you've got 5,000 in exec boxes, that already more than covers the revenue they'd get if they filled the OS, but didn't have those boxes. So they can sell that 20,000 extra capacity as low as they like. They are already getting far more revenue than at Upton Park. So of course they will look at the new transport links and say, OK lets build support among casual fans south of the river. That is actually a threat to Charlton at the Valley in the FAPL. We can more or less sell out at normal prices, so West Ham can offer casual fans in say Gravesend cheap FAPL tickets whereas we could not. And..er...it's YOUR money that's paying for it! :-)
If West Ham are made to pay more in rental and capital costs, they will be less cavalier with their promotional tickets and Gullivan will probably live with crowds of 35k, so long as they sell the boxes.
So generally, it's a shocking waste of taxpayers' money, but for CAFC fans it is the cheap tickets they can offer as a result of this misapplication of public money, that threatens our long term financial well-being. And that is what makes it a specific Trust issue, as opposed to just a general citizen's issue.
So you're worried West Ham will repeat pretty much what you did in the 90's when you flooded schools in SE London & Kent with freebies?
You are normally quite sensible SSL, here you seem to have totally missed the point?
Why are you so upset by this article and it's content Rothko?
I'm glad I carried on reading that article as I very nearly closed it. It became very good and has raised a lot of questions in my mind that will need answering. However, I do have a slight issue with the headline and the opening of the article. To me the main points of the article are the financial support WH are receiving for the stadium. This therefore isn't a case of "flooding" South London with free tickets. Even if we do want to take issue with the free tickets they will likely give out, it does feel a bit like crying wolf.
Other than that I thought it was very thought provoking.
The headline is a bit Daily Mail (any excuse to use "and YOU'RE paying for it"), but the point about the free tickets is the one that makes it relevant to CAFC.
The general issue is that the taxpayer is paying far too much for this, and West Ham should pay far more. It's our objective to make that happen. Importantly, any taxpayer and any London politician could sympathise with and support that goal, regardless of whether they are Charlton fans or even football fans at all.
However the consequence of West Ham paying far less than they should, is that they can be very cavalier with how they use their extra capacity. That's because of the executive boxes. The capacity is 5,000, it's huge, and what always interested Gullivan. Messrs Murray and Varney have always stressed that this is where clubs make decent money on match days - and the Valley has relatively low capacity in this area, BTW. So if you assume that 35,000 would turn up to watch West Ham at prices similar to at Upton Park, and then you've got 5,000 in exec boxes, that already more than covers the revenue they'd get if they filled the OS, but didn't have those boxes. So they can sell that 20,000 extra capacity as low as they like. They are already getting far more revenue than at Upton Park. So of course they will look at the new transport links and say, OK lets build support among casual fans south of the river. That is actually a threat to Charlton at the Valley in the FAPL. We can more or less sell out at normal prices, so West Ham can offer casual fans in say Gravesend cheap FAPL tickets whereas we could not. And..er...it's YOUR money that's paying for it! :-)
If West Ham are made to pay more in rental and capital costs, they will be less cavalier with their promotional tickets and Gullivan will probably live with crowds of 35k, so long as they sell the boxes.
So generally, it's a shocking waste of taxpayers' money, but for CAFC fans it is the cheap tickets they can offer as a result of this misapplication of public money, that threatens our long term financial well-being. And that is what makes it a specific Trust issue, as opposed to just a general citizen's issue.
So you're worried West Ham will repeat pretty much what you did in the 90's when you flooded schools in SE London & Kent with freebies?
Not with taxpayer money - and it's not just regular fans, it's the ability West Ham will have to dominate the corporate hospitality market with taxpayer funded corporate facilities.
I wouldn't say I'm upset, I just see the wider context for why the stadium is being converted, that I see it as good value and use of tax money to create long term economic benefits to London and wider region.
If the Olympics had been on the Greenwich Peninsula (and it was a thought back in 2002) and we were being offered a concession to use the stadium, we would be beating the door down for it.
Anyway, good luck to the trust, hope they contribute to this as well on the wider issue of stadium led regen projects
Well, @Rothko, we have no issue at all with West Ham playing at the Olympic Stadium. They are welcome to it. And as citizens I am sure we all agree that it is important to have a proper legacy for the Games.
That's precisely the point; if so much money had not been chucked at West Ham, a rich FAPL club, that money could have been re-directed towards re-generation schemes.
It's all about, and only about, West Ham paying their share so that they don't distort the market.
Although the refit costs were nowhere near as high, Man City paid 50% of them at what is now the Etihad. West ham are paying just 8%, and that doesn't factor in their trousering the profits from sale of Upton Park.
I finally read TNT last night. Full of excellent articles but each one was negative, not a criticism at all, just shows how royally screwed we are being at the moment, from FFP to West Ham and others.
Museum/memorial article....... negative ? Efford article negative? Financal Fair play.... supporting CAFC's David Joyce Interview on Phil Chapple. Okay there are 'only 63 badges left'...... but still time to join up mate. I have not mentioned Richard Hunt's excellent article personally I think it is the best article we have ever had in the news, ( Weegie's aside on KM last issue ) But then I would be biased, as I designed it. Fair play, let me know what you would like to see, I am working on a couple of things, more shall we say ' less weighty' for the next issue.
I am a member and have always been very supportive of the Trust on this and other web sites and have persuaded the other 3 people I go with to sign up. My post above says 'excellent articles' and 'not a criticism', I found the read very interesting and great to see a Trust focusing on the issues important to the club. I quite like the weighty stuff as it is important to the clubs future. My point, probably badly made, was that a lot of the content, whilst interesting, shows how many 'challenges' we face as a club (as do many other clubs). FFP, West Ham, the price of football (as in we are one of the cheapest but crowds still down...what else can be done...?), footy being moved to a Friday as a a possibility.
Efford's law is interesting but most likely a vote chaser which like most things will be watered down to nothing by the time it ever got implemented (if ever) and from what I can see it will involve fans taking the 'risk' of being a Company Director without the power to have a controlling vote.
I think you make a very valid point Athletico, and that is why it is so important that we have a trust, for all supporters. The 'challenges' you mention are indeed real, and one's that need all the fans to support and work in partnership. But to do that they have to work in partnership, and embrace that opportunity. Football is often claimed to be a game of 'opinion', from my experience the business of football is even more diverse and complicated. You only have to look on these pages to see the wide range of opinion expressed. As part of the team, we are always looking for ideas to put into the news, please do message me. The west ham issue is very important to CAFC as a business, as posters have mentioned.
As someone born and bred in Newham and a former employee of theirs it is an utter outrage that Sir Robin Wales has been allowed to divert so much funding into the stadium. I still have friends working there who are getting absolutely hammered by budgetary cuts to essential services yet have to read that WHU are contributing less than half the costs (at their leisure) than the local authority.
Robin Wales has been far too close to the club for far too long to remain 'objective' imo and it's a shame the press have not explored this relationship further.
That's a very interesting point. If you would be able to direct us to some more information to illustrate your point, I'll pass it on the the national journalist who is getting ready to a big number on this with our material
As someone born and bred in Newham and a former employee of theirs it is an utter outrage that Sir Robin Wales has been allowed to divert so much funding into the stadium. I still have friends working there who are getting absolutely hammered by budgetary cuts to essential services yet have to read that WHU are contributing less than half the costs (at their leisure) than the local authority.
Robin Wales has been far too close to the club for far too long to remain 'objective' imo and it's a shame the press have not explored this relationship further.
@Rothko brought up the Peninsula. His point is perfectly reasonable, but in fact the issue is far more tangible than he implied.
As we say in the article, PV and RM were talking about West Ham and the Olympic, and the threat it posed, several years ago. (for some reason which I cannot fathom, they always thought the "free fair and open tender" would only ever have one winner). As we know, PV looked carefully at various times at proposals to move us to the Pen. He wasn't advocating it, just doing his job as CEO and exploring all the options for our long term future. A key argument for moving was this: if we are back in the FAPL, at the Valley we will be more or less full again. West Ham will be able to undercut us with cheap tickets for ordinary fans ,and much more and better exec facilities. One reason to move to a Pen stadium would therefore be to have the spare capacity with which to compete on price with West Ham, and compete on the prawn sandwich front too.
At the current time this is off the agenda. As far as we know RD is perfectly happy with the The Valley, and I'm sure he would look at the empty seats and say, we fill them first. However rival bids, both this time and in the past, involved, or even depended on, us moving to the Pen. RD won't be here forever. If we come up for sale again, the whole Pen issue will come up again too. And assuming we are in or near the FAPL, the West Ham argument will be wheeled out again to support the move. Nailed on certainty.
Well done for finding out two things which have already been publically declared in front of both Commons and Lords select committees
The "two things" being
1. That West Ham's rent is reduced if they get relegated?
2. That West Ham keep 100% of the revenue generated from hospitality?
3. That West Ham can cough up their 8% share of the capital costs only after they sell Upton Park, and that there is no deadline for them to do that?
Here is Brady's evidence to the Lords committee. I read it previously but just read it again to check. I did not find reference to any of the three points in the text.
However if I have missed them, or if you can link to a document from the other hearing where she says each of these things, it would be very useful if you can lead us to them; I will be able to forward them to the Information Commissioner, pointing out how ridiculous it was for the LLDC to redact the information from the copy of the contract with West Ham which we have requested under FOI law, when the information is in the public domain.
I'm glad I carried on reading that article as I very nearly closed it. It became very good and has raised a lot of questions in my mind that will need answering. However, I do have a slight issue with the headline and the opening of the article. To me the main points of the article are the financial support WH are receiving for the stadium. This therefore isn't a case of "flooding" South London with free tickets. Even if we do want to take issue with the free tickets they will likely give out, it does feel a bit like crying wolf.
Other than that I thought it was very thought provoking.
The headline is a bit Daily Mail (any excuse to use "and YOU'RE paying for it"), but the point about the free tickets is the one that makes it relevant to CAFC.
The general issue is that the taxpayer is paying far too much for this, and West Ham should pay far more. It's our objective to make that happen. Importantly, any taxpayer and any London politician could sympathise with and support that goal, regardless of whether they are Charlton fans or even football fans at all.
However the consequence of West Ham paying far less than they should, is that they can be very cavalier with how they use their extra capacity. That's because of the executive boxes. The capacity is 5,000, it's huge, and what always interested Gullivan. Messrs Murray and Varney have always stressed that this is where clubs make decent money on match days - and the Valley has relatively low capacity in this area, BTW. So if you assume that 35,000 would turn up to watch West Ham at prices similar to at Upton Park, and then you've got 5,000 in exec boxes, that already more than covers the revenue they'd get if they filled the OS, but didn't have those boxes. So they can sell that 20,000 extra capacity as low as they like. They are already getting far more revenue than at Upton Park. So of course they will look at the new transport links and say, OK lets build support among casual fans south of the river. That is actually a threat to Charlton at the Valley in the FAPL. We can more or less sell out at normal prices, so West Ham can offer casual fans in say Gravesend cheap FAPL tickets whereas we could not. And..er...it's YOUR money that's paying for it! :-)
If West Ham are made to pay more in rental and capital costs, they will be less cavalier with their promotional tickets and Gullivan will probably live with crowds of 35k, so long as they sell the boxes.
So generally, it's a shocking waste of taxpayers' money, but for CAFC fans it is the cheap tickets they can offer as a result of this misapplication of public money, that threatens our long term financial well-being. And that is what makes it a specific Trust issue, as opposed to just a general citizen's issue.
So you're worried West Ham will repeat pretty much what you did in the 90's when you flooded schools in SE London & Kent with freebies?
Why are you so upset by this article and it's content Rothko?
Correct me if I'm wrong but he works/worked for the olympic committee in some capacity.
Question i'd like to ask Prague and co (and i'm fascinated by the debate), is even if this proves to be the biggest carve-up in history, what exactly do you hope to achieve now?
If looking from a Charlton point of view, what could realistically occur from now that would be of benefit, or protective of out club?
Well done for finding out two things which have already been publically declared in front of both Commons and Lords select committees
The "two things" being
1. That West Ham's rent is reduced if they get relegated?
2. That West Ham keep 100% of the revenue generated from hospitality?
3. That West Ham can cough up their 8% share of the capital costs only after they sell Upton Park, and that there is no deadline for them to do that?
Here is Brady's evidence to the Lords committee. I read it previously but just read it again to check. I did not find reference to any of the three points in the text.
However if I have missed them, or if you can link to a document from the other hearing where she says each of these things, it would be very useful if you can lead us to them; I will be able to forward them to the Information Commissioner, pointing out how ridiculous it was for the LLDC to redact the information from the copy of the contract with West Ham which we have requested under FOI law, when the information is in the public domain.
2. See West Ham's Q & A - unclear when published but suspect this has been in the public domain some time.
Yes I agree the relegation rent reduction has been in the public domain, although that's the first time I have seen it mentioned in a news report on the matter. That Q&A you mention is quite hard to find. I remember once panicking when I returned to try and retrieve it a second time, and feared they had deleted the page. We of course want to know by how much it is reduced, and that is definitely not in the public domain. Yet.
I also like that Guardian article because it catches Boris Johnson bragging about his personal involvement in negotiation of the deal. That may backfire on him if we can get a better picture of the deal into the public domain. As for Sullivan's fake outrage on behalf of the taxpayer about the "tougher deal" the LLDC had to negotiate with West Ham, it is both disingenuous and stupid. The taxpayer wants the LLDC to be tough with West Ham. It has not been "tough" at all. That is the whole point.
Question i'd like to ask Prague and co (and i'm fascinated by the debate), is even if this proves to be the biggest carve-up in history, what exactly do you hope to achieve now?
If looking from a Charlton point of view, what could realistically occur from now that would be of benefit, or protective of out club?
West Ham paying a far greater contribution towards their stadium, therefore making it less likely that they can afford give away swathes of tickets to people in Bexley, Greenwich and Woolwich springs to mind AFKA?
Question i'd like to ask Prague and co (and i'm fascinated by the debate), is even if this proves to be the biggest carve-up in history, what exactly do you hope to achieve now?
If looking from a Charlton point of view, what could realistically occur from now that would be of benefit, or protective of out club?
Good question. Our goal is to make West Ham pay more than they are currently scheduled to do, both capital cost and rental. If they pay more, they will be less likely to chuck tickets around like confetti, south of the river.
We have a strategy for making that happen too, thanks to external advice. But better not to share it here, as Brady's goons will soon be all over this.
Actually, if anyone works in property and has a view on whether RPI is a reasonable way to index a 99 year commercial lease, could they comment on that? (maybe a PM). One of our team has raised this issue but none of us work in the field so we don't know how reasonable that aspect is.
Well, @Rothko, we have no issue at all with West Ham playing at the Olympic Stadium. They are welcome to it. And as citizens I am sure we all agree that it is important to have a proper legacy for the Games.
That's precisely the point; if so much money had not been chucked at West Ham, a rich FAPL club, that money could have been re-directed towards re-generation schemes.
It's all about, and only about, West Ham paying their share so that they don't distort the market.
Although the refit costs were nowhere near as high, Man City paid 50% of them at what is now the Etihad. West ham are paying just 8%, and that doesn't factor in their trousering the profits from sale of Upton Park.
Worth pointing out that the accounts West Ham published in January for y/e May 2013 showed that:
Their revenues then were £90m
Their wage bill had increased by £15m
They paid Karen Brady 75% of what their OS rent will be in the Premiership
The TV contract that started in 2013 gives them an additional £20m p.a.
Another year, undoubtedly more dollar - I guess we'll find out next month.
Incidentally, I understand that the Boleyn Ground is expected to raise £20-30m, which means that West Ham are paying up to half for their new stadium than they'll receive from the sale of their current one.
If West Ham were asked just to put the money from that sale into the deal, Newham Council might be able to redistribute £15m back to projects that directly benefit their citizens, perhaps developing the regeneration legacy. Wouldn't that be a better use of their funds, @Rothko, than standing up a commercial enterprise?
The reference to West Ham's Q & A was to say the hospitality issue is (and probably has been for some time) also in the public domain.
Since I won't be at my computer for the rest of the afternoon, if you have access to that site and can cut and paste the relevant para, I'd be grateful.
I think it is fair to say that no journalists have picked up on that point because they don't realise how valuable the revenue is from hospitality compared to gate money. We only do because RM and PV have been educating isnon it for years.
They are backing the wider population @rikofold, the southern end of the park needed something that could operate 12 months a year, like the northern parts around the Velodrome and Eton Manor. It'll create jobs and opportunities, as well as helping to push along the UCL/V&A development.
@Rothko brought up the Peninsula. His point is perfectly reasonable, but in fact the issue is far more tangible than he implied.
As we say in the article, PV and RM were talking about West Ham and the Olympic, and the threat it posed, several years ago. (for some reason which I cannot fathom, they always thought the "free fair and open tender" would only ever have one winner). As we know, PV looked carefully at various times at proposals to move us to the Pen. He wasn't advocating it, just doing his job as CEO and exploring all the options for our long term future. A key argument for moving was this: if we are back in the FAPL, at the Valley we will be more or less full again. West Ham will be able to undercut us with cheap tickets for ordinary fans ,and much more and better exec facilities. One reason to move to a Pen stadium would therefore be to have the spare capacity with which to compete on price with West Ham, and compete on the prawn sandwich front too. At the current time this is off the agenda. As far as we know RD is perfectly happy with the The Valley, and I'm sure he would look at the empty seats and say, we fill them first. However rival bids, both this time and in the past, involved, or even depended on, us moving to the Pen. RD won't be here forever. If we come up for sale again, the whole Pen issue will come up again too. And assuming we are in or near the FAPL, the West Ham argument will be wheeled out again to support the move. Nailed on certainty.
It's an interesting point that any future sale of the club might be influenced by a relocation to the peninsula. The problem as I see it, if that ever is the case, is that there is only a finite amount of land on the peninsula and it seems that this is getting gobbled up by developers at a rate of knots. If Mr. Duchatelet does cut out at some point in the future then any potential buyer looking at a move to the Peninsula might just find that that boat has already sailed and is well out at sea.
It is a different argument in the rights and wrongs of ever leaving The Valley but we could easily find ourselves in quite a short space of time being a far less attractive buy to investors that do not think The Valley is adequate for whatever reason.
Hardly West Hams fault but it's there in the mix when discussing our future.
@Rothko brought up the Peninsula. His point is perfectly reasonable, but in fact the issue is far more tangible than he implied.
As we say in the article, PV and RM were talking about West Ham and the Olympic, and the threat it posed, several years ago. (for some reason which I cannot fathom, they always thought the "free fair and open tender" would only ever have one winner). As we know, PV looked carefully at various times at proposals to move us to the Pen. He wasn't advocating it, just doing his job as CEO and exploring all the options for our long term future. A key argument for moving was this: if we are back in the FAPL, at the Valley we will be more or less full again. West Ham will be able to undercut us with cheap tickets for ordinary fans ,and much more and better exec facilities. One reason to move to a Pen stadium would therefore be to have the spare capacity with which to compete on price with West Ham, and compete on the prawn sandwich front too. At the current time this is off the agenda. As far as we know RD is perfectly happy with the The Valley, and I'm sure he would look at the empty seats and say, we fill them first. However rival bids, both this time and in the past, involved, or even depended on, us moving to the Pen. RD won't be here forever. If we come up for sale again, the whole Pen issue will come up again too. And assuming we are in or near the FAPL, the West Ham argument will be wheeled out again to support the move. Nailed on certainty.
It's an interesting point that any future sale of the club might be influenced by a relocation to the peninsula. The problem as I see it, if that ever is the case, is that there is only a finite amount of land on the peninsula and it seems that this is getting gobbled up by developers at a rate of knots. If Mr. Duchatelet does cut out at some point in the future then any potential buyer looking at a move to the Peninsula might just find that that boat has already sailed and is well out at sea.
It is a different argument in the rights and wrongs of ever leaving The Valley but we could easily find ourselves in quite a short space of time being a far less attractive buy to investors that do not think The Valley is adequate for whatever reason.
Hardly West Hams fault but it's there in the mix when discussing our future.
but RD's hand could be forced if one developer wants to build a stadium there, whether that's for sports (NFL?) or for music, CAFC would have to be at the table to protect the club's interest.
@Rothko brought up the Peninsula. His point is perfectly reasonable, but in fact the issue is far more tangible than he implied.
As we say in the article, PV and RM were talking about West Ham and the Olympic, and the threat it posed, several years ago. (for some reason which I cannot fathom, they always thought the "free fair and open tender" would only ever have one winner). As we know, PV looked carefully at various times at proposals to move us to the Pen. He wasn't advocating it, just doing his job as CEO and exploring all the options for our long term future. A key argument for moving was this: if we are back in the FAPL, at the Valley we will be more or less full again. West Ham will be able to undercut us with cheap tickets for ordinary fans ,and much more and better exec facilities. One reason to move to a Pen stadium would therefore be to have the spare capacity with which to compete on price with West Ham, and compete on the prawn sandwich front too. At the current time this is off the agenda. As far as we know RD is perfectly happy with the The Valley, and I'm sure he would look at the empty seats and say, we fill them first. However rival bids, both this time and in the past, involved, or even depended on, us moving to the Pen. RD won't be here forever. If we come up for sale again, the whole Pen issue will come up again too. And assuming we are in or near the FAPL, the West Ham argument will be wheeled out again to support the move. Nailed on certainty.
It's an interesting point that any future sale of the club might be influenced by a relocation to the peninsula. The problem as I see it, if that ever is the case, is that there is only a finite amount of land on the peninsula and it seems that this is getting gobbled up by developers at a rate of knots. If Mr. Duchatelet does cut out at some point in the future then any potential buyer looking at a move to the Peninsula might just find that that boat has already sailed and is well out at sea.
It is a different argument in the rights and wrongs of ever leaving The Valley but we could easily find ourselves in quite a short space of time being a far less attractive buy to investors that do not think The Valley is adequate for whatever reason.
Hardly West Hams fault but it's there in the mix when discussing our future.
but RD's hand could be forced if one developer wants to build a stadium there, whether that's for sports (NFL?) or for music, CAFC would have to be at the table to protect the club's interest.
I don't see NFL or similar being a direct challange to CAFC but a new stadium built there for that purpose might want to attract a football club. Millwall or Orient would be a different sort of problem though.
@Rothko brought up the Peninsula. His point is perfectly reasonable, but in fact the issue is far more tangible than he implied.
As we say in the article, PV and RM were talking about West Ham and the Olympic, and the threat it posed, several years ago. (for some reason which I cannot fathom, they always thought the "free fair and open tender" would only ever have one winner). As we know, PV looked carefully at various times at proposals to move us to the Pen. He wasn't advocating it, just doing his job as CEO and exploring all the options for our long term future. A key argument for moving was this: if we are back in the FAPL, at the Valley we will be more or less full again. West Ham will be able to undercut us with cheap tickets for ordinary fans ,and much more and better exec facilities. One reason to move to a Pen stadium would therefore be to have the spare capacity with which to compete on price with West Ham, and compete on the prawn sandwich front too. At the current time this is off the agenda. As far as we know RD is perfectly happy with the The Valley, and I'm sure he would look at the empty seats and say, we fill them first. However rival bids, both this time and in the past, involved, or even depended on, us moving to the Pen. RD won't be here forever. If we come up for sale again, the whole Pen issue will come up again too. And assuming we are in or near the FAPL, the West Ham argument will be wheeled out again to support the move. Nailed on certainty.
It's an interesting point that any future sale of the club might be influenced by a relocation to the peninsula. The problem as I see it, if that ever is the case, is that there is only a finite amount of land on the peninsula and it seems that this is getting gobbled up by developers at a rate of knots. If Mr. Duchatelet does cut out at some point in the future then any potential buyer looking at a move to the Peninsula might just find that that boat has already sailed and is well out at sea.
It is a different argument in the rights and wrongs of ever leaving The Valley but we could easily find ourselves in quite a short space of time being a far less attractive buy to investors that do not think The Valley is adequate for whatever reason.
Hardly West Hams fault but it's there in the mix when discussing our future.
but RD's hand could be forced if one developer wants to build a stadium there, whether that's for sports (NFL?) or for music, CAFC would have to be at the table to protect the club's interest.
I don't see NFL or similar being a direct challange to CAFC but a new stadium built there for that purpose might want to attract a football club. Millwall or Orient would be a different sort of problem though.
yes, but we'd still have to be at the table from the beginning to make sure no other football club except us have the option to move to that stadium.
Comments
Why are you so upset by this article and it's content Rothko?
If the Olympics had been on the Greenwich Peninsula (and it was a thought back in 2002) and we were being offered a concession to use the stadium, we would be beating the door down for it.
Anyway, good luck to the trust, hope they contribute to this as well on the wider issue of stadium led regen projects
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/investigations/stadia-led-regeneration-and-the-future-of-the-olympic-stadium
That's precisely the point; if so much money had not been chucked at West Ham, a rich FAPL club, that money could have been re-directed towards re-generation schemes.
It's all about, and only about, West Ham paying their share so that they don't distort the market.
Although the refit costs were nowhere near as high, Man City paid 50% of them at what is now the Etihad. West ham are paying just 8%, and that doesn't factor in their trousering the profits from sale of Upton Park.
The 'challenges' you mention are indeed real, and one's that need all the fans to support and work in partnership. But to do that they have to work in partnership, and embrace that opportunity. Football is often claimed to be a game of 'opinion', from my experience the business of football is even more diverse and complicated. You only have to look on these pages to see the wide range of opinion expressed. As part of the team, we are always looking for ideas to put into the news, please do message me.
The west ham issue is very important to CAFC as a business, as posters have mentioned.
Robin Wales has been far too close to the club for far too long to remain 'objective' imo and it's a shame the press have not explored this relationship further.
That's a very interesting point. If you would be able to direct us to some more information to illustrate your point, I'll pass it on the the national journalist who is getting ready to a big number on this with our material
PM me if you think it's more appropriate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Wales
As we say in the article, PV and RM were talking about West Ham and the Olympic, and the threat it posed, several years ago. (for some reason which I cannot fathom, they always thought the "free fair and open tender" would only ever have one winner). As we know, PV looked carefully at various times at proposals to move us to the Pen. He wasn't advocating it, just doing his job as CEO and exploring all the options for our long term future. A key argument for moving was this: if we are back in the FAPL, at the Valley we will be more or less full again. West Ham will be able to undercut us with cheap tickets for ordinary fans ,and much more and better exec facilities. One reason to move to a Pen stadium would therefore be to have the spare capacity with which to compete on price with West Ham, and compete on the prawn sandwich front too.
At the current time this is off the agenda. As far as we know RD is perfectly happy with the The Valley, and I'm sure he would look at the empty seats and say, we fill them first. However rival bids, both this time and in the past, involved, or even depended on, us moving to the Pen. RD won't be here forever. If we come up for sale again, the whole Pen issue will come up again too. And assuming we are in or near the FAPL, the West Ham argument will be wheeled out again to support the move. Nailed on certainty.
1. http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/mar/22/west-ham-tenants-olympic-stadium
See penultimate paragraph.
2. See West Ham's Q & A - unclear when published but suspect this has been in the public domain some time.
If looking from a Charlton point of view, what could realistically occur from now that would be of benefit, or protective of out club?
I also like that Guardian article because it catches Boris Johnson bragging about his personal involvement in negotiation of the deal. That may backfire on him if we can get a better picture of the deal into the public domain. As for Sullivan's fake outrage on behalf of the taxpayer about the "tougher deal" the LLDC had to negotiate with West Ham, it is both disingenuous and stupid. The taxpayer wants the LLDC to be tough with West Ham. It has not been "tough" at all. That is the whole point.
We have a strategy for making that happen too, thanks to external advice. But better not to share it here, as Brady's goons will soon be all over this.
Actually, if anyone works in property and has a view on whether RPI is a reasonable way to index a 99 year commercial lease, could they comment on that? (maybe a PM). One of our team has raised this issue but none of us work in the field so we don't know how reasonable that aspect is.
- Their revenues then were £90m
- Their wage bill had increased by £15m
- They paid Karen Brady 75% of what their OS rent will be in the Premiership
- The TV contract that started in 2013 gives them an additional £20m p.a.
Another year, undoubtedly more dollar - I guess we'll find out next month.Incidentally, I understand that the Boleyn Ground is expected to raise £20-30m, which means that West Ham are paying up to half for their new stadium than they'll receive from the sale of their current one.
If West Ham were asked just to put the money from that sale into the deal, Newham Council might be able to redistribute £15m back to projects that directly benefit their citizens, perhaps developing the regeneration legacy. Wouldn't that be a better use of their funds, @Rothko, than standing up a commercial enterprise?
The reference to West Ham's Q & A was to say the hospitality issue is (and probably has been for some time) also in the public domain.
I think it is fair to say that no journalists have picked up on that point because they don't realise how valuable the revenue is from hospitality compared to gate money. We only do because RM and PV have been educating isnon it for years.
It is a different argument in the rights and wrongs of ever leaving The Valley but we could easily find ourselves in quite a short space of time being a far less attractive buy to investors that do not think The Valley is adequate for whatever reason.
Hardly West Hams fault but it's there in the mix when discussing our future.
http://www.castrust.org/2014/12/south-londons-getting-hammered-youre-paying-cafc/