Well the Spurs Trust is a member of the Coalition and if you refer to Spurs fans, I can assure that they want to go to Franchise House about as much as we wanted to go to Sellout Park. That being the case, why would Levy prefer to go there than the Olympic Stadium?
and why would the LLDC not want them there, given that theyve always maintained that the plan is to maximize use of the OS? And that Brady also claims that the way we taxpayers get our money back is by other usage of the Stadium and Park, rather than by what West Ham pay.
Something doesn't quite add up there, does it, mate? And the Spurs Trust think they know why, BTW. Not long before we find out.
Neither the LLDC not West Ham have ruled out ground sharing with Spurs (Brady tried it but got slapped down for it, and Sullivan later said it was a possibility). In fact David Goldstone mentioned the possibility of it last month in a GLA meeting.
Part of the reason for the LLDC wanting to keep the deal redacted may be to strengthen its hand in negotiating with Spurs (which I'm told, has not reached a formal stage).
The LLDC may also decide to appeal the decision in order to give it the time it needs to announce the stadium sponsor, which it cannot do until the 30th October because that would be prejudicial against the sponsors of the Rugby World Cup. Boris yesterday saying that 'all the deals are done' or something to that effect hints that the sponsorship deal is in the bag already. At that point the LLDC could reveal the value of West Ham's tenancy as part of that deal, providing yet further evidence of taxpayer VFM for the deal with West Ham.
You are again, incorrect, and sadly the information which demonstrates this is as available to you as it is to us.
The LLDC and Johnson were citing "major contracts still to sign" as an excuse not to reveal the contract. Accordingly I submitted an FOI request asking (only) what the subject of the final major contract was, which Johnson referred to in the minutes of a GLA meeting on 21st May. On this occasion the LLDC complied with FOI law promptly. Their answer was
"The subject of this “final major contract” was for the fit-out of the west stand hospitality areas within the Stadium and it was awarded to Portview fit-out Limited. The contract was signed on 13 June 2015"
This is what Johnson was referring to on Wednesday.
Separately can you clarify the source of your statement "In fact David Goldstone mentioned the possibility of it last month in a GLA meeting." ? If it was a GLA meeting, it must be publicly available. Are you perhaps not confusing it with the meeting of the LLDC board on 17 March, wherein Goldstone claimed the possible rental by another club as a reason to refuse publication of the rent contract? It is by the way a most interesting document, pored over by a number of us. We passed it, and our comments, on to Owen Gibson at City Hall.
When the deal is out you will see that the bricks will be paid for by West Ham, also the bringing over of the Bobby Moore statue. Good that you understand the exlusive deal, I wonder why no one else went all out for it then when there was a chance during the recent bidding process. You seem to imply there is some sort of precedent which would define a fair deal, there isn't. Not even Man City, their case was different on many fronts and also it was a different club negotiating with a different local authority. The negotiations between the LLDC and West Ham took ages, so it's not as if the LLDC just caved in. The LLDC could have walked away from the negotiating table. They didn't, which would suggest that it is either a pretty good deal for the taxpayer. Or there was a political will to have a definite future use of the OS in the long term. Not everybody may be happy about their taxes being used for this particular venture. Guess what ? This is how taxes work in general, same in Germany. My government burns hundreds of millions of Euros on things I don't approve of, I don't need, I don't use, I don't want. But it doesn't matter because once elected the politicians for a certain period of time have the power and also the responsibility to spend the taxpayers' money in a way they consider beneficial for the nation for whatever reason. If I don't like that I can vote for different people next election. Make no mistake: If criminal activity is involved, if pockets are being lined with obvious disdain for the taxpayers' purse, then there should be court cases dealing with that criminal activity. Otherwise you just have to accept that your taxes don't always go where you want them to.
When the deal is out you will see that the bricks will be paid for by West Ham, also the bringing over of the Bobby Moore statue. Good that you understand the exlusive deal, I wonder why no one else went all out for it then when there was a chance during the recent bidding process. You seem to imply there is some sort of precedent which would define a fair deal, there isn't. Not even Man City, their case was different on many fronts and also it was a different club negotiating with a different local authority. The negotiations between the LLDC and West Ham took ages, so it's not as if the LLDC just caved in. The LLDC could have walked away from the negotiating table. They didn't, which would suggest that it is either a pretty good deal for the taxpayer. Or there was a political will to have a definite future use of the OS in the long term. Not everybody may be happy about their taxes being used for this particular venture. Guess what ? This is how taxes work in general, same in Germany. My government burns hundreds of millions of Euros on things I don't approve of, I don't need, I don't use, I don't want. But it doesn't matter because once elected the politicians for a certain period of time have the power and also the responsibility to spend the taxpayers' money in a way they consider beneficial for the nation for whatever reason. If I don't like that I can vote for different people next election. Make no mistake: If criminal activity is involved, if pockets are being lined with obvious disdain for the taxpayers' purse, then there should be court cases dealing with that criminal activity. Otherwise you just have to accept that your taxes don't always go where you want them to.
Pretty amazing post GEE.
When taxes are collected, there is some kind of accountability and representation and such like. This is the reason cited for the American War of Independence, 'no taxation without representation'.
However you rightly say (as one alternative) in my view:
'there was a political will to have a definite future use of the OS in the long term
and add
'Not everybody may be happy about their taxes being used for this particular venture.'
....and then basically say once the politicos are in they can more or less do what they want. Well not quite if there is any corruption or rule breaking, or favour shown or whatever. Those politicians and those associated can get a metaphorically good kicking. It does not just have to be accepted, especially if we don't even know what we're just having to accept because it has been redacted.
Not everybody agrees that we just have to roll over on this one.
Agreed (for once). That's why you will get the OS deal published in the near future. If you then find dodgy dealings or favouritism, by all accounts, go for them politicians if you want to see heads rolling. I'm just not sure you will find enough to a) prove a case of state aid and b) change the terms of the deal unilaterally.
Agreed (for once). That's why you will get the OS deal published in the near future. If you then find dodgy dealings or favouritism, by all accounts, go for them politicians if you want to see heads rolling. I'm just not sure you will find enough to a) prove a case of state aid and b) change the terms of the deal unilaterally.
If there is evidence of unlawful state aid, and/or brown envelopes and/or patently unfair clauses then the deal won't be changed - it will be voided ab initio.
Are Wet Spam tied into the sale of Upton Park? Maybe a ground share with Orient could work.
Edit: Note I used the word 'If' - I don't know and neither do you. Why don't we find out - do you think that might be a good idea?
When the deal is out you will see that the bricks will be paid for by West Ham, also the bringing over of the Bobby Moore statue. Good that you understand the exlusive deal, I wonder why no one else went all out for it then when there was a chance during the recent bidding process. You seem to imply there is some sort of precedent which would define a fair deal, there isn't. Not even Man City, their case was different on many fronts and also it was a different club negotiating with a different local authority. The negotiations between the LLDC and West Ham took ages, so it's not as if the LLDC just caved in. The LLDC could have walked away from the negotiating table. They didn't, which would suggest that it is either a pretty good deal for the taxpayer. Or there was a political will to have a definite future use of the OS in the long term. Not everybody may be happy about their taxes being used for this particular venture. Guess what ? This is how taxes work in general, same in Germany. My government burns hundreds of millions of Euros on things I don't approve of, I don't need, I don't use, I don't want. But it doesn't matter because once elected the politicians for a certain period of time have the power and also the responsibility to spend the taxpayers' money in a way they consider beneficial for the nation for whatever reason. If I don't like that I can vote for different people next election. Make no mistake: If criminal activity is involved, if pockets are being lined with obvious disdain for the taxpayers' purse, then there should be court cases dealing with that criminal activity. Otherwise you just have to accept that your taxes don't always go where you want them to.
I don't think you fully understand the state aid issue. Never mind. An argument can never be - taxes are wasted all over the place. This is just another example of that. Is the taxpayer subsidy providing West Ham are key advantage over competitors? The key will be how generous it actually is. Nobody can have a problem with West Ham going there because it represents an opportunity, but there has to be a reasonable element to it. I went to pick up my son from football tonight and heard a couple of parents talking - one a West Ham fan. He was saying that he had season tickets for his son - his was £280 something and his son's was £99. He was asked if he had a season ticket for this season and he said no way, they are £900 and moaned how expensive West Ham normally are. Something has to be helping them make this massive reduction! We have one thing you hammers don't seem to have. Some numbers. Numbers that the BBC felt comfortable enough broadcasting - numbers that in my opinion has the whole state aid issue bang to rights. We also have the defence statements which are so weak, they only confirm the stormy waters ahead. Justice will be done, I am sure of it.
Can I just lodge a personal note of appreciation to Prague, cast, gee, gavros and everybody else on this thread for their efforts and posts, it's a great reminder of the strength of the society (and this site) that we are lucky to be living in and that everybody has an opinion and can express it...personally, I think it's good that the stadium will be put to good use and if that means whu benefit then so be it and that if your 'enemies' are raising the competition bar then you (& Charlton) have to step up and do likewise..however, the issue of the redacted contract is a big red flag that has to be looked into and it was a major own goal, imo, to black anything out...
If you listen to what Brady origimally said she did not try to say that West Ham's tenancy will profit the tax payer. Her stance is that West Ham have done tax payers a favour by taking the stadium on and avoiding a waste of £700m of taxpayer money.
The alternative was the stadium rusting away like most other Olympic legacy stadia.
If E20 make a profit from the West Ham rent and a couple of one off events I will be amazed. Unless it makes a profit nothing goes back to the tax payer. The £2.5m or whatever the rent is an irrelevant number. It is simply a small contribution to overheads.
Unless the OS is in use 365 days a year and earning money it will be a loss making enterprise and Brady knows it.
My theory is WH know it will fail and will in a few years be offered the stadium for one penny to stave off financial collapse of E20.
If you listen to what Brady origimally said she did not try to say that West Ham's tenancy will profit the tax payer. Her stance is that West Ham have done tax payers a favour by taking the stadium on and avoiding a waste of £700m of taxpayer money.
The alternative was the stadium rusting away like most other Olympic legacy stadia.
If E20 make a profit from the West Ham rent and a couple of one off events I will be amazed. Unless it makes a profit nothing goes back to the tax payer. The £2.5m or whatever the rent is an irrelevant number. It is simply a small contribution to overheads.
Unless the OS is in use 365 days a year and earning money it will be a loss making enterprise and Brady knows it.
My theory is WH know it will fail and will in a few years be offered the stadium for one penny to stave off financial collapse of E20.
Presumably they'd then knock the OS down (I'm assuming the OS isn't a listed building - yet) and build a stadium suitable for football instead? Where then for British Athletics?
Even if West Ham did own it, it would be out if their interest to pull it down and spend £500 million plus on something else. Having been the a number of times (most lately for the rugby) it's a perfectly adequate stadium for football. There are a number of things that could improve it: double banking the corporate area, filling in more gaps and eventually moving the big screens and infilling that area. That together would cost south of £100 million and make the stadium as good a revenue generator as the Emirates, with significantly greater potential capacity.
If you listen to what Brady origimally said she did not try to say that West Ham's tenancy will profit the tax payer. Her stance is that West Ham have done tax payers a favour by taking the stadium on and avoiding a waste of £700m of taxpayer money.
The alternative was the stadium rusting away like most other Olympic legacy stadia.
If E20 make a profit from the West Ham rent and a couple of one off events I will be amazed. Unless it makes a profit nothing goes back to the tax payer. The £2.5m or whatever the rent is an irrelevant number. It is simply a small contribution to overheads.
Unless the OS is in use 365 days a year and earning money it will be a loss making enterprise and Brady knows it.
My theory is WH know it will fail and will in a few years be offered the stadium for one penny to stave off financial collapse of E20.
If the day comes where the stadium needs to be sold off it should levelled to the ground and have social housing built on it. The site would have a real legacy then, homes for local people.
I think the best legacy would be for it, and all stadiums, to have a proper community role and focus, acting as an anchor and resource for communities, for that reason I don't mind it being the local football club, at the same time it should be done correctly not as a fudged fix which give the Hammers an advantage. Simple.
But we can all interpret legacy differently. For me - it has to be an athletics legacy in the sporting sense and a regeneration legacy for the area. The cost of converting the stadium to accommodate a football club clearly has outstripped the revenue said football club will pay back. It is simply ridiculous. 99 years is stupid too. What stadium lasts 99 years without major changes? Who will meet the cost of those changes? By scaling down the ambition, and using the Olympic stadium as designed we would all be paying less and then people with imagination could see the opportunities it has to inspire youngsters - e.g. having youth athletic meets there etc... And having the stadium as a monument to one of London's finest hours is a legacy too. A place we love for what it represents - that will be lost when it is a converted football ground. I don't get the football legacy. West Ham had a ground that whilst not perfect, met their needs well enough. A ground that graced the likes of Moore, Peters and Hurst and is part of their history. Where does legacy come in moving them out of Upton Park. Leyton Orient will suffer financially - it may even ultimately kill them. What sort of legacy is that? These are perfectly reasonable points to make in relation to legacy - whover applied the criteria used must be short of a few if you ask me! I think money and legacy get mixed up - but in this case, money is being lost which makes it more ridiculous.
Will you explain to me why the financial details regarding West Ham United and the Olympic Stadium are not open for public scrutiny, my understanding it that it is taxpayers money, and therefore we are entitled to know.
Thank You
(Seth)
This message has been scanned for viruses by the Greater London Authority. The reply today:
Dear (Seth)
Thank you for taking the time to write to the Mayor about your concerns relating to the financial details of the Stadium deal.
It is of course right that the Stadium deal is examined by the public and this has already been happening through a number of scrutiny meetings held by Parliamentary committees and the London Assembly. The Stadium very much remains a public asset and West Ham United Football Club will pay an annual usage fee to use the Stadium for around 25 days per year alongside a £15million contribution to the transformation costs. Much of the reporting about this issue gives the misleading impression that West Ham are being given exclusive use of the venue but this is not the case. The stadium remains in the ownership of E20, a joint venture between the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) and the London Borough of Newham , and will be managed by a world class operator tasked with bringing a wide range of events to the stadium.
Significant details of the concession agreement with West Ham United FC have already been released. In addition the costs of all the major contracts for the transformation of the Stadium into a multi-use venue, capable of hosting a range of sports including rugby, football and athletics, are now in the public domain. As you may be aware, the Information Commissioner's Office has very recently upheld a complaint from a member of the public and instructed the LLDC to publish an un-redacted version of the concession agreement. LLDC has argued that the Olympic Stadium will have many users, and further commercial agreements are to be entered into in future, and that therefore publishing the contractual details will undermine its ability to deliver the best financial outcome from numerous future negotiations.
LLDC is currently considering the ruling carefully and deciding what action to take.
I would like to take this opportunity to assure you that the Stadium deal is a very good one for taxpayers and provides a raft of benefits for Londoners; as an anchor tenant on a 99 year lease, West Ham will help make the Stadium financially stable over the long term. This is vital, not just for the Stadium but for the regeneration programme that is being delivered as a key part of the legacy from the 2012 Games, which will deliver more than £3bn of economic benefit and many thousands of new jobs and homes to London.
But we can all interpret legacy differently. For me - it has to be an athletics legacy in the sporting sense and a regeneration legacy for the area. The cost of converting the stadium to accommodate a football club clearly has outstripped the revenue said football club will pay back. It is simply ridiculous. 99 years is stupid too. What stadium lasts 99 years without major changes? Who will meet the cost of those changes? By scaling down the ambition, and using the Olympic stadium as designed we would all be paying less and then people with imagination could see the opportunities it has to inspire youngsters - e.g. having youth athletic meets there etc... And having the stadium as a monument to one of London's finest hours is a legacy too. A place we love for what it represents - that will be lost when it is a converted football ground. I don't get the football legacy. West Ham had a ground that whilst not perfect, met their needs well enough. A ground that graced the likes of Moore, Peters and Hurst and is part of their history. Where does legacy come in moving them out of Upton Park. Leyton Orient will suffer financially - it may even ultimately kill them. What sort of legacy is that? These are perfectly reasonable points to make in relation to legacy - whover applied the criteria used must be short of a few if you ask me! I think money and legacy get mixed up - but in this case, money is being lost which makes it more ridiculous.
No stadium lasts 99 years, lucky if it will get 50 and even then it will need two major overhauls. The figure of 99 years means nothing.
No, he was covering his ass as usual, ie if un-redacted agreement is not released, it won't be his fault.
The longer this goes on, the more it looks ...justifiably or not ...that there is something to hide.
I agree, however everyone knows that the contract was stitched together not just on his watch but while he was head of the LLDC. There are a numerous publicly available minutes of meetings where he was present.
Anyway if anyone wants to hear exactly what he said, this video is for you. Lousy picture but audio is fine, especially if you use a headset.
"The cost of the conversion soared from the original estimate of £160m when the decision was taken to award West Ham a 99-year lease after an earlier process had collapsed amid acrimony and legal challenge"
So the conversion the make it a large multipurpose stadium was actually £112 million over the original budget.
Even if West Ham were just paying rent at £247 million over the 99 year lease in today's money, the extra work is covered.
Add in all the extras the LLDC get over and above that for West Hams tenancy, there's no case to answer.
And that's no taking into account the positive externalities of athletics having a large scale permanent home and the extra events that can happen (such as the Rugby a World Cup).
Yes they are linked to RPI (which is an outdated inflation index supereced by RPIX and then CPI in recent years). Generally a CPI of 2% means an RPI of 3%. So it's a generous inflation adjustment.
Then there's the other sources of revenue for the taxpayer from West Ham that many on here conveniently ignore.
Comments
Over and out.
The LLDC and Johnson were citing "major contracts still to sign" as an excuse not to reveal the contract. Accordingly I submitted an FOI request asking (only) what the subject of the final major contract was, which Johnson referred to in the minutes of a GLA meeting on 21st May. On this occasion the LLDC complied with FOI law promptly. Their answer was
"The subject of this “final major contract” was for the fit-out of the west stand hospitality areas
within the Stadium and it was awarded to Portview fit-out Limited. The contract was signed
on 13 June 2015"
This is what Johnson was referring to on Wednesday.
Separately can you clarify the source of your statement "In fact David Goldstone mentioned the possibility of it last month in a GLA meeting." ? If it was a GLA meeting, it must be publicly available. Are you perhaps not confusing it with the meeting of the LLDC board on 17 March, wherein Goldstone claimed the possible rental by another club as a reason to refuse publication of the rent contract? It is by the way a most interesting document, pored over by a number of us. We passed it, and our comments, on to Owen Gibson at City Hall.
You seem to imply there is some sort of precedent which would define a fair deal, there isn't. Not even Man City, their case was different on many fronts and also it was a different club negotiating with a different local authority.
The negotiations between the LLDC and West Ham took ages, so it's not as if the LLDC just caved in.
The LLDC could have walked away from the negotiating table. They didn't, which would suggest that it is either a pretty good deal for the taxpayer. Or there was a political will to have a definite future use of the OS in the long term. Not everybody may be happy about their taxes being used for this particular venture.
Guess what ? This is how taxes work in general, same in Germany.
My government burns hundreds of millions of Euros on things I don't approve of, I don't need, I don't use, I don't want. But it doesn't matter because once elected the politicians for a certain period of time have the power and also the responsibility to spend the taxpayers' money in a way they consider beneficial for the nation for whatever reason.
If I don't like that I can vote for different people next election.
Make no mistake: If criminal activity is involved, if pockets are being lined with obvious disdain for the taxpayers' purse, then there should be court cases dealing with that criminal activity.
Otherwise you just have to accept that your taxes don't always go where you want them to.
When taxes are collected, there is some kind of accountability and representation and such like. This is the reason cited for the American War of Independence, 'no taxation without representation'.
However you rightly say (as one alternative) in my view:
'there was a political will to have a definite future use of the OS in the long term
and add
'Not everybody may be happy about their taxes being used for this particular venture.'
....and then basically say once the politicos are in they can more or less do what they want.
Well not quite if there is any corruption or rule breaking, or favour shown or whatever. Those politicians and those associated can get a metaphorically good kicking. It does not just have to be accepted, especially if we don't even know what we're just having to accept because it has been redacted.
Not everybody agrees that we just have to roll over on this one.
I'm just not sure you will find enough to a) prove a case of state aid and b) change the terms of the deal unilaterally.
Are Wet Spam tied into the sale of Upton Park? Maybe a ground share with Orient could work.
Edit: Note I used the word 'If' - I don't know and neither do you. Why don't we find out - do you think that might be a good idea?
The alternative was the stadium rusting away like most other Olympic legacy stadia.
If E20 make a profit from the West Ham rent and a couple of one off events I will be amazed. Unless it makes a profit nothing goes back to the tax payer. The £2.5m or whatever the rent is an irrelevant number. It is simply a small contribution to overheads.
Unless the OS is in use 365 days a year and earning money it will be a loss making enterprise and Brady knows it.
My theory is WH know it will fail and will in a few years be offered the stadium for one penny to stave off financial collapse of E20.
From (Seth Plum),
Lee
Dear Boris,
Will you explain to me why the financial details regarding West Ham United and the Olympic Stadium are not open for public scrutiny, my understanding it that it is taxpayers money, and therefore we are entitled to know.
Thank You
(Seth)
This message has been scanned for viruses by the Greater London Authority.
The reply today:
Dear (Seth)
Thank you for taking the time to write to the Mayor about your concerns relating to the financial details of the Stadium deal.
It is of course right that the Stadium deal is examined by the public and this has already been happening through a number of scrutiny meetings held by Parliamentary committees and the London Assembly. The Stadium very much remains a public asset and West Ham United Football Club will pay an annual usage fee to use the Stadium for around 25 days per year alongside a £15million contribution to the transformation costs. Much of the reporting about this issue gives the misleading impression that West Ham are being given exclusive use of the venue but this is not the case. The stadium remains in the ownership of E20, a joint venture between the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) and the London Borough of Newham , and will be managed by a world class operator tasked with bringing a wide range of events to the stadium.
Significant details of the concession agreement with West Ham United FC have already been released. In addition the costs of all the major contracts for the transformation of the Stadium into a multi-use venue, capable of hosting a range of sports including rugby, football and athletics, are now in the public domain. As you may be aware, the Information Commissioner's Office has very recently upheld a complaint from a member of the public and instructed the LLDC to publish an un-redacted version of the concession agreement. LLDC has argued that the Olympic Stadium will have many users, and further commercial agreements are to be entered into in future, and that therefore publishing the contractual details will undermine its ability to deliver the best financial outcome from numerous future negotiations.
LLDC is currently considering the ruling carefully and deciding what action to take.
I would like to take this opportunity to assure you that the Stadium deal is a very good one for taxpayers and provides a raft of benefits for Londoners; as an anchor tenant on a 99 year lease, West Ham will help make the Stadium financially stable over the long term. This is vital, not just for the Stadium but for the regeneration programme that is being delivered as a key part of the legacy from the 2012 Games, which will deliver more than £3bn of economic benefit and many thousands of new jobs and homes to London.
Yours sincerely
Azadur Rahman
Governance team
The longer this goes on, the more it looks ...justifiably or not ...that there is something to hide.
Anyway if anyone wants to hear exactly what he said, this video is for you. Lousy picture but audio is fine, especially if you use a headset.
So the conversion the make it a large multipurpose stadium was actually £112 million over the original budget.
Even if West Ham were just paying rent at £247 million over the 99 year lease in today's money, the extra work is covered.
Add in all the extras the LLDC get over and above that for West Hams tenancy, there's no case to answer.
And that's no taking into account the positive externalities of athletics having a large scale permanent home and the extra events that can happen (such as the Rugby a World Cup).
Then there's the other sources of revenue for the taxpayer from West Ham that many on here conveniently ignore.