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
You have failed to mention one thing. West Ham keep 100% of the corporate hospitality revenue. It's massive. Capacity of 5,000 prawn sandwich eaters. Gullivan even publicly admitted a while back that this was what they wanted to get their hands on, not the sale of burgers.
Maybe I should help people understand the central claim of tonight's programme, which is that West Ham are getting it for free.
They pay just £15m towards the reconstruction, which costs at least @272m. However they keep the proceeds of the sale of the Boleyn. In their last accounts the Boleyn was valued at £71m. So far from making a contribution, they pocket a windfall profit
They make much of their "multi-million pound rental". Well if 2.5m is multi million, then I'm a member of the House of Lords. However this is completely cancelled out by the fact that the Matchday overheads, which an owner club, such as ourselves pay for, is likely to be at least £2m. They get it for free. They print the tickets, turn up , and bugger off again, leaving the stadium operator to clean up after them. The stadium operator pays for the installation and maintenance of the pitch. How do you think RD feels about that, having just forked out £1m for our pitch?
Worth mentioning how we discovered the overhead thing too, because this is our work. I had a copy of the rental contract, redacted to within an inch of its life. I had given up hope of getting anything out of it. But back in May while giving it one last go over, in order to prepare for filming, I noticed more fully what was in para. 10.4. I read it and the following paras at least three times because I could hardly believe the implications. But I got them double checked, then pointed it out to Sankha the producer, and we set about getting costings for those overheads. Thanks to @Airman Brown and another Charlton person who shall be nameless. Of course the BBC didn't rely on us. They had them checked by lawyers and two further football sources. Ours is the low figure!
I think it is hilarious that they redacted even the table of contents, but failed to redact that. That's what comes when you leave these things to expensive lawyers who don't actually understand the mechanics of the business they are dealing with. Someone there is going to be feeling very uncomfortable tonight.
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.
I understand all the motivation behind CAST involvement what I don't get that other than embarrassing the decision makers behind the stadium what they are trying say West Ham have done wrong unless some kind of corruption is involved which is not being suggested, using West Ham in the story is to generate emotion and get people watching but when I look into the claims that is all they are in that they are assumptions and little else.
Surely the real story is the mismanagement of the process that has created a situation were a deal that looks beneficial to West Ham has been seen as viable but even in doing that I don't understand what people think will change in regards of West Ham, the last time someone went down this path West Ham ended up with even better deal so who is to say that will not happen again.
I can only reiterate the fairest solution was to give West Ham the stadium at a cost and leave all the conversion costs in turning it into a football stadium meaning by default the taxpayer would have received the proceeds from the sale of their ground and West Ham a lot of debt, instead they now rent what are basically serviced facilities at an agreed price for 25 or so days a year leaving 300 and more days for those running the stadium to hire out to other parties to agree similar but smaller deals. In respect of the sale of their ground if you sell your home and move into rented accommodation what relevance is it what you do with the money you banked from the sale?
West Ham will only be taking fans from the likes of Charlton if they are more successful and I would argue that in my lifetime they have been doing that pretty well compare to us without the Olympic Stadium, the challenge for Charlton is improve on pitch and we will see crowds returning regardless of whatever West Ham are doing at their new stadium. I no more worried about us losing fans to West Ham than I am to Manchester United or Gillingham because for me it is what Charlton do or not do that wins or loses fans, those fans that want to support successful sides will find a successful side be it Chelsea or even West Ham like they have always done until Charlton's fortunes improve again.
Sorry for me this a non-story in regard of West Ham and just seems like a load football supporters jumping on a bandwagon to get their voices heard, I mean if say LiveNation take over the management of the other events at the stadium will you be supporting AEG claims when they say it is unfair to them?
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.
I understand all the motivation behind CAST involvement what I don't get that other than embarrassing the decision makers behind the stadium what they are trying say West Ham have done wrong unless some kind of corruption is involved which is not being suggested, using West Ham in the story is to generate emotion and get people watching but when I look into the claims that is all they are in that they are assumptions and little else.
Surely the real story is the mismanagement of the process that has created a situation were a deal that looks beneficial to West Ham has been seen as viable but even in doing that I don't understand what people think will change in regards of West Ham, the last time someone went down this path West Ham ended up with even better deal so who is to say that will not happen again.
I can only reiterate the fairest solution was to give West Ham the stadium at a cost and leave all the conversion costs in turning it into a football stadium meaning by default the taxpayer would have received the proceeds from the sale of their ground and West Ham a lot of debt, instead they now rent what are basically serviced facilities at an agreed price for 25 or so days a year leaving 300 and more days for those running the stadium to hire out to other parties to agree similar but smaller deals. In respect of the sale of their ground if you sell your home and move into rented accommodation what relevance is it what you do with the money you banked from the sale?
West Ham will only be taking fans from the likes of Charlton if they are more successful and I would argue that in my lifetime they have been doing that pretty well compare to us without the Olympic Stadium, the challenge for Charlton is improve on pitch and we will see crowds returning regardless of whatever West Ham are doing at their new stadium. I no more worried about us losing fans to West Ham than I am to Manchester United or Gillingham because for me it is what Charlton do or not do that wins or loses fans, those fans that want to support successful sides will find a successful side be it Chelsea or even West Ham like they have always done until Charlton's fortunes improve again.
Sorry for me this a non-story in regard of West Ham and just seems like a load football supporters jumping on a bandwagon to get their voices heard, I mean if say LiveNation take over the management of the other events at the stadium will you be supporting AEG claims when they say it is unfair to them?
CAST have no issue with West Ham as a club, or its fans. We also accept that as a commercial entity, West Ham have acted in the best interests of their shareholders (who are of course only two people plus their loyal hired hand). Our issue is with the politicians and those who report to them who have struck this shoddy and incompetently negotiated deal. It is not a matter for football fans now, but a matter for the UK's taxpayers. If that's a "bandwagon", then assuming you pay UK taxes, welcome aboard.
Sankha retweeted ZuluTango TV @ZuluTangoTV 11m11 minutes ago UPDATE: BBC News Channel clearing their schedule tonight to run #howthehammersstruckgold tonight at 8.30pm nationally.@danroan
Sankha retweeted ZuluTango TV @ZuluTangoTV 11m11 minutes ago UPDATE: BBC News Channel clearing their schedule tonight to run #howthehammersstruckgold tonight at 8.30pm nationally.@danroan
That's brilliant - I was just wondering how many people would miss the 7pm showing because of this bloody Tube strike (it's looking like I will!)
Sounded like rather than paying rent they were receiving net benefits that effectively meant they were being paid to play there, or did I not hear that right?
Sounded like rather than paying rent they were receiving net benefits that effectively meant they were being paid to play there, or did I not hear that right?
Yeh, that's what I thought, however in West Ham's statement, they said they were paying more than their fare share.
Great work by the Trust and excellent delivery by Dan Roan and the BBC. The guy from the LLDC is an absolute joke.
Hopefully a number of clubs, including Charlton, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Orient, Ajax will all now think about lodging complaints with the EC re state aid.
Can't believe we're paying for bloody corner flags!!!
To be honest I think that's as good as a 30 minute prime time TV piece on the subject could be. Fair play to the BBC for picking up a difficult topic, would have been far easier for them to have stick with Fake Britain.
I hope it doesn't end there though as I found it a bit flat, it certainly dome the job of raising awareness and will no doubt lead to questions being raised in parliament, but I was hoping for more and I can't help but feel a bit gutted that it never asked bo jo or anyone else involved some direct and harder questions
Trying to see what the West Ham fans response is on their forums. At the moment they are just going ape shit about how bad they are playing in their second leg Europa game.
Trying to see what the West Ham fans response is on their forums. At the moment they are just going ape shit about how bad they are playing in their second leg Europa game.
Surely plenty more ammo left in the locker for follow-ups. And if/when BoJo challenges Cameron for the Tory leadership, expect some swift revelations and the odd public enquiry or two ....
Wow! That has turned over some big stones and shown the worms crawling about underneath. Great job @PragueAddick and all the Trust guys and girls. Dan Roan has fired the gun, but it seemed to me that it is Prague & Co's research that made most of the ammunition. I truly hope that all concerned kept some powder dry for a hard-hitting follow up. Seems to me that a public enquiry could well be achievable given another push or two.
I bet, with a future Conservative party leadership race in mind, that both George Osborne and Theresa May will be quite happy that Boris is likely to be under an uncomfortable spotlight for the foreseeable future. They might even quietly support the idea of a public enquiry if it would help their leadership credentials in the future. Their constituencies (Tatton in Cheshire and Maidenhead respectively) are both close to a number of football clubs who may share concerns about West Ham getting state support.
Big respect to Prague and also Steve Clarke (don't know if he posts on here) for their hard-hitting tv appearance. "National Security" - HA!!!!!
Comments
They pay just £15m towards the reconstruction, which costs at least @272m. However they keep the proceeds of the sale of the Boleyn. In their last accounts the Boleyn was valued at £71m. So far from making a contribution, they pocket a windfall profit
They make much of their "multi-million pound rental". Well if 2.5m is multi million, then I'm a member of the House of Lords. However this is completely cancelled out by the fact that the Matchday overheads, which an owner club, such as ourselves pay for, is likely to be at least £2m. They get it for free. They print the tickets, turn up , and bugger off again, leaving the stadium operator to clean up after them. The stadium operator pays for the installation and maintenance of the pitch. How do you think RD feels about that, having just forked out £1m for our pitch?
Worth mentioning how we discovered the overhead thing too, because this is our work. I had a copy of the rental contract, redacted to within an inch of its life. I had given up hope of getting anything out of it. But back in May while giving it one last go over, in order to prepare for filming, I noticed more fully what was in para. 10.4. I read it and the following paras at least three times because I could hardly believe the implications. But I got them double checked, then pointed it out to Sankha the producer, and we set about getting costings for those overheads. Thanks to @Airman Brown and another Charlton person who shall be nameless. Of course the BBC didn't rely on us. They had them checked by lawyers and two further football sources. Ours is the low figure!
I think it is hilarious that they redacted even the table of contents, but failed to redact that. That's what comes when you leave these things to expensive lawyers who don't actually understand the mechanics of the business they are dealing with. Someone there is going to be feeling very uncomfortable tonight.
Surely the real story is the mismanagement of the process that has created a situation were a deal that looks beneficial to West Ham has been seen as viable but even in doing that I don't understand what people think will change in regards of West Ham, the last time someone went down this path West Ham ended up with even better deal so who is to say that will not happen again.
I can only reiterate the fairest solution was to give West Ham the stadium at a cost and leave all the conversion costs in turning it into a football stadium meaning by default the taxpayer would have received the proceeds from the sale of their ground and West Ham a lot of debt, instead they now rent what are basically serviced facilities at an agreed price for 25 or so days a year leaving 300 and more days for those running the stadium to hire out to other parties to agree similar but smaller deals. In respect of the sale of their ground if you sell your home and move into rented accommodation what relevance is it what you do with the money you banked from the sale?
West Ham will only be taking fans from the likes of Charlton if they are more successful and I would argue that in my lifetime they have been doing that pretty well compare to us without the Olympic Stadium, the challenge for Charlton is improve on pitch and we will see crowds returning regardless of whatever West Ham are doing at their new stadium. I no more worried about us losing fans to West Ham than I am to Manchester United or Gillingham because for me it is what Charlton do or not do that wins or loses fans, those fans that want to support successful sides will find a successful side be it Chelsea or even West Ham like they have always done until Charlton's fortunes improve again.
Sorry for me this a non-story in regard of West Ham and just seems like a load football supporters jumping on a bandwagon to get their voices heard, I mean if say LiveNation take over the management of the other events at the stadium will you be supporting AEG claims when they say it is unfair to them?
CAST have no issue with West Ham as a club, or its fans. We also accept that as a commercial entity, West Ham have acted in the best interests of their shareholders (who are of course only two people plus their loyal hired hand). Our issue is with the politicians and those who report to them who have struck this shoddy and incompetently negotiated deal. It is not a matter for football fans now, but a matter for the UK's taxpayers. If that's a "bandwagon", then assuming you pay UK taxes, welcome aboard.
Sankha retweeted
ZuluTango TV @ZuluTangoTV 11m11 minutes ago
UPDATE: BBC News Channel clearing their schedule tonight to run #howthehammersstruckgold tonight at 8.30pm nationally. @danroan
@westhamfootball
The BBC interviewed Steve Clarke and Richard Hunt from Charlton Athletic Supporters Trust for tonight's documentary
http://www.castrust.org/2015/08/bbc-special-on-the-olympic-stadium-this-thursday/
At work until eight tonight so will be watching on iPlayer with interest.
http://www.whufc.com/News/Articles/2015/August/6-August/West-Ham-United-statement#RJAtH42beAv68YYX.99
Stunning programme.
Was still showing wrongly on sky bbc1hd tonight, but that may be regional issue with that channel, showing fine on BBC 1 (sd).
Hopefully a number of clubs, including Charlton, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Orient, Ajax will all now think about lodging complaints with the EC re state aid.
Can't believe we're paying for bloody corner flags!!!
Surely plenty more ammo left in the locker for follow-ups. And if/when BoJo challenges Cameron for the Tory leadership, expect some swift revelations and the odd public enquiry or two ....
I bet, with a future Conservative party leadership race in mind, that both George Osborne and Theresa May will be quite happy that Boris is likely to be under an uncomfortable spotlight for the foreseeable future. They might even quietly support the idea of a public enquiry if it would help their leadership credentials in the future. Their constituencies (Tatton in Cheshire and Maidenhead respectively) are both close to a number of football clubs who may share concerns about West Ham getting state support.
Big respect to Prague and also Steve Clarke (don't know if he posts on here) for their hard-hitting tv appearance. "National Security" - HA!!!!!