Pedro, and that is what the deal will hopefully prove once it is out. West Ham will make a viable contribution to both the conversion and running costs, however, most of that contribution will not happen upfront but over time. Maybe your Spurs lawyer can prove that this is actually state aid as probably West Ham didn't have enough liquidity available to contribute more money upfront. Again, the LLDC seems to see this as a long-term investment with steady income being generated year after year. You seem to want to see more income generated and money returend to the taxpayer in the early years of the tenancy when the LLDc appears to be perfectly happy with spreading that income more evenly over the years in return for actually having an anchor tenant and reliable contributor in there for 99 years. When a bigger upfront contribution to the conversion costs (40 million ? 60 million ?) would have resulted in no anchor tenant being found willing to keep the athletics legacy. It'll take a while to break even for the LLDC and recovering the conversion costs in the process, but even that is not too uncommon in the business world. Again: This is a long-term investment, a marathon, not a sprint
This is after all a compromise situation, with West Ham making sacrifices (leaving our home ground for instance, giving up a number of income streams generated by West Ham being in the OS) ...
Oh come on GEE ... making sacrifices! Your club (and, ultimately, your owners) will obtain an incredible financial benefit by doing this.
However, that's not the issue for me ... good luck to them for seeing an opportunity. As I have stated continuously my issue is not with West ham ... I want to see transparency and make sure that we as taxpayers are not being taken for a ride. And LLDC are still making us wait.
This is after all a compromise situation, with West Ham making sacrifices (leaving our home ground for instance, giving up a number of income streams generated by West Ham being in the OS) ...
I want to see transparency and make sure that we as taxpayers are not being taken for a ride. And LLDC are still making us wait.
The only reason why they're making people wait is because it's such a great deal for the taxpayer.
Taxpayers are taken much more for a ride in several other fields wasting money on a much bigger scale. If this wasn't a rival London football club that is likely to benefit from moving in you wouldn't be interested. You never were that bothered about what benefits Many City got from their deal. If a car manufacturer (cue the VW jokes) or any other business had moved into the Olympic Park renting the premises nobody would bat an eyelid over any taxpayers' issues. You can repeat as often as you like that this is not a crusade against West Ham, you can collect all those facts and can liaise with a lawyer working for Tottenham Hotspur as much as you care, deep down you all know this is being driven by not mainly the desire for transparency or fairness, deep down this is football tribalism hidden very well behind big words and business lingo. It's saying something that even a lot of your fellow fans (Into the Valley) are not buying your motivation behind all this.
Relegation - in the relatively brief period of the EPL (23 completed seasons) only seven clubs have remained members throughout. WHU were relegated five times between 1978 and 2011. Greater wealth will be no guarantee of greater success - it's not a case of how much money you spend, but how wisely you spend it.
Absolutely. And the team that beat Man City at the Etihad on Saturday, taking West Ham to 2nd in the Premier League, was the 4th least expensively assembled that weekend in the league.
I'd say the current owners, with a few rickets aside, have been excellent in their transfer activity.
We welcome fans from other clubs onto these forums - including Millwall fans! They get an enormous amount of stick (tongue in cheek) and they take it incredibly well. In fact BBW is one of the most entertaining (and sensible posters) on here.
But when fans of other clubs are genuinely delusional it's somewhat irritating - especially as the main thrust of this thread has nothing do with attacking West Ham.
Charlton's highest ever league finish was runners-up in the old 1st Division. We are a small club.
West Ham's highest ever league finish was third in the top tier (I'm ignoring the World Cup win of course).
Yet we are lead to believe that future riches based on their move to the OS are somehow inevitable. As GHF has indicated, life in the top tier is precarious apart from a handful of the true top teams. I'm in my late 50's but I would reasonably expect to see West Ham relegated again in my lifetime. Twas ever thus.
Taxpayers are taken much more for a ride in several other fields wasting money on a much bigger scale. If this wasn't a rival London football club that is likely to benefit from moving in you wouldn't be interested. You never were that bothered about what benefits Many City got from their deal. If a car manufacturer (cue the VW jokes) or any other business had moved into the Olympic Park renting the premises nobody would bat an eyelid over any taxpayers' issues. You can repeat as often as you like that this is not a crusade against West Ham, you can collect all those facts and can liaise with a lawyer working for Tottenham Hotspur as much as you care, deep down you all know this is being driven by not mainly the desire for transparency or fairness, deep down this is football tribalism hidden very well behind big words and business lingo. It's saying something that even a lot of your fellow fans (Into the Valley) are not buying your motivation behind all this.
Total bolox ... once again you are playing the victim... you just do not listen. How many more times ... I do not care that you have benefited, good work by your club to take the opportunity.
But something does not smell right - as taxpayers we need to see the details to make our own minds up.
I am aware that there are many other wastes of taxpayers money but this one is local and I am aware of it, hence the reason I am following the developments with interest.
It is not about your precious club GEE however much you want to pretend it is.
Pedro, and that is what the deal will hopefully prove once it is out. West Ham will make a viable contribution to both the conversion and running costs, however, most of that contribution will not happen upfront but over time. Maybe your Spurs lawyer can prove that this is actually state aid as probably West Ham didn't have enough liquidity available to contribute more money upfront. Again, the LLDC seems to see this as a long-term investment with steady income being generated year after year. You seem to want to see more income generated and money returend to the taxpayer in the early years of the tenancy when the LLDc appears to be perfectly happy with spreading that income more evenly over the years in return for actually having an anchor tenant and reliable contributor in there for 99 years. When a bigger upfront contribution to the conversion costs (40 million ? 60 million ?) would have resulted in no anchor tenant being found willing to keep the athletics legacy. It'll take a while to break even for the LLDC and recovering the conversion costs in the process, but even that is not too uncommon in the business world. Again: This is a long-term investment, a marathon, not a sprint
"hopefully prove" you say, but you have no evidence of this. Your arguments are unsubstantiated drivel. You have no facts. Why should it take LLDC "a while to break even" when WHU will get undoubted benefit immediately? How can LLDC recover the conversion costs when the rent WHU pay merely covers the day-to-day running expenses (we think)? You cannot answer these questions as you have no idea; we all need to see the contract un-redacted, and despite @gavros's reticence, hopefully Bojo will have a word and get LLDC to release ASAP.
You keep telling yourself that. You won't rest until West Ham due to your divine intervention are being asked (as they most probably cannot be forced) to pay more. Charlton Athletic won't benefit from this in any way. The taxpayer (you) won't benefit as even if the terms were to be changed (which is unlikely) no government representative will show up on your doorstep with a 50 pound contribution paid of any OS savings.
You keep telling yourself that. You won't rest until West Ham due to your divine intervention are being asked (as they most probably cannot be forced) to pay more. Charlton Athletic won't benefit from this in any way. The taxpayer (you) won't benefit as even if the terms were to be changed (which is unlikely) no government representative will show up on your doorstep with a 50 pound contribution paid of any OS savings.
As I said ... playing the victim.
Really is no point trying to reason with you ... much like the LLDC it seems.
You keep telling yourself that. You won't rest until West Ham due to your divine intervention are being asked (as they most probably cannot be forced) to pay more. Charlton Athletic won't benefit from this in any way. The taxpayer (you) won't benefit as even if the terms were to be changed (which is unlikely) no government representative will show up on your doorstep with a 50 pound contribution paid of any OS savings.
I do not believe I have ever seen anyone on this forum miss the point so consistently and repetitively as you do.
It's most definitely a well honed skill you have there GEE.
You keep telling yourself that. You won't rest until West Ham due to your divine intervention are being asked (as they most probably cannot be forced) to pay more. Charlton Athletic won't benefit from this in any way. The taxpayer (you) won't benefit as even if the terms were to be changed (which is unlikely) no government representative will show up on your doorstep with a 50 pound contribution paid of any OS savings.
I do not believe I have ever seen anyone on this forum miss the point so consistently and repetitively as you do.
It's most definitely a well honed skill you have there GEE.
Agreed, West Ham's (away) form so far could not have been more impressive, but you're being a bit disingenuous about the cost of Saturday's team - only a few days ago Mr Sullivan was larging it that the club had spent 40 mil during the summer and were flat up against the allowed FFP loss of 17 mil. Not been exactly sitting back polishing their pennies, have they ??
Consistency over a long period is what counts, of course. WHU were not actually founder members of Club EPL, and so far they've been relegated twice (2003 and 2011).
I may have mentioned before that my first game at the Boleyn was 2 Jan 60 WHU 2-5 Burnley. I remember the old ground very clearly, especially the original Chicken Run. (Funnily enough, that first game started with a fraudulent act - I went through the turnstile together with an adult companion, simultaneously with a coin disappearing into the gateman's pocket .... never managed this at The Valley !!) So you see, this whole affair isn't about hammering the Hammers, now is it ?
Yes, I'm losing every single argument. You win them all. Nobody else has seen what needs to be done with the OS apart from the Tottenham lawyer you've been kind enough to share it all with. You think you understand so well how a public asset should be financed and run. You are flying the flag of the taxpayer being fleeced. You will take on the government, West Ham and the pope too if need be, it doesn't matter if Charlton get relegated to League One in the meantime, who cares about that ? The taxpayer needs saving from keeping the OS up and running for 99 years. The OS deal can only be the start though. I sense many more worthy causes (both local and globally) you may throw yourself into. Playing the victim I will have to do a lengthy session of self-chastisement now. God, it hurts to never be as smart or important as a Charlton Lifer. I haven't even been interviewed by Sky Sports yet...
Yes, I'm losing every single argument. You win them all. Nobody else has seen what needs to be done with the OS apart from the Tottenham lawyer you've been kind enough to share it all with. You think you understand so well how a public asset should be financed and run. You are flying the flag of the taxpayer being fleeced. You will take on the government, West Ham and the pope too if need be, it doesn't matter if Charlton get relegated to League One in the meantime, who cares about that ? The taxpayer needs saving from keeping the OS up and running for 99 years. The OS deal can only be the start though. I sense many more worthy causes (both local and globally) you may throw yourself into. Playing the victim I will have to do a lengthy session of self-chastisement now. God, it hurts to never be as smart or important as a Charlton Lifer. I haven't even been interviewed by Sky Sports yet...
"But overall they will make some serious money from the OS and from West Ham, be sure of that."
If you check out other stadia, for example the Etihad in Melbourne Australia, the third most successful global stadium behind Wembley and Met Life in New York it grossed £15m in revenue BEFORE costs. It has seven football teams sharing facilities for Australian football, with Essendon FC the anchor tenant paying probably little rent and sharing some revenue, but six others paying the going rate on rent and revenue sharing. The revenue included income from 6 additional one off events during the year.
Unless the OS gets Spurs, Arsenal, Essex County Cricket Club, a few rugby clubs and the Glastonbury festival to move to the stadium and give up all their ticket money or pay a £squilion in rent, the OS doesn't stand a chance of making a profit.
And so the late-summer days slowly pass as we watch almost hypnotised the arguments of gavros and GEE gradually swirling down the plug-hole in a gentle vortex of repetition, victimhood, misunderstanding, recrimination and nagging guilt .... never mind an interview with Sky Sports, GEE old mate - have you tried a priest or a shrink ? (Btw, I'm now convinced you're a real Ethel - your sarcasm doesn't quite accomplish that true British bite. Keep trying, though.)
When all this is over, the offer to meet up for a drink still stands - no hard feelings, eh?
Taxpayers are taken much more for a ride in several other fields wasting money on a much bigger scale. If this wasn't a rival London football club that is likely to benefit from moving in you wouldn't be interested. You never were that bothered about what benefits Many City got from their deal. If a car manufacturer (cue the VW jokes) or any other business had moved into the Olympic Park renting the premises nobody would bat an eyelid over any taxpayers' issues. You can repeat as often as you like that this is not a crusade against West Ham, you can collect all those facts and can liaise with a lawyer working for Tottenham Hotspur as much as you care, deep down you all know this is being driven by not mainly the desire for transparency or fairness, deep down this is football tribalism hidden very well behind big words and business lingo. It's saying something that even a lot of your fellow fans (Into the Valley) are not buying your motivation behind all this.
How is the money handed straight to West Ham ? In unregistered banknotes ? With some coins throwing in ? The conversion of the OS doesn't just benefit West Ham. It is a long-term investment which helped in securing an anchor tenant for 99 years who again is pivotal to the long-term future of the OS. West Ham is just one part of the overall OS strategy implemented by the LLDC. The LLDC won't make the same kind of money from all events in the same way. But overall they will make some serious money from the OS and from West Ham, be sure of that. Man City overall got the much better deal, especially since they bought the right to market the naming rights for just 2 million and pocket the profits which are massive, around five times as much as what they are paying for the rights to the council. Yes, they gave the proceeds from the Maine Road sale and they are also paying for the stewarding, policing and the goalnets themselves. If you add in the naming rights income (which could and should have gone back to the taxpayer) they get their stadium rent-free (isn't that what you are saying about West Ham too ?). Yet in Manchester both club and council are happy and I don't hear smaller clubs like Northampton, Stockport or Oldham complaining. Letting Man City sell and keep the profits from selling naming rights for the stadium they rent amounts to daylight robbery really. If West Ham could have got a similar deal you'd be crying even more about injustice. The naming rights are a big factor that'll make the OS work financially and that'll only work because West Ham play there. And no, I do not work for Volkswagen and I don't drive one either if you must know.
Man, this is hard work. I didn't think this was so difficult.
The CoMs conversion cost £42m. Man City paid more capital towards that than West Ham are paying towards a £272m conversion, of which the majority of the costs are being incurred for them.
Man City handed over the keys to Maine Road to the council and continue to invest money in the regeneration of the local area. West Ham kept the estimated £70m proceeds from the sale of Upton Park and I'd be amazed if there wasn't some kind of retained interest.
City now pay £4m rent, which commits revenues that wouldn't have been committed under the previous deal, and whilst stadium naming rights are now to City's reward they are also their entire risk. West Ham pay - we think - £2m rent, for which they get a share of naming rights above an undisclosed threshold. At no risk.
Man City have to bear the full costs of any stadium improvements, and their expansion to 55,000 is costing them £50m. It appears from the contract that the LLDC retain full responsibility for stadium improvements.
Were City to get relegated, they'd still have to find £4m. West Ham reportedly halve their rent, down to £1m.
There is no way on earth Man City have a better deal - although they have the better stadium. West Ham get their stadium rent free not because of the revenues they generate but because of the costs they avoid. This is the entire point you're struggling to grasp. For their £2m rent, they get an estimated £2.5m value services thrown in. Plus £500k+ of office and retail space. They are, in my estimation, being paid by the taxpayer to be there. For the next 99 years.
Gullivan and Brady would have you believe that they're being sacrificial for the benefit of the taxpayer, but you know I've done the maths, even tried to be conservative on OS revenues, yet I couldn't come up with a single realistic business case to stay at Upton Park even if West Ham paid the entire conversion costs. Even if they paid the entire conversion costs!!
Prague's right though. The state aid issue is for others to pick up. There are other political mechanisms available in this country for the LLDC to be held to account - and whilst obviously West Ham are in the picture please remember this: our beef is not with West Ham (other than the lies and diversions they're throwing out there). They are doing what's best for their business. But for the rest of the footballing world, and indeed the taxpayer, we're watching public money - at a time of austerity - being spent to the primary benefit of a private enterprise who made about as much profit in their last accounts as they're putting towards this entire project.
I do try to put myself in your shoes - how would I feel if it was Charlton (leaving aside the fact I wouldn't want to leave the Valley). But you know, if the deal included throwing in the Valley, and £50m towards the infrastructure costs to gain the same back in just a couple of years - well I think I'd see that as a good deal, and I really doubt I'd be complaining that I should have been allowed to keep the Valley and £35m of the infrastructure costs to myself.
EDIT: To answer your opening question, like City West Ham couldn't move without public money. That public money means they can keep £70m which goes straight to their balance sheet. The fact that public money allows West Ham to avoid more cost than they incur on their rent also has a direct P&L impact. So whether the money goes into Gullivan's trousers as crisp green or as costs they don't have to lay out, it's still going there.
Comments
Maybe your Spurs lawyer can prove that this is actually state aid as probably West Ham didn't have enough liquidity available to contribute more money upfront.
Again, the LLDC seems to see this as a long-term investment with steady income being generated year after year.
You seem to want to see more income generated and money returend to the taxpayer in the early years of the tenancy when the LLDc appears to be perfectly happy with spreading that income more evenly over the years in return for actually having an anchor tenant and reliable contributor in there for 99 years.
When a bigger upfront contribution to the conversion costs (40 million ? 60 million ?) would have resulted in no anchor tenant being found willing to keep the athletics legacy.
It'll take a while to break even for the LLDC and recovering the conversion costs in the process, but even that is not too uncommon in the business world. Again: This is a long-term investment, a marathon, not a sprint
However, that's not the issue for me ... good luck to them for seeing an opportunity. As I have stated continuously my issue is not with West ham ... I want to see transparency and make sure that we as taxpayers are not being taken for a ride. And LLDC are still making us wait.
The facts are far too complicated for us plebs to understand so they are being kind to us.
If this wasn't a rival London football club that is likely to benefit from moving in you wouldn't be interested.
You never were that bothered about what benefits Many City got from their deal.
If a car manufacturer (cue the VW jokes) or any other business had moved into the Olympic Park renting the premises nobody would bat an eyelid over any taxpayers' issues. You can repeat as often as you like that this is not a crusade against West Ham, you can collect all those facts and can liaise with a lawyer working for Tottenham Hotspur as much as you care,
deep down you all know this is being driven by not mainly the desire for transparency or fairness, deep down this is football tribalism hidden very well behind big words and business lingo.
It's saying something that even a lot of your fellow fans (Into the Valley) are not buying your motivation behind all this.
But when fans of other clubs are genuinely delusional it's somewhat irritating - especially as the main thrust of this thread has nothing do with attacking West Ham.
Charlton's highest ever league finish was runners-up in the old 1st Division. We are a small club.
West Ham's highest ever league finish was third in the top tier (I'm ignoring the World Cup win of course).
Yet we are lead to believe that future riches based on their move to the OS are somehow inevitable. As GHF has indicated, life in the top tier is precarious apart from a handful of the true top teams. I'm in my late 50's but I would reasonably expect to see West Ham relegated again in my lifetime. Twas ever thus.
But something does not smell right - as taxpayers we need to see the details to make our own minds up.
I am aware that there are many other wastes of taxpayers money but this one is local and I am aware of it, hence the reason I am following the developments with interest.
It is not about your precious club GEE however much you want to pretend it is.
By the way, if a car manufacturer required £163 million of taxpayer money to convert the Olympic Stadium into a showroom, there would be uproar.
The taxpayer (you) won't benefit as even if the terms were to be changed (which is unlikely) no government representative will show up on your doorstep with a 50 pound contribution paid of any OS savings.
As I said ... playing the victim.
Really is no point trying to reason with you ... much like the LLDC it seems.
It's most definitely a well honed skill you have there GEE.
Agreed, West Ham's (away) form so far could not have been more impressive, but you're being a bit disingenuous about the cost of Saturday's team - only a few days ago Mr Sullivan was larging it that the club had spent 40 mil during the summer and were flat up against the allowed FFP loss of 17 mil. Not been exactly sitting back polishing their pennies, have they ??
Consistency over a long period is what counts, of course. WHU were not actually founder members of Club EPL, and so far they've been relegated twice (2003 and 2011).
I may have mentioned before that my first game at the Boleyn was 2 Jan 60 WHU 2-5 Burnley. I remember the old ground very clearly, especially the original Chicken Run. (Funnily enough, that first game started with a fraudulent act - I went through the turnstile together with an adult companion, simultaneously with a coin disappearing into the gateman's pocket .... never managed this at The Valley !!) So you see, this whole affair isn't about hammering the Hammers, now is it ?
You will take on the government, West Ham and the pope too if need be, it doesn't matter if Charlton get relegated to League One in the meantime, who cares about that ?
The taxpayer needs saving from keeping the OS up and running for 99 years.
The OS deal can only be the start though.
I sense many more worthy causes (both local and globally) you may throw yourself into.
Playing the victim I will have to do a lengthy session of self-chastisement now.
God, it hurts to never be as smart or important as a Charlton Lifer.
I haven't even been interviewed by Sky Sports yet...
If you check out other stadia, for example the Etihad in Melbourne Australia, the third most successful global stadium behind Wembley and Met Life in New York it grossed £15m in revenue BEFORE costs. It has seven football teams sharing facilities for Australian football, with Essendon FC the anchor tenant paying probably little rent and sharing some revenue, but six others paying the going rate on rent and revenue sharing. The revenue included income from 6 additional one off events during the year.
Unless the OS gets Spurs, Arsenal, Essex County Cricket Club, a few rugby clubs and the Glastonbury festival to move to the stadium and give up all their ticket money or pay a £squilion in rent, the OS doesn't stand a chance of making a profit.
Give us some figures that warrant your statement.
And so the late-summer days slowly pass as we watch almost hypnotised the arguments of gavros and GEE gradually swirling down the plug-hole in a gentle vortex of repetition, victimhood, misunderstanding, recrimination and nagging guilt .... never mind an interview with Sky Sports, GEE old mate - have you tried a priest or a shrink ? (Btw, I'm now convinced you're a real Ethel - your sarcasm doesn't quite accomplish that true British bite. Keep trying, though.)
When all this is over, the offer to meet up for a drink still stands - no hard feelings, eh?
- The CoMs conversion cost £42m. Man City paid more capital towards that than West Ham are paying towards a £272m conversion, of which the majority of the costs are being incurred for them.
- Man City handed over the keys to Maine Road to the council and continue to invest money in the regeneration of the local area. West Ham kept the estimated £70m proceeds from the sale of Upton Park and I'd be amazed if there wasn't some kind of retained interest.
- City now pay £4m rent, which commits revenues that wouldn't have been committed under the previous deal, and whilst stadium naming rights are now to City's reward they are also their entire risk. West Ham pay - we think - £2m rent, for which they get a share of naming rights above an undisclosed threshold. At no risk.
- Man City have to bear the full costs of any stadium improvements, and their expansion to 55,000 is costing them £50m. It appears from the contract that the LLDC retain full responsibility for stadium improvements.
- Were City to get relegated, they'd still have to find £4m. West Ham reportedly halve their rent, down to £1m.
There is no way on earth Man City have a better deal - although they have the better stadium.West Ham get their stadium rent free not because of the revenues they generate but because of the costs they avoid. This is the entire point you're struggling to grasp. For their £2m rent, they get an estimated £2.5m value services thrown in. Plus £500k+ of office and retail space. They are, in my estimation, being paid by the taxpayer to be there. For the next 99 years.
Gullivan and Brady would have you believe that they're being sacrificial for the benefit of the taxpayer, but you know I've done the maths, even tried to be conservative on OS revenues, yet I couldn't come up with a single realistic business case to stay at Upton Park even if West Ham paid the entire conversion costs. Even if they paid the entire conversion costs!!
Prague's right though. The state aid issue is for others to pick up. There are other political mechanisms available in this country for the LLDC to be held to account - and whilst obviously West Ham are in the picture please remember this: our beef is not with West Ham (other than the lies and diversions they're throwing out there). They are doing what's best for their business. But for the rest of the footballing world, and indeed the taxpayer, we're watching public money - at a time of austerity - being spent to the primary benefit of a private enterprise who made about as much profit in their last accounts as they're putting towards this entire project.
I do try to put myself in your shoes - how would I feel if it was Charlton (leaving aside the fact I wouldn't want to leave the Valley). But you know, if the deal included throwing in the Valley, and £50m towards the infrastructure costs to gain the same back in just a couple of years - well I think I'd see that as a good deal, and I really doubt I'd be complaining that I should have been allowed to keep the Valley and £35m of the infrastructure costs to myself.
EDIT: To answer your opening question, like City West Ham couldn't move without public money. That public money means they can keep £70m which goes straight to their balance sheet. The fact that public money allows West Ham to avoid more cost than they incur on their rent also has a direct P&L impact. So whether the money goes into Gullivan's trousers as crisp green or as costs they don't have to lay out, it's still going there.