Top post Athletico. I live close to the Olympic park and as much as I enjoyed the Olympics and the regeneration of the area there is a downside to the legacy (and I believe that on the whole it is a positive impact) and that is the housing situation. The olympic village has been turned into apartments but with very few of these going to be affordable for many residents in the surrounding area. This is highlighted by websites based in the Middle East and China advertising the properties available to purchase. add to this the inevitable flats that will be built on Upton park and once again it's just another area of London where property prices get inflated. A sad situation driven purely by profit rather than the needs of the population.
One might infer from this later report that the final deal might have been even higher, with up to 950 homes to be built potentially attracting £190m+ revenues.
The comments make particularly interesting reading, with one person suggesting it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume a Boleyn Ground sale price of over £60m. Another supposes that Sullivan and Gold may have negotiated a percentage of future profits on the sale of the new builds.
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.
Not really, if Prague feels the offer was not the best available, where would a better offer have come from? No company will pay more than they have to. As I said earlier, if west ham are the only viable option why would they offer any more than they have and what choice would there be to accept it?
Stu, it's not that there were other offers. It's that WH were always going to get it, in that case the question being asked is why they are paying practically peanuts for the use of the stadium and are able to reap the huge financial gains they will get for it and the sale of their current ground with a huge amount of tax payer money going towards it.
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.
Not really, if Prague feels the offer was not the best available, where would a better offer have come from? No company will pay more than they have to. As I said earlier, if west ham are the only viable option why would they offer any more than they have and what choice would there be to accept it?
Well your underlying question is perfectly reasonable. By what mechanism would West Ham be made to pay more than they offered? Indeed that is the strongest defence the LLDC offered in their document.
well the short answer is, politics.You've got, as mentioned by @Bournemouth Addick, Sir Robin Wales in Newham. then you've got Boris Johnson, desperate to claim a legacy as his personal achievement, and now indeed claiming the "credit" for his personal role in the deal; and then goodness gracious, what a coincidence, Karren Brady, touted as a future Tory mayoral candidate will now become Lady Brady. So my personal opinion is that this deal was a stitch up engineered by politicians whose goals align with those of West Ham's owners.
But lets not be too tribal. Robin Wales isn't a Tory. Its about politicians putting their personal interests first. So the task is to gain the attention of politicians who don't have a personal interest, and do want to be seen to be putting taxpayers interests first.
Stu, it's not that there were other offers. It's that WH were always going to get it, in that case the question being asked is why they are paying practically peanuts for the use of the stadium and are able to reap the huge financial gains they will get for it and the sale of their current ground with a huge amount of tax payer money going towards it.
Surely they are only paying what they are is because no one else would pay anymore. If you want to rent a house and you know the other highest offer is 200pw, would you bid 600 or 210?
I'm not saying it's right, I just don't see the alternative, no commercial organisation is going to pay more than they feel they have to.
Stu, it's not that there were other offers. It's that WH were always going to get it, in that case the question being asked is why they are paying practically peanuts for the use of the stadium and are able to reap the huge financial gains they will get for it and the sale of their current ground with a huge amount of tax payer money going towards it.
Surely they are only paying what they are is because no one else would pay anymore. If you want to rent a house and you know the other highest offer is 200pw, would you bid 600 or 210?
I'm not saying it's right, I just don't see the alternative, no commercial organisation is going to pay more than they feel they have to.
So as citizens we either accept it's not right, or we do something about it - if only to recover the situation, or to prevent it happening again. From the taxpayer's perspective, this is about self-interested politicians doing a deal that suits them rather than one that's right for the citizens they are supposed to represent. From Charlton's perspective, it creates unfair competition for our own club into the bargain.
Let's be clear. The LLDC had a responsibility to ensure that they obtained best value from the deal. Amidst reports (example) that Robin Wales received countless gifts from West Ham during the process, should we be so surprised that West Ham received (to quote Barry Hearn) "the deal of the century"?
Football is of course key to this regeneration, and West Ham were always the most likely club to be able to deliver its success. However, with the stadium swap alone West Ham will pocket millions of pounds; in contrast, Newham Council goes cap in hand to the Government to borrow the £40m it will be contributing.
I've looked over some more figures:
West Ham are paying just £15m of the £154m costs of stadium conversion, or if you prefer just £15m of the £300m regeneration costs (not including the Boleyn Ground). To put this into context, Manchester City paid £20m towards £42m costs of stadium conversion. Good value for the taxpayer?
Conservative reports suggest West Ham have pocketed a minimum of £36m for the sale of the Boleyn Ground; others suggest that figure is in excess of £60m with additional revenue to come from a percentage on the future sale of new build homes. Good value for the taxpayer?
They will be paying £2m a year fixed rental for 99 years, index-linked to RPI. For that they become the anchor tenant, they keep all their ticket and hospitality revenues, they retain a share of catering and the lucrative stadium naming rights. To put this into context, Manchester City's rent is currently around £4m a year, which is formulated by a share of ticket sales above Maine Road's capacity and a premium for retention of stadium naming rights. Good value for the taxpayer?
That rent will be reduced even further by an unspecified amount should the club be relegated. Good value for the taxpayer?
They have an additional 1000 corporate seats. They have not yet declared their pricing, but a seat in a private box at the Boleyn starts at £195 (ex-VAT), and if that's the price they charge then selling out will gain them an additional £200k (ex-VAT) revenue per match, or £3.8m a league season. To put that in perspective, their gate income in their 2013 accounts was £5m. Still good value?
Given the hugely lucrative nature of this deal, I think the LLDC could have done a lot lot better. It could be reasonably argued that West Ham had a lot more to lose, and that should have been the negotiating standpoint.
So what are West Ham going to do with all this new money? Well, let's quote West Ham themselves:
West Ham will be moving to one of the best-connected stadiums in Europe. The DLR station at Stratford International is transforming it into a key transport hub for Newham and east London. In addition Stratford is served by the Central and Jubilee lines on the London Underground as well as London Overground and the high-speed rail service from the city.
We are offering up to 100,000 free tickets per season that will ensure some of the most deprived children in the country will gain access to elite sport and drive an increase in sports participation. As a Board we have always been committed to offering affordable family football and the increased capacity opens up so many new opportunities to support this initiative. There will be more affordable seats and more entry-level pricing but we are unable to determine more detailed pricing structures at this stage. The move will ensure the club is more accessible to a wider section of supporters and we are confident that our attendances will regularly be in the top five in the country.
In other words, they will able to afford to offer thousands of free and low-priced tickets to those areas well-connected to the Olympic Stadium. Well, Ebbsfleet is 12 minutes from Stratford on HS1, with Ashford just another 19 minutes away. I'd say the Olympic Stadium was pretty well connected with Kent, our traditional heartland and most natural marketplace.
I don't blame West Ham for making the best of their opportunity, but no-one could persuade me that West Ham are making the right contribution in proportion to the long-term benefits they will receive. They are essentially getting the 5th largest stadium in the country for nothing.
We could stand back and do nothing, but the Supporters' Trust prefers to engage politically to ensure fair competition in our marketplace and to help preserve Charlton Athletic for future generations. It may achieve nothing ultimately, but we are citizens too and the LLDC should be held to account for the value to the taxpayer in this deal at the very least. At the very best, it will be political dynamite as an election approaches; although I suspect time will win out on that one.
I think there is plenty West Ham could and would do to embed themselves further into SE London and NW Kent. I am less concerned about them further out, despite the HS1 route. A cheap day return from Ashford to Stratford is currently £32.40 and due to go up again. Of course people have railcards and in some cases season tickets, but I think rail fares are an obstacle for WHU there and further out.
I use HS1 a lot and you tend to get Arsenal fans on it and to a lesser extent Chelsea and other big London clubs. But I doubt if it has made a material difference to their support in East Kent.
I get all that @rikofold but you seem to be totally ignoring my question, if West Ham gave a take it or leave it offer, what was the alternative? Let the stadium rust?
I get all that @rikofold but you seem to be totally ignoring my question, if West Ham gave a take it or leave it offer, what was the alternative? Let the stadium rust?
I get all that @rikofold but you seem to be totally ignoring my question, if West Ham gave a take it or leave it offer, what was the alternative? Let the stadium rust?
How do you know it was take it or leave it?
I don't, that's why I used the word if. As I said above, I can't imagine why West Ham, or any other football club would ever offer to pay more than they felt they needed to in order to secure the deal. With a viable alternative perhaps they would have offered more, what was that alternative?
I accept it's not good value for the taxpayer but you have not shown how it is not the best value available to the tax payer.
The Trust have done a great job to bring this to the public however I put no blame on West Ham. Like us they are a business out to reduce their losses and do the best for their club, just as I would expect RD to do similar if the chance was presented. The real villains are Lord Coe with his talk of legacy and the LLDC for such poor negotiations.
The legacy of the whole Olympic Park is a scadel and the stadium is just a part of it.
The Trust have done a great job to bring this to the public however I put no blame on West Ham. Like us they are a business out to reduce their losses and do the best for their club, just as I would expect RD to do similar if the chance was presented. The real villains are Lord Coe with his talk of legacy and the LLDC for such poor negotiations.
The legacy of the whole Olympic Park is a scadel and the stadium is just a part of it.
I fully agree - and also greatly applaud Rikofold's masterly and lucid explanation - except to say that I don't believe for one moment WHU fell into this by sheer innocent good fortune. I cannot see them not being involved in some way or other as soon as, or maybe even before, the Davids and Ms Brady took over at UP.
A £9.6bn mega-project involving a whole multitude of participants is a playground for politicians and their bureaucrat buddies alike. I bet this is the only instance in planning history where the IMBY interest shouted loudest. As for the flint-faced, black-hearted civil servants ostensibly there to protect the public purse, you can be sure that their view of the public interest is governed overwhelmingly by the self-interest of their own department's little empire. (It can only be wondered at as to which parts of the project's huge budget still remain partly unspent, which contingency funds are still untapped - this whole deal is a treasure trove buried in a maze, open only to the favoured few.)
Whitehall, City Hall, Town Hall and a self-appointed coterie of the Great and Good have between them created this earthly paradise, a gladed forest where a clever sow can happily root for all the truffles she can find ....
It will probably take the most courageous and well-informed of whistle-blowers finally to open all this up. In the meantime the Trust's relentless efforts, the EU's dogged persistence and a possible lightning strike from the media are what will keep this story alive and kicking. Besides, it's only lil ol' Charlton ....
I think the comparison between the Manchester City deal and that of West Ham for these ready built stadia, is a very valid argument. Surely, there were very few alternatives to Man City for their stadium at the time, but, it appears, a good/fair deal was struck for the club and for the taxpayer. Hardly the case with the West Ham deal.
Any comparisons with City are complete invalid; the conversation at CoMS was small, Sport England had already paid for the majority of the infrastructure in the stadium, while community sport got nothing, no lottery money was returned, and the deal didn't include money coming back if City were brought and financially doped.
The LDDC is a relatively cash rich organisation, it is returning money back to the GLA, and will will probably return money back to the Lottery within the next 5 years. Selling of housing and offices is going well, and loads of sovereign wealth funds are piling in, the Qatar one now brought the athletes village last year for example.
The money on the stadium now will look tiny in comparisons to the long term returns and peoples myopic view around what Richard and Peter once told them.
Rothko, very rich people often pay more tax than very poor, doesn't mean they have paid enough.
The point of whether selling the land on the Olympics site to shady Middle Eastern investors so they can build expensive flats for offshore investors to buy and leave empty is nothing really to do with whether the deals fair. I would have thought when setting a rental level on a stadium you would look for comparables to set the tone of the rental discussion.
I get all that @rikofold but you seem to be totally ignoring my question, if West Ham gave a take it or leave it offer, what was the alternative? Let the stadium rust?
How do you know it was take it or leave it?
It wasn't though, was it - unless the negotiating committee was blind to the scale of benefit about to drop on West Ham, which would be damning wouldn't it?
Any comparisons with City are complete invalid; the conversation at CoMS was small, Sport England had already paid for the majority of the infrastructure in the stadium, while community sport got nothing, no lottery money was returned, and the deal didn't include money coming back if City were brought and financially doped.
The LDDC is a relatively cash rich organisation, it is returning money back to the GLA, and will will probably return money back to the Lottery within the next 5 years. Selling of housing and offices is going well, and loads of sovereign wealth funds are piling in, the Qatar one now brought the athletes village last year for example.
The money on the stadium now will look tiny in comparisons to the long term returns and peoples myopic view around what Richard and Peter once told them.
Certainly the money West Ham will make will dwarf their contribution to it, couldn't agree more.
At last night's VIP meeting there was apparently the following dialogue
Q: What contingency plans does the club have for West Ham giving away tickets when they move to the Olympic Stadium ?
A; (KM): We want to make football at Charlton affordable for children. We are unhappy about what they will do but it is a fact. Charlton can offer something different - a warm feeling.
This is a little example of why the Trust is puzzled by Katrien's attitude to dialogue with us. We have always understood that the Club doesn't want to go head to head publicly with West Ham over this. Indeed it's an example of how a Trust can work as a kind of independent guerrilla operation to address issues which threaten the club, while the club itself can maintain deniability. It's all a world away from what the Standard fans get up to, but RD presumably has no idea that we can do this kind of thing. It just surely makes sense to quietly recognize these positive actions, even if it is just a quiet word via Richard Murray.
Anyway we are still working on this. The information Commissioner recognizes that the blanket refusal to give us the contract between LLDC and WHU was a breach of the FOI law. They already have extracted a release of some more, while almost inviting us to confirm that it isn't enough. If we get more, then our new plan, as recommended by Supporters Direct, will be implemented.
Our message to Katrien is, yes it's a fact that West Ham will play there. We've never sought to stop them. But it is not a fact that nothing can be done about the terms of the deal. That is a political issue. Politics is fluid, and as Charlton fans we know how we can upset the applecart. There is a general election coming. In terms of the objective we have, the more they pay in rent, the less free cash flow they have to subsidise ticket deals.
It's not necessary to have club's backing to proceed with our project. But since we are actively addressing an issue which Katrien now confirms the club is worried about, we hope it makes sense to quietly confer and make sure our respective activities don't unwittingly clash. We will continue to quietly propose this.
Comments
The comments make particularly interesting reading, with one person suggesting it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume a Boleyn Ground sale price of over £60m. Another supposes that Sullivan and Gold may have negotiated a percentage of future profits on the sale of the new builds.
well the short answer is, politics.You've got, as mentioned by @Bournemouth Addick, Sir Robin Wales in Newham. then you've got Boris Johnson, desperate to claim a legacy as his personal achievement, and now indeed claiming the "credit" for his personal role in the deal; and then goodness gracious, what a coincidence, Karren Brady, touted as a future Tory mayoral candidate will now become Lady Brady. So my personal opinion is that this deal was a stitch up engineered by politicians whose goals align with those of West Ham's owners.
But lets not be too tribal. Robin Wales isn't a Tory. Its about politicians putting their personal interests first. So the task is to gain the attention of politicians who don't have a personal interest, and do want to be seen to be putting taxpayers interests first.
I'm not saying it's right, I just don't see the alternative, no commercial organisation is going to pay more than they feel they have to.
Let's be clear. The LLDC had a responsibility to ensure that they obtained best value from the deal. Amidst reports (example) that Robin Wales received countless gifts from West Ham during the process, should we be so surprised that West Ham received (to quote Barry Hearn) "the deal of the century"?
Football is of course key to this regeneration, and West Ham were always the most likely club to be able to deliver its success. However, with the stadium swap alone West Ham will pocket millions of pounds; in contrast, Newham Council goes cap in hand to the Government to borrow the £40m it will be contributing.
I've looked over some more figures:
Given the hugely lucrative nature of this deal, I think the LLDC could have done a lot lot better. It could be reasonably argued that West Ham had a lot more to lose, and that should have been the negotiating standpoint.
So what are West Ham going to do with all this new money? Well, let's quote West Ham themselves:
West Ham will be moving to one of the best-connected stadiums in Europe. The DLR station at Stratford International is transforming it into a key transport hub for Newham and east London. In addition Stratford is served by the Central and Jubilee lines on the London Underground as well as London Overground and the high-speed rail service from the city.
We are offering up to 100,000 free tickets per season that will ensure some of the most deprived children in the country will gain access to elite sport and drive an increase in sports participation. As a Board we have always been committed to offering affordable family football and the increased capacity opens up so many new opportunities to support this initiative. There will be more affordable seats and more entry-level pricing but we are unable to determine more detailed pricing structures at this stage. The move will ensure the club is more accessible to a wider section of supporters and we are confident that our attendances will regularly be in the top five in the country.
In other words, they will able to afford to offer thousands of free and low-priced tickets to those areas well-connected to the Olympic Stadium. Well, Ebbsfleet is 12 minutes from Stratford on HS1, with Ashford just another 19 minutes away. I'd say the Olympic Stadium was pretty well connected with Kent, our traditional heartland and most natural marketplace.
I don't blame West Ham for making the best of their opportunity, but no-one could persuade me that West Ham are making the right contribution in proportion to the long-term benefits they will receive. They are essentially getting the 5th largest stadium in the country for nothing.
We could stand back and do nothing, but the Supporters' Trust prefers to engage politically to ensure fair competition in our marketplace and to help preserve Charlton Athletic for future generations. It may achieve nothing ultimately, but we are citizens too and the LLDC should be held to account for the value to the taxpayer in this deal at the very least. At the very best, it will be political dynamite as an election approaches; although I suspect time will win out on that one.
I use HS1 a lot and you tend to get Arsenal fans on it and to a lesser extent Chelsea and other big London clubs. But I doubt if it has made a material difference to their support in East Kent.
I accept it's not good value for the taxpayer but you have not shown how it is not the best value available to the tax payer.
The legacy of the whole Olympic Park is a scadel and the stadium is just a part of it.
A £9.6bn mega-project involving a whole multitude of participants is a playground for politicians and their bureaucrat buddies alike. I bet this is the only instance in planning history where the IMBY interest shouted loudest. As for the flint-faced, black-hearted civil servants ostensibly there to protect the public purse, you can be sure that their view of the public interest is governed overwhelmingly by the self-interest of their own department's little empire. (It can only be wondered at as to which parts of the project's huge budget still remain partly unspent, which contingency funds are still untapped - this whole deal is a treasure trove buried in a maze, open only to the favoured few.)
Whitehall, City Hall, Town Hall and a self-appointed coterie of the Great and Good have between them created this earthly paradise, a gladed forest where a clever sow can happily root for all the truffles she can find ....
It will probably take the most courageous and well-informed of whistle-blowers finally to open all this up. In the meantime the Trust's relentless efforts, the EU's dogged persistence and a possible lightning strike from the media are what will keep this story alive and kicking. Besides, it's only lil ol' Charlton ....
The LDDC is a relatively cash rich organisation, it is returning money back to the GLA, and will will probably return money back to the Lottery within the next 5 years. Selling of housing and offices is going well, and loads of sovereign wealth funds are piling in, the Qatar one now brought the athletes village last year for example.
The money on the stadium now will look tiny in comparisons to the long term returns and peoples myopic view around what Richard and Peter once told them.
The point of whether selling the land on the Olympics site to shady Middle Eastern investors so they can build expensive flats for offshore investors to buy and leave empty is nothing really to do with whether the deals fair. I would have thought when setting a rental level on a stadium you would look for comparables to set the tone of the rental discussion.
Q: What contingency plans does the club have for West Ham giving away tickets when they move to the Olympic Stadium ?
A; (KM): We want to make football at Charlton affordable for children. We are unhappy about what they will do but it is a fact. Charlton can offer something different - a warm feeling.
This is a little example of why the Trust is puzzled by Katrien's attitude to dialogue with us. We have always understood that the Club doesn't want to go head to head publicly with West Ham over this. Indeed it's an example of how a Trust can work as a kind of independent guerrilla operation to address issues which threaten the club, while the club itself can maintain deniability. It's all a world away from what the Standard fans get up to, but RD presumably has no idea that we can do this kind of thing. It just surely makes sense to quietly recognize these positive actions, even if it is just a quiet word via Richard Murray.
Anyway we are still working on this. The information Commissioner recognizes that the blanket refusal to give us the contract between LLDC and WHU was a breach of the FOI law. They already have extracted a release of some more, while almost inviting us to confirm that it isn't enough. If we get more, then our new plan, as recommended by Supporters Direct, will be implemented.
Our message to Katrien is, yes it's a fact that West Ham will play there. We've never sought to stop them. But it is not a fact that nothing can be done about the terms of the deal. That is a political issue. Politics is fluid, and as Charlton fans we know how we can upset the applecart. There is a general election coming. In terms of the objective we have, the more they pay in rent, the less free cash flow they have to subsidise ticket deals.
It's not necessary to have club's backing to proceed with our project. But since we are actively addressing an issue which Katrien now confirms the club is worried about, we hope it makes sense to quietly confer and make sure our respective activities don't unwittingly clash. We will continue to quietly propose this.