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.
So how does West Ham being asked to make a more appropriate contribution to something for which they will be the major beneficiary prevent any of that happening? If you'd asked them for £30m, that's the value of their current ground - they'd be moving for free. If you asked them for £50m, it would cost them just over the price of Andy Carroll, no doubt depreciated over a long term. I'm surprised you think otherwise, to be honest.
To add, at what point of contribution does the stadium become financially inviable for West Ham? Their 5000 boxes will make how much a season now? Their £2m rent in perpetuity is a fraction of what their turnover will be? I accept the Government don't come out of this very well, they had two Premiership football clubs competing for it and that fact alone strengthened their negotiating position. To get just 8% covered by the one they awarded hardly suggests they were in it for the best deal for the locality or taxpayers. Frankly, it feels more like someone was too friendly with the West Ham board (although obviously I'm accusing no-one of wrongdoing on a public forum).
I would suggest that the title and article has encouraged those comments so I'm not surprised.
Do you think the article (as opposed to the headline) is anti West Ham per se? Our argument is with the authorities, in the first instance the LLDC. Of course we understand that as a commercial entity, West Ham sought to negotiate the best possible deal.
I would suggest that the title and article has encouraged those comments so I'm not surprised.
Do you think the article (as opposed to the headline) is anti West Ham per se? Our argument is with the authorities, in the first instance the LLDC. Of course we understand that as a commercial entity, West Ham sought to negotiate the best possible deal.
We will try to explain that to them.
I'd say it isn't exactly favourable towards West Ham and rightly so, up to a point. But the majority of the comments are more aimed at the free tickets point. It could of course be that WH fans are defending something they don't have a problem with (the tickets and using the Charlton free tickets and coach examples to back it up) and will ignore the indefensible stuff (the financial help the club is going to receive).
The free tickets is a bit of a non-issue imo. They are a symptom rather than the cause. Will it have a negative impact on Charlton? Possibly but at the moment it's impossible to tell what it would be. We've been happy to go out of our typical catchment area in the past and I'd also argue that on the whole, the people who would be taking free tickets to watch WH at the new stadium would not be willing to part with their own cash to go to the Valley.
This is an outstanding performance by the Trust. The prospective collaboration with investigative journalists adds another significant dimension. In due course, maybe sooner rather than later, some sensational stories are certain to emerge, quite possibly with some big reputations on the line.
So many good things were achieved during the Games but as the memories begin to fade, a magnificent tournament will find its great triumph tarnished by an unholy combination of scandal, farce and tragedy. How is it conceivable that the end-use of the Olympic arena, the flagship of the entire event, could not have been properly planned from the very outset?
Concerning the cheap ticket issue - is there really so much scope for WHU to distribute a lot of reduced-price tickets in certain areas ? Surely their existing s/t holders will object to paying top-dollar when thousands of other folk will be paying much less?
Not sure i get the full joke of this, seems like something written by one of our rivals then a Charlton fan when it mentions the same rubbish they both claim about it being a one sided derby.
Fantastic work on the West Ham issue especially though, makes me proud to be a member when the trust has such an active involvement with important issues like that.
Great headline - relevant and nearly 3,000 views on here Great piece of work and similar to the ACV campaign and coverage of the takeover / FFP in terms of insight and relevance. I am confused as to why one of the poorest boroughs in the country is subsidising a sports company with a 5% share of one of the top three global sports media deals. It might be interesting to investigate the political and club affiliations of those who made such a decision. I'm no expert on what councils can and can't do but on this basis can we expect Greenwich to convert the Valley into a 40,000 seater stadium as and when the need arises?
"Will the move affect the Club in a negative way commercially?
The full terms of the agreement cannot be disclosed at this stage. We can only restate what we have openly said, that this opportunity provides us with a platform to really drive our business forward commercially. As a Board we have vast experience in this area and now we have the platform, you can trust us to make this work. Although we have not confirmed the details, West Ham will continue to take all of the revenue from all of its own assets such as ticketing, corporate hospitality, retail and sponsorship (including shirt sponsorship). We retain full commercial control of our business. Catering and naming rights revenue is shared. The Club has no current naming rights partner at the Boleyn Ground."
Whilst this says unconfirmed they do seem clear as to what will happen regarding ticketing and corporate hospitality.
Regarding the sale of the Boleyn ground, have Gaillard not bought it?
Someone mentions above an potential NFL club on the Peninsular. It would be possible to share with an NFL team, and stadium is being built in the States that changes configuration between matches to enable it to host both NFL and proper football. However the NFL franchise moving to London (Jacksonville Jaguars?) will be going to Wembley to the best of my knowledge and a second franchise seems unlikely in the foreseeable future.
"Will the move affect the Club in a negative way commercially?
The full terms of the agreement cannot be disclosed at this stage. We can only restate what we have openly said, that this opportunity provides us with a platform to really drive our business forward commercially. As a Board we have vast experience in this area and now we have the platform, you can trust us to make this work. Although we have not confirmed the details, West Ham will continue to take all of the revenue from all of its own assets such as ticketing, corporate hospitality, retail and sponsorship (including shirt sponsorship). We retain full commercial control of our business. Catering and naming rights revenue is shared. The Club has no current naming rights partner at the Boleyn Ground."
Whilst this says unconfirmed they do seem clear as to what will happen regarding ticketing and corporate hospitality.
Regarding the sale of the Boleyn ground, have Gaillard not bought it?
Thanks.
I had read this before but forgotten that she mentioned corporate. Anyway its better to have it in an official document from the other side of the table. Actually I tracked down the West ham forum which was the source of those guys who commented on the Trust site; it was full of predictable tribal venom and bluster, but one guy commented "aha, so we keep 100% of the hospitality revenue"…
Like I said, the vast majority of fans, of any club, don't appreciate how important this revenue is.
Couple of other Lifers confirmed to me yesterday that Gaillard have bought the Boleyn. The price, predictably, is not in the public domain (unless you can find that too!;-))
Don't know the price, but apparently at some point in time West Ham valued the Boleyn at in excess of 70 million in their accounts. The newspapers suggested the sale price would be less than this. I would guess substantially less, although there will be a sale of bits and pieces from the ground which will add to the figure.
Some interesting points here but I do not really feel that as a taxpayer I am being screwed. I appreciate that it may have an impact on CAFC but what did people really expect?
Given the location WHU were always the only realistic option for long term use of the stadium. Any other suggested tenants were pie in the sky ideas. West HAM KNEW this as did the committee looking to find a tenant. Negotiations for the tenancy were always going to go this way because of the political fallout if no tenant was found for the stadium. Ultimately I suspect it was almost a ' name your price' type deal available with West Ham and both parties knew there was nothing they could do to change that. An NFL franchise would probably have been the only thing with potential to do battle with the West Ham deal but that would have required, I suspect even more taxpayer money than is currently being spent.
Don't know the price, but apparently at some point in time West Ham valued the Boleyn at in excess of 70 million in their accounts. The newspapers suggested the sale price would be less than this. I would guess substantially less, although there will be a sale of bits and pieces from the ground which will add to the figure.
@rikofold has done some digging on this. Interesting changes in West Ham's published accounts, covering the valuation of the ground. I'll let him explain when he has a moment.
Up to now a couple of CLers are (privately) suggesting a sale price of around £30m, which would be twice the amount they are being asked to contribute to the cost of refitting the Olympic.
If it was Newcastle utd and not west ham would anyone care on here
It's not the morale issue, let's be honest it's the fact it's a club on the door step
Sure. Who is pretending otherwise? It's a Trust issue because it threatens us. However if you want politicians and national Journos to be on your side you have to point out the general implications for the taxpayer, that is what interests them.
If west ham made a take it or leave it offer then there was no real choice, surely?
That's the general situation, yes. However I think it more represents what Gullivan Brady wanted them to think.
Actually the LLDC like to boast that the deal is good and the right price, because there was a tender. However they then contradict themselves by further boasting that they extracted further concessions from West Ham after they had won the tender. Hmm.
Our view is that the tender was a charade, designed to get round EU state aid rules. There was only ever going to be one winner.
We have a lot of public tenders like that in the Czech Republic......
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?
No. We did not "flood" schools (in our own catchment area) because we did not have that much spare capacity. I'm sure @Airman Brown will give you the numbers.A variant on your criticism is that Valley Express attacked the Gillingham fan base. This of course is bollocks too as Valley Express was and is designed to reach out to Charlton-roots families who have moved out to of London.
However the most important difference is this. The Charlton activity you are talking about is a normal commercial marketing activity, carried out by one private company in a competitive market. Not a penny of taxpayers money supported Charlton's initiative.
Incidentally we have been working hand in glove with the Orient fans on this. We've both been puzzled about the passivity of the Millwall fans on this matter. As I'm aware, you are one of the Millwall "activists". You lot are welcome to join us.
So is your issue that the taxpayers are being ripped off...or that there could be consequences for Charlton's attempts to attract the casual supporter?
Personally I wish that the stadium was not used by any club, that it was the new national athletic stadium and that all minor football tournaments for grass routes football could be paid out there,
It should be used as an outdoor venue by music industry folk and boxing maybe even utilised by a rugby league or union club giving a London affiliation the chance to prosper
As for the thread and it's content reading it I went from believeing it was led by the tax payer debate, not just the way it will affect us on matchday attendenance
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?
No. We did not "flood" schools (in our own catchment area) because we did not have that much spare capacity. I'm sure @Airman Brown will give you the numbers.A variant on your criticism is that Valley Express attacked the Gillingham fan base. This of course is bollocks too as Valley Express was and is designed to reach out to Charlton-roots families who have moved out to of London.
However the most important difference is this. The Charlton activity you are talking about is a normal commercial marketing activity, carried out by one private company in a competitive market. Not a penny of taxpayers money supported Charlton's initiative.
Incidentally we have been working hand in glove with the Orient fans on this. We've both been puzzled about the passivity of the Millwall fans on this matter. As I'm aware, you are one of the Millwall "activists". You lot are welcome to join us.
So is your issue that the taxpayers are being ripped off...or that there could be consequences for Charlton's attempts to attract the casual supporter?
The other way round (from a Trust point of view):
there could be consequences for Charlton's attempts to attract the casual supporter BECAUSE the taxpayers are being ripped off
Ignore Charlton for a moment and assume you live in Newham, one of the poorer London boroughs and you are struggling to find somewhere affordable to live.
Your council who do not have enough council homes currently (in fact I am fairly certain I am right in saying they are rehousing people to places like Stoke because of their lack of homes) decided to give West Ham £40M towards refurbing the Olympic Stadium. This allows WestHam to find only £15M of their own money towards the refurbishment.
They also allow WestHam to sell UptonPark to a private, profit driven developer, for most likely, considerably in excess of £15M with West Ham saying they will use anything above the £15M to pay down their debts - effectively making West Ham worth more for its owners.
Galliard then build some nice new flats which you can't ever hope to afford, with some minimal amount for 'Social Housing'.
Good news all round then.
Think I would have said to my local councillor, why did you not just buy Upton Park with your money, developed it into Social, Council owned housing and go someway towards helping your councils housing crisis?
there could be consequences for Charlton's attempts to attract the casual supporter BECAUSE the taxpayers are being ripped off
**************************************************************************************************************** But a lot of people dont feel the taxpayers are being ripped off.
If West Ham didnt move into the stadium and was only used 10 times a year, THEN, I would feel ripped off at all the taxpayers money spent on the stadium being wasted.
there could be consequences for Charlton's attempts to attract the casual supporter BECAUSE the taxpayers are being ripped off
**************************************************************************************************************** But a lot of people dont feel the taxpayers are being ripped off.
If West Ham didnt move into the stadium and was only used 10 times a year, THEN, I would feel ripped off at all the taxpayers money spent on the stadium being wasted.
Well it is clear you don't. And it would appear @kigelia doesn't. And Rothko. That's three in this thread. However it would appear that most people in this thread, who have read the article, and are therefore now acquainted with the amount the taxpayer is paying compared with the amount West Ham are paying, do have serious doubts about the value for taxpayers. So I'm not sure you can claim, as you imply, your view is the majority one here.
But let's just clarify our position. We are not saying that NO public money should have been spent on the stadium legacy, and we ( the Trust) are not disputing that football generally or West Ham in particular probably provide the best long term solution to the legacy. As Richard Murray has said, they are welcome to it. The issue is the terms of the deal. They are so ridiculously weighted in West Ham's favour that they will as a result offer cheap tickets in our catchment area, effectively subsidised by taxpayers' money.
If west ham made a take it or leave it offer then there was no real choice, surely?
That's the general situation, yes. However I think it more represents what Gullivan Brady wanted them to think.
Actually the LLDC like to boast that the deal is good and the right price, because there was a tender. However they then contradict themselves by further boasting that they extracted further concessions from West Ham after they had won the tender. Hmm.
Our view is that the tender was a charade, designed to get round EU state aid rules. There was only ever going to be one winner.
We have a lot of public tenders like that in the Czech Republic......
So, in your opinion, who else could have won the tender?
If west ham made a take it or leave it offer then there was no real choice, surely?
That's the general situation, yes. However I think it more represents what Gullivan Brady wanted them to think.
Actually the LLDC like to boast that the deal is good and the right price, because there was a tender. However they then contradict themselves by further boasting that they extracted further concessions from West Ham after they had won the tender. Hmm.
Our view is that the tender was a charade, designed to get round EU state aid rules. There was only ever going to be one winner.
We have a lot of public tenders like that in the Czech Republic......
So, in your opinion, who else could have won the tender?
I think you need to read the last paragraph in Pragues last post.
Don't know the price, but apparently at some point in time West Ham valued the Boleyn at in excess of 70 million in their accounts. The newspapers suggested the sale price would be less than this. I would guess substantially less, although there will be a sale of bits and pieces from the ground which will add to the figure.
@rikofold has done some digging on this. Interesting changes in West Ham's published accounts, covering the valuation of the ground. I'll let him explain when he has a moment.
Up to now a couple of CLers are (privately) suggesting a sale price of around £30m, which would be twice the amount they are being asked to contribute to the cost of refitting the Olympic.
As I understand it, West Ham's accounts for year ending May 2012 listed an asset value for the Boleyn Ground of £71m. It's not entirely clear how this is calculated, I doubt it was ever reflective of a true market property valuation, perhaps a rebuild cost? No doubt it helps secure loans etc.
What's interesting though is that by the time the accounts were published the following year, its value was just £16m. It does look closer to a market valuation but events since might lend credence to a view that it is a political revaluation drawn to minimise criticisms that West Ham's contribution to the regeneration scheme would be of net zero bottom line impact.
West Ham had been in negotiations with a supermarket with a view to selling the Boleyn Ground for £18m, and if a sale was on the horizon this may account for a change in the basis of calculating the asset value. In the event, however, this article suggests that the sale to Galliard in February valued the ground at double that - £36m.
Brady of course claims this marks West Ham's commitment to the regeneration of two areas of the East End. This doesn't explain why they were so keen to sell to a supermarket before Galliard popped into the equation and doubled the sale price reminded them of their community responsibility. And, of course, the biggest beneficiaries in the deal are, ahem, West Ham, who keep every penny.
In simple terms, that commitment to the stadium conversion and regeneration has cost West Ham absolutely nothing. In fact, they've benefited from the stadium swap alone to the tune of £21m.
Yes it's great that the areas are undergoing regeneration, who wouldn't support that, but it's criminal in my view that taxpayers are carrying 92% of the Olympic Stadium burden when the commercial entity who will make most use of and take most benefit from it are happily lining their pockets before the ink is dry on the deal.
Thank God the authorities rushed into rescue the deal, or local taxpayers would have really suffered...
Comments
We will try to explain that to them.
The free tickets is a bit of a non-issue imo. They are a symptom rather than the cause. Will it have a negative impact on Charlton? Possibly but at the moment it's impossible to tell what it would be. We've been happy to go out of our typical catchment area in the past and I'd also argue that on the whole, the people who would be taking free tickets to watch WH at the new stadium would not be willing to part with their own cash to go to the Valley.
This is an outstanding performance by the Trust. The prospective collaboration with investigative journalists adds another significant dimension. In due course, maybe sooner rather than later, some sensational stories are certain to emerge, quite possibly with some big reputations on the line.
So many good things were achieved during the Games but as the memories begin to fade, a magnificent tournament will find its great triumph tarnished by an unholy combination of scandal, farce and tragedy. How is it conceivable that the end-use of the Olympic arena, the flagship of the entire event, could not have been properly planned from the very outset?
Concerning the cheap ticket issue - is there really so much scope for WHU to distribute a lot of reduced-price tickets in certain areas ? Surely their existing s/t holders will object to paying top-dollar when thousands of other folk will be paying much less?
Fantastic work on the West Ham issue especially though, makes me proud to be a member when the trust has such an active involvement with important issues like that.
Great piece of work and similar to the ACV campaign and coverage of the takeover / FFP in terms of insight and relevance.
I am confused as to why one of the poorest boroughs in the country is subsidising a sports company with a 5% share of one of the top three global sports media deals.
It might be interesting to investigate the political and club affiliations of those who made such a decision.
I'm no expert on what councils can and can't do but on this basis can we expect Greenwich to convert the Valley into a 40,000 seater stadium as and when the need arises?
G21The Trust - excellent stuff.From West Ham's Q & A
"Will the move affect the Club in a negative way commercially?
The full terms of the agreement cannot be disclosed at this stage. We can only restate what we have openly said, that this opportunity provides us with a platform to really drive our business forward commercially. As a Board we have vast experience in this area and now we have the platform, you can trust us to make this work. Although we have not confirmed the details, West Ham will continue to take all of the revenue from all of its own assets such as ticketing, corporate hospitality, retail and sponsorship (including shirt sponsorship). We retain full commercial control of our business. Catering and naming rights revenue is shared. The Club has no current naming rights partner at the Boleyn Ground."
Whilst this says unconfirmed they do seem clear as to what will happen regarding ticketing and corporate hospitality.
Regarding the sale of the Boleyn ground, have Gaillard not bought it?
Someone mentions above an potential NFL club on the Peninsular. It would be possible to share with an NFL team, and stadium is being built in the States that changes configuration between matches to enable it to host both NFL and proper football. However the NFL franchise moving to London (Jacksonville Jaguars?) will be going to Wembley to the best of my knowledge and a second franchise seems unlikely in the foreseeable future.
I had read this before but forgotten that she mentioned corporate. Anyway its better to have it in an official document from the other side of the table. Actually I tracked down the West ham forum which was the source of those guys who commented on the Trust site; it was full of predictable tribal venom and bluster, but one guy commented "aha, so we keep 100% of the hospitality revenue"…
Like I said, the vast majority of fans, of any club, don't appreciate how important this revenue is.
Couple of other Lifers confirmed to me yesterday that Gaillard have bought the Boleyn. The price, predictably, is not in the public domain (unless you can find that too!;-))
Don't know the price, but apparently at some point in time West Ham valued the Boleyn at in excess of 70 million in their accounts. The newspapers suggested the sale price would be less than this. I would guess substantially less, although there will be a sale of bits and pieces from the ground which will add to the figure.
Given the location WHU were always the only realistic option for long term use of the stadium. Any other suggested tenants were pie in the sky ideas. West HAM KNEW this as did the committee looking to find a tenant. Negotiations for the tenancy were always going to go this way because of the political fallout if no tenant was found for the stadium. Ultimately I suspect it was almost a ' name your price' type deal available with West Ham and both parties knew there was nothing they could do to change that. An NFL franchise would probably have been the only thing with potential to do battle with the West Ham deal but that would have required, I suspect even more taxpayer money than is currently being spent.
Up to now a couple of CLers are (privately) suggesting a sale price of around £30m, which would be twice the amount they are being asked to contribute to the cost of refitting the Olympic.
It's not the morale issue, let's be honest it's the fact it's a club on the door step
Still not convinced you to join us, mate?
Actually the LLDC like to boast that the deal is good and the right price, because there was a tender. However they then contradict themselves by further boasting that they extracted further concessions from West Ham after they had won the tender. Hmm.
Our view is that the tender was a charade, designed to get round EU state aid rules. There was only ever going to be one winner.
We have a lot of public tenders like that in the Czech Republic......
It should be used as an outdoor venue by music industry folk and boxing maybe even utilised by a rugby league or union club giving a London affiliation the chance to prosper
As for the thread and it's content reading it I went from believeing it was led by the tax payer debate, not just the way it will affect us on matchday attendenance
I am more concerned about ebbsfleet than wet spam
there could be consequences for Charlton's attempts to attract the casual supporter BECAUSE the taxpayers are being ripped off
Your council who do not have enough council homes currently (in fact I am fairly certain I am right in saying they are rehousing people to places like Stoke because of their lack of homes) decided to give West Ham £40M towards refurbing the Olympic Stadium. This allows WestHam to find only £15M of their own money towards the refurbishment.
They also allow WestHam to sell UptonPark to a private, profit driven developer, for most likely, considerably in excess of £15M with West Ham saying they will use anything above the £15M to pay down their debts - effectively making West Ham worth more for its owners.
Galliard then build some nice new flats which you can't ever hope to afford, with some minimal amount for 'Social Housing'.
Good news all round then.
Think I would have said to my local councillor, why did you not just buy Upton Park with your money, developed it into Social, Council owned housing and go someway towards helping your councils housing crisis?
The other way round (from a Trust point of view):
there could be consequences for Charlton's attempts to attract the casual supporter BECAUSE the taxpayers are being ripped off
****************************************************************************************************************
But a lot of people dont feel the taxpayers are being ripped off.
If West Ham didnt move into the stadium and was only used 10 times a year, THEN, I would feel ripped off at all the taxpayers money spent on the stadium being wasted.
there could be consequences for Charlton's attempts to attract the casual supporter BECAUSE the taxpayers are being ripped off
****************************************************************************************************************
But a lot of people dont feel the taxpayers are being ripped off.
If West Ham didnt move into the stadium and was only used 10 times a year, THEN, I would feel ripped off at all the taxpayers money spent on the stadium being wasted.
Well it is clear you don't. And it would appear @kigelia doesn't. And Rothko. That's three in this thread. However it would appear that most people in this thread, who have read the article, and are therefore now acquainted with the amount the taxpayer is paying compared with the amount West Ham are paying, do have serious doubts about the value for taxpayers. So I'm not sure you can claim, as you imply, your view is the majority one here.
But let's just clarify our position. We are not saying that NO public money should have been spent on the stadium legacy, and we ( the Trust) are not disputing that football generally or West Ham in particular probably provide the best long term solution to the legacy. As Richard Murray has said, they are welcome to it. The issue is the terms of the deal. They are so ridiculously weighted in West Ham's favour that they will as a result offer cheap tickets in our catchment area, effectively subsidised by taxpayers' money.
What's interesting though is that by the time the accounts were published the following year, its value was just £16m. It does look closer to a market valuation but events since might lend credence to a view that it is a political revaluation drawn to minimise criticisms that West Ham's contribution to the regeneration scheme would be of net zero bottom line impact.
West Ham had been in negotiations with a supermarket with a view to selling the Boleyn Ground for £18m, and if a sale was on the horizon this may account for a change in the basis of calculating the asset value. In the event, however, this article suggests that the sale to Galliard in February valued the ground at double that - £36m.
Brady of course claims this marks West Ham's commitment to the regeneration of two areas of the East End. This doesn't explain why they were so keen to sell to a supermarket before Galliard popped into the equation and
doubled the sale pricereminded them of their community responsibility. And, of course, the biggest beneficiaries in the deal are, ahem, West Ham, who keep every penny.In simple terms, that commitment to the stadium conversion and regeneration has cost West Ham absolutely nothing. In fact, they've benefited from the stadium swap alone to the tune of £21m.
Yes it's great that the areas are undergoing regeneration, who wouldn't support that, but it's criminal in my view that taxpayers are carrying 92% of the Olympic Stadium burden when the commercial entity who will make most use of and take most benefit from it are happily lining their pockets before the ink is dry on the deal.
Thank God the authorities rushed into rescue the deal, or local taxpayers would have really suffered...