@cabbles thanks for the lovely comments - PA deserves bulk of credit for serious hard work on this, but also just to point out gently that we are not all gents ;-)
Looking forward to the programme - please help spread the word on social media everyone - should be of serious interest to all UK taxpayers and football fans everywhere!
sorry Weegie, I often forget amongst all the 'would ya's' and general grumpy old men comments on here we have some very good input from the ladies as well
I thank you all individually as well and on behalf of Mat, just wasn't sure of all the names of the trust members. I think it is a great reminder of the fabric of our club and our supporters. As I mentioned above, this isn't something any of you had to do. You give up your own time for the trust and even more, you give up your own time to fight and help support a campaign that doesn't affect CAFC directly.
definitely tonight at 7.00 p.m. , confirmed on Radio4 'Today' programme .. just a taste .. the pitch maintenance, even the goalposts, nets and corner flags as well as all security and stadium maintenance is paid for from public funds, i.e. tax .. the plot, some might say the scandal, thickens
I wasn't really bothered by it all before but after reading that article and then the following comments by a lot of WHU fans on Twitter it's really pissed me off.
I wasn't really bothered by it all before but after reading that article and then the following comments by a lot of WHU fans on Twitter it's really pissed me off.
All their responses seem to amount to "mind your own business" - I think it's getting to the point where that won't be an acceptable response, it will be every tax payer in the United Kingdom's business.
definitely tonight at 7.00 p.m. , confirmed on Radio4 'Today' programme .. just a taste .. the pitch maintenance, even the goalposts, nets and corner flags as well as all security and stadium maintenance is paid for from public funds, i.e. tax .. the plot, some might say the scandal, thickens
They mentioned it on Today? I missed that. That is PR gold
definitely tonight at 7.00 p.m. , confirmed on Radio4 'Today' programme .. just a taste .. the pitch maintenance, even the goalposts, nets and corner flags as well as all security and stadium maintenance is paid for from public funds, i.e. tax .. the plot, some might say the scandal, thickens
They mentioned it on Today? I missed that. That is PR gold
John Humphreys and a 'sports reporter' .. was sometime between 6.30 and 7 .. interesting interjection into my sleep fogged mind ((:>) .. different topic, what a shame that James Naughtie is leaving the programme, his air of amused scepticism and all round intelligence and perceptive questioning will be missed
To be honest having read the debate I am actually at a loss to understand what can actually be changed by all this and whether this is purely aimed to get at West Ham but not real culprits in those who made the decision to big the wrong stadium in the first place.
Despite what the headlines say West Ham have not been given the Olympic Stadium but simply use of it for a limited number of events for in all intents and purposes is a block booking at discounted rate. As far as I am aware the Olympic Stadium is available to anyone to hire and as long the rates charged are in not a million miles away from West Ham pay I can't see how anyone can complain at West Ham's deal, I mean does anyone know what the Rugby Word Cup are paying and why isn't this being investigated too?
From memory weren't West Ham basically originally given the stadium for a fee and with them meeting any conversion costs making it suitable for football but that was scrapped and was replaced with a new exercise where the stadium offered the venue for hire to an anchor tenant with those running the stadium meeting the running and conversion costs just like West Ham would have in the original deal?
I am struggling find what West Ham or any body that had won the right to be the anchor tenant on the second exercise would be doing wrong unless there is evidence of corruption which I don't believe is being suggested so I am trying to understand what those making stories are hoping the end result to be?
I can understand those who feel threatened by West Ham's expansion and feel they are protecting the club but I really cannot see how anything can or will change with the current deal other than causing embarrassment to those in a power as to how much money they have wasted, in fact surely the best alternative it was as originally planned was to award it to someone a let them get on with redeveloping and meeting the costs themselves yet someone objected to that and we ended up with what we have now.
So if I have this right. WH are paying a rent of £2m to £2.5m pa. For this LLDC will pay for certain services of between £1.4m and £2.5m pa. This in itself seems ridiculous meaning they get the stadium for between nil and £1.1m initially. However the real killer in this is that the rent is fixed for 99 years whereas the costs will obviously increase year on year. This means it won't be long before they are effectively being paid to be in a stadium which has cost the taxpayer £257m to convert, even if you ignore all of the initial building cots (which should include transport links as well as stadium costs).
To be honest having read the debate I am actually at a loss to understand what can actually be changed by all this and whether this is purely aimed to get at West Ham but not real culprits in those who made the decision to big the wrong stadium in the first place.
Despite what the headlines say West Ham have not been given the Olympic Stadium but simply use of it for a limited number of events for in all intents and purposes is a block booking at discounted rate. As far as I am aware the Olympic Stadium is available to anyone to hire and as long the rates charged are in not a million miles away from West Ham pay I can't see how anyone can complain at West Ham's deal, I mean does anyone know what the Rugby Word Cup are paying and why isn't this being investigated too?
From memory weren't West Ham basically originally given the stadium for a fee and with them meeting any conversion costs making it suitable for football but that was scrapped and was replaced with a new exercise where the stadium offered the venue for hire to an anchor tenant with those running the stadium meeting the running and conversion costs just like West Ham would have in the original deal?
I am struggling find what West Ham or any body that had won the right to be the anchor tenant on the second exercise would be doing wrong unless there is evidence of corruption which I don't believe is being suggested so I am trying to understand what those making stories are hoping the end result to be?
I can understand those who feel threatened by West Ham's expansion and feel they are protecting the club but I really cannot see how anything can or will change with the current deal other than causing embarrassment to those in a power as to how much money they have wasted, in fact surely the best alternative it was as originally planned was to award it to someone a let them get on with redeveloping and meeting the costs themselves yet someone objected to that and we ended up with what we have now.
So let me ask you a simple question: why are the LLDC so at pains to keep the detail secret if (i) there is nothing to hide (ii) West Ham are simply paying a market rate, as others will do?
If it is simply a market rate and they are making a fair contribution, as claimed by West Ham and the LLDC, then why keep it under wraps? Show the taxpayer why £15m is the right contribution when West Ham will be the primary beneficiary and when they're taking £80m+ from the sale of their existing ground. And explain why the taxpayer should help increase revenues and significantly reduce costs for a private enterprise with a turnover well in excess of £100m.
The Rugby World Cup is a one-off event from which the entire sport benefits. It's not a 99 year lease benefiting one club to the competition cost of others in the sport .
But watch the documentary and see what you think. If you're still convinced all's ok and above board, fair enough.
EDIT: This is what Barry Hearn had to say to a Lords select committee a couple of years ago: “In my view, commercially, the occupation of this stadium will increase West Ham’s value by around £100 million. Yet they are paying £2 million a year rent and the stadium is responsible for policing, stewarding, and so on. If you add up those costs, it is rent-free. I think they are paying a £15 million contribution to the reorganisation cost but are being allowed to sell and develop Upton Park. This is state sponsorship beyond my wildest dreams.”
So if I have this right. WH are paying a rent of £2m to £2.5m pa. For this LLDC will pay for certain services of between £1.4m and £2.5m pa. This in itself seems ridiculous meaning they get the stadium for between nil and £1.1m initially. However the real killer in this is that the rent is fixed for 99 years whereas the costs will obviously increase year on year. This means it won't be long before they are effectively being paid to be in a stadium which has cost the taxpayer £257m to convert, even if you ignore all of the initial building cots (which should include transport links as well as stadium costs).
I believe rental is RPI linked. You've still got a point - rental should increase in line with the market and with the landlord's costs. If matchday policing costs double, West Ham won't incur a single extra penny in costs.
"But it does show that a large number of "facilities and services" will be paid for by the grantor - ie the taxpayer - and not the club. These include the cost of stadium utilities, security, maintaining the pitch, and even the goalposts and corner flags."
A few of things, and I'm not getting involved for obvious reasons related to who I work for
1- rent is RPI linked 2- LLDC keep the vast majority of catering revenues for all events. Great for 54k in the stadium, even better for 100k people at gigs 3 - UK Athletics also have a long term rental agreement to use the stadium for a number of days a year. They need West Ham to work for a secure athletics legacy 4- naming rights and revenue belong to LLDC and not West Ham
So let me ask you a simple question: why are the LLDC so at pains to keep the detail secret if (i) there is nothing to hide (ii) West Ham are simply paying a market rate, as others will do?
If it is simply a market rate and they are making a fair contribution, as claimed by West Ham and the LLDC, then why keep it under wraps? Show the taxpayer why £15m is the right contribution when West Ham will be the primary beneficiary and when they're taking £80m+ from the sale of their existing ground. And explain why the taxpayer should help increase revenues and significantly reduce costs for a private enterprise with a turnover well in excess of £100m.
The Rugby World Cup is a one-off event from which the entire sport benefits. It's not a 99 year lease benefiting one club to the competition cost of others in the sport .
But watch the documentary and see what you think. If you're still convinced all's ok and above board, fair enough.
I really don't know why they don't go public but I really fail what can be changed and what the sale of the ground has to with this unless as I said before they are actually getting ground basically to themselves lock stock and barrell not for say 25 days a year.
Sorry the point about the Rugby World Cup doesn't make sense unless you are happy to ignore that there are losers even in that situation as other venues have lost the opportunity to stage events if the terms agreed with the Olympic Stadium are too attractive to the organisers?
A few of things, and I'm not getting involved for obvious reasons related to who I work for
1- rent is RPI linked 2- LLDC keep the vast majority of catering revenues for all events. Great for 54k in the stadium, even better for 100k people at gigs 3 - UK Athletics also have a long term rental agreement to use the stadium for a number of days a year. They need West Ham to work for a secure athletics legacy 4- naming rights and revenue belong to LLDC and not West Ham
We should all get together and buy the rights to name the new "Charlton Athletic LLDC Stadium"...
4- naming rights and revenue belong to LLDC and not West Ham
Do West Ham get no ticket revenue whatsoever then?
West Ham do, of course, what they don't get is the revenue from naming rights, or the vast majority of the sales on the concourses which I think Delawear North have the contract for
A few of things, and I'm not getting involved for obvious reasons related to who I work for
1- rent is RPI linked 2- LLDC keep the vast majority of catering revenues for all events. Great for 54k in the stadium, even better for 100k people at gigs 3 - UK Athletics also have a long term rental agreement to use the stadium for a number of days a year. They need West Ham to work for a secure athletics legacy 4- naming rights and revenue belong to LLDC and not West Ham
We should all get together and buy the rights to name the new "Charlton Athletic LLDC Stadium"...
Or to really piss them off...
"WELCOME EVERYONE TO THE NEW.... MILLWALL ARE THE REAL EAST LONDON CLUB STADIUM"
So let me ask you a simple question: why are the LLDC so at pains to keep the detail secret if (i) there is nothing to hide (ii) West Ham are simply paying a market rate, as others will do?
If it is simply a market rate and they are making a fair contribution, as claimed by West Ham and the LLDC, then why keep it under wraps? Show the taxpayer why £15m is the right contribution when West Ham will be the primary beneficiary and when they're taking £80m+ from the sale of their existing ground. And explain why the taxpayer should help increase revenues and significantly reduce costs for a private enterprise with a turnover well in excess of £100m.
The Rugby World Cup is a one-off event from which the entire sport benefits. It's not a 99 year lease benefiting one club to the competition cost of others in the sport .
But watch the documentary and see what you think. If you're still convinced all's ok and above board, fair enough.
I really don't know why they don't go public but I really fail what can be changed and what the sale of the ground has to with this unless as I said before they are actually getting ground basically to themselves lock stock and barrell not for say 25 days a year.
Sorry the point about the Rugby World Cup doesn't make sense unless you are happy to ignore that there are losers even in that situation as other venues have lost the opportunity to stage events if the terms agreed with the Olympic Stadium are too attractive to the organisers?
Issue is simple DH, many fear competitive advantage given to WH will enable them to prosper in Prem and therefore act as a magnet for future generations of supporters that may have been persuaded to support other sides in the area. Ourselves included. It isn't really that hard to understand fella is it? Make life more awkward for WH in an attempt to protect our own interests. If your interest only lay in the financial realities of a the Olympic legacy then I suggest this perhaps means you see CAFC less as a club and more of an entertainment that may come and go as the market dictates. Not a dig DH just an observation.
A few of things, and I'm not getting involved for obvious reasons related to who I work for
1- rent is RPI linked 2- LLDC keep the vast majority of catering revenues for all events. Great for 54k in the stadium, even better for 100k people at gigs 3 - UK Athletics also have a long term rental agreement to use the stadium for a number of days a year. They need West Ham to work for a secure athletics legacy 4- naming rights and revenue belong to LLDC and not West Ham
Glad you declared your interests at last.
As I understand it, naming rights are LLDC's up to a ceiling, after which they're shared. That is, if West Ham's name attracts a sponsor of sufficient lucre, West Ham will benefit from it.
Let's be clear: no-one opposes West Ham being the anchor tenant, but please explain to me why this couldn't be on more reasonable terms. For example, why should the proceeds of the sale of the Boleyn Ground go into West Ham's pocket? Or did the LLDC swallow the down-valuing exercise West Ham undertook in their last accounts?
Or why should West Ham make no contribution whatsoever to match-day costs when revenue from the hospitality boxes alone dwarfs them? Would this be the same if, say, AEG agreed to hold a concert there? Should they pay less than it cost the grantor to service the event, or should the taxpayer expect a good commercial agreement to be made?
So let me ask you a simple question: why are the LLDC so at pains to keep the detail secret if (i) there is nothing to hide (ii) West Ham are simply paying a market rate, as others will do?
If it is simply a market rate and they are making a fair contribution, as claimed by West Ham and the LLDC, then why keep it under wraps? Show the taxpayer why £15m is the right contribution when West Ham will be the primary beneficiary and when they're taking £80m+ from the sale of their existing ground. And explain why the taxpayer should help increase revenues and significantly reduce costs for a private enterprise with a turnover well in excess of £100m.
The Rugby World Cup is a one-off event from which the entire sport benefits. It's not a 99 year lease benefiting one club to the competition cost of others in the sport .
But watch the documentary and see what you think. If you're still convinced all's ok and above board, fair enough.
I really don't know why they don't go public but I really fail what can be changed and what the sale of the ground has to with this unless as I said before they are actually getting ground basically to themselves lock stock and barrell not for say 25 days a year.
Sorry the point about the Rugby World Cup doesn't make sense unless you are happy to ignore that there are losers even in that situation as other venues have lost the opportunity to stage events if the terms agreed with the Olympic Stadium are too attractive to the organisers?
I'm saying there's no comparison. Don't you think that part of the reason the LLDC aren't releasing the commercial details is precisely because it would undermine them being able to obtain market revenues from other partners?
There's nothing to suggest the Rugby World Cup have terms lower than the costs of servicing the events, but I think the idea other stadium operators have lost out is fanciful. There aren't that many qualifying stadia in the country, but even so 13 have been secured for the competition. It is, however a one off and the World Cup is likely to boost the sport in this country.
The West Ham deal boosts West Ham, at the competition cost of other London clubs in particular, other top tier clubs and potentially European clubs too - I wonder how Ajax feel about a £2.5m rent when they pay €9m a year. And it does so for at least 99 years.
The sale of the ground is relevant because West Ham can only play in one stadium - whether it's their own or not. Whether they use it for just 25 days a year or not is still open to question because the LLDC won't tell us, but it's being rebuilt for them at a cost of £279m and rising. That fact alone means that £15m is a ridiculously low contribution, particularly when they're profiting by £80m+ from the disposal of Upton Park.
Or put another way - had they been paying £100m, would the State Aid discussion even have raised its head?
Comments
Little trailer now on the site, featuring Barry Hearn, and Chris Bryant MP.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/33780720
I presume it won't have the eye candy on it that Ms Jones offers, but none the less a programme I shall take a look at regardless.
I thank you all individually as well and on behalf of Mat, just wasn't sure of all the names of the trust members. I think it is a great reminder of the fabric of our club and our supporters. As I mentioned above, this isn't something any of you had to do. You give up your own time for the trust and even more, you give up your own time to fight and help support a campaign that doesn't affect CAFC directly.
I'm looking forward to the programme and fallout
They mentioned it on Today? I missed that. That is PR gold
Despite what the headlines say West Ham have not been given the Olympic Stadium but simply use of it for a limited number of events for in all intents and purposes is a block booking at discounted rate. As far as I am aware the Olympic Stadium is available to anyone to hire and as long the rates charged are in not a million miles away from West Ham pay I can't see how anyone can complain at West Ham's deal, I mean does anyone know what the Rugby Word Cup are paying and why isn't this being investigated too?
From memory weren't West Ham basically originally given the stadium for a fee and with them meeting any conversion costs making it suitable for football but that was scrapped and was replaced with a new exercise where the stadium offered the venue for hire to an anchor tenant with those running the stadium meeting the running and conversion costs just like West Ham would have in the original deal?
I am struggling find what West Ham or any body that had won the right to be the anchor tenant on the second exercise would be doing wrong unless there is evidence of corruption which I don't believe is being suggested so I am trying to understand what those making stories are hoping the end result to be?
I can understand those who feel threatened by West Ham's expansion and feel they are protecting the club but I really cannot see how anything can or will change with the current deal other than causing embarrassment to those in a power as to how much money they have wasted, in fact surely the best alternative it was as originally planned was to award it to someone a let them get on with redeveloping and meeting the costs themselves yet someone objected to that and we ended up with what we have now.
If it is simply a market rate and they are making a fair contribution, as claimed by West Ham and the LLDC, then why keep it under wraps? Show the taxpayer why £15m is the right contribution when West Ham will be the primary beneficiary and when they're taking £80m+ from the sale of their existing ground. And explain why the taxpayer should help increase revenues and significantly reduce costs for a private enterprise with a turnover well in excess of £100m.
The Rugby World Cup is a one-off event from which the entire sport benefits. It's not a 99 year lease benefiting one club to the competition cost of others in the sport .
But watch the documentary and see what you think. If you're still convinced all's ok and above board, fair enough.
EDIT: This is what Barry Hearn had to say to a Lords select committee a couple of years ago: “In my view, commercially, the occupation of this stadium will increase West Ham’s value by around £100 million. Yet they are paying £2 million a year rent and the stadium is responsible for policing, stewarding, and so on. If you add up those costs, it is rent-free. I think they are paying a £15 million contribution to the reorganisation cost but are being allowed to sell and develop Upton Park. This is state sponsorship beyond my wildest dreams.”
These include the cost of stadium utilities, security, maintaining the pitch, and even the goalposts and corner flags."
F*ck right off.
1- rent is RPI linked
2- LLDC keep the vast majority of catering revenues for all events. Great for 54k in the stadium, even better for 100k people at gigs
3 - UK Athletics also have a long term rental agreement to use the stadium for a number of days a year. They need West Ham to work for a secure athletics legacy
4- naming rights and revenue belong to LLDC and not West Ham
Sorry the point about the Rugby World Cup doesn't make sense unless you are happy to ignore that there are losers even in that situation as other venues have lost the opportunity to stage events if the terms agreed with the Olympic Stadium are too attractive to the organisers?
"WELCOME EVERYONE TO THE NEW.... MILLWALL ARE THE REAL EAST LONDON CLUB STADIUM"
Not a dig DH just an observation.
As I understand it, naming rights are LLDC's up to a ceiling, after which they're shared. That is, if West Ham's name attracts a sponsor of sufficient lucre, West Ham will benefit from it.
Let's be clear: no-one opposes West Ham being the anchor tenant, but please explain to me why this couldn't be on more reasonable terms. For example, why should the proceeds of the sale of the Boleyn Ground go into West Ham's pocket? Or did the LLDC swallow the down-valuing exercise West Ham undertook in their last accounts?
Or why should West Ham make no contribution whatsoever to match-day costs when revenue from the hospitality boxes alone dwarfs them? Would this be the same if, say, AEG agreed to hold a concert there? Should they pay less than it cost the grantor to service the event, or should the taxpayer expect a good commercial agreement to be made?
There's nothing to suggest the Rugby World Cup have terms lower than the costs of servicing the events, but I think the idea other stadium operators have lost out is fanciful. There aren't that many qualifying stadia in the country, but even so 13 have been secured for the competition. It is, however a one off and the World Cup is likely to boost the sport in this country.
The West Ham deal boosts West Ham, at the competition cost of other London clubs in particular, other top tier clubs and potentially European clubs too - I wonder how Ajax feel about a £2.5m rent when they pay €9m a year. And it does so for at least 99 years.
The sale of the ground is relevant because West Ham can only play in one stadium - whether it's their own or not. Whether they use it for just 25 days a year or not is still open to question because the LLDC won't tell us, but it's being rebuilt for them at a cost of £279m and rising. That fact alone means that £15m is a ridiculously low contribution, particularly when they're profiting by £80m+ from the disposal of Upton Park.
Or put another way - had they been paying £100m, would the State Aid discussion even have raised its head?