How on earth can it be to the taxpayers' benefit? If the stadium was just left to fall into disrepair then this would cost approximately £0. To convert it into a stadium where West Ham can play their 25 home games per season costs £272m, less the £15m that West Ham contribute. It then seems that approximately £0 per annum of the £257m net outlay is recouped through the West Ham deal.
Think it'll take a while for the public purse to be bolstered as a result!
Let's get this out in the open first: I'm a German West Ham fan (used to work in Barking, Essex, for a while) and I'd like to add some balance to all this. I obviously like most others don't know exact figures but I've read a lot about this whole sorry shenanigans. Mistakes have been made by several people leading up to this, Coe, Jowell, Livingstone, Johnson, Hearn and Levy. They are responsible that the OS is basically an athletics stadium that had to be converted to even be remotely suitable for football. Of course you could have sold the whole thing to the highest bidder, bring the bulldozers in and build a new ground. It didn't happen and due to Tottenham's and Hearn's intervention West Ham couldn't buy and own the OS which is why we now have a situation where a Premier League club can only rent the stadium. Once you accept that fact you also have to accept the consequences that come with it: The LLDC wanted to keep the OS going, so they had to do the conversion and will also need to pay for stewarding, pitch maintenance, goals, nets etc. What does the taxpayer get out of it ? 2.5 million rent per year (index linked), a share of catering income and apparently the lion's share of the naming rights income. Conservative estimates would put those at around 5-7 million a year in a location like London with a Premier League club in there, so that makes it around ten million a year for the taxpayer from West Ham alone. Plus West Ham being there will allow the OS to have other events all year round which will give the LLDC even more money of which West Ham won't see a penny because, again, they don't own the OS, they rent it. It is not West Ham's ground. West Ham use the place for 25 dates a year, why would you expect them to pay for everything ? What is a fair price then, considering public money is involved ? Discount the building costs of the OS, those are sunk costs, the OS was build for the Olympics, served it's purpose, it has nothing to do with who uses it afterwards. The conversion costs will be recovered in 20 or 25 years, maybe less, depending on the magnitude of the sponsorship deal for the OS. Of course West Ham will benefit financially, that's why the club even negotiated for a move. If nothing was in it for West Ham why would they move ? A fair market price is what a private seller may consider a reasonable deal and you have to ask yourself: Would any Premier League club have accepted a rental deal that prohibited them from improving their financial outlook ? If anyone can prove that palms were greased in this then by all accounts throw the law at them as the people involved would deserve everything coming at them at that point. Until this can be proven however we have to assume that this is simply the best deal the LLDC could get. It's called compromise. Of course West Ham could have been asked by the LLDC to pay even more. At which point West ham might have decided to walk away. At that point there would be no additional conversion costs of course, but also no future income from the OS. Like so many other Olympic venues it would have turned into a white elephant and the 500 million pounds it took to build would have been blown on singular event of the Olympic Games. I still don't know if the deal is fair, few things in life are. But I know that serious amounts of money will go back to the taxpayer too due to West Ham playing there.
Just 25 times a year? No cup competitions? No replays? No play offs?
When it's set up for football, you won't be able to use it for athletics - so what's it going to be used for? as for sure, there is plenty of competition for venues of this size in London.
And of course you fail to mention the sale of the prime development site at Upton Park.
Let's get this out in the open first: I'm a German West Ham fan (used to work in Barking, Essex, for a while) and I'd like to add some balance to all this. I obviously like most others don't know exact figures but I've read a lot about this whole sorry shenanigans. Mistakes have been made by several people leading up to this, Coe, Jowell, Livingstone, Johnson, Hearn and Levy. They are responsible that the OS is basically an athletics stadium that had to be converted to even be remotely suitable for football. Of course you could have sold the whole thing to the highest bidder, bring the bulldozers in and build a new ground. It didn't happen and due to Tottenham's and Hearn's intervention West Ham couldn't buy and own the OS which is why we now have a situation where a Premier League club can only rent the stadium. Once you accept that fact you also have to accept the consequences that come with it: The LLDC wanted to keep the OS going, so they had to do the conversion and will also need to pay for stewarding, pitch maintenance, goals, nets etc. What does the taxpayer get out of it ? 2.5 million rent per year (index linked), a share of catering income and apparently the lion's share of the naming rights income. Conservative estimates would put those at around 5-7 million a year in a location like London with a Premier League club in there, so that makes it around ten million a year for the taxpayer from West Ham alone. Plus West Ham being there will allow the OS to have other events all year round which will give the LLDC even more money of which West Ham won't see a penny because, again, they don't own the OS, they rent it. It is not West Ham's ground. West Ham use the place for 25 dates a year, why would you expect them to pay for everything ? What is a fair price then, considering public money is involved ? Discount the building costs of the OS, those are sunk costs, the OS was build for the Olympics, served it's purpose, it has nothing to do with who uses it afterwards. The conversion costs will be recovered in 20 or 25 years, maybe less, depending on the magnitude of the sponsorship deal for the OS. Of course West Ham will benefit financially, that's why the club even negotiated for a move. If nothing was in it for West Ham why would they move ? A fair market price is what a private seller may consider a reasonable deal and you have to ask yourself: Would any Premier League club have accepted a rental deal that prohibited them from improving their financial outlook ? If anyone can prove that palms were greased in this then by all accounts throw the law at them as the people involved would deserve everything coming at them at that point. Until this can be proven however we have to assume that this is simply the best deal the LLDC could get. It's called compromise. Of course West Ham could have been asked by the LLDC to pay even more. At which point West ham might have decided to walk away. At that point there would be no additional conversion costs of course, but also no future income from the OS. Like so many other Olympic venues it would have turned into a white elephant and the 500 million pounds it took to build would have been blown on singular event of the Olympic Games. I still don't know if the deal is fair, few things in life are. But I know that serious amounts of money will go back to the taxpayer too due to West Ham playing there.
I don't think anyone is laying the blame at the Hammers mate, the blame is with the people who have decided to give the stadium away. Just have a look at the heavily censored documents they are presenting people.
Let's get this out in the open first: I'm a German West Ham fan (used to work in Barking, Essex, for a while) and I'd like to add some balance to all this. I obviously like most others don't know exact figures but I've read a lot about this whole sorry shenanigans. Mistakes have been made by several people leading up to this, Coe, Jowell, Livingstone, Johnson, Hearn and Levy. They are responsible that the OS is basically an athletics stadium that had to be converted to even be remotely suitable for football. Of course you could have sold the whole thing to the highest bidder, bring the bulldozers in and build a new ground. It didn't happen and due to Tottenham's and Hearn's intervention West Ham couldn't buy and own the OS which is why we now have a situation where a Premier League club can only rent the stadium. Once you accept that fact you also have to accept the consequences that come with it: The LLDC wanted to keep the OS going, so they had to do the conversion and will also need to pay for stewarding, pitch maintenance, goals, nets etc. What does the taxpayer get out of it ? 2.5 million rent per year (index linked), a share of catering income and apparently the lion's share of the naming rights income. Conservative estimates would put those at around 5-7 million a year in a location like London with a Premier League club in there, so that makes it around ten million a year for the taxpayer from West Ham alone. Plus West Ham being there will allow the OS to have other events all year round which will give the LLDC even more money of which West Ham won't see a penny because, again, they don't own the OS, they rent it. It is not West Ham's ground. West Ham use the place for 25 dates a year, why would you expect them to pay for everything ? What is a fair price then, considering public money is involved ? Discount the building costs of the OS, those are sunk costs, the OS was build for the Olympics, served it's purpose, it has nothing to do with who uses it afterwards. The conversion costs will be recovered in 20 or 25 years, maybe less, depending on the magnitude of the sponsorship deal for the OS. Of course West Ham will benefit financially, that's why the club even negotiated for a move. If nothing was in it for West Ham why would they move ? A fair market price is what a private seller may consider a reasonable deal and you have to ask yourself: Would any Premier League club have accepted a rental deal that prohibited them from improving their financial outlook ? If anyone can prove that palms were greased in this then by all accounts throw the law at them as the people involved would deserve everything coming at them at that point. Until this can be proven however we have to assume that this is simply the best deal the LLDC could get. It's called compromise. Of course West Ham could have been asked by the LLDC to pay even more. At which point West ham might have decided to walk away. At that point there would be no additional conversion costs of course, but also no future income from the OS. Like so many other Olympic venues it would have turned into a white elephant and the 500 million pounds it took to build would have been blown on singular event of the Olympic Games. I still don't know if the deal is fair, few things in life are. But I know that serious amounts of money will go back to the taxpayer too due to West Ham playing there.
I don't think anyone is laying the blame at the Hammers mate, the blame is with the people who have decided to give the stadium away. Just have a look at the heavily censored documents they are presenting people.
You concede that you don't know exact figures. Charlton Athletic Supporters Trust is eventually going to get them and share them with all the other taxpayers who have an interest in this. If you'd be kind enough to visit our website you'll find a special section covering all the work we've done to uncover the facts. If you have not seen the BBC film you can view it via the link from our site. If you still believe we are mistaken after having read through all the information there, do come back and argue your point. I guess you've noticed that we're all capable of an adult discussion about it here, in contrast to what I read on KUMB or WHO, and up to now you haven't said anything that hasn't been said by other vocal West Ham fans such as Sean Whetstone, who appeared in the BBC film.
It's really important to understand that CAST, and most people here, simply seek a re-balancing of the deal that return more money to the taxpayer and brings the deal into line with comparable ones elsewhere. Do you argue, for example, that Man City got a better deal than West Ham? What about the example of Ajax which CAST has highlighted? And are there any German examples you can present (factually verified) which are better than West Ham's?
We have no evidence of wrongdoing (as opposed to mounting evidence of incompetence). However since you are here, and obviously well wired in to England, perhaps you could give us your opinion on what exactly Karren Brady has done to deserve being made a peer. Or even when she set up and ran her own small business (she is supposed to be an expert and "ambassador" in this area), because as far as I can discern she has worked continuously for Gullivan since she was 23, where they met her flogging ad space at LBC Radio.
congratulations on your English by the way. Even by the high standards of many Germans, that is flawless.
I agree about needing more info on the deal to come out into the public domain soon. As I understand it the LLDC still needs confidentiality in order to protext their commercial interests in terms of upcoming sponsorship deals and renting out the OS for other events. Eventually though they will need to release more info on the West Ham deal. So if we use ten million a year West Ham money as a rough estimate (rent, catering, naming rights share), the conversion costs will have been paid for by West Ham within 25 years. The lease is for 99 years though which will give the taxpayer another 740 million over time, not considering rising rent (index linked) and potentially increasing naming rights income. You want more money upfront or the conversion paid up by West Ham earlier ? Surely then you couldn't expect a pure rental deal though. The more money someone pays the more they will expect to get bit-ownership and a bigger say in the running of the stadium, you cannot have it both ways. West Ham are renting, they are paying a price for the privilege. If you want more money I'm sure the LLDC will be grateful for your suggestions who out there might be willing to contribute more than West Ham without getting any ownership of the place to go with higher contributions.
GermanEastEnder, do you think it's a level playing field that all the running costs, including match day stewards, on match day are paid for by the tax payer??
Okay, I'd rather not talk about Brady because I'm not really a fan of her, leave it at that. Kudos to your efforts on getting more information on this, we at West Ham are cuirous too. I do indeed believe that Man City have a better deal, look at he way hey bought the privilege to sell the naming rights for their stadium and sold the sponsorship for a multitude of their own outlay. Yes, they paid slightly more toards the conversion, but the conversion was overall cheaper anyway as the Manchester stadium was designed with a bit of common sense and consideration for future (footballing) use. So, what would you consider a fair deal then ? If, for instance, West Ham paid more money upfront towards conversion, would you then accept West Ham getting a bigger share of the naming rights in return as it will be the Premier League club attracting a big name sponsor, not athletics ? We need to accept though that the only deal possible is one that entails compromise and is beneficial for both sides: If the benefit is too small/unacceptable for either party there is no deal and you'd have your white elephant. Is there another team/stadium that could act as a guideline what a fair deal should look like ? And remember: A Premier League club will only accept a deal if there is something in it for the club. You cannot expect a professional football club to bail out the taxpayer for mistakes done by the government or officials designing the stadium.
I agree about needing more info on the deal to come out into the public domain soon. As I understand it the LLDC still needs confidentiality in order to protext their commercial interests in terms of upcoming sponsorship deals and renting out the OS for other events. Eventually though they will need to release more info on the West Ham deal. So if we use ten million a year West Ham money as a rough estimate (rent, catering, naming rights share), the conversion costs will have been paid for by West Ham within 25 years. The lease is for 99 years though which will give the taxpayer another 740 million over time, not considering rising rent (index linked) and potentially increasing naming rights income. You want more money upfront or the conversion paid up by West Ham earlier ? Surely then you couldn't expect a pure rental deal though. The more money someone pays the more they will expect to get bit-ownership and a bigger say in the running of the stadium, you cannot have it both ways. West Ham are renting, they are paying a price for the privilege. If you want more money I'm sure the LLDC will be grateful for your suggestions who out there might be willing to contribute more than West Ham without getting any ownership of the place to go with higher contributions.
What exactly do WHU add to the naming rights given that Upton Park is .... Upton Park. I assume they have tried and failed already with that idea.
Also, by having a veto on who or what the other OS events are, surely WHU are effectively bit-owning the OS ?
West Ham add being the Premier League club, without a Premier League club in there it would be very difficult to sort out a lucrative naming rights deal for the LLDC. But apparently West Ham (at least initially) have signed the majority of the naming rights away to the LLDC, so the taxpayer will benefit from that. As far as I'm aware Man City are now paying 4 million a year in rent, but get to keep the naming rights income from the Etihad deal. So they pay a bit more rent to get a lot more sponsorship income and this is being kept by the rich Premier League club Man City in this instance. Manchester council who still own the stadium don't see any of the Etihad money other than the increased rent. There is in fact controversy about the stewarding as the West ham stewards now need to reapply to a new company that does all the stewarding for events in the OS. Again, it's all coming down to being a rental deal only. Vinci will run the OS and will have to make sure that the OS is fit and proper to host the events it is gathering income from. This is very much normal practise for stadiums and arenas around the world. It's very likely that the stewards in the OS will not only work during West Ham games but for other events too. As for vetos on events I'm sure West Ham have only a limited say. They may be able to prevent a monster trucks event as that might affect the condition of the pitch unduly. If there are no clashes with setup procedures/schedules though, I'm sure West Ham cannot keep Vinci from having concerts, cricket and rugby there during the football season.
You're right of course that West Ham have never sold naming rights to the Boleyn Ground. I also admit that the OS and its location and transport links will be a factor, but you cannot deny that Premier League football on a regular basis will be the main reason why a big sponsor might be interested. And yes Hex, I would think that you can easily have other events in the OS during football season. West Ham as the anchor concessionaire get priority of course for their games, however, usually you have a minimum of 14 days between games, more than enough to have a concert or rugby/cricket event there in the meantime. I've read a bit more on your CAS Trust homepage now and I do understand your concern. But we cannot really be sure how West Ham's deal compares to Ajax or Man City unless we know more. Which is your main point I suppose. Fro what I've heard though the confidentiality and blacking out of passages in the deal is at this point in time more down to the LLDC and the politicians than West Ham.
You're right of course that West Ham have never sold naming rights to the Boleyn Ground. I also admit that the OS and its location and transport links will be a factor, but you cannot deny that Premier League football on a regular basis will be the main reason why a big sponsor might be interested. And yes Hex, I would think that you can easily have other events in the OS during football season. West Ham as the anchor concessionaire get priority of course for their games, however, usually you have a minimum of 14 days between games, more than enough to have a concert or rugby/cricket event there in the meantime. I've read a bit more on your CAS Trust homepage now and I do understand your concern. But we cannot really be sure how West Ham's deal compares to Ajax or Man City unless we know more. Which is your main point I suppose. Fro what I've heard though the confidentiality and blacking out of passages in the deal is at this point in time more down to the LLDC and the politicians than West Ham.
I don't doubt your last point @GermanEastEnder. The LLDC and the politicians from Boris to Newham need the confidentiality as they are running scared of what they have done and the fact that the "plebs" are asking annoying questions.
A couple of other points. City also handed Maine Road over to Manchester Council who benefitted from the development there. At the same time, City paid £20m to install the bars & facilities needed. The conversion costs to remove the Athletics track were £22m. Compare that to the ridiculous amounts incurred at Stratford. More to do with a lack of foresight by politicians, but also more reason to drive a deal that made commercial sense for the taxpayer.
WHam, on the other hand, trousered all the money from Galliard Homes for Upton Park, stumping up just £15m as their contribution to the conversion.
City pay £4m per year rent (£2m of that was an uplift for giving them naming rights) and then pay their costs on top of that. Johnny Taxpayer doesn't come along with their corner flags every other week, or cut the grass for them.
Given the riches available to Premier League clubs have increased dramatically since City moved to their stadium 12 years ago and that the deal for next year will see WHam pocket at least £99m per annum, a better deal should gave been struck.
1. Your suggestion that West Ham have "given up" naming rights is misleading. They never had any to give up. Would they have ever sold the name of the Boleyn had they stayed? What would you fans have said? Not every club sells its stadium name. So in fact, West Ham are getting new revenue. How much, we don't know. Nor can you price how much the naming rights sale value is because of West Ham's presence. Take it into account certainly, as part of the bigger picture.
2. Did you know that City handed the keys to the council for nothing?
3. As regards the continuing refusal to release the contract, careful inspection of the FOI thread shows you that the LLDC finally admitted to me that West Ham had and have a decisive say in the matter. Further it is West Ham who have clearly framed the basis of the "commercial confidentiality" excuse. They refer to other clubs getting an advantage in the transfer market if the full contract is revealed. One of our documents on the website is a submission to the Information Commissioner that this excuse is bogus.
4. For some reason (surely not budget, given the money spent) the retractable seats must be installed and removed by hand, and each time it takes at least a week. This will limit the type of events that can be staged while West Ham are playing, which this season would be for ten months.
Fair deal? My personal fair deal would be : Rent £4m. No rebate for relegation (FFS). Overheads paid by the club. All proceeds from sale of Boleyn back to taxpayer. Corporate hospitality revenue shared in the same proportion as normal catering revenue is. That will still give West Ham a bright future, but for which they will need to work a bit harder, which means not flinging cheap tickets around our backyard.
Good points raised by you guys and I understand where you're coming from. West Ham surely took what they could possibly get (why wouldn't they ? Other clubs would have done pretty much the same). I'm not sure if and when the terms of the deal could be adjusted actually as surely the current deal must be somewhat binding on both parties for a certain period of time and may be revisited later. The conversion is nearly done now. So asking West Ham to pay double the rent and maybe another 40 or 40 million towards conversion is a big ask at this stage, with West Ham surely trying to sue someone for neglect of adhering to a contract. Unless of course someone can prove that the terms of the deal were frivolous or improper which will be hard to do. I'm sure West Ham didn't put a gun to the heads of the folks negotiating on behalf of the LLDC in order to sign the deal. There might yet be a massive can of worms to be opened. With West Ham hopefully having done nothing untoward. I'm sure we'll be fine, you cannot blame West Ham for negotiating a brilliant deal. If you want to know about brilliant deals ask Barry Hearn. He knows a bit about this sort of things when you look at how he acquired Brisbane Road and benefitted from that deal financially, again at the expense of the council.
Prague Addick, what you consider a fair deal may have very much resulted in West Ham walking away from the deal. Which might be what the majority of people who are not West Ham fans may want anyway. At that stage you have the white elephant which might still be more preferable for most compared to West Ham moving in under the current deal, fair enough. Personally I wouldn't have minded a similar deal than what Man City got. But that was not really possible with the way the OS has been designed unfortunately.
I'm not sure if and when the terms of the deal could be adjusted actually as surely the current deal must be somewhat binding on both parties for a certain period of time and may be revisited later.
I know nothing of EU law but, if state aid is involved then wouldn't it be for WHU to get the OK from Brussels ? If they didn't and state aid is proven then maybe the contract would be null and void ?
I'm not sure if and when the terms of the deal could be adjusted actually as surely the current deal must be somewhat binding on both parties for a certain period of time and may be revisited later.
I know nothing of EU law but, if state aid is involved then wouldn't it be for WHU to get the OK from Brussels ? If they didn't and state aid is proven then maybe the contract would be null and void ?
The key issue, @Hex, is that someone - ideally a competitor or group of competitors, raises a State Aid complaint. Sadly there is no need for WHU to get approval.
Well, West Ham in fact were the only club going through all bidding processes and finally were awarded the gig. So apart from West Ham no other club came to the rescue, did they ? Spurs wanted the OS on their terms and the LLDC wasn't having it, tough luck there. Eventually we will all find out how good or bad this deal really is. Fact is there wasn't much of an alternative in the end if you bear in mind that the LLDC was keen on using the OS post-games and make money from it in the long run. Which undoubtedly they will. Or is anyone suggesting the LLDC will actually lose money by having West Ham in there ? And yes Robin, this guy is very much for real. You call it nonsense, but on a forum like this with a controversial topic like this I'd expect people to have differing opinions.
Well, West Ham in fact were the only club going through all bidding processes and finally were awarded the gig. So apart from West Ham no other club came to the rescue, did they ? Spurs wanted the OS on their terms and the LLDC wasn't having it, tough luck there. Eventually we will all find out how good or bad this deal really is. Fact is there wasn't much of an alternative in the end if you bear in mind that the LLDC was keen on using the OS post-games and make money from it in the long run. Which undoubtedly they will. Or is anyone suggesting the LLDC will actually lose money by having West Ham in there ? And yes Robin, this guy is very much for real. You call it nonsense, but on a forum like this with a controversial topic like this I'd expect people to have differing opinions.
Sure and you are welcome here, but TRR's point, which I agree with, is that so far you haven't said anything different to the standard defensive West Ham fan response. But you've been open-minded enough to take a look at our work on the subject, which is to your credit.
In summary this is our stance. Yes, West Ham did what any business would do, negotiate the best business deal on behalf of its shareholders (who are in this case just two people plus their secretary). The issue is the mounting evidence of incompetence on the other side of the negotiating table, people whose salaries are paid by us, and the whiff of more than just incompetence. The re-balancing of the contract that I suggested above would continue to make the deal for West Ham highly lucrative. But it wouldn't be so ridiculous that they can fling 20,000 tickets per game around at any price because they are already creaming it with 35k plus the all important corporate hospitality dosh (which dwarfs the match day catering, hope you understand how important that is - Gullivan always did)
Now, why don't you want to talk about Lady Brady? :-) Surely her peerage is directly related to the fact that West Ham have, according to you, saved the OS from becoming a white elephant? That's wonderful, isn't it? See I just cannot think of any other reason why she should be given a peerage. Can you?
No matter what bollox is spouted on here or on any other forum, no matter what anybody's agenda is, whether they hate West Ham or whether they support West Ham, when there is a public asset or where there are large amounts of public money being spent then there should ALWAYS be a very public and very open enquiry to demonstrate everything is totally above board...
Comments
Think it'll take a while for the public purse to be bolstered as a result!
Mistakes have been made by several people leading up to this, Coe, Jowell, Livingstone, Johnson, Hearn and Levy.
They are responsible that the OS is basically an athletics stadium that had to be converted to even be remotely suitable for football.
Of course you could have sold the whole thing to the highest bidder, bring the bulldozers in and build a new ground. It didn't happen and due to Tottenham's and Hearn's intervention West Ham couldn't buy and own the OS which is why we now have a situation where a Premier League club can only rent the stadium.
Once you accept that fact you also have to accept the consequences that come with it: The LLDC wanted to keep the OS going, so they had to do the conversion and will also need to pay for stewarding, pitch maintenance, goals, nets etc.
What does the taxpayer get out of it ? 2.5 million rent per year (index linked), a share of catering income and apparently the lion's share of the naming rights income. Conservative estimates would put those at around 5-7 million a year in a location like London with a Premier League club in there, so that makes it around ten million a year for the taxpayer from West Ham alone. Plus West Ham being there will allow the OS to have other events all year round which will give the LLDC even more money of which West Ham won't see a penny because, again, they don't own the OS, they rent it. It is not West Ham's ground. West Ham use the place for 25 dates a year, why would you expect them to pay for everything ?
What is a fair price then, considering public money is involved ?
Discount the building costs of the OS, those are sunk costs, the OS was build for the Olympics, served it's purpose, it has nothing to do with who uses it afterwards.
The conversion costs will be recovered in 20 or 25 years, maybe less, depending on the magnitude of the sponsorship deal for the OS.
Of course West Ham will benefit financially, that's why the club even negotiated for a move.
If nothing was in it for West Ham why would they move ?
A fair market price is what a private seller may consider a reasonable deal and you have to ask yourself:
Would any Premier League club have accepted a rental deal that prohibited them from improving their financial outlook ?
If anyone can prove that palms were greased in this then by all accounts throw the law at them as the people involved would deserve everything coming at them at that point.
Until this can be proven however we have to assume that this is simply the best deal the LLDC could get.
It's called compromise. Of course West Ham could have been asked by the LLDC to pay even more.
At which point West ham might have decided to walk away. At that point there would be no additional conversion costs of course, but also no future income from the OS.
Like so many other Olympic venues it would have turned into a white elephant and the 500 million pounds it took to build would have been blown on singular event of the Olympic Games.
I still don't know if the deal is fair, few things in life are.
But I know that serious amounts of money will go back to the taxpayer too due to West Ham playing there.
When it's set up for football, you won't be able to use it for athletics - so what's it going to be used for? as for sure, there is plenty of competition for venues of this size in London.
And of course you fail to mention the sale of the prime development site at Upton Park.
The serious amounts are those the taxpayer is funding to support the conversion.
Come back when everything is out in the open.
You concede that you don't know exact figures. Charlton Athletic Supporters Trust is eventually going to get them and share them with all the other taxpayers who have an interest in this. If you'd be kind enough to visit our website you'll find a special section covering all the work we've done to uncover the facts. If you have not seen the BBC film you can view it via the link from our site. If you still believe we are mistaken after having read through all the information there, do come back and argue your point. I guess you've noticed that we're all capable of an adult discussion about it here, in contrast to what I read on KUMB or WHO, and up to now you haven't said anything that hasn't been said by other vocal West Ham fans such as Sean Whetstone, who appeared in the BBC film.
It's really important to understand that CAST, and most people here, simply seek a re-balancing of the deal that return more money to the taxpayer and brings the deal into line with comparable ones elsewhere. Do you argue, for example, that Man City got a better deal than West Ham? What about the example of Ajax which CAST has highlighted? And are there any German examples you can present (factually verified) which are better than West Ham's?
We have no evidence of wrongdoing (as opposed to mounting evidence of incompetence). However since you are here, and obviously well wired in to England, perhaps you could give us your opinion on what exactly Karren Brady has done to deserve being made a peer. Or even when she set up and ran her own small business (she is supposed to be an expert and "ambassador" in this area), because as far as I can discern she has worked continuously for Gullivan since she was 23, where they met her flogging ad space at LBC Radio.
congratulations on your English by the way. Even by the high standards of many Germans, that is flawless.
So if we use ten million a year West Ham money as a rough estimate (rent, catering, naming rights share), the conversion costs will have been paid for by West Ham within 25 years.
The lease is for 99 years though which will give the taxpayer another 740 million over time, not considering rising rent (index linked) and potentially increasing naming rights income.
You want more money upfront or the conversion paid up by West Ham earlier ? Surely then you couldn't expect a pure rental deal though.
The more money someone pays the more they will expect to get bit-ownership and a bigger say in the running of the stadium, you cannot have it both ways.
West Ham are renting, they are paying a price for the privilege. If you want more money I'm sure the LLDC will be grateful for your suggestions who out there might be willing to contribute more than West Ham without getting any ownership of the place to go with higher contributions.
Kudos to your efforts on getting more information on this, we at West Ham are cuirous too.
I do indeed believe that Man City have a better deal, look at he way hey bought the privilege to sell the naming rights for their stadium and sold the sponsorship for a multitude of their own outlay.
Yes, they paid slightly more toards the conversion, but the conversion was overall cheaper anyway as the Manchester stadium was designed with a bit of common sense and consideration for future (footballing) use.
So, what would you consider a fair deal then ?
If, for instance, West Ham paid more money upfront towards conversion, would you then accept West Ham getting a bigger share of the naming rights in return as it will be the Premier League club attracting a big name sponsor, not athletics ?
We need to accept though that the only deal possible is one that entails compromise and is beneficial for both sides:
If the benefit is too small/unacceptable for either party there is no deal and you'd have your white elephant.
Is there another team/stadium that could act as a guideline what a fair deal should look like ?
And remember: A Premier League club will only accept a deal if there is something in it for the club.
You cannot expect a professional football club to bail out the taxpayer for mistakes done by the government or officials designing the stadium.
Also, by having a veto on who or what the other OS events are, surely WHU are effectively bit-owning the OS ?
As far as I'm aware Man City are now paying 4 million a year in rent, but get to keep the naming rights income from the Etihad deal. So they pay a bit more rent to get a lot more sponsorship income and this is being kept by the rich Premier League club Man City in this instance.
Manchester council who still own the stadium don't see any of the Etihad money other than the increased rent.
There is in fact controversy about the stewarding as the West ham stewards now need to reapply to a new company that does all the stewarding for events in the OS.
Again, it's all coming down to being a rental deal only. Vinci will run the OS and will have to make sure that the OS is fit and proper to host the events it is gathering income from.
This is very much normal practise for stadiums and arenas around the world.
It's very likely that the stewards in the OS will not only work during West Ham games but for other events too.
As for vetos on events I'm sure West Ham have only a limited say.
They may be able to prevent a monster trucks event as that might affect the condition of the pitch unduly.
If there are no clashes with setup procedures/schedules though, I'm sure West Ham cannot keep Vinci from having concerts, cricket and rugby there during the football season.
As for vetoes - we don't know as it is top secret !!!!
Regarding other events, are you saying it WILL be reconfigurable between WHU games ?
And yes Hex, I would think that you can easily have other events in the OS during football season.
West Ham as the anchor concessionaire get priority of course for their games, however, usually you have a minimum of 14 days between games, more than enough to have a concert or rugby/cricket event there in the meantime.
I've read a bit more on your CAS Trust homepage now and I do understand your concern.
But we cannot really be sure how West Ham's deal compares to Ajax or Man City unless we know more.
Which is your main point I suppose. Fro what I've heard though the confidentiality and blacking out of passages in the deal is at this point in time more down to the LLDC and the politicians than West Ham.
A couple of other points. City also handed Maine Road over to Manchester Council who benefitted from the development there. At the same time, City paid £20m to install the bars & facilities needed. The conversion costs to remove the Athletics track were £22m. Compare that to the ridiculous amounts incurred at Stratford. More to do with a lack of foresight by politicians, but also more reason to drive a deal that made commercial sense for the taxpayer.
WHam, on the other hand, trousered all the money from Galliard Homes for Upton Park, stumping up just £15m as their contribution to the conversion.
City pay £4m per year rent (£2m of that was an uplift for giving them naming rights) and then pay their costs on top of that. Johnny Taxpayer doesn't come along with their corner flags every other week, or cut the grass for them.
Given the riches available to Premier League clubs have increased dramatically since City moved to their stadium 12 years ago and that the deal for next year will see WHam pocket at least £99m per annum, a better deal should gave been struck.
A number of quick points.
1. Your suggestion that West Ham have "given up" naming rights is misleading. They never had any to give up. Would they have ever sold the name of the Boleyn had they stayed? What would you fans have said? Not every club sells its stadium name. So in fact, West Ham are getting new revenue. How much, we don't know. Nor can you price how much the naming rights sale value is because of West Ham's presence. Take it into account certainly, as part of the bigger picture.
2. Did you know that City handed the keys to the council for nothing?
3. As regards the continuing refusal to release the contract, careful inspection of the FOI thread shows you that the LLDC finally admitted to me that West Ham had and have a decisive say in the matter. Further it is West Ham who have clearly framed the basis of the "commercial confidentiality" excuse. They refer to other clubs getting an advantage in the transfer market if the full contract is revealed. One of our documents on the website is a submission to the Information Commissioner that this excuse is bogus.
4. For some reason (surely not budget, given the money spent) the retractable seats must be installed and removed by hand, and each time it takes at least a week. This will limit the type of events that can be staged while West Ham are playing, which this season would be for ten months.
Fair deal? My personal fair deal would be : Rent £4m. No rebate for relegation (FFS). Overheads paid by the club. All proceeds from sale of Boleyn back to taxpayer. Corporate hospitality revenue shared in the same proportion as normal catering revenue is. That will still give West Ham a bright future, but for which they will need to work a bit harder, which means not flinging cheap tickets around our backyard.
I'm not sure if and when the terms of the deal could be adjusted actually as surely the current deal must be somewhat binding on both parties for a certain period of time and may be revisited later.
The conversion is nearly done now. So asking West Ham to pay double the rent and maybe another 40 or 40 million towards conversion is a big ask at this stage, with West Ham surely trying to sue someone for neglect of adhering to a contract.
Unless of course someone can prove that the terms of the deal were frivolous or improper which will be hard to do.
I'm sure West Ham didn't put a gun to the heads of the folks negotiating on behalf of the LLDC in order to sign the deal. There might yet be a massive can of worms to be opened.
With West Ham hopefully having done nothing untoward. I'm sure we'll be fine, you cannot blame West Ham for negotiating a brilliant deal. If you want to know about brilliant deals ask Barry Hearn.
He knows a bit about this sort of things when you look at how he acquired Brisbane Road and benefitted from that deal financially, again at the expense of the council.
Which might be what the majority of people who are not West Ham fans may want anyway.
At that stage you have the white elephant which might still be more preferable for most compared to West Ham moving in under the current deal, fair enough.
Personally I wouldn't have minded a similar deal than what Man City got. But that was not really possible with the way the OS has been designed unfortunately.
So apart from West Ham no other club came to the rescue, did they ? Spurs wanted the OS on their terms and the LLDC wasn't having it, tough luck there.
Eventually we will all find out how good or bad this deal really is. Fact is there wasn't much of an alternative in the end if you bear in mind that the LLDC was keen on using the OS post-games and make money from it in the long run. Which undoubtedly they will.
Or is anyone suggesting the LLDC will actually lose money by having West Ham in there ?
And yes Robin, this guy is very much for real. You call it nonsense, but on a forum like this with a controversial topic like this I'd expect people to have differing opinions.
In summary this is our stance. Yes, West Ham did what any business would do, negotiate the best business deal on behalf of its shareholders (who are in this case just two people plus their secretary). The issue is the mounting evidence of incompetence on the other side of the negotiating table, people whose salaries are paid by us, and the whiff of more than just incompetence. The re-balancing of the contract that I suggested above would continue to make the deal for West Ham highly lucrative. But it wouldn't be so ridiculous that they can fling 20,000 tickets per game around at any price because they are already creaming it with 35k plus the all important corporate hospitality dosh (which dwarfs the match day catering, hope you understand how important that is - Gullivan always did)
Now, why don't you want to talk about Lady Brady? :-) Surely her peerage is directly related to the fact that West Ham have, according to you, saved the OS from becoming a white elephant? That's wonderful, isn't it? See I just cannot think of any other reason why she should be given a peerage. Can you?