I emailed in to the GLA and got this reply. it only took a moment, but I would think that if enough of us bombarded them, the authority might think this was a live issue. Note especially the bit near the end that says:
The Committee has written again to LLDC requesting details of the agreement but I understand LLDC is reluctant to release any more details on the grounds of commercial sensitivities.
Commercial sensitivities, I bet there are commercial sensitivities, and I note that they are not now using the excuse of 'national security'.
Dear (Seth Plum)
Thank you for your email.
To provide some background information, West Ham’s contract for the Olympic Stadium is between West Ham United Football Club Ltd and the E20 Stadium LLP (a partnership between the London Legacy Development Corporation and London Newham Council). The London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) is the organisation which is responsible for the redevelopment of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.
Since then the London Assembly, for whom I work as Scrutiny Manager for budget and performance, has requested several times for the full details of the contract to be disclosed, but to date it has been unsuccessful in its efforts. This topic was discussed again recently at the July meeting of the Budget Monitoring Sub-Committee. The details and papers for that meeting can be accessed here: http://www.london.gov.uk/media/assembly-press-releases/2015/07/olympic-stadium-hammers-public-purse. The Committee has written again to LLDC requesting details of the agreement but I understand LLDC is reluctant to release any more details on the grounds of commercial sensitivities.
If you have further questions I would suggest you send them directly to LLDC who will be better placed to advise you.
Kind regards,
Lucy
Lucy Pickering
Scrutiny Manager- Budget and Performance
LONDONASSEMBLY I Scrutiny & Investigations I Secretariat
Greater London Authority, City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA
t: 020 7983 5770
e: lucy.pickering@london.gov.uk
Visit the London Assembly website: www.london.gov.uk/assembly
Follow us on Twitter: @LondonAssembly Follow us on Facebook: London Assembly
Personally, i hope Wham get shafted - couldnt happen to a nicer club - apart from Spanners . I would celebrate more if Wham got relegated than Millwall though at the moment.
I emailed in to the GLA and got this reply. it only took a moment, but I would think that if enough of us bombarded them, the authority might think this was a live issue. Note especially the bit near the end that says:
The Committee has written again to LLDC requesting details of the agreement but I understand LLDC is reluctant to release any more details on the grounds of commercial sensitivities.
Commercial sensitivities, I bet there are commercial sensitivities, and I note that they are not now using the excuse of 'national security'.
Dear (Seth Plum)
Thank you for your email.
To provide some background information, West Ham’s contract for the Olympic Stadium is between West Ham United Football Club Ltd and the E20 Stadium LLP (a partnership between the London Legacy Development Corporation and London Newham Council). The London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) is the organisation which is responsible for the redevelopment of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.
Since then the London Assembly, for whom I work as Scrutiny Manager for budget and performance, has requested several times for the full details of the contract to be disclosed, but to date it has been unsuccessful in its efforts. This topic was discussed again recently at the July meeting of the Budget Monitoring Sub-Committee. The details and papers for that meeting can be accessed here: http://www.london.gov.uk/media/assembly-press-releases/2015/07/olympic-stadium-hammers-public-purse. The Committee has written again to LLDC requesting details of the agreement but I understand LLDC is reluctant to release any more details on the grounds of commercial sensitivities.
If you have further questions I would suggest you send them directly to LLDC who will be better placed to advise you.
Kind regards,
Lucy
Lucy Pickering
Scrutiny Manager- Budget and Performance
LONDONASSEMBLY I Scrutiny & Investigations I Secretariat
Greater London Authority, City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA
t: 020 7983 5770
e: lucy.pickering@london.gov.uk
Visit the London Assembly website: www.london.gov.uk/assembly
Follow us on Twitter: @LondonAssembly Follow us on Facebook: London Assembly
Sign up to our monthly email newsletter
Excuse my ignorance of London governmental arrangements as it's all changed since I left but isn't it the role of the Assembly to oversee the Mayors Office? If that's the case then with the LLDC being formed and chaired by the Mayor how the hell can they claim to be meeting their remit if Boris just tells them to 'bog off' if they ask for an unredacted copy of the agreement?
This is the board. An email to each of them might be fruitful.
Good shout Seth........ Here is someone........Keith Edelman
Keith was formerly the Managing Director of Arsenal Holdings plc and was instrumental in the development of the Emirates Stadium and the attendant regeneration of the surrounding area including the development of Highbury Square.
I have emailed Baroness Tanni Grey Thompson (a member of the LLDC board) at the Houses of Parliament asking why the secrecy. I will let you know if she replies, and what she says.
Jeff Powell,Martin Samuels and so many more are Hammers, In the days of Fleet street, The Nepotism with journo's Photographers, and print workers was rife. and lots of these guys came from the east end, who then moved out to Essex. So the hammers won't be short of support in the press.
There are also loads of Spurs and Liverpool fans in the media, but that's not exactly surprising. No, I won't be signing the petition as I don't think you need my vote to get your enquiry anyway. And while I can understand why you are doing it, I don't quite buy all this freedom of information and concern for the taxpayers' money bollocks. This is mainly getting the attnetion it does because another football club is involved, one you don't want to do well because they may benefit from this move. West Ham have admittedly been incredibly lucky with the location of the OS at their doorstep and the circumstances which gave them the opportunity to negotiate a good deal. West Ham used their strong negotiating discussion as your club would have done in exactly the same way, Charlton Athletic would not have said "Hang on a minute, is this fair on the taxpayer ? Sod it, here's another 50 million!" Your owners/board would have done exactly the same. So try to throw as many spanners in the works as you want and can, fair enough. But don't pretend you have suddenly felt your heartstrings moan about taxpayers' money being wasted. It's a very selective effort, your government is wasting much bigger amounts in other projects (military equipment and the like) that dwarfs the amounts we're talking about with regard to the OS, a project that by the way will be earning money from West Ham being there in the long run, not losing it. I don't hear a lot about any petitions with regard to other projects where taxes are being wasted. Let's call it what it is: This is purely and simply tribalism. Unfair advantage over other teams ? We already have that with the likes of Chelsea, Manchester City and PSG. No petitions there either. But I'm looking forward to seeing your enquiry go underway and what it may or may not achieve.
There are also loads of Spurs and Liverpool fans in the media, but that's not exactly surprising. No, I won't be signing the petition as I don't think you need my vote to get your enquiry anyway. And while I can understand why you are doing it, I don't quite buy all this freedom of information and concern for the taxpayers' money bollocks. This is mainly getting the attnetion it does because another football club is involved, one you don't want to do well because they may benefit from this move. West Ham have admittedly been incredibly lucky with the location of the OS at their doorstep and the circumstances which gave them the opportunity to negotiate a good deal. West Ham used their strong negotiating discussion as your club would have done in exactly the same way, Charlton Athletic would not have said "Hang on a minute, is this fair on the taxpayer ? Sod it, here's another 50 million!" Your owners/board would have done exactly the same. So try to throw as many spanners in the works as you want and can, fair enough. But don't pretend you have suddenly felt your heartstrings moan about taxpayers' money being wasted. It's a very selective effort, your government is wasting much bigger amounts in other projects (military equipment and the like) that dwarfs the amounts we're talking about with regard to the OS, a project that by the way will be earning money from West Ham being there in the long run, not losing it. I don't hear a lot about any petitions with regard to other projects where taxes are being wasted. Let's call it what it is: This is purely and simply tribalism. Unfair advantage over other teams ? We already have that with the likes of Chelsea, Manchester City and PSG. No petitions there either. But I'm looking forward to seeing your enquiry go underway and what it may or may not achieve.
Yet again, playing the victim.
This isn't about West Ham's wrongdoing (although I suspect otherwise based on the reticence to be transparent) - any organisation would try their very hardest to get the best financial deal possible. This is about wrongdoing at worst, incompetence at best, by government appointed and elected custodians of public money being cavalier with my money, your money, anyone else who has paid tax's money. There is also a general principle of private companies operating based on free and fair competition without government intervention favouring one or more at the expense of others. On that point, not only should there be transparency - forced by public demand if necessary, but also perhaps a close look at the deal by the competition authorities and the National Audit Office.
So you are a St Pauli fan who also much enjoys local league football. Basically, what you're really concerned about is that WHU are about to become a copy of the hated HSV. Tell you what - one weekend when the fixtures are kind and you can catch a game at The Valley as well, I'll get you a ticket, you can meet some of us on here and we'll show you a real South London match-day.
It would be our privilege, so - what have you got to lose ??
There are also loads of Spurs and Liverpool fans in the media, but that's not exactly surprising. No, I won't be signing the petition as I don't think you need my vote to get your enquiry anyway. And while I can understand why you are doing it, I don't quite buy all this freedom of information and concern for the taxpayers' money bollocks. This is mainly getting the attnetion it does because another football club is involved, one you don't want to do well because they may benefit from this move. West Ham have admittedly been incredibly lucky with the location of the OS at their doorstep and the circumstances which gave them the opportunity to negotiate a good deal. West Ham used their strong negotiating discussion as your club would have done in exactly the same way, Charlton Athletic would not have said "Hang on a minute, is this fair on the taxpayer ? Sod it, here's another 50 million!" Your owners/board would have done exactly the same. So try to throw as many spanners in the works as you want and can, fair enough. But don't pretend you have suddenly felt your heartstrings moan about taxpayers' money being wasted. It's a very selective effort, your government is wasting much bigger amounts in other projects (military equipment and the like) that dwarfs the amounts we're talking about with regard to the OS, a project that by the way will be earning money from West Ham being there in the long run, not losing it. I don't hear a lot about any petitions with regard to other projects where taxes are being wasted. Let's call it what it is: This is purely and simply tribalism. Unfair advantage over other teams ? We already have that with the likes of Chelsea, Manchester City and PSG. No petitions there either. But I'm looking forward to seeing your enquiry go underway and what it may or may not achieve.
Your input has been first class so far and worthwhile reading. You now sound like a spoilt kid who is no longer getting his way.
There are also loads of Spurs and Liverpool fans in the media, but that's not exactly surprising. No, I won't be signing the petition as I don't think you need my vote to get your enquiry anyway. And while I can understand why you are doing it, I don't quite buy all this freedom of information anf concern for the taxpayers' money bollocks. This is mainly getting the attnetion it does because another football club is involved, one you don't want to do well because they may benefit from this move. West Ham have admittedly been incredibly lucky with the location of the OS at their doorstep and the circumstances which gave them the opportunity to negotiate a good deal. West Ham used their strong negotiating discussion as your club would have done in exactly the same way, Charlton Athletic would not have said "Hang on a minute, is this fair on the taxpayer ? Sod it, here's another 50 million!" Your owners/board would have done exactly the same. So try to throw as many spanners in the works as you want and can, fair enough. But don't pretend you have suddenly felt your heartstrings moan about taxpayers' money being wasted. It's a very selective effort, your government is wasting much bigger amounts in other projects (military equipment and the like) that dwarfs the amounts we're talking about with regard to the OS, a project that by the way will be earning money from West Ham being there in the long run, not losing it. I don't hear a lot about any petitions with regard to other projects where taxes are being wasted. Let's call it what it is: This is purely and simply tribalism. Unfair advantage over other teams ? We already have that with the likes of Chelsea, Manchester City and PSG. No petitions there either. But I'm looking forward to seeing your enquiry go underway and what it may or may not achieve.
Well, as a former employee of LB Newham and someone born and bred in the Borough, which was poor then and remains poor now, I can tell you it's more than mildly annoying to see WHU benefiting from £100m's of taxpayers money which could have been used to provide essential investment in much needed local services like, oh I don't know, housing or keeping good people doing good jobs.That's before we even start on Robin Wales involvement in providing £45m of funding from the council to the scheme.
So yeah, for me is it very much about the misuse of public funds actually, which is also likely to have a longer term detrimental effect on my club,
There are also loads of Spurs and Liverpool fans in the media, but that's not exactly surprising. No, I won't be signing the petition as I don't think you need my vote to get your enquiry anyway. And while I can understand why you are doing it, I don't quite buy all this freedom of information and concern for the taxpayers' money bollocks. This is mainly getting the attnetion it does because another football club is involved, one you don't want to do well because they may benefit from this move. West Ham have admittedly been incredibly lucky with the location of the OS at their doorstep and the circumstances which gave them the opportunity to negotiate a good deal. West Ham used their strong negotiating discussion as your club would have done in exactly the same way, Charlton Athletic would not have said "Hang on a minute, is this fair on the taxpayer ? Sod it, here's another 50 million!" Your owners/board would have done exactly the same. So try to throw as many spanners in the works as you want and can, fair enough. But don't pretend you have suddenly felt your heartstrings moan about taxpayers' money being wasted. It's a very selective effort, your government is wasting much bigger amounts in other projects (military equipment and the like) that dwarfs the amounts we're talking about with regard to the OS, a project that by the way will be earning money from West Ham being there in the long run, not losing it. I don't hear a lot about any petitions with regard to other projects where taxes are being wasted. Let's call it what it is: This is purely and simply tribalism. Unfair advantage over other teams ? We already have that with the likes of Chelsea, Manchester City and PSG. No petitions there either. But I'm looking forward to seeing your enquiry go underway and what it may or may not achieve.
Your input has been first class so far and worthwhile reading. You now sound like a spoilt kid who is no longer getting his way.
There are also loads of Spurs and Liverpool fans in the media, but that's not exactly surprising. No, I won't be signing the petition as I don't think you need my vote to get your enquiry anyway. And while I can understand why you are doing it, I don't quite buy all this freedom of information and concern for the taxpayers' money bollocks. This is mainly getting the attnetion it does because another football club is involved, one you don't want to do well because they may benefit from this move. West Ham have admittedly been incredibly lucky with the location of the OS at their doorstep and the circumstances which gave them the opportunity to negotiate a good deal. West Ham used their strong negotiating discussion as your club would have done in exactly the same way, Charlton Athletic would not have said "Hang on a minute, is this fair on the taxpayer ? Sod it, here's another 50 million!" Your owners/board would have done exactly the same. So try to throw as many spanners in the works as you want and can, fair enough. But don't pretend you have suddenly felt your heartstrings moan about taxpayers' money being wasted. It's a very selective effort, your government is wasting much bigger amounts in other projects (military equipment and the like) that dwarfs the amounts we're talking about with regard to the OS, a project that by the way will be earning money from West Ham being there in the long run, not losing it. I don't hear a lot about any petitions with regard to other projects where taxes are being wasted. Let's call it what it is: This is purely and simply tribalism. Unfair advantage over other teams ? We already have that with the likes of Chelsea, Manchester City and PSG. No petitions there either. But I'm looking forward to seeing your enquiry go underway and what it may or may not achieve.
Your input has been first class so far and worthwhile reading. You now sound like a spoilt kid who is no longer getting his way.
Sorry, had a bit of a bad day, so sometimes I get the hump which then creeps its way into my posts resulting in me doing the spoilt child routine, I'm only human too after all. I still don't know how exactly a court would determine what a fair deal is and if they would renegotiate or rewrite a deal between the LLDC and West Ham on behalf of the taxpayer. I maintain though that if this wasn't a football realted issue we wouldn't hear quite so much concern for taxpayers' money and how it is being used or misused. I assume that invitation to watch Charlton is a joke. My visits to London these days are few and far between, so I would always plan my stay around a West Ham game. I'm generally an open person, have also been to watch Orient play Shrewsbury once. But going south of the river ? I'm not sure I could feel at ease there.
Sorry, had a bit of a bad day, so sometimes I get the hump which then creeps its way into my posts resulting in me doing the spoilt child routine, I'm only human too after all. I still don't know how exactly a court would determine what a fair deal is and if they would renegotiate or rewrite a deal between the LLDC and West Ham on behalf of the taxpayer. I maintain though that if this wasn't a football realted issue we wouldn't hear quite so much concern for taxpayers' money and how it is being used or misused. I assume that invitation to watch Charlton is a joke. My visits to London these days are few and far between, so I would always plan my stay around a West Ham game. I'm generally an open person, have also been to watch Orient play Shrewsbury once. But going south of the river ? I'm not sure I could feel at ease there.
No, my friend, it's a genuine offer. As for feeling ill at ease, we gave up eating stray visitors after the first McDonald's opened; also, once a fortnight someone drops off a pallet or two of Becks to keep us docile.
In case you are still sceptical, may I refer you to the discussion on here from last March - Search FC Carl Zeiss Jena vs FC Union Berlin match thread.It's all good.
GE - The point being made is the funding of West Ham is anti competitive It is specifically government funding of a private commercial company to the direct disadvantage of a host of competing organisations within the same trading area and potentially far beyond.
There are national/ international laws governing such actions and it is reasonable for any concerned party to seek clarity on the nature and legitimacy of such funding. The timing of the current petition might have been better but if the LLDC - West Ham agreement can be seen to be "unsafe" then it can be challenged in law.
The trust is to be commended in shining further light on the issue. My challenge is what is the ultimate goal?
In the context of a public enquiry what is the deliverable? I am all for "exposure" of any wrong doing but Claret & Hugh makes a good point such enquiries cost money and can take a very long time to start let alone finish. The terms of reference will be key.
It is legitimate to argue West Ham got lucky.
It is legitimate to argue, with no other viable deal on the table and on the basis; - the original stadium design while fit for purpose for the Olympics did not lend itself to any other function (what commercial landlord plans to spend large sums of money for the next tenant?) - the Olympics project was about creating a "legacy"
the LLDC secured the best deal they could while allowing it to support world class athletics etc.,
If the LLDC were a private commercial organisation it would be hard to challenge these arguments. If West Ham was the best deal on the table they did "get lucky". However the clue lies in the "political" need to "create a legacy".
I can argue the Crystal Palace rise from the mire was as fortuitous where under normal commercial legislation they walked away from their debts and cheaply reacquired their stadium to the detriment of a host of creditors & 2 major banks though I recall Boris also stuck his oar into the commercial maelstrom at the time.
The LLDC is an "agency of government". It is held to higher degree of scrutiny & accountability and a broader level of legislation. Claret & Hugh has alluded to the broader aspects of European anti competitive legislation and to "European tacit approval" of the LLDC - West Ham agreement.
It is clear all tendering parties were aware of governmental involvement at a national level and in the case of West Ham specifically with Newham at a local level. The participation and actions of both public representative bodies are integral to the whole deal. I have no doubt LLDC - West Ham negotiators did seek guidance on the terms of the deal in light of European anti competitive legislation.
What form such interaction took, the level of detail provided and the nature of any "approval" is at this point subject to conjecture. I am afraid "trust us guv it is all kosher" without some written clarity does not quite meet the standard required.
So no matter the efficacy of the deal in providing the LLDC a workable compromise or the negotiating skill of West Ham the agreement remains subject to appeal under the terms of prevailing "anti competitive" agreements. If the deal was indeed sanctioned under European legislation why not share such information with other interested parties?
One clear principle of the agreement, where comparable businesses operate in the same industry in the same geographical area the parameters is obvious. The operational costs of Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, set clear guidelines under which the agreement should have been negotiated.
For example Tottenham & Crystal Palace are/were eager to develop/ build new stadia. It appears Tottenham may already have received some measure of recompense. Charlton might see a better commercial future on the peninsular. Why should not we receive comparable government aid, not only in terms of the stadia but in the development of the surrounding transport infrastructure?
I have some sympathy with LLDC & West Ham. One stuck with a white elephant needing endless government subsidy with little prospect of "getting out from under", the other seeing an opportunity to compete with the big boys in the PL, but such challenges do not confer the right to ignore the rules of the game.
The simple fact remains, any club, whose direct ability to compete has been compromised by the advantageous terms subsidised by the government, have the option to challenge the agreement and seek compensation.
I offer a note of caution. The "subsidy" appears to fall into 2 parts.
1. A capital outlay to enable the stadium to host football matches
LLDC & West Ham can argue the cost of developing the stadium to serve any football club falls to the landlord i.e. Such cost is not an exclusive subsidy to West Ham but the cost of doing business with the football industry while allowing the LLDC to retain a flexibility to support other sports and attract other commercial organisations.
That West Ham in securing a tenancy of the Olympic stadium chose to sell their own ground in itself is not relevant to the terms of such tenancy though the underlying role of the local council in the sale and subsequent development of the Boleyn ground may require a different level of scrutiny.
2. On going operational costs.
The terms of the tenancy where competitive market data would clearly identify any advantageous "subsidy" are another matter. This is where the call for transparency is wholly justified.
I would argue the LLDC - West Ham approach to the challenges while predictable has been unnecessarily foolish.
A simple offer to renegotiate the terms of the agreement to reflect the standard operating costs of the other clubs in London may be all that is required. An annual increase in costs of say £7mn when put against PL Revenues is unlikely to dent the West Ham overall trading position.
I would further argue the LLDC and West Ham have taken huge risks.
What happens if the new stadium really does not meet the arena needs of football? I see little prospect of the LLDC funding further upgrades to the stadium?
What happens if the club fail to retain PL status? You can "give away" as many tickets as you like but endlessly discounting your product is the road to nowhere while playing to a half full stadium for a season or more will do little to build your profile in the game.
There are two visions here. One is of a vibrant West Ham playing to full houses and able to compete with "the giants" of the game. The other is of a homeless football club, who traded away its history, playing in a half empty "not fit for purpose" stadium where their ability to trade is subsidised by the taxpayer.
I applaud the vision but the naivety is outstanding. West Ham have placed the existence of their club in the hands of politicians. They appear at the moment to have gained an advantage by exploiting the political needs of a government agency but as they say "a week in politics is a very long time".
Political will can change with the wind. Will the government in 5/10yrs really give a stuff about "the legacy"? Will the government in 15/20yrs with the ever increasing demand for new homes in the capital not see the opportunity to profitably redevelop the entire facility to meet the urgent housing needs of London? Does anyone really think any government will protect the interest of any football club over the political agenda of the day?
The bottom line is if a deal does not make sense commercially for all parties to the deal, ultimately the deal will fail.
The Tottenham proposals of effectively rebuilding two stadiums had significantly more merit. Had West Ham pursued a similar option then I suggest their future will have been very bright indeed. As it stands I suggest "I am forever blowing bubbles" may in the long term have never been more appropriate.
Newham is one of the poorest boroughs in the UK. It has to find £50 million worth of savings this year due to the government's austerity programme. It's mayor is running a consultation to find out from residents which services should be cut ( there are posters on DLR platforms and elsewhere ). I don't suppose that Sir Robin Wales will want to stop the residents funding West Ham.
Good post Grapevine. It's still difficult to sort out this competitive balance. So you might have to gather reliable and trustworthy figures regarding the running costs from other Premier League clubs. There are still differences between the clubs, so which club would be your guideline for determining a fair rent ? It is obvious that the government in order to rent out a public asset to a private company would need to make it financially attractive for the private company, otherwise they would simply fail to find an interested party to move there. It's true, political will can change. As for your idea the area might be needed for house building by alla ccounts we have a signed contract for a 99 year between the LLDC and West Ham, if either party wants to end the contract prematurely I seem to remember there is a clause in the deal calling for hefty penalty fees in that instance. So if the government decided they need the area for a different project they would need to compensate West Ham. On the other hand the political will may simply decide to need some urgent money in 15 or 20 years at which point West Ham (under new ownership) might get an offer to buy the whole stadium outright, who knows ? It surely will be interesting to see how this one develops. I don't see much good coming off this. As ultimately someone will end up feeling incredibly disappointed. I have no idea which party it's going to be, but I very much doubt there will be a solution everyone can be happy with...
I'd argue one point. You say "...what commercial landlord plans to spend large sums of money for the next tenant?"
You're right, but I'd say that the next tenant would be looking at their own fit-out costs to get their new home "fit for purpose". I'm helping a large client do something similar at the moment and I am sure they would be delighted if they were only stumping up c.5.5% of that cost.
You'd expect some sort of initial rent rebate, although I'm not sure WHam can get much more of a discount here, but not such a low initial outlay. It is, after all, being converted specifically for football/WHam.
As for the sell off of the Boleyn Ground, unlike the handover of Maine Road to the local council, this was at least an opportunity for the GLA & Newham to insist on the developer, for once, meeting Boris' minimum levels of "affordable housing". They've already failed that one as well!!
Comments
it only took a moment, but I would think that if enough of us bombarded them, the authority might think this was a live issue.
Note especially the bit near the end that says:
The Committee has written again to LLDC requesting details of the agreement but I understand LLDC is reluctant to release any more details on the grounds of commercial sensitivities.
Commercial sensitivities, I bet there are commercial sensitivities, and I note that they are not now using the excuse of 'national security'.
Dear (Seth Plum)
Thank you for your email.
To provide some background information, West Ham’s contract for the Olympic Stadium is between West Ham United Football Club Ltd and the E20 Stadium LLP (a partnership between the London Legacy Development Corporation and London Newham Council). The London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) is the organisation which is responsible for the redevelopment of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.
A member of the public did submit an FOI for the contract and LLDC has published it, albeit it a heavily redacted version as you say (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/west_ham_united_olympic_stadium_2).
Since then the London Assembly, for whom I work as Scrutiny Manager for budget and performance, has requested several times for the full details of the contract to be disclosed, but to date it has been unsuccessful in its efforts. This topic was discussed again recently at the July meeting of the Budget Monitoring Sub-Committee. The details and papers for that meeting can be accessed here: http://www.london.gov.uk/media/assembly-press-releases/2015/07/olympic-stadium-hammers-public-purse. The Committee has written again to LLDC requesting details of the agreement but I understand LLDC is reluctant to release any more details on the grounds of commercial sensitivities.
If you have further questions I would suggest you send them directly to LLDC who will be better placed to advise you.
Kind regards,
Lucy
Lucy Pickering
Scrutiny Manager- Budget and Performance
LONDONASSEMBLY I Scrutiny & Investigations I Secretariat
Greater London Authority, City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA
t: 020 7983 5770
e: lucy.pickering@london.gov.uk
Visit the London Assembly website: www.london.gov.uk/assembly
Follow us on Twitter: @LondonAssembly
Follow us on Facebook: London Assembly
Sign up to our monthly email newsletter
(London Legacy Development Corporation)
http://queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/our-story/the-legacy-corporation/the-board
This is the board.
An email to each of them might be fruitful.
(London Legacy Development Corporation)
http://queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/our-story/the-legacy-corporation/the-board
This is the board.
An email to each of them might be fruitful.
Good shout Seth........
Here is someone........Keith Edelman
Keith was formerly the Managing Director of Arsenal Holdings plc and was instrumental in the development of the Emirates Stadium and the attendant regeneration of the surrounding area including the development of Highbury Square.
In the days of Fleet street, The Nepotism with journo's Photographers, and print workers was rife. and lots of these guys came from the east end, who then moved out to Essex. So the hammers won't be short of support in the press.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3186847/West-Ham-goalposts-corner-flags-running-costs-paid-taxpayer-Olympic-Stadium.html
No, I won't be signing the petition as I don't think you need my vote to get your enquiry anyway.
And while I can understand why you are doing it, I don't quite buy all this freedom of information and concern for the taxpayers' money bollocks.
This is mainly getting the attnetion it does because another football club is involved, one you don't want to do well because they may benefit from this move.
West Ham have admittedly been incredibly lucky with the location of the OS at their doorstep and the circumstances which gave them the opportunity to negotiate a good deal. West Ham used their strong negotiating discussion as your club would have done in exactly the same way, Charlton Athletic would not have said "Hang on a minute, is this fair on the taxpayer ? Sod it, here's another 50 million!" Your owners/board would have done exactly the same.
So try to throw as many spanners in the works as you want and can, fair enough. But don't pretend you have suddenly felt your heartstrings moan about taxpayers' money being wasted.
It's a very selective effort, your government is wasting much bigger amounts in other projects (military equipment and the like) that dwarfs the amounts we're talking about with regard to the OS, a project that by the way will be earning money from West Ham being there in the long run, not losing it.
I don't hear a lot about any petitions with regard to other projects where taxes are being wasted.
Let's call it what it is: This is purely and simply tribalism. Unfair advantage over other teams ?
We already have that with the likes of Chelsea, Manchester City and PSG. No petitions there either.
But I'm looking forward to seeing your enquiry go underway and what it may or may not achieve.
This isn't about West Ham's wrongdoing (although I suspect otherwise based on the reticence to be transparent) - any organisation would try their very hardest to get the best financial deal possible. This is about wrongdoing at worst, incompetence at best, by government appointed and elected custodians of public money being cavalier with my money, your money, anyone else who has paid tax's money. There is also a general principle of private companies operating based on free and fair competition without government intervention favouring one or more at the expense of others. On that point, not only should there be transparency - forced by public demand if necessary, but also perhaps a close look at the deal by the competition authorities and the National Audit Office.
What about.
What about.
So you are a St Pauli fan who also much enjoys local league football. Basically, what you're really concerned about is that WHU are about to become a copy of the hated HSV. Tell you what - one weekend when the fixtures are kind and you can catch a game at The Valley as well, I'll get you a ticket, you can meet some of us on here and we'll show you a real South London match-day.
It would be our privilege, so - what have you got to lose ??
MfG - GHF (Alan)
Pity.
So yeah, for me is it very much about the misuse of public funds actually, which is also likely to have a longer term detrimental effect on my club,
I assume that invitation to watch Charlton is a joke. My visits to London these days are few and far between, so I would always plan my stay around a West Ham game. I'm generally an open person, have also been to watch Orient play Shrewsbury once.
But going south of the river ? I'm not sure I could feel at ease there.
In case you are still sceptical, may I refer you to the discussion on here from last March - Search FC Carl Zeiss Jena vs FC Union Berlin match thread.It's all good.
There are national/ international laws governing such actions and it is reasonable for any concerned party to seek clarity on the nature and legitimacy of such funding. The timing of the current petition might have been better but if the LLDC - West Ham agreement can be seen to be "unsafe" then it can be challenged in law.
The trust is to be commended in shining further light on the issue. My challenge is what is the ultimate goal?
In the context of a public enquiry what is the deliverable? I am all for "exposure" of any wrong doing but Claret & Hugh makes a good point such enquiries cost money and can take a very long time to start let alone finish. The terms of reference will be key.
It is legitimate to argue West Ham got lucky.
It is legitimate to argue, with no other viable deal on the table and on the basis;
- the original stadium design while fit for purpose for the Olympics did not lend itself to any other function (what commercial landlord plans to spend large sums of money for the next tenant?)
- the Olympics project was about creating a "legacy"
the LLDC secured the best deal they could while allowing it to support world class athletics etc.,
If the LLDC were a private commercial organisation it would be hard to challenge these arguments. If West Ham was the best deal on the table they did "get lucky". However the clue lies in the "political" need to "create a legacy".
I can argue the Crystal Palace rise from the mire was as fortuitous where under normal commercial legislation they walked away from their debts and cheaply reacquired their stadium to the detriment of a host of creditors & 2 major banks though I recall Boris also stuck his oar into the commercial maelstrom at the time.
The LLDC is an "agency of government". It is held to higher degree of scrutiny & accountability and a broader level of legislation. Claret & Hugh has alluded to the broader aspects of European anti competitive legislation and to "European tacit approval" of the LLDC - West Ham agreement.
It is clear all tendering parties were aware of governmental involvement at a national level and in the case of West Ham specifically with Newham at a local level. The participation and actions of both public representative bodies are integral to the whole deal. I have no doubt LLDC - West Ham negotiators did seek guidance on the terms of the deal in light of European anti competitive legislation.
What form such interaction took, the level of detail provided and the nature of any "approval" is at this point subject to conjecture. I am afraid "trust us guv it is all kosher" without some written clarity does not quite meet the standard required.
So no matter the efficacy of the deal in providing the LLDC a workable compromise or the negotiating skill of West Ham the agreement remains subject to appeal under the terms of prevailing "anti competitive" agreements. If the deal was indeed sanctioned under European legislation why not share such information with other interested parties?
One clear principle of the agreement, where comparable businesses operate in the same industry in the same geographical area the parameters is obvious. The operational costs of Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, set clear guidelines under which the agreement should have been negotiated.
For example Tottenham & Crystal Palace are/were eager to develop/ build new stadia. It appears Tottenham may already have received some measure of recompense. Charlton might see a better commercial future on the peninsular. Why should not we receive comparable government aid, not only in terms of the stadia but in the development of the surrounding transport infrastructure?
I have some sympathy with LLDC & West Ham. One stuck with a white elephant needing endless government subsidy with little prospect of "getting out from under", the other seeing an opportunity to compete with the big boys in the PL, but such challenges do not confer the right to ignore the rules of the game.
The simple fact remains, any club, whose direct ability to compete has been compromised by the advantageous terms subsidised by the government, have the option to challenge the agreement and seek compensation.
I offer a note of caution. The "subsidy" appears to fall into 2 parts.
1. A capital outlay to enable the stadium to host football matches
LLDC & West Ham can argue the cost of developing the stadium to serve any football club falls to the landlord i.e. Such cost is not an exclusive subsidy to West Ham but the cost of doing business with the football industry while allowing the LLDC to retain a flexibility to support other sports and attract other commercial organisations.
That West Ham in securing a tenancy of the Olympic stadium chose to sell their own ground in itself is not relevant to the terms of such tenancy though the underlying role of the local council in the sale and subsequent development of the Boleyn ground may require a different level of scrutiny.
2. On going operational costs.
The terms of the tenancy where competitive market data would clearly identify any advantageous "subsidy" are another matter. This is where the call for transparency is wholly justified.
I would argue the LLDC - West Ham approach to the challenges while predictable has been unnecessarily foolish.
A simple offer to renegotiate the terms of the agreement to reflect the standard operating costs of the other clubs in London may be all that is required. An annual increase in costs of say £7mn when put against PL Revenues is unlikely to dent the West Ham overall trading position.
I would further argue the LLDC and West Ham have taken huge risks.
What happens if the new stadium really does not meet the arena needs of football? I see little prospect of the LLDC funding further upgrades to the stadium?
What happens if the club fail to retain PL status? You can "give away" as many tickets as you like but endlessly discounting your product is the road to nowhere while playing to a half full stadium for a season or more will do little to build your profile in the game.
There are two visions here. One is of a vibrant West Ham playing to full houses and able to compete with "the giants" of the game. The other is of a homeless football club, who traded away its history, playing in a half empty "not fit for purpose" stadium where their ability to trade is subsidised by the taxpayer.
I applaud the vision but the naivety is outstanding. West Ham have placed the existence of their club in the hands of politicians. They appear at the moment to have gained an advantage by exploiting the political needs of a government agency but as they say "a week in politics is a very long time".
Political will can change with the wind. Will the government in 5/10yrs really give a stuff about "the legacy"? Will the government in 15/20yrs with the ever increasing demand for new homes in the capital not see the opportunity to profitably redevelop the entire facility to meet the urgent housing needs of London? Does anyone really think any government will protect the interest of any football club over the political agenda of the day?
The bottom line is if a deal does not make sense commercially for all parties to the deal, ultimately the deal will fail.
The Tottenham proposals of effectively rebuilding two stadiums had significantly more merit. Had West Ham pursued a similar option then I suggest their future will have been very bright indeed. As it stands I suggest "I am forever blowing bubbles" may in the long term have never been more appropriate.
It is obvious that the government in order to rent out a public asset to a private company would need to make it financially attractive for the private company, otherwise they would simply fail to find an interested party to move there.
It's true, political will can change. As for your idea the area might be needed for house building by alla ccounts we have a signed contract for a 99 year between the LLDC and West Ham, if either party wants to end the contract prematurely I seem to remember there is a clause in the deal calling for hefty penalty fees in that instance.
So if the government decided they need the area for a different project they would need to compensate West Ham. On the other hand the political will may simply decide to need some urgent money in 15 or 20 years at which point West Ham (under new ownership) might get an offer to buy the whole stadium outright, who knows ?
It surely will be interesting to see how this one develops. I don't see much good coming off this.
As ultimately someone will end up feeling incredibly disappointed. I have no idea which party it's going to be, but I very much doubt there will be a solution everyone can be happy with...
I'd argue one point. You say "...what commercial landlord plans to spend large sums of money for the next tenant?"
You're right, but I'd say that the next tenant would be looking at their own fit-out costs to get their new home "fit for purpose". I'm helping a large client do something similar at the moment and I am sure they would be delighted if they were only stumping up c.5.5% of that cost.
You'd expect some sort of initial rent rebate, although I'm not sure WHam can get much more of a discount here, but not such a low initial outlay. It is, after all, being converted specifically for football/WHam.
As for the sell off of the Boleyn Ground, unlike the handover of Maine Road to the local council, this was at least an opportunity for the GLA & Newham to insist on the developer, for once, meeting Boris' minimum levels of "affordable housing". They've already failed that one as well!!