Slowed right down (but don't worry the Coalition has Plans :-))
Anyoen who can sign in the next hour may well be the person who takes it past 20,000..
Probably 20,000 people watching the numbers right now and holding off until it hits 19,999 before they dive in and sign... It will probably wizz past 20,000 when it gets to that point...
Slowed right down (but don't worry the Coalition has Plans :-))
Anyoen who can sign in the next hour may well be the person who takes it past 20,000..
Probably 20,000 people watching the numbers right now and holding off until it hits 19,999 before they dive in and sign... It will probably wizz past 20,000 when it gets to that point...
If the freebie tickets being given to LB Newham are effectively being paid for by the taxpayer does that mean anybody in Newham who receives a free ticket will have to declare it as a benefit and have any other benefit or vouchers they receive reduced accordingly ?
I did some reading today and caught myself back up with the LLDC response to the EC investigation of unfair state aid. A lot of information is withheld, but there are some corkers.
In response to someone questioning the provision of goalposts etc, that's there in black and white.
It's also noteworthy that the LLDC state that stadium is being transformed so that it is 'multi-use' - but of course the primary use is football (that even trumps athletics). So the primary aim of the transformation is to deliver a football stadium that meets Premier League and European criteria. Anything over and above that is specifications specifically for West Ham.
West Ham actually have 75 days use in the contract: 25 event days, plus a day either side for preparation and break down. Of course the football mode of the stadium takes at least a week to undo, so it's multi-use provided football mode works for the user. Well, 75 days is 20% of the available event days. One might think it reasonable that West Ham's contribution to the conversion is at least 20%, plus any specifications they require - it's actually just 5%.
One thing they haven't mentioned is that in addition to the event day use, WHU rent 12,000 sq ft of office and retail space, estimated worth around £200k.
The media counter-attack, which we have been expecting, is here.
We are on the case, but it would be very useful to find out how it reads to people. What are the strongest points she makes in your opinions?
@rikofold says Samuels is a Hammer, do other people know this? can anyone perhaps locate evidence of WHU's recent promotional activity for tickets to the Boleyn. There was even a Hammer on the BBC doc saying they cannot sell out the Boleyn, anyone got anything that can show evidence of that?
it is our supporters who will fill it and bring the income that pays for it to be maintained
‘They think it was all underhand, but there is a reason for the blanks,’ Brady insists. ‘This is a multi- purpose stadium. Other people will want to use it. If all they have to do is open West Ham’s contract and see the figures, that’s the end of the negotiation, isn’t it? The LLDC have no position"
Well West Hams deal is for 99 years and 23 events or whatever a year and they are paying x amount of costs so unless someone is asking for the exact same deal why would there not be negotiation on the price for something completely different as in a one off concert
If the freebie tickets being given to LB Newham are effectively being paid for by the taxpayer does that mean anybody in Newham who receives a free ticket will have to declare it as a benefit and have any other benefit or vouchers they receive reduced accordingly ?
Or presumably, if the recipients of the tickets should just happen to be council employees, (of course, that wouldn't happen would it?) they will have to include the value of the ticket on their tax returns as a "benefit in kind" and pay tax on the notional value.
‘I don’t think we’re fleecing British taxpayers because we’re taxpayers, too.
A sentence completely devoid of meaning or logic but which sounds convincing for a few seconds.
Mind you, a lot of what she is saying is that she got a good deal for West Ham. We've never disputed that, nor that it was her job to do just that. The more that she / they can present the protest as anti West Ham the stronger ground they are on.
This is an odd thing for here to say: ‘Now the stadium is nearly finished, everyone recognises what is here and says it’s a steal. But it wasn’t a steal when we were doing the negotiations, because where was the queue of rival buyers?'
For a start it overlooks that fact that there were 16 interested parties, four of which made bids. Then she seems to suggest that that the negotiations would have been easier if they'd had more competition. It looks to me as if she is talking out of her red-benched derrière.
To be honest I think Gold, Sullivan and Brady along with the responsible officials in Coe and Boris have enough friends in high places to make sure this is yet another official whitewash. I'm not at all hopeful of anything coming out of the sterling efforts other than a bit of huff and puff before is consigned to yesterday's news.
Prague, I think the strongest argument she makes is that they were willing to buy the ground and take on associated costs (mention of £200m) but the LLDC reneged on that deal. I'm not sure what the background is to that, but it seems to go along with the West Ham fans' argument that if they have got a good deal, then Daniel Levy and Barry Hearn are to blame.
The other point she makes, and I don't think this will play out as strong in the media as it probably should, is that they are losing out on commercial revenues on non-match days. I think it's possible or even likely that they get a slice of the profit somehow.
They might also get some traction out of the suggestion that if their deal was made public, it would harm the LLDC in future negotiations on use of the ground. I think that's a crap argument, but it might still work. It would then allow both the LLDC and WHU to say they're only keeping it confidential to protect the other's business interests.
It's really disappointing to see the underlying "weak woman" pleading from a leading woman in business.
I didn't realise they were still going ahead with the claret and blue seats (who pays? let me guess...) and I see she's getting the case in early for expanding the capacity of the OS (again, I wonder who would pay).
nice little bitchy comment in the Mail piece, of course we sold out in the Premier League dear..
Anyway not sure if its been mentioned already but the commercial sensitivities thing two points
1) WestHams tenancy is not equivalent as they are the mainstay tenant or whatever you want to call it, commercial sensitivities do not apply as other bids for subsequent use are not equivalent either in usage or time/value when the bid was done
2) And anyway surely market forces apply, Westham's deal is part of that and determines what the value was at a certain point for a certain deal/arrangement - the equivalent of Zoopla, but only that. Things change, and its more about what someone is willing to pay, and or other bidders. If its a single bidder an interested party would go in at zero and be negotiated upwards, much like Westham were (or weren't..)
Either way Government practice and use of taxpayers money should always be open to accountability to avoid corruption, we have a right to know so we can decide if something dodgy has been done, without that there is no accountability.
The media counter-attack, which we have been expecting, is here.
We are on the case, but it would be very useful to find out how it reads to people. What are the strongest points she makes in your opinions?
@rikofold says Samuels is a Hammer, do other people know this? can anyone perhaps locate evidence of WHU's recent promotional activity for tickets to the Boleyn. There was even a Hammer on the BBC doc saying they cannot sell out the Boleyn, anyone got anything that can show evidence of that?
Thanks!
Re attendances @PragueAddick from WHam's financials, I'd suggest they are pretty close to selling out, perhaps away numbers keeping them below a full house. Official capacity is 35,016
Edited to add operational profit/loss figures, which I thought useful.
I find it funny that Seb Coe was so insistent that the stadium remained an athletics Stadium but seems to now have gone quite quiet on the hole thing, I suppose that cushty new job as the chief of the IAAF helps him forget
What a silly comment about us not filling our stadium. Whether our stadium is full or not makes no difference to their propensity to entice the more casual supporter to the Olympic Stadium rather than The Valley, hence potentially leaving our stadium even less full than it is now. In fact, it would be less concerning to us if we were sold out every week as we would already be locking people out.
It's typical Daily Mail logic, you make a statement that makes a nice soundbite in the hope that nobody actually thinks about what you've just said before they fall into violent agreement.
Prague, I think the strongest argument she makes is that they were willing to buy the ground and take on associated costs (mention of £200m) but the LLDC reneged on that deal. I'm not sure what the background is to that, but it seems to go along with the West Ham fans' argument that if they have got a good deal, then Daniel Levy and Barry Hearn are to blame.
The other point she makes, and I don't think this will play out as strong in the media as it probably should, is that they are losing out on commercial revenues on non-match days. I think it's possible or even likely that they get a slice of the profit somehow.
They might also get some traction out of the suggestion that if their deal was made public, it would harm the LLDC in future negotiations on use of the ground. I think that's a crap argument, but it might still work. It would then allow both the LLDC and WHU to say they're only keeping it confidential to protect the other's business interests.
It's really disappointing to see the underlying "weak woman" pleading from a leading woman in business.
I didn't realise they were still going ahead with the claret and blue seats (who pays? let me guess...) and I see she's getting the case in early for expanding the capacity of the OS (again, I wonder who would pay).
Thanks everybody, your comments are very helpful.
Re the above, thanks IA. Her first point is an odd one. She knows perfectly well that the EC told the LLDC that such a deal would break State Aid rules because it would have clearly and directly supported West Ham's balance sheet. The LLDC did not 'renege' yet she seeks to disingenuously blame them now. Cracks in their coalition?
The second point we can and will slaughter. They keep 100% of the corporate and the capacity for that is massive. The sale of burgers is nothing compared with that. Anyway they do get a share, and none of the risk or management hassle of providing it.
Third point appears plausible to some, we need to work hard on a form of words to show that again its a bogus argument.
Comments
Anyoen who can sign in the next hour may well be the person who takes it past 20,000..
In response to someone questioning the provision of goalposts etc, that's there in black and white.
It's also noteworthy that the LLDC state that stadium is being transformed so that it is 'multi-use' - but of course the primary use is football (that even trumps athletics). So the primary aim of the transformation is to deliver a football stadium that meets Premier League and European criteria. Anything over and above that is specifications specifically for West Ham.
West Ham actually have 75 days use in the contract: 25 event days, plus a day either side for preparation and break down. Of course the football mode of the stadium takes at least a week to undo, so it's multi-use provided football mode works for the user. Well, 75 days is 20% of the available event days. One might think it reasonable that West Ham's contribution to the conversion is at least 20%, plus any specifications they require - it's actually just 5%.
One thing they haven't mentioned is that in addition to the event day use, WHU rent 12,000 sq ft of office and retail space, estimated worth around £200k.
We are on the case, but it would be very useful to find out how it reads to people. What are the strongest points she makes in your opinions?
@rikofold says Samuels is a Hammer, do other people know this? can anyone perhaps locate evidence of WHU's recent promotional activity for tickets to the Boleyn. There was even a Hammer on the BBC doc saying they cannot sell out the Boleyn, anyone got anything that can show evidence of that?
Thanks!
‘They think it was all underhand, but there is a reason for the blanks,’ Brady insists. ‘This is a multi- purpose stadium. Other people will want to use it. If all they have to do is open West Ham’s contract and see the figures, that’s the end of the negotiation, isn’t it? The LLDC have no position"
Well West Hams deal is for 99 years and 23 events or whatever a year and they are paying x amount of costs so unless someone is asking for the exact same deal why would there not be negotiation on the price for something completely different as in a one off concert
What in earth does she mean by this?
A sentence completely devoid of meaning or logic but which sounds convincing for a few seconds.
Mind you, a lot of what she is saying is that she got a good deal for West Ham. We've never disputed that, nor that it was her job to do just that. The more that she / they can present the protest as anti West Ham the stronger ground they are on.
For a start it overlooks that fact that there were 16 interested parties, four of which made bids. Then she seems to suggest that that the negotiations would have been easier if they'd had more competition. It looks to me as if she is talking out of her red-benched derrière.
The other point she makes, and I don't think this will play out as strong in the media as it probably should, is that they are losing out on commercial revenues on non-match days. I think it's possible or even likely that they get a slice of the profit somehow.
They might also get some traction out of the suggestion that if their deal was made public, it would harm the LLDC in future negotiations on use of the ground. I think that's a crap argument, but it might still work. It would then allow both the LLDC and WHU to say they're only keeping it confidential to protect the other's business interests.
It's really disappointing to see the underlying "weak woman" pleading from a leading woman in business.
I didn't realise they were still going ahead with the claret and blue seats (who pays? let me guess...) and I see she's getting the case in early for expanding the capacity of the OS (again, I wonder who would pay).
Anyway not sure if its been mentioned already but the commercial sensitivities thing two points
1) WestHams tenancy is not equivalent as they are the mainstay tenant or whatever you want to call it, commercial sensitivities do not apply as other bids for subsequent use are not equivalent either in usage or time/value when the bid was done
2) And anyway surely market forces apply, Westham's deal is part of that and determines what the value was at a certain point for a certain deal/arrangement - the equivalent of Zoopla, but only that. Things change, and its more about what someone is willing to pay, and or other bidders. If its a single bidder an interested party would go in at zero and be negotiated upwards, much like Westham were (or weren't..)
Either way Government practice and use of taxpayers money should always be open to accountability to avoid corruption, we have a right to know so we can decide if something dodgy has been done, without that there is no accountability.
Edited to add operational profit/loss figures, which I thought useful.
2013/14 34,007 (profit £32.3m)
2012/13 34,770 (profit £16.7m)
2011/12 30,800 (loss £9m Championship season)
2010/11 32,800 (profit £8.4m)
2009/10 33,100 (profit £1.4m)
It's typical Daily Mail logic, you make a statement that makes a nice soundbite in the hope that nobody actually thinks about what you've just said before they fall into violent agreement.
Re the above, thanks IA. Her first point is an odd one. She knows perfectly well that the EC told the LLDC that such a deal would break State Aid rules because it would have clearly and directly supported West Ham's balance sheet. The LLDC did not 'renege' yet she seeks to disingenuously blame them now. Cracks in their coalition?
The second point we can and will slaughter. They keep 100% of the corporate and the capacity for that is massive. The sale of burgers is nothing compared with that. Anyway they do get a share, and none of the risk or management hassle of providing it.
Third point appears plausible to some, we need to work hard on a form of words to show that again its a bogus argument.