European Commission investigates Liberty Stadium funding deal

micks1950

Implications for West Ham at the Olympic Stadium - they are in 'partnership' with Newham Council who are paying £40m towards the conversion costs?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-25559959

"A deal allowing Swansea City FC and the Ospreys rugby region to play at the Liberty Stadium is being investigated by the European Commission.

Swansea council has been asked to give details over funding arrangements at the council-owned stadium.

The commission is carrying out a Europe-wide investigation into state aid in sport.

State aid rules, policed by the commission, limit how much public money can be given to private companies.

The £27m Liberty Stadium was built in 2005 with the Swans and the Ospreys both playing there.

The clubs pay a peppercorn rent to the Swansea Stadium Management Company (SSMC) - a body running the stadium which is a partnership between the council and the two clubs.

The clubs also contribute over £1m a year to the running costs of the stadium with any profit made being returned to the teams and the local authority.

However, it is understood so far that SSMC has failed to ever return a profit which means the council is yet to see a return on its investment".

Off_it

Are they also going to be looking at Real Madrid and some of the Italian clubs, I wonder?

TelMc32

Swans have been caught up in the same investigation which is looking into, effectively, state aid for 7 clubs in Spain.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1287_en.htm

Could well hit West Ham if Newham are shouldering the burden, or an element of it without charging a commercial rate.

Not sure what the deal was with Man City when they got the Commonwealth Stadium. Suspect that their owners would be able to buy that out if it was an issue anyway.

Just something to think about...could it also have implications for any potential ground on the peninsular and how a deal was structured there for the anchor tenant sports club?

killerandflash

Interesting.
Swansea have been portrayed in their ownership structure as a model for other clubs to copy, but clearly the stadium deal was a massive help to them that other clubs haven't been given.

Leroy Ambrose

This kind of practice is commonplace in US sports, and is absolutely disgraceful. Taxpayers shouldn't be funding a professional sports club's facilities - irrespective of whether the 'benefits to the community' that are always touted are, in fact, real.

Brendan_O_Connell

Isn't Dartford's ground council owned? Was that paid for by taxpayers??

Ormiston_Addick

Leroy Ambrose said:

This kind of practice is commonplace in US sports, and is absolutely disgraceful. Taxpayers shouldn't be funding a professional sports club's facilities - irrespective of whether the 'benefits to the community' that are always touted are, in fact, real.

Agree 100%. Had the same thing here, the state government built a new stadium for an AFL (Aussie Rules) team on the Gold Coast.

The AFL makes a huge profit on their TV rights, why the feck should the government buy them a stadium?

ChicagoAddick

Swansea's success has been sensational and great to observe as a neutral, but the lack of investment they needed to make on a brand new spanking stadium needs to be considered in the overall scheme of things.

JonnyK

Off_it said:

Are they also going to be looking at Real Madrid and some of the Italian clubs, I wonder?

Yep reported a couple of weeks ago that the European Commission were investigating State Aid in respect of RM and Barca. Open and shut case but then again ....................

LenGlover

Far be it from me to defend the European Commission but if one accepts that they have some legitimacy to interfere in the affairs of supposedly sovereign countries (which I don't) then it is a valid question to ask.

My question would be to ask exactly where do you draw the line in protecting the interests of tax payers? Greenwich Council gives money to the Charlton Community Trust which the majority on this forum, as exemplified by the Jason Morgan thread, would say is desirable and beneficial all round.

As a principle though is it really so very different to the Liberty or Olympic Stadium? Local or National Government are using tax payers (whether council or income) to finance projects.

Airman Brown

LenGlover said:

Far be it from me to defend the European Commission but if one accepts that they have some legitimacy to interfere in the affairs of supposedly sovereign countries (which I don't) then it is a valid question to ask.

My question would be to ask exactly where do you draw the line in protecting the interests of tax payers? Greenwich Council gives money to the Charlton Community Trust which the majority on this forum, as exemplified by the Jason Morgan thread, would say is desirable and beneficial all round.

As a principle though is it really so very different to the Liberty or Olympic Stadium? Local or National Government are using tax payers (whether council or income) to finance projects.

It's very different because CACT is not a private company with the potential to deliver profits for shareholders. More to the point, given the extent to which local government is resourced to deliver on its legal duties these days it would struggle to do so without third sector support, such as CACT delivering the youth service in Greenwich.

PragueAddick

Since this thread is open I thought I would drop in that I actually have an ongoing complaint with the EC over the West Ham situation. I did it privately ( not in the Trust's name), because I know Charlton are very worried about the impact West Ham will have. Initially I did it because I was bored one Sunday afternoon, but the eventual reply, which was written by LLDC and passed to the EC, was so all over the place and quite hostile in tone, that I started to take it seriously. I've been assisted by Mundell Fleming and Wyn Grant. Wyn is not just an economics professor but is very experienced with the EC.

So far they have resisted re-opening the case. Wyn is convinced our case is strong, but that they may resist re-opening because they've already looked at it once. It would be an implied admission that they didn't do it properly before. But as this thread shows there are more and more precedents. In particular this time we have gone hard on the Dutch precedents, five clubs there are under investigation.

I would not post it here but if anyone is interested, I'd be happy to send the submissions and their replies to date, and would appreciate any comments which help further tighten our case.

richie8

I think the San Siro is a council park as well?