In case you didnt catch TNT8 the full article on Westham's Olympic stadium debacle is now available online http://castrust.org. Discover what CAS trust has been doing about this potential issue for the club.
Naively I had no idea West Ham were only paying £15 million. I knew they were paying a lot less than others, but not this insulting amount (the amount they paid for one striker last year).
I finally read TNT last night. Full of excellent articles but each one was negative, not a criticism at all, just shows how royally screwed we are being at the moment, from FFP to West Ham and others.
I thought there was a FA rule re another club not being allowed to encompass another clubs area?(Orients)
I could be wrong, but I thought Hearn got paid off before/in court proceedings so basically dropped the case, and then soon after sold Orient to Becchetti.
Congratulations to the Trust for pursuing this which as they say will have a detrimental effect on CAFC. It would be interesting to compare the cost to Spurs for their current new ground construction in comparison to West Ham
Well done for finding out two things which have already been publically declared in front of both Commons and Lords select committees
The "two things" being
1. That West Ham's rent is reduced if they get relegated?
2. That West Ham keep 100% of the revenue generated from hospitality?
3. That West Ham can cough up their 8% share of the capital costs only after they sell Upton Park, and that there is no deadline for them to do that?
Here is Brady's evidence to the Lords committee. I read it previously but just read it again to check. I did not find reference to any of the three points in the text.
However if I have missed them, or if you can link to a document from the other hearing where she says each of these things, it would be very useful if you can lead us to them; I will be able to forward them to the Information Commissioner, pointing out how ridiculous it was for the LLDC to redact the information from the copy of the contract with West Ham which we have requested under FOI law, when the information is in the public domain.
Yes. And as I said above to Rothko, at their leisure. If they wanted to wait until 2020 to sell it, to take full advantage of property price rises (if they predicted such), they can do so, Upton Park can sit rusting away and derelict. And they will not have to cough up their (tiny) share of the Olympic rebuild until they sell it.
This is material the LLDC has let slip by accident under our pressure. Who knows what gems we will find if we get the full contract released...
I finally read TNT last night. Full of excellent articles but each one was negative, not a criticism at all, just shows how royally screwed we are being at the moment, from FFP to West Ham and others.
Museum/memorial article....... negative ? Efford article negative? Financal Fair play.... supporting CAFC's David Joyce Interview on Phil Chapple. Okay there are 'only 63 badges left'...... but still time to join up mate. I have not mentioned Richard Hunt's excellent article personally I think it is the best article we have ever had in the news, ( Weegie's aside on KM last issue ) But then I would be biased, as I designed it. Fair play, let me know what you would like to see, I am working on a couple of things, more shall we say ' less weighty' for the next issue.
Its is not ideal that a rich football club has been allowed to take over facilities which have been built at a great cost to the taxpayer and the lottery fund contributees, few of whom will be West ham supporters. The Manchester City occupation of a publicly funded stadium was also far from satisfactory as was the situation over the 'O2'. But what else was to be done with these stadia ?. Athletics meetings that attract large crowds are few and far between, what other use could these potential white elephants have been put ? .. detention centres for illegal immigrants ? It was all very well talking fine words about an Olympic legacy, in reality that legacy would be very expensive to maintain. Of course south London football clubs could suffer from the West Ham occupation of the Olympic stadium, perhaps not this generation, but future generations of south Londoners might well be tempted across the water to watch a 'bigger club' play in a 'bigger competition'. Unfortunately, little or even nothing can be done about this. As to the money side of things, West Ham should have been charged a far higher down payment and rent for the use but at least some money will be paid back into the public purse and athletics meetings will be held at the stadium during the football close season, as well as some games during next years' RU World Cup. So all is not doom and gloom
The impoverished LB Newham miraculously found 40 million to contribute - what recompense do they receive in return, and what is their security for this highly speculative commercial venture? Is their potential reward commensurate with the risk? Have the Trust's wholly admirable and tenacious investigations reached Newham's door yet?
I'm glad I carried on reading that article as I very nearly closed it. It became very good and has raised a lot of questions in my mind that will need answering. However, I do have a slight issue with the headline and the opening of the article. To me the main points of the article are the financial support WH are receiving for the stadium. This therefore isn't a case of "flooding" South London with free tickets. Even if we do want to take issue with the free tickets they will likely give out, it does feel a bit like crying wolf.
Other than that I thought it was very thought provoking.
Agree the headline is a bit provacative but thats the modern social media age, and there's always a balance between getting anyone to click on the story and oversensationalising.
Agree the headline is a bit provacative but thats the modern social media age, and there's always a balance between getting anyone to click on the story and oversensationalising.
Incidentally there is a westham comment there now
Yeah I agree with the balance part but it felt very much like click baiting out of the Daily Mail textbook of how to write online articles. Personally, a headline revolving around WH's huge benefits they are receiving is a much bigger deal than the free tickets they may give out. But I take your point.
I'm glad I carried on reading that article as I very nearly closed it. It became very good and has raised a lot of questions in my mind that will need answering. However, I do have a slight issue with the headline and the opening of the article. To me the main points of the article are the financial support WH are receiving for the stadium. This therefore isn't a case of "flooding" South London with free tickets. Even if we do want to take issue with the free tickets they will likely give out, it does feel a bit like crying wolf.
Other than that I thought it was very thought provoking.
The headline is a bit Daily Mail (any excuse to use "and YOU'RE paying for it"), but the point about the free tickets is the one that makes it relevant to CAFC.
The general issue is that the taxpayer is paying far too much for this, and West Ham should pay far more. It's our objective to make that happen. Importantly, any taxpayer and any London politician could sympathise with and support that goal, regardless of whether they are Charlton fans or even football fans at all.
However the consequence of West Ham paying far less than they should, is that they can be very cavalier with how they use their extra capacity. That's because of the executive boxes. The capacity is 5,000, it's huge, and what always interested Gullivan. Messrs Murray and Varney have always stressed that this is where clubs make decent money on match days - and the Valley has relatively low capacity in this area, BTW. So if you assume that 35,000 would turn up to watch West Ham at prices similar to at Upton Park, and then you've got 5,000 in exec boxes, that already more than covers the revenue they'd get if they filled the OS, but didn't have those boxes. So they can sell that 20,000 extra capacity as low as they like. They are already getting far more revenue than at Upton Park. So of course they will look at the new transport links and say, OK lets build support among casual fans south of the river. That is actually a threat to Charlton at the Valley in the FAPL. We can more or less sell out at normal prices, so West Ham can offer casual fans in say Gravesend cheap FAPL tickets whereas we could not. And..er...it's YOUR money that's paying for it! :-)
If West Ham are made to pay more in rental and capital costs, they will be less cavalier with their promotional tickets and Gullivan will probably live with crowds of 35k, so long as they sell the boxes.
So generally, it's a shocking waste of taxpayers' money, but for CAFC fans it is the cheap tickets they can offer as a result of this misapplication of public money, that threatens our long term financial well-being. And that is what makes it a specific Trust issue, as opposed to just a general citizen's issue.
I finally read TNT last night. Full of excellent articles but each one was negative, not a criticism at all, just shows how royally screwed we are being at the moment, from FFP to West Ham and others.
Museum/memorial article....... negative ? Efford article negative? Financal Fair play.... supporting CAFC's David Joyce Interview on Phil Chapple. Okay there are 'only 63 badges left'...... but still time to join up mate. I have not mentioned Richard Hunt's excellent article personally I think it is the best article we have ever had in the news, ( Weegie's aside on KM last issue ) But then I would be biased, as I designed it. Fair play, let me know what you would like to see, I am working on a couple of things, more shall we say ' less weighty' for the next issue.
I am a member and have always been very supportive of the Trust on this and other web sites and have persuaded the other 3 people I go with to sign up. My post above says 'excellent articles' and 'not a criticism', I found the read very interesting and great to see a Trust focusing on the issues important to the club. I quite like the weighty stuff as it is important to the clubs future. My point, probably badly made, was that a lot of the content, whilst interesting, shows how many 'challenges' we face as a club (as do many other clubs). FFP, West Ham, the price of football (as in we are one of the cheapest but crowds still down...what else can be done...?), footy being moved to a Friday as a a possibility.
Efford's law is interesting but most likely a vote chaser which like most things will be watered down to nothing by the time it ever got implemented (if ever) and from what I can see it will involve fans taking the 'risk' of being a Company Director without the power to have a controlling vote.
I'm glad I carried on reading that article as I very nearly closed it. It became very good and has raised a lot of questions in my mind that will need answering. However, I do have a slight issue with the headline and the opening of the article. To me the main points of the article are the financial support WH are receiving for the stadium. This therefore isn't a case of "flooding" South London with free tickets. Even if we do want to take issue with the free tickets they will likely give out, it does feel a bit like crying wolf.
Other than that I thought it was very thought provoking.
The headline is a bit Daily Mail (any excuse to use "and YOU'RE paying for it"), but the point about the free tickets is the one that makes it relevant to CAFC.
The general issue is that the taxpayer is paying far too much for this, and West Ham should pay far more. It's our objective to make that happen. Importantly, any taxpayer and any London politician could sympathise with and support that goal, regardless of whether they are Charlton fans or even football fans at all.
However the consequence of West Ham paying far less than they should, is that they can be very cavalier with how they use their extra capacity. That's because of the executive boxes. The capacity is 5,000, it's huge, and what always interested Gullivan. Messrs Murray and Varney have always stressed that this is where clubs make decent money on match days - and the Valley has relatively low capacity in this area, BTW. So if you assume that 35,000 would turn up to watch West Ham at prices similar to at Upton Park, and then you've got 5,000 in exec boxes, that already more than covers the revenue they'd get if they filled the OS, but didn't have those boxes. So they can sell that 20,000 extra capacity as low as they like. They are already getting far more revenue than at Upton Park. So of course they will look at the new transport links and say, OK lets build support among casual fans south of the river. That is actually a threat to Charlton at the Valley in the FAPL. We can more or less sell out at normal prices, so West Ham can offer casual fans in say Gravesend cheap FAPL tickets whereas we could not. And..er...it's YOUR money that's paying for it! :-)
If West Ham are made to pay more in rental and capital costs, they will be less cavalier with their promotional tickets and Gullivan will probably live with crowds of 35k, so long as they sell the boxes.
So generally, it's a shocking waste of taxpayers' money, but for CAFC fans it is the cheap tickets they can offer as a result of this misapplication of public money, that threatens our long term financial well-being. And that is what makes it a specific Trust issue, as opposed to just a general citizen's issue.
So you're worried West Ham will repeat pretty much what you did in the 90's when you flooded schools in SE London & Kent with freebies?
Pretty much the case Sparrow, ok if we do, not if others do.
Maintaining the Stadium long term has huge economic benefits to London and the country as a whole, be it West Ham, the Rugby World cup or World Athletics in 2017. The whole point for example of the LLDC is to make the park work long term, and £73m is tiny in the grand scheme of QEII park.
Taxpayers will be funding (£141m) UCL expanding with a huge campus on the park, so I look forward to the concerns of all that it's having an adverse effect on our sponsors for example.
I'm glad I carried on reading that article as I very nearly closed it. It became very good and has raised a lot of questions in my mind that will need answering. However, I do have a slight issue with the headline and the opening of the article. To me the main points of the article are the financial support WH are receiving for the stadium. This therefore isn't a case of "flooding" South London with free tickets. Even if we do want to take issue with the free tickets they will likely give out, it does feel a bit like crying wolf.
Other than that I thought it was very thought provoking.
The headline is a bit Daily Mail (any excuse to use "and YOU'RE paying for it"), but the point about the free tickets is the one that makes it relevant to CAFC.
The general issue is that the taxpayer is paying far too much for this, and West Ham should pay far more. It's our objective to make that happen. Importantly, any taxpayer and any London politician could sympathise with and support that goal, regardless of whether they are Charlton fans or even football fans at all.
However the consequence of West Ham paying far less than they should, is that they can be very cavalier with how they use their extra capacity. That's because of the executive boxes. The capacity is 5,000, it's huge, and what always interested Gullivan. Messrs Murray and Varney have always stressed that this is where clubs make decent money on match days - and the Valley has relatively low capacity in this area, BTW. So if you assume that 35,000 would turn up to watch West Ham at prices similar to at Upton Park, and then you've got 5,000 in exec boxes, that already more than covers the revenue they'd get if they filled the OS, but didn't have those boxes. So they can sell that 20,000 extra capacity as low as they like. They are already getting far more revenue than at Upton Park. So of course they will look at the new transport links and say, OK lets build support among casual fans south of the river. That is actually a threat to Charlton at the Valley in the FAPL. We can more or less sell out at normal prices, so West Ham can offer casual fans in say Gravesend cheap FAPL tickets whereas we could not. And..er...it's YOUR money that's paying for it! :-)
If West Ham are made to pay more in rental and capital costs, they will be less cavalier with their promotional tickets and Gullivan will probably live with crowds of 35k, so long as they sell the boxes.
So generally, it's a shocking waste of taxpayers' money, but for CAFC fans it is the cheap tickets they can offer as a result of this misapplication of public money, that threatens our long term financial well-being. And that is what makes it a specific Trust issue, as opposed to just a general citizen's issue.
So you're worried West Ham will repeat pretty much what you did in the 90's when you flooded schools in SE London & Kent with freebies?
No. We did not "flood" schools (in our own catchment area) because we did not have that much spare capacity. I'm sure @Airman Brown will give you the numbers.A variant on your criticism is that Valley Express attacked the Gillingham fan base. This of course is bollocks too as Valley Express was and is designed to reach out to Charlton-roots families who have moved out to of London.
However the most important difference is this. The Charlton activity you are talking about is a normal commercial marketing activity, carried out by one private company in a competitive market. Not a penny of taxpayers money supported Charlton's initiative.
Incidentally we have been working hand in glove with the Orient fans on this. We've both been puzzled about the passivity of the Millwall fans on this matter. As I'm aware, you are one of the Millwall "activists". You lot are welcome to join us.
Comments
I thought there was a FA rule re another club not being allowed to encompass another clubs area?(Orients)
1. That West Ham's rent is reduced if they get relegated?
2. That West Ham keep 100% of the revenue generated from hospitality?
3. That West Ham can cough up their 8% share of the capital costs only after they sell Upton Park, and that there is no deadline for them to do that?
Here is Brady's evidence to the Lords committee. I read it previously but just read it again to check. I did not find reference to any of the three points in the text.
However if I have missed them, or if you can link to a document from the other hearing where she says each of these things, it would be very useful if you can lead us to them; I will be able to forward them to the Information Commissioner, pointing out how ridiculous it was for the LLDC to redact the information from the copy of the contract with West Ham which we have requested under FOI law, when the information is in the public domain.
This is material the LLDC has let slip by accident under our pressure. Who knows what gems we will find if we get the full contract released...
Efford article negative?
Financal Fair play.... supporting CAFC's David Joyce
Interview on Phil Chapple.
Okay there are 'only 63 badges left'...... but still time to join up mate.
I have not mentioned Richard Hunt's excellent article personally I think it is the best article we have ever had in the news,
( Weegie's aside on KM last issue ) But then I would be biased, as I designed it. Fair play, let me know what you would like to see, I am working on a couple of things, more shall we say ' less weighty' for the next issue.
But what else was to be done with these stadia ?. Athletics meetings that attract large crowds are few and far between, what other use could these potential white elephants have been put ? .. detention centres for illegal immigrants ?
It was all very well talking fine words about an Olympic legacy, in reality that legacy would be very expensive to maintain.
Of course south London football clubs could suffer from the West Ham occupation of the Olympic stadium, perhaps not this generation, but future generations of south Londoners might well be tempted across the water to watch a 'bigger club' play in a 'bigger competition'. Unfortunately, little or even nothing can be done about this.
As to the money side of things, West Ham should have been charged a far higher down payment and rent for the use but at least some money will be paid back into the public purse and athletics meetings will be held at the stadium during the football close season, as well as some games during next years' RU World Cup. So all is not doom and gloom
The impoverished LB Newham miraculously found 40 million to contribute - what recompense do they receive in return, and what is their security for this highly speculative commercial venture? Is their potential reward commensurate with the risk? Have the Trust's wholly admirable and tenacious investigations reached Newham's door yet?
Other than that I thought it was very thought provoking.
Incidentally there is a westham comment there now
Badges were supposed to be (free) for renewers, and we could do with 60 of them at the moment.. Get yer piggy banks out folks
The general issue is that the taxpayer is paying far too much for this, and West Ham should pay far more. It's our objective to make that happen. Importantly, any taxpayer and any London politician could sympathise with and support that goal, regardless of whether they are Charlton fans or even football fans at all.
However the consequence of West Ham paying far less than they should, is that they can be very cavalier with how they use their extra capacity. That's because of the executive boxes. The capacity is 5,000, it's huge, and what always interested Gullivan. Messrs Murray and Varney have always stressed that this is where clubs make decent money on match days - and the Valley has relatively low capacity in this area, BTW. So if you assume that 35,000 would turn up to watch West Ham at prices similar to at Upton Park, and then you've got 5,000 in exec boxes, that already more than covers the revenue they'd get if they filled the OS, but didn't have those boxes. So they can sell that 20,000 extra capacity as low as they like. They are already getting far more revenue than at Upton Park. So of course they will look at the new transport links and say, OK lets build support among casual fans south of the river. That is actually a threat to Charlton at the Valley in the FAPL. We can more or less sell out at normal prices, so West Ham can offer casual fans in say Gravesend cheap FAPL tickets whereas we could not. And..er...it's YOUR money that's paying for it! :-)
If West Ham are made to pay more in rental and capital costs, they will be less cavalier with their promotional tickets and Gullivan will probably live with crowds of 35k, so long as they sell the boxes.
So generally, it's a shocking waste of taxpayers' money, but for CAFC fans it is the cheap tickets they can offer as a result of this misapplication of public money, that threatens our long term financial well-being. And that is what makes it a specific Trust issue, as opposed to just a general citizen's issue.
Efford's law is interesting but most likely a vote chaser which like most things will be watered down to nothing by the time it ever got implemented (if ever) and from what I can see it will involve fans taking the 'risk' of being a Company Director without the power to have a controlling vote.
Maintaining the Stadium long term has huge economic benefits to London and the country as a whole, be it West Ham, the Rugby World cup or World Athletics in 2017. The whole point for example of the LLDC is to make the park work long term, and £73m is tiny in the grand scheme of QEII park.
Taxpayers will be funding (£141m) UCL expanding with a huge campus on the park, so I look forward to the concerns of all that it's having an adverse effect on our sponsors for example.
However the most important difference is this. The Charlton activity you are talking about is a normal commercial marketing activity, carried out by one private company in a competitive market. Not a penny of taxpayers money supported Charlton's initiative.
Incidentally we have been working hand in glove with the Orient fans on this. We've both been puzzled about the passivity of the Millwall fans on this matter. As I'm aware, you are one of the Millwall "activists". You lot are welcome to join us.