Nothing wrong with him being a WHam fan by the way, but if you're the lead Sports Journalist on your national paper, you could at least try to ask a couple of searching questions!!
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.
Razil and oohaah's comments contribute to a rebuttal of the final point I think
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).
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.
I'm just thinking that if the Valley was being redeveloped, a big focus of that would be to provide conference facilities etc, which could be used on non matchday weekdays. I have no idea if they earn any revenue from this now at UP, but I would have thought that the current story is that West Ham can only generate revenue from football and football matches. There aren't the same revenue streams as available to Arsenal etc.
I notice as well their number of days per year has dropped from 25 to 23. If you can get another big article or BBC show, it might drop to 21 or even 17
Nothing wrong with him being a WHam fan by the way, but if you're the lead Sports Journalist on your national paper, you could at least try to ask a couple of searching questions!!
What an absolute waste of time even sending him there that article was. Should have just reprinted the WHU media release wholesale and not even bothered trying to dress it up as journalism.
There's a story there so the Mail, in their wisdom, decide to send a well known West Ham supporting sports editor to try and get to their side of things rather than a proper investigative journalist with a remit to rattle a few cages and see what they can find out.
Sadly, I wouldn't expect anything else given their love in with Boris, all things West Ham and general downer on those pesky Europeans with their red tape and rules about governments pumping money into businesses owned by their party supporters.
I bet AEG, Wembley, Twickenham, Spurs, Royal Parks, and anyone who has major events space in London would love to see the contract, and then massively undercut LLDC on any deal for events.
Yes, Samuels is a West Ham fan but also a bloody good journo. As for rattling the cages there have been several other journos recently who have done just that (fair enough) to give fodder to your campaign/petition, so I see nothing wrong with getting the other angle of the story into the media as well. The BBC piece left out a number of relevant information, so that one wasn't really that balanced either, but it did a good job of cage rattling. Also, has the BBC journo rattled the cages of Hearn and Levy asking them if they are happy that they kept West Ham from buying the stadium which would have resulted in West Ham paying a lot more money upfront and also for stewarding, policing etc. ? They have unwittingly helped to create this situation. The best way for people to get a decent idea of the picture is to read or listen to several sources and then building their own opinion. In that respect Samuel's article was a useful bit of information. Unfortunately this whole sorry saga has become too emotional now with supporters of different club sitting in different tranches and therefore having a vastly different view on what a balanced article is and what is just propaganda or biased journalism.
I bet AEG, Wembley, Twickenham, Spurs, Royal Parks, and anyone who has major events space in London would love to see the contract, and then massively undercut LLDC on any deal for events.
The WHU deal is in no way comparible to 'single' events (which Vinci, not LLDC, have to source).
I bet AEG, Wembley, Twickenham, Spurs, Royal Parks, and anyone who has major events space in London would love to see the contract, and then massively undercut LLDC on any deal for events.
The WHU deal is in no way comparible to 'single' events (which Vinci, not LLDC, have to source).
Not only that, but such a 'competition' would be inevitable anyway, just as in any quoting process
Yes, Samuels is a West Ham fan but also a bloody good journo. As for rattling the cages there have been several other journos recently who have done just that (fair enough) to give fodder to your campaign/petition, so I see nothing wrong with getting the other angle of the story into the media as well. The BBC piece left out a number of relevant information, so that one wasn't really that balanced either, but it did a good job of cage rattling. Also, has the BBC journo rattled the cages of Hearn and Levy asking them if they are happy that they kept West Ham from buying the stadium which would have resulted in West Ham paying a lot more money upfront and also for stewarding, policing etc. ? They have unwittingly helped to create this situation. The best way for people to get a decent idea of the picture is to read or listen to several sources and then building their own opinion. In that respect Samuel's article was a useful bit of information. Unfortunately this whole sorry saga has become too emotional now with supporters of different club sitting in different tranches and therefore having a vastly different view on what a balanced article is and what is just propaganda or biased journalism.
Okay I'll bite, what pieces of "relevant information" did the BBC leave out of their report?
I bet AEG, Wembley, Twickenham, Spurs, Royal Parks, and anyone who has major events space in London would love to see the contract, and then massively undercut LLDC on any deal for events.
Massively undercut the deal offered by the LLDC? If the deal negotiated with the Hammers is anything to go by that would mean paying the hirer for the privilege of renting out their facilities to them.
As others have said, you are not comparing apples with apples though as the published figure of £11m a year offered by Chelsea to rent Wembley for 3 years shows. By your logic the going rate should have started at around the £2.5m per annum West Ham are playing plus a premium for the shorter term nature of the deal.
I bet AEG, Wembley, Twickenham, Spurs, Royal Parks, and anyone who has major events space in London would love to see the contract, and then massively undercut LLDC on any deal for events.
I would imagine they all know each other's prices, but anyway you're assuming that the West Ham deal is representative of the deal available to other events. They are the anchor tenant, remember.
Wembley has 36,000 extra seats, of which 19,000 are in Club Wembley and Chelsea would be able to sell at a massive mark up. Wembley infrastructure is also significantly bigger then the Olympic Stadium.
Yes, Samuels is a West Ham fan but also a bloody good journo. As for rattling the cages there have been several other journos recently who have done just that (fair enough) to give fodder to your campaign/petition, so I see nothing wrong with getting the other angle of the story into the media as well. The BBC piece left out a number of relevant information, so that one wasn't really that balanced either, but it did a good job of cage rattling. Also, has the BBC journo rattled the cages of Hearn and Levy asking them if they are happy that they kept West Ham from buying the stadium which would have resulted in West Ham paying a lot more money upfront and also for stewarding, policing etc. ? They have unwittingly helped to create this situation. The best way for people to get a decent idea of the picture is to read or listen to several sources and then building their own opinion. In that respect Samuel's article was a useful bit of information. Unfortunately this whole sorry saga has become too emotional now with supporters of different club sitting in different tranches and therefore having a vastly different view on what a balanced article is and what is just propaganda or biased journalism.
Well if Hearn and Levy had stopped West Ham from buying the stadium rather than European competition law, then you might have a point.
Wembley has 36,000 extra seats, of which 19,000 are in Club Wembley and Chelsea would be able to sell at a massive mark up. Wembley infrastructure is also significantly bigger then the Olympic Stadium.
Not sure I'd agree about the "significantly bigger" infrastructure comment over the Olympic Stadium. Even more so with regard to transport when considering where WHam draw their fan base from, given Stratford is far better served in this respect that Wembley.
As for general infrastructure, you'd expect more from Wembley given the size difference, but are you aware of the additional facilities being put into the OS as part of the WHam fit-out?
Hearn and Levy were instrumental in stopping the deal where West Ham would buy the OS. What did the BBV leave out ? Well basically everything relating to income created by West Ham being in the OS, namely sharing of naming rights and catering. There might still be naming rights income without West Ham of course, but obviously a Premier League club in there will allow the LLDC to pocket between 5 and 10 million a year. That figure alone will make sure the taxpayer will be making a profit over West Ham's 99 year lease. 99 years, that is some committment from a football club selling its beloved and traditional home ground they own in the process. I also see that you don't speak for all Charlton fans with regard to that petition, there have been some pretty hefty exchanges of posts on that other Charlton forum who don't support that petition much. What's the current count by the way ? Already close to your 100.000 ?
Yes, Samuels is a West Ham fan but also a bloody good journo. As for rattling the cages there have been several other journos recently who have done just that (fair enough) to give fodder to your campaign/petition, so I see nothing wrong with getting the other angle of the story into the media as well. The BBC piece left out a number of relevant information, so that one wasn't really that balanced either, but it did a good job of cage rattling. Also, has the BBC journo rattled the cages of Hearn and Levy asking them if they are happy that they kept West Ham from buying the stadium which would have resulted in West Ham paying a lot more money upfront and also for stewarding, policing etc. ? They have unwittingly helped to create this situation. The best way for people to get a decent idea of the picture is to read or listen to several sources and then building their own opinion. In that respect Samuel's article was a useful bit of information. Unfortunately this whole sorry saga has become too emotional now with supporters of different club sitting in different tranches and therefore having a vastly different view on what a balanced article is and what is just propaganda or biased journalism.
Well if Hearn and Levy had stopped West Ham from buying the stadium rather than European competition law, then you might have a point.
The only trench is the obscured contract detail, not one made by non-westham fans, we can't take an informed view in Westhams favour with that in the way
Hearn and Levy were instrumental in stopping the deal where West Ham would buy the OS. What did the BBV leave out ? Well basically everything relating to income created by West Ham being in the OS, namely sharing of naming rights and catering. There might still be naming rights income without West Ham of course, but obviously a Premier League club in there will allow the LLDC to pocket between 5 and 10 million a year. That figure alone will make sure the taxpayer will be making a profit over West Ham's 99 year lease. 99 years, that is some committment from a football club selling its beloved and traditional home ground they own in the process. I also see that you don't speak for all Charlton fans with regard to that petition, there have been some pretty hefty exchanges of posts on that other Charlton forum who don't support that petition much. What's the current count by the way ? Already close to your 100.000 ?
Gold and Sullivan love the old ground? Come on, you can't be serious.
Hearn and Levy were instrumental in stopping the deal where West Ham would buy the OS. What did the BBV leave out ? Well basically everything relating to income created by West Ham being in the OS, namely sharing of naming rights and catering. There might still be naming rights income without West Ham of course, but obviously a Premier League club in there will allow the LLDC to pocket between 5 and 10 million a year. That figure alone will make sure the taxpayer will be making a profit over West Ham's 99 year lease. 99 years, that is some committment from a football club selling its beloved and traditional home ground they own in the process. I also see that you don't speak for all Charlton fans with regard to that petition, there have been some pretty hefty exchanges of posts on that other Charlton forum who don't support that petition much. What's the current count by the way ? Already close to your 100.000 ?
WHU will not be in the PL for 99 years - what then ?
Hearn and Levy were instrumental in stopping the deal where West Ham would buy the OS. What did the BBV leave out ? Well basically everything relating to income created by West Ham being in the OS, namely sharing of naming rights and catering. There might still be naming rights income without West Ham of course, but obviously a Premier League club in there will allow the LLDC to pocket between 5 and 10 million a year. That figure alone will make sure the taxpayer will be making a profit over West Ham's 99 year lease. 99 years, that is some committment from a football club selling its beloved and traditional home ground they own in the process. I also see that you don't speak for all Charlton fans with regard to that petition, there have been some pretty hefty exchanges of posts on that other Charlton forum who don't support that petition much. What's the current count by the way ? Already close to your 100.000 ?
I never claimed to be speaking for all Charlton fans and as you can see from the various discussions over many months on here, some people take a different view on the situation and are far more relaxed about the deal.
I can't remember if they mentioned in the BBC programme about WHU trousering all the revenue from the corporate hospitality offered which will go some way to softening the blow of selling its beloved ground?
Hearn and Levy were instrumental in stopping the deal where West Ham would buy the OS. What did the BBV leave out ? Well basically everything relating to income created by West Ham being in the OS, namely sharing of naming rights and catering. There might still be naming rights income without West Ham of course, but obviously a Premier League club in there will allow the LLDC to pocket between 5 and 10 million a year. That figure alone will make sure the taxpayer will be making a profit over West Ham's 99 year lease. 99 years, that is some committment from a football club selling its beloved and traditional home ground they own in the process. I also see that you don't speak for all Charlton fans with regard to that petition, there have been some pretty hefty exchanges of posts on that other Charlton forum who don't support that petition much. What's the current count by the way ? Already close to your 100.000 ?
Not sure anyone said the target was 100,000 - the petition seems, to me, to be more a means to an end. That end looks far more likely than it did before the petition therefore the petition has served its purpose.
Brady's line in the article is entirely predictable - she majors on the points not really in issue and ignores the difficult ones (e.g. the huge taxpayer subsidy, Newham Council's £45 million contribution and the question of state aid). She then throws in a few pious sentiments about sustaining the Olympic legacy and the Olympic Park and presents herself in a heroic light in the negotiations, standing alone against a battalion of Government representatives, consultants and lawyers.
Incidentally, I am encouraged by the cheap dig at "Charlton Supporters' Club" (sic) and her reference to CAFC's inability to fill the Valley. It merely serves to underscore the effectiveness of the campaign and the Trust's central role in it. Prague Addick and his colleagues could receive no higher accolade (and no, Karen, getting the name wrong won't make them go away).
@rikofold is right. The previous deal was stopped because of a complaint by a private individual to the EC, Steve Lawrence, an architect who worked on the OS project and is concerned about the legacy (and is not club aligned). It was pointed out to the LLDC that the deal envisaged would definitely break EC State Aid regulations. This one still might, but that's another story. So I thought it was pretty poor of Brady who knows that and yet said in todays' article the LLDC reneged on the deal. I wonder why she didn't want to mention the dreaded words "State Aid".
@rikofold is right. The previous deal was stopped because of a complaint by a private individual to the EC, Steve Lawrence, an architect who worked on the OS project and is concerned about the legacy (and is not club aligned). It was pointed out to the LLDC that the deal envisaged would definitely break EC State Aid regulations. This one still might, but that's another story. So I thought it was pretty poor of Brady who knows that and yet said in todays' article the LLDC reneged on the deal. I wonder why she didn't want to mention the dreaded words "State Aid".
I wonder why a seasoned journalist and Chief Sports writer at The Mail like Samuel didn't mention it either!!
Is the Daily Mail standing to attention for East London's favourite porn kings the same Daily Mail that once started a campaign of outrage against Bill Oddie for calling a stag beetle horny?
I received this when I wrote in regarding secrecy.
Those of you who are more up on the detail might be able to take this reply to pieces. The second paragraph seems utter bollocks to me because of how much detail is redacted (does anybody have in writing the 'redacted because of national security' response?) and the notion that if other users realise what a good deal West Ham are getting at our expense, they will want a piece of the action too! If anything her response reinforces what a give away (at our expense) the deal is for West Ham.
Dear (Seth Plum)
Thank you for your email. The following will hopefully explain why we are unable to release the whole deal to the public.
The Stadium will continue to remain in public ownership with West Ham as an anchor tenant on a 99 year lease. West Ham were awarded a long-term concession after winning a competitive tendering exercise which was conducted within EU rules and was open to any individual or company in Europe. This process has been tested in the courts and upheld. West Ham pay an annual rent to use the Stadium for around 25 days per year alongside a £15million contribution to the transformation costs and as anchor tenant will help make the Stadium financially stable over the long term. The Stadium will also be home to UK Athletics who have a 50 year agreement to use the Stadium every summer as the national competition centre for athletics.
We have already released much of the detail of the contract with West Ham United but there are certain elements that cannot be made public as they are commercially sensitive. We have appointed an operator to manage the Stadium on a day-to-day basis and part of their role is to attract other sports and entertainment into the venue. If other parties were aware of the detail of the West Ham contract then it would make it very difficult to negotiate the best deal possible which would in turn have an impact on the taxpayers’ investment.
The Stadium will be play a key role in the regeneration programme as whole which will deliver more than £3bn of economic benefit and 24,000 homes to London to ensure that these benefits are delivered we need to maintain the integrity of commercial negotiations whilst balancing transparency and as such in this case commercial details need to remain confidential.
Yours sincerely
Victoria Stonebridge
Communities and Business Manager Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park London Legacy Development Corporation
Comments
Samuel's Twitter page...
https://mobile.twitter.com/themartinsamuel
Nothing wrong with him being a WHam fan by the way, but if you're the lead Sports Journalist on your national paper, you could at least try to ask a couple of searching questions!!
I notice as well their number of days per year has dropped from 25 to 23. If you can get another big article or BBC show, it might drop to 21 or even 17
by publishing the contracts, avoiding a costly public enquiry and showing good faith
then the deal can stand or fall, on its own two feet
There's a story there so the Mail, in their wisdom, decide to send a well known West Ham supporting sports editor to try and get to their side of things rather than a proper investigative journalist with a remit to rattle a few cages and see what they can find out.
Sadly, I wouldn't expect anything else given their love in with Boris, all things West Ham and general downer on those pesky Europeans with their red tape and rules about governments pumping money into businesses owned by their party supporters.
The BBC piece left out a number of relevant information, so that one wasn't really that balanced either, but it did a good job of cage rattling.
Also, has the BBC journo rattled the cages of Hearn and Levy asking them if they are happy that they kept West Ham from buying the stadium which would have resulted in West Ham paying a lot more money upfront and also for stewarding, policing etc. ? They have unwittingly helped to create this situation.
The best way for people to get a decent idea of the picture is to read or listen to several sources and then building their own opinion. In that respect Samuel's article was a useful bit of information.
Unfortunately this whole sorry saga has become too emotional now with supporters of different club sitting in different tranches and therefore having a vastly different view on what a balanced article is and what is just propaganda or biased journalism.
As a customer you would likely shop around.
As others have said, you are not comparing apples with apples though as the published figure of £11m a year offered by Chelsea to rent Wembley for 3 years shows. By your logic the going rate should have started at around the £2.5m per annum West Ham are playing plus a premium for the shorter term nature of the deal.
As for general infrastructure, you'd expect more from Wembley given the size difference, but are you aware of the additional facilities being put into the OS as part of the WHam fit-out?
What did the BBV leave out ? Well basically everything relating to income created by West Ham being in the OS, namely sharing of naming rights and catering.
There might still be naming rights income without West Ham of course, but obviously a Premier League club in there will allow the LLDC to pocket between 5 and 10 million a year.
That figure alone will make sure the taxpayer will be making a profit over West Ham's 99 year lease.
99 years, that is some committment from a football club selling its beloved and traditional home ground they own in the process.
I also see that you don't speak for all Charlton fans with regard to that petition, there have been some pretty hefty exchanges of posts on that other Charlton forum who don't support that petition much.
What's the current count by the way ? Already close to your 100.000 ?
I can't remember if they mentioned in the BBC programme about WHU trousering all the revenue from the corporate hospitality offered which will go some way to softening the blow of selling its beloved ground?
Incidentally, I am encouraged by the cheap dig at "Charlton Supporters' Club" (sic) and her reference to CAFC's inability to fill the Valley. It merely serves to underscore the effectiveness of the campaign and the Trust's central role in it. Prague Addick and his colleagues could receive no higher accolade (and no, Karen, getting the name wrong won't make them go away).
@rikofold is right. The previous deal was stopped because of a complaint by a private individual to the EC, Steve Lawrence, an architect who worked on the OS project and is concerned about the legacy (and is not club aligned). It was pointed out to the LLDC that the deal envisaged would definitely break EC State Aid regulations. This one still might, but that's another story. So I thought it was pretty poor of Brady who knows that and yet said in todays' article the LLDC reneged on the deal. I wonder why she didn't want to mention the dreaded words "State Aid".
The Daily Mail - taking journalism beyond parody.
Those of you who are more up on the detail might be able to take this reply to pieces. The second paragraph seems utter bollocks to me because of how much detail is redacted (does anybody have in writing the 'redacted because of national security' response?) and the notion that if other users realise what a good deal West Ham are getting at our expense, they will want a piece of the action too! If anything her response reinforces what a give away (at our expense) the deal is for West Ham.
Dear (Seth Plum)
Thank you for your email. The following will hopefully explain why we are unable to release the whole deal to the public.
The Stadium will continue to remain in public ownership with West Ham as an anchor tenant on a 99 year lease. West Ham were awarded a long-term concession after winning a competitive tendering exercise which was conducted within EU rules and was open to any individual or company in Europe. This process has been tested in the courts and upheld. West Ham pay an annual rent to use the Stadium for around 25 days per year alongside a £15million contribution to the transformation costs and as anchor tenant will help make the Stadium financially stable over the long term. The Stadium will also be home to UK Athletics who have a 50 year agreement to use the Stadium every summer as the national competition centre for athletics.
We have already released much of the detail of the contract with West Ham United but there are certain elements that cannot be made public as they are commercially sensitive. We have appointed an operator to manage the Stadium on a day-to-day basis and part of their role is to attract other sports and entertainment into the venue. If other parties were aware of the detail of the West Ham contract then it would make it very difficult to negotiate the best deal possible which would in turn have an impact on the taxpayers’ investment.
The Stadium will be play a key role in the regeneration programme as whole which will deliver more than £3bn of economic benefit and 24,000 homes to London to ensure that these benefits are delivered we need to maintain the integrity of commercial negotiations whilst balancing transparency and as such in this case commercial details need to remain confidential.
Yours sincerely
Victoria Stonebridge
Communities and Business Manager
Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park
London Legacy Development Corporation
Level 10
1 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road
London
E20 1EJ
It's a flexible figure now.