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.
This is undoubtedly the argument they would use. But it's not true is it?
West Ham have been talking about the possibility of relocating to the Olympic Stadium as far back as 2001, having been approached before the bid even went in. Most saliently, David Sullivan said in 2010 that a move there was a strategic objective. This was before the commercials could have been fully fleshed out. Why? Because it's always been a unique opportunity to catapult West Ham to a new level.
The point remains that they are essentially being paid by the taxpayer to play at the Olympic Stadium. Whilst it may be argued that stadium naming would be revenue that the LLDC might not be able to attract without West Ham, I understand that West Ham gain from it above a certain (redacted) threshold. That threshold is quite key, isn't it? If it's £1m...
It would be reasonable, to me, if West Ham paid a greater rent (and one not reduced on relegation), passed all revenues from the sale of Upton Park into the conversion project, and paid all football-event-related costs. That is, the maintenance of the pitch, the policing, the stewarding, the ticketing, etc. etc.
I do recognise that West Ham didn't ask for the stadium to be planned so badly, and therefore it's not necessarily reasonable to expect them to pay the 50% Man City paid. However, the sale of Upton Park will make Galliard in the region of £335m revenues from house sales alone - and there are retail outlets planned too - so the LLDC ought to have done better than allow the proceeds from the sale of that land to be pocketed in its entirety by West Ham when they wouldn't have had the opportunity to realise those revenues without the Olympic Stadium.
EDIT. PS. Man City. Their deal was initially based on ticket sales, plus a share of stadium naming rights. The renegotiation, which was a planned review, committed a fixed £3m including a buyout of the naming rights (for which Man City own all the risk). However, Man City continue to own all the overhead costs that the taxpayer is stumping up for West Ham.
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 that's not strictly true. Tottenham were in the bidding process, but were ruled out on a technicality. It's a shame, because the athletics legacy would be stronger and year round, and it wouldn't have cost the taxpayer a penny. Including the £17m towards the cost of their own WHL planning application in exchange for not pursuing the LLDC through the courts over the collapse of the first bidding process. A figure I'll keep quoting, because it's more than West Ham are paying towards the conversion of the stadium for their benefit.
So if you're estimating that Galliard will sell flats and the like at the Boleyn for 335 million you are aware that the figure West Ham will pocket will be a lot smaller, otherwise there'd be not much point for Galliard to pursue this. But this is a good point. As West Ham will use that money from the sale of the Boleyn to pay off debt so the move to the OS can actually happen. It's true, West Ham could probably pay more upfront and still make a decent profit out of it. Thing is, the deal has been struck. And unless dodgy dealings can be proved where West Ham forced the LLDC to agree a deal well below market rate I see no way that West Ham can be made to pay more in the short term. You may see politicians and people from the public sector being punished, but I'd be surprised if the deal hasn't been made watertight by the LLDC, West Ham and their respective legal eagles. And when you say the athletics legacy wouldn't have cost the taxpayer a penny: What about maintenance and event staff ? You think UK Athletics could have paid for the upkeep of the OS from their on pockets ?
The Athletics legacy @rikofold mentions would have been the re-vamped Crystal Palace venue, which Spurs would have done out of their own pockets as part of the OS bid...hence...at no expense to the taxpayer!
Sadly, we're stuck with putting our hands in our pockets again to put a roof (literally) over the heads of the Hamsters!
So if you're estimating that Galliard will sell flats and the like at the Boleyn for 335 million you are aware that the figure West Ham will pocket will be a lot smaller, otherwise there'd be not much point for Galliard to pursue this. But this is a good point. As West Ham will use that money from the sale of the Boleyn to pay off debt so the move to the OS can actually happen. It's true, West Ham could probably pay more upfront and still make a decent profit out of it. Thing is, the deal has been struck. And unless dodgy dealings can be proved where West Ham forced the LLDC to agree a deal well below market rate I see no way that West Ham can be made to pay more in the short term. You may see politicians and people from the public sector being punished, but I'd be surprised if the deal hasn't been made watertight by the LLDC, West Ham and their respective legal eagles. And when you say the athletics legacy wouldn't have cost the taxpayer a penny: What about maintenance and event staff ? You think UK Athletics could have paid for the upkeep of the OS from their on pockets ?
Well we will see about that. It's already been pointed out that the City deal has been successfully re-worked, and if you talk to anyone in Manchester City Council (as i have done) you get a remarkable story of win-win where not one but two run-down areas are being hugely regenerated by Mansour's billions. he's apparently even paying for new trams. Gullivan have not even offered to pay for one Boris bus.
By the way - why should the taxpayer worry about a private enterprise's debt, when the rental agreement will deal with that aspect quickly enough if West Ham choose to prioritise it? They are £110m in debt, but £55m is to Gullivan. So the sale goes straight into their pockets, right, and delivers a company worth 400% that pre OS. It cost Arsenal £390m to grow by 110% - it wouldn't cost West Ham a penny to pass Upton Park over, but they want their cake and eat it.
£335m is Gallard's estimate of 838 houses selling @£400k avg.
You talk a lot of sense and I actually wouldn't mind seeing especially Brady scrutinised further. As for Spurs and their plan, it might have been good for athletics, but first of all Spurs apparently did a number of things that were untoward like tapping up phones and stuff (which obviously could not be and may never be able to be traced back to the club hierarchy) or the sudden fire at Archway Metalworks, the only business that refused to move for the building of Spurs' new ground, so forgive me if I am happy that Spurs didn't get the OS. Besides, there are rules about clubs moving into another club's borough and Tottenham moving from North to East London would have been a tough ask to begin with. I'll also admit it is tough for any London based club, especially at lower league level, to win future fans. So I do understand your concern with regard to free or cheap tickets from West Ham flooding the market. But it's difficult for every club as London is crowded with clubs in all directions and at every level and there's so much competition from other events these days. Charlton will always find new fans,same as West Ham or Leyton Orient, there's more to becoming a fan of a certain club than just getting some cheap or free tickets occasionally. But as I said, I get your point and your concern and hope you are successful in getting more information released.
So if you're estimating that Galliard will sell flats and the like at the Boleyn for 335 million you are aware that the figure West Ham will pocket will be a lot smaller, otherwise there'd be not much point for Galliard to pursue this. But this is a good point. As West Ham will use that money from the sale of the Boleyn to pay off debt so the move to the OS can actually happen. It's true, West Ham could probably pay more upfront and still make a decent profit out of it. Thing is, the deal has been struck. And unless dodgy dealings can be proved where West Ham forced the LLDC to agree a deal well below market rate I see no way that West Ham can be made to pay more in the short term. You may see politicians and people from the public sector being punished, but I'd be surprised if the deal hasn't been made watertight by the LLDC, West Ham and their respective legal eagles. And when you say the athletics legacy wouldn't have cost the taxpayer a penny: What about maintenance and event staff ? You think UK Athletics could have paid for the upkeep of the OS from their on pockets ?
Well we will see about that. It's already been pointed out that the City deal has been successfully re-worked, and if you talk to anyone in Manchester City Council (as i have done) you get a remarkable story of win-win where not one but two run-down areas are being hugely regenerated by Mansour's billions. he's apparently even paying for new trams. Gullivan have not even offered to pay for one Boris bus.
So, it appears that it's not just a random thought that TB had that a fan has quoted, but something that's been more carefully considered by the club. In fact, I might be reading too much into this, but look at this line, "I am sure then discussions would be in much greater detail and I am sure in principle both clubs would be interested in them". Discussions would be in greater detail than what, Sir Trev? You're making a comparison. A comparison to what? Had their already been discussions by the time you said this?
He also says, "Naturally, if you have a football club that is going to be using it regularly, the revenue costs the are taken up.". Though what the great Prophet Brooking omits is who these costs would be taken up by.
Mayor Ken Livingstone insists London's Olympic Stadium will not be turned into a football ground after the 2012 Games. Rumours persist that Premiership clubs West Ham or Tottenham could move to the stadium once the Olympics are over. But Livingstone said the International Olympic Committee would block any move to change the stadium's future use. Livingstone said: "The deal we made is that it's an athletics stadium and we have a legally-binding contract which is more like an international treaty."
I can't help feeling that the deal has been made as tight as a ducks arse and can't be changed, in no small part because LLDC in order to save money on burgeoning costs had someone from the CAB run over the contract along with a LegalAid solicitor. Some unknown LLDC bods will be hauled over the coals whilst Osborne will ensure enough stench is left hanging around Boris to stop any leadership plans whilst not really damaging the Tories. The Gullivans will sell up to Azerbaijanis and will spend their dotage counting money. The renamed London Hammers will play in EPL1 at the Baku Bowl. Lady Brady will host the new series on the Apprentice now on Channel 5 where contestants flog welks from a stall in front of a live studio audience. Lord Coe is a wow as IOC president as he teaches Olympic host cities how to pull wool over the eyes of taxpayers. Meanwhile residents of Newham are told due to lack of money their bins will only be emptied every 6 weeks.
Mayor Ken Livingstone insists London's Olympic Stadium will not be turned into a football ground after the 2012 Games. Rumours persist that Premiership clubs West Ham or Tottenham could move to the stadium once the Olympics are over. But Livingstone said the International Olympic Committee would block any move to change the stadium's future use. Livingstone said: "The deal we made is that it's an athletics stadium and we have a legally-binding contract which is more like an international treaty."
What happened there?!
Has anyone from the Trust tried speaking with Livingstone about it? He was mayor for quite a way into the planning process. What does he know? I can't believe he wouldn't want the opportunity to put the boot into Boris. Unless, of course, he's implicated
Good thoughts. As we hope to announce later today, it's no longer CAST and LOFT alone fighting this corner. Some very capable people representing very big Trusts have appeared alongside us. I'll share those thoughts with them.
Mayor Ken Livingstone insists London's Olympic Stadium will not be turned into a football ground after the 2012 Games. Rumours persist that Premiership clubs West Ham or Tottenham could move to the stadium once the Olympics are over. But Livingstone said the International Olympic Committee would block any move to change the stadium's future use. Livingstone said: "The deal we made is that it's an athletics stadium and we have a legally-binding contract which is more like an international treaty."
What happened there?!
What the words "Honest", "Ken" and "Livingstone" didn't give you a clue what happened there?
"German"Eastender said....Besides, there are rules about clubs moving into another club's borough and Tottenham moving from North to East London would have been a tough ask to begin with.
Yeah those rules never get broken do they, can you quote the rule down to the "borough" line in your comment, I'd be interested to see what you find
Rules don't mention borough as such, but "immediate vicinity". Either way it would have been very difficult for Spurs to make the move from North London into East London where the OS is. It is not merely about the Premier League rules either, I'm sure the authorities and local police would have been thrilled at the prospect of Spurs and West Ham fans clashing in East London if Spurs had moved into Stratford. But that's done and over with anyway, Spurs staying in North London, West Ham in East London.
Rules don't mention borough as such, but "immediate vicinity". Either way it would have been very difficult for Spurs to make the move from North London into East London where the OS is. It is not merely about the Premier League rules either, I'm sure the authorities and local police would have been thrilled at the prospect of Spurs and West Ham fans clashing in East London if Spurs had moved into Stratford. But that's done and over with anyway, Spurs staying in North London, West Ham in East London.
You mean as in West Ham moving to the "immediate vicinity" of Leyton Orient? That's Leyton Orient whose ground is closer to the Olympic site than Upton Park by the way.
Rules don't mention borough as such, but "immediate vicinity". Either way it would have been very difficult for Spurs to make the move from North London into East London where the OS is. It is not merely about the Premier League rules either, I'm sure the authorities and local police would have been thrilled at the prospect of Spurs and West Ham fans clashing in East London if Spurs had moved into Stratford. But that's done and over with anyway, Spurs staying in North London, West Ham in East London.
I always thought that Spurs application was purely 'sabre rattling'.
I'm not convinced they actually wanted to move and were using it as leverage to get the best deal possible for their new ground from Haringey council.
The area around WHL is shocking enough...God knows what would have happened if they had moved their business elsewhere?!?
Well, I read somewhere that the vicinity rule does apply to London in a different way as so many clubs are in and around London which means that clubs are simply close to each other, if they want to or not. And why should West Ham not move within their own borough ? If that was forbidden technically no London club could move to a new stadium as it would always be slightly closer to another club. Leyton Orient have done the same by the way, moving grounds not caring too much about the consequences for other clubs in the neighbourhood. It surely makes a difference if a club in London moves 2.5 miles within its own borough (like West Ham) or a club like Tottenham moved 5 miles into a differnet borough and part of town altogether.
Well, I read somewhere that the vicinity rule does apply to London in a different way as so many clubs are in and around London which means that clubs are simply close to each other, if they want to or not. And why should West Ham not move within their own borough ? If that was forbidden technically no London club could move to a new stadium as it would always be slightly closer to another club. Leyton Orient have done the same by the way, moving grounds not caring too much about the consequences for other clubs in the neighbourhood. It surely makes a difference if a club in London moves 2.5 miles within its own borough (like West Ham) or a club like Tottenham moved 5 miles into a differnet borough and part of town altogether.
No one said they shouldn't. It's you who keeps moving your own goalposts to borough or vicinity to suit your argument.
Orient moved one mile away by the way. You can literally walk it. It's up the other end of the street to Brisbane Road. Privately funded as well.
Rules don't mention borough as such, but "immediate vicinity". Either way it would have been very difficult for Spurs to make the move from North London into East London where the OS is. It is not merely about the Premier League rules either, I'm sure the authorities and local police would have been thrilled at the prospect of Spurs and West Ham fans clashing in East London if Spurs had moved into Stratford. But that's done and over with anyway, Spurs staying in North London, West Ham in East London.
You mean as in West Ham moving to the "immediate vicinity" of Leyton Orient? That's Leyton Orient whose ground is closer to the Olympic site than Upton Park by the way.
Comments
West Ham have been talking about the possibility of relocating to the Olympic Stadium as far back as 2001, having been approached before the bid even went in. Most saliently, David Sullivan said in 2010 that a move there was a strategic objective. This was before the commercials could have been fully fleshed out. Why? Because it's always been a unique opportunity to catapult West Ham to a new level.
The point remains that they are essentially being paid by the taxpayer to play at the Olympic Stadium. Whilst it may be argued that stadium naming would be revenue that the LLDC might not be able to attract without West Ham, I understand that West Ham gain from it above a certain (redacted) threshold. That threshold is quite key, isn't it? If it's £1m...
It would be reasonable, to me, if West Ham paid a greater rent (and one not reduced on relegation), passed all revenues from the sale of Upton Park into the conversion project, and paid all football-event-related costs. That is, the maintenance of the pitch, the policing, the stewarding, the ticketing, etc. etc.
I do recognise that West Ham didn't ask for the stadium to be planned so badly, and therefore it's not necessarily reasonable to expect them to pay the 50% Man City paid. However, the sale of Upton Park will make Galliard in the region of £335m revenues from house sales alone - and there are retail outlets planned too - so the LLDC ought to have done better than allow the proceeds from the sale of that land to be pocketed in its entirety by West Ham when they wouldn't have had the opportunity to realise those revenues without the Olympic Stadium.
EDIT. PS. Man City. Their deal was initially based on ticket sales, plus a share of stadium naming rights. The renegotiation, which was a planned review, committed a fixed £3m including a buyout of the naming rights (for which Man City own all the risk). However, Man City continue to own all the overhead costs that the taxpayer is stumping up for West Ham.
But this is a good point. As West Ham will use that money from the sale of the Boleyn to pay off debt so the move to the OS can actually happen.
It's true, West Ham could probably pay more upfront and still make a decent profit out of it.
Thing is, the deal has been struck. And unless dodgy dealings can be proved where West Ham forced the LLDC to agree a deal well below market rate I see no way that West Ham can be made to pay more in the short term.
You may see politicians and people from the public sector being punished, but I'd be surprised if the deal hasn't been made watertight by the LLDC, West Ham and their respective legal eagles.
And when you say the athletics legacy wouldn't have cost the taxpayer a penny: What about maintenance and event staff ? You think UK Athletics could have paid for the upkeep of the OS from their on pockets ?
Sadly, we're stuck with putting our hands in our pockets again to put a roof (literally) over the heads of the Hamsters!
How will West Ham be persuaded to re-work the deal? The same way that the deal was put together in the first place - discussion between Gullivan and Brady and politicians. While we do not - at this point - accuse anyone of wrong doing - anyone who thinks this deal was done simply as a result of a "free fair and open tender" (© LLDC) is hopelessly naive. @rikofold 's post above, showing their interest since 2001 is based on a West Ham website which anyone can view (good work Rich). The political pressure will be ramped up to such a point that relevant politicians will have a quiet word and persuade them that a re-working of the contract is the only way to defuse the gathering storm. Your three dear leaders have a great deal to personally lose. Especially Brady. if you take a look a the Mail article from last Saturday, linked on our website, you will see. The Mail is after her. And that is not a good place to be in, when other media, traditionally seeking to counter the Mail, are saying the same things.
Stick around for another 24 hours here. The storm is gathering. And it has already spread right across London...
£335m is Gallard's estimate of 838 houses selling @£400k avg.
As for Spurs and their plan, it might have been good for athletics, but first of all Spurs apparently did a number of things that were untoward like tapping up phones and stuff (which obviously could not be and may never be able to be traced back to the club hierarchy) or the sudden fire at Archway Metalworks, the only business that refused to move for the building of Spurs' new ground, so forgive me if I am happy that Spurs didn't get the OS.
Besides, there are rules about clubs moving into another club's borough and Tottenham moving from North to East London would have been a tough ask to begin with.
I'll also admit it is tough for any London based club, especially at lower league level, to win future fans.
So I do understand your concern with regard to free or cheap tickets from West Ham flooding the market.
But it's difficult for every club as London is crowded with clubs in all directions and at every level and there's so much competition from other events these days.
Charlton will always find new fans,same as West Ham or Leyton Orient, there's more to becoming a fan of a certain club than just getting some cheap or free tickets occasionally.
But as I said, I get your point and your concern and hope you are successful in getting more information released.
http://www.whufc.com.p.preprod.performgroup.com/articles/20021219/olympic-stadium-a-distant-dream_2236884_1135294
So, it appears that it's not just a random thought that TB had that a fan has quoted, but something that's been more carefully considered by the club. In fact, I might be reading too much into this, but look at this line, "I am sure then discussions would be in much greater detail and I am sure in principle both clubs would be interested in them". Discussions would be in greater detail than what, Sir Trev? You're making a comparison. A comparison to what? Had their already been discussions by the time you said this?
He also says, "Naturally, if you have a football club that is going to be using it regularly, the revenue costs the are taken up.". Though what the great Prophet Brooking omits is who these costs would be taken up by.
Amazing really given that in 2008 the official line on the stadium was still that it would be scaled down to 25k seats that would be completed by 2014. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/2012LegacyActionPlan.pdf
Mayor Ken Livingstone insists London's Olympic Stadium will not be turned into a football ground after the 2012 Games. Rumours persist that Premiership clubs West Ham or Tottenham could move to the stadium once the Olympics are over. But Livingstone said the International Olympic Committee would block any move to change the stadium's future use. Livingstone said: "The deal we made is that it's an athletics stadium and we have a legally-binding contract which is more like an international treaty."
What happened there?!
Good thoughts. As we hope to announce later today, it's no longer CAST and LOFT alone fighting this corner. Some very capable people representing very big Trusts have appeared alongside us. I'll share those thoughts with them.
Athletics: Sebastian Coe elected IAAF president
But that's done and over with anyway, Spurs staying in North London, West Ham in East London.
I'm not convinced they actually wanted to move and were using it as leverage to get the best deal possible for their new ground from Haringey council.
The area around WHL is shocking enough...God knows what would have happened if they had moved their business elsewhere?!?
If that was forbidden technically no London club could move to a new stadium as it would always be slightly closer to another club. Leyton Orient have done the same by the way, moving grounds not caring too much about the consequences for other clubs in the neighbourhood.
It surely makes a difference if a club in London moves 2.5 miles within its own borough (like West Ham) or a club like Tottenham moved 5 miles into a differnet borough and part of town altogether.
Orient moved one mile away by the way. You can literally walk it. It's up the other end of the street to Brisbane Road. Privately funded as well.