I never thought I'd be writing this but I must say a word in defence of the Mail. I can't quite get my brain around how newspapers work bit it often seems like different departments compete with each other, and therefore stuff appears which can be contradictory. I suppose they would say that this all helps to present different viewpoints.
Anyway this month the Mail has run two articles from Stephen Wright and David Jones. Both were sharply critical, and we have been given to understand that they have a remit to go further. Both worked on the Steven Lawrence campaigning story, which I think we all have to recognise as being brave as well as a service to the nation, and in particular our own community. Wright won an award for it.
Now guess who will have more clout at the Mail, those two or some gobby sports writer sucking up to his own club.
Let's be patient. Puff pieces can be done in an hour or so, investigative stuff takes much longer.
@rikofold has uncovered that it's actually 75 days, since they have a day either side for set up and take down….That means weekend events are out if the Hammers are at home...
@rikofold has uncovered that it's actually 75 days, since they have a day either side for set up and take down….That means weekend events are out if the Hammers are at home...
Sorry, yes, I had seen that. But whereas previously there was the suggestion that WHU might have to groundshare for a few games if they were in the Europa League group stage, it's now a very flexible "around 25 days".
Mystery to me what they need a day on each side to do - isn't all the setup provided by the LLDC/me?
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
Level 10
1 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road
London
E20 1EJ
Isn't the bolded bit an admission that they sold it to Wet Spam at a knock down price that did have an impact on the taxpayer's investment, and don't want to be so foolish/cavalier with taxpayer's money again?
They should have negotiated the best deal possible for taxpayers in the first fecking place.
Edit: In fact the more I think about this the more I see this as the fundamental admission that would justify an inquiry into the deal - and from LLDC's lips!!
@rikofold has uncovered that it's actually 75 days, since they have a day either side for set up and take down….That means weekend events are out if the Hammers are at home...
There'll be open days and stuff as well.
Will they keep a presence close to Upton Park for POY events and the such like?
@rikofold has uncovered that it's actually 75 days, since they have a day either side for set up and take down….That means weekend events are out if the Hammers are at home...
There'll be open days and stuff as well.
Will they keep a presence close to Upton Park for POY events and the such like?
We suppose this is what Brady was alluding to today when she talked about them splashing £7m. You'd suppose they are renting space inside the stadium as their new HQ. At a market rate, I am sure :-)
I never thought I'd be writing this but I must say a word in defence of the Mail. I can't quite get my brain around how newspapers work bit it often seems like different departments compete with each other, and therefore stuff appears which can be contradictory. I suppose they would say that this all helps to present different viewpoints.
Anyway this month the Mail has run two articles from Stephen Wright and David Jones. Both were sharply critical, and we have been given to understand that they have a remit to go further. Both worked on the Steven Lawrence campaigning story, which I think we all have to recognise as being brave as well as a service to the nation, and in particular our own community. Wright won an award for it.
Now guess who will have more clout at the Mail, those two or some gobby sports writer sucking up to his own club.
Let's be patient. Puff pieces can be done in an hour or so, investigative stuff takes much longer.
We shall see. However, by its own standards of exacting prudery, shouldn't the Mail be horrified from the outset at the very idea of our Olympic legacy being tainted by association with the porn industry?
@rikofold has uncovered that it's actually 75 days, since they have a day either side for set up and take down….That means weekend events are out if the Hammers are at home...
And every weekend will have to be reserved as nobody would know what dates West Ham are at home until the fixtures are released. Eg someone approached and asked what Saturday's were available to hold an event in August 2016, they couldn't give you an answer until the release of the fixtures in June. Hardly ideal for organising and promoting a big event.
@rikofold has uncovered that it's actually 75 days, since they have a day either side for set up and take down….That means weekend events are out if the Hammers are at home...
And every weekend will have to be reserved as nobody would know what dates West Ham are at home until the fixtures are released. Eg someone approached and asked what Saturday's were available to hold an event in August 2016, they couldn't give you an answer until the release of the fixtures in June. Hardly ideal for organising and promoting a big event.
What will happen for cups, especially Europa/Champions League group stages, replays, etc? I wouldn't think anyone will want to pack away all the WHU stuff on Sunday, if there's a replay on Tuesday.
@rikofold has uncovered that it's actually 75 days, since they have a day either side for set up and take down….That means weekend events are out if the Hammers are at home...
And every weekend will have to be reserved as nobody would know what dates West Ham are at home until the fixtures are released. Eg someone approached and asked what Saturday's were available to hold an event in August 2016, they couldn't give you an answer until the release of the fixtures in June. Hardly ideal for organising and promoting a big event.
What will happen for cups, especially Europa/Champions League group stages, replays, etc? I wouldn't think anyone will want to pack away all the WHU stuff on Sunday, if there's a replay on Tuesday.
Hold on a minute, this is West Ham we're talking about...
Excellent...he should share with Andy Carroll. Just chatting with a Hamster in work and he tells me that Carroll is out again, having injured himself putting his shoe on!! Maybe it's the same one Sullivan keeps putting in his mouth!!
"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."
This is quite common in business practice, innit ? You are adamant this is about the best use of taxpayers' money, well, that's what Vinci/LLDC are trying to do by keeping certain figures out of the public domain for the time being. The best way to handle the taxpayers' money would have been to incorporate a footballing option in the design of the OS for post game multi purpose usage. That hasn't been done. Next best thing would have been to sell it to a club, either keeping an athletics legacy or not. This didn't happen either, not with Spurs, not with West Ham. The rent solution is the least attractive option for the taxpayer, but apparently still preferable to the white elephant option. For the final bidding process West Ham were the only big club left going in with a bid which gave them a terrific negotiating base. So the LLDC was still looking for the best possible deal. Which for them might have been an amount X for rent, naming rights, catering share, corporate seats/lounges income share etc. But West Ham as mentioned were the only viable solution left which the LLDC knew and West Ham too. So West Ham said: We are only prepared to pay amount y, take it or leave, we might as well stay where we are.
I understand you are concerned about the competitive balance in English football as it obviously already is a level playing field for all clubs up and down the divisions as it is. I very much doubt (especially once a court sees the deal between the LLDC and West Ham in detail) you will find any court in Europe (or FIFA) that will force the parties to renegotiate. It may give you a good feeling of having done something about big bad West Ham and the know-nothing twats in government and public services. It'll still be ultimately futile. The European Commission already said they don't see a case of state aid here.
"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."
This is quite common in business practice, innit ? You are adamant this is about the best use of taxpayers' money, well, that's what Vinci/LLDC are trying to do by keeping certain figures out of the public domain for the time being. The best way to handle the taxpayers' money would have been to incorporate a footballing option in the design of the OS for post game multi purpose usage. That hasn't been done. Next best thing would have been to sell it to a club, either keeping an athletics legacy or not. This didn't happen either, not with Spurs, not with West Ham. The rent solution is the least attractive option for the taxpayer, but apparently still preferable to the white elephant option. For the final bidding process West Ham were the only big club left going in with a bid which gave them a terrific negotiating base. So the LLDC was still looking for the best possible deal. Which for them might have been an amount X for rent, naming rights, catering share, corporate seats/lounges income share etc. But West Ham as mentioned were the only viable solution left which the LLDC knew and West Ham too. So West Ham said: We are only prepared to pay amount y, take it or leave, we might as well stay where we are.
I understand you are concerned about the competitive balance in English football as it obviously already is a level playing field for all clubs up and down the divisions as it is. I very much doubt (especially once a court sees the deal between the LLDC and West Ham in detail) you will find any court in Europe (or FIFA) that will force the parties to renegotiate. It may give you a good feeling of having done something about big bad West Ham and the know-nothing twats in government and public services. It'll still be ultimately futile. The European Commission already said they don't see a case of state aid here.
Yes very common in business practice - but that's business to business and not business to government where the National Audit Office has a role to play. Let's face it, based on some of the previous posts that you haven't responded to, the chances now of generating any significant additional income from the OS is pretty limited so not that much of a risk exposing the small print of the Wet Spam deal.
As I've said before although you don't accept it - for me this isn't about West Ham - it's about the use of taxpayers money.
I have however corrected one thing in your post - it's been 49 years since West Ham won the World Cup!
I do like the term Hamsters, I fail to feel insulted by that term...you'll see soon enough what other events will be hosted and you probably will also get to hear how much Vinci (and the taxpayer) will make from bringing in those events. Look at what Vinci usually does, they will not come in and run the OS for merely overseeing West Ham in there, they will make sure that the OS is busy all year round, even with the setup times involved whenever West Ham play there. I read West Ham have the OS for 25 games (included in the rental deal), each additional game (cup runs, European Cup, preseason friendly against Barcelona) will cost West Ham 100K.
This is from a letter from Denis Hone, chief executive of the LLDC: "In broad terms the deal provides WHU with a 99 year lease, which ensures the stadium has ongoing, year round use. With regards to financial payments by the club, they have made public their £15 contribution to the capital costs of transforming the stadium which is personally guaranteed by the owners. They will also pay an annual index linked usage fee which more than covers the cost of them hosting matches at the stadium. LLDC also negotiated a two pronged protection of taxpayers interest: WHU will pay the grantor a percentage of the uplift of the value of the club should the owners sell their shares after their move to the stadium, and if WHU's performance exceeds their baseline assumptions, the LLDC will receive performance payments. All annual and performance payments are RPI linked"
And this is from a West Ham spokesman in April 2015:
"Indeed, the European Commission looked into a complaint in relation to our move to Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in 2013 but 'decided not to further pursue' the matter. "The club was selected as anchor concessionaire following a fair, transparent and robust process that was open to any group or organisation in the country."
I want a link to what the European Commission said, not a quote from a West Ham press statement, thanks. You said it with such certainty that a link should be easy.
I want a link to what the European Commission said, not a quote from a West Ham press statement, thanks. You said it with such certainty that a link should be easy.
Sorry, couldn't find a link to the European Commission in relation to the OS. You can of course simply dismiss what the West Ham spokesman said which is fair enough. On the other hand I found several cases where the European Commission is actively investigating and monitoring state aid cases, especially in Holland. I couldn't find anything in relation to the European Commission investigating West Ham. But I know you're all currently busy working on the matter so there will be an investigation. Good luck with that!
I read West Ham have the OS for 25 games (included in the rental deal), each additional game (cup runs, European Cup, preseason friendly against Barcelona) will cost West Ham 100K.
Does it actually say that or are you dividing £2.5m by 25? If they take over the OS early to play euro qualifying rounds or preseason friendlies will they have to pay compensation to the BA.
Take this article for example. In which a fan says that taking a seat in the OS that is further away from the pitch than any seat in Upton Park is "too good an offer to refuse." Is it incontrovertible fact that "it doesn't get any better than that"?
I take quite a bit of info from various West Ham sources, yome turn out to be true, some less so. That 25 game thing is easy enough to manage, 25 games included in the rent, if at the end of the season you have more games than 25 then each game on top is another 100K in the coffers of the LLDC. Of course there may be seasons when no additional games will be needed anyway due to early cup exits, no Europa League (nevermind CL) and maybe just one friendly or preseason game.
I take quite a bit of info from various West Ham sources, yome turn out to be true, some less so. That 25 game thing is easy enough to manage, 25 games included in the rent, if at the end of the season you have more games than 25 then each game on top is another 100K in the coffers of the LLDC. Of course there may be seasons when no additional games will be needed anyway due to early cup exits, no Europa League (nevermind CL) and maybe just one friendly or preseason game.
And when you've taken off police costs, turnstile operators etc etc etc ...... ?
Comments
Anyway this month the Mail has run two articles from Stephen Wright and David Jones. Both were sharply critical, and we have been given to understand that they have a remit to go further. Both worked on the Steven Lawrence campaigning story, which I think we all have to recognise as being brave as well as a service to the nation, and in particular our own community. Wright won an award for it.
Now guess who will have more clout at the Mail, those two or some gobby sports writer sucking up to his own club.
Let's be patient. Puff pieces can be done in an hour or so, investigative stuff takes much longer.
Mystery to me what they need a day on each side to do - isn't all the setup provided by the LLDC/me?
They should have negotiated the best deal possible for taxpayers in the first fecking place.
Edit: In fact the more I think about this the more I see this as the fundamental admission that would justify an inquiry into the deal - and from LLDC's lips!!
Will they keep a presence close to Upton Park for POY events and the such like?
http://www.theguardian.com/football/picture/2015/aug/25/david-squires-on-david-sullivans-west-ham-fitness-tips
Just published in the Grauniad.....Great stuff!
This is quite common in business practice, innit ? You are adamant this is about the best use of taxpayers' money, well, that's what Vinci/LLDC are trying to do by keeping certain figures out of the public domain for the time being.
The best way to handle the taxpayers' money would have been to incorporate a footballing option in the design of the OS for post game multi purpose usage. That hasn't been done.
Next best thing would have been to sell it to a club, either keeping an athletics legacy or not. This didn't happen either, not with Spurs, not with West Ham.
The rent solution is the least attractive option for the taxpayer, but apparently still preferable to the white elephant option. For the final bidding process West Ham were the only big club left going in with a bid which gave them a terrific negotiating base.
So the LLDC was still looking for the best possible deal. Which for them might have been an amount X for rent, naming rights, catering share, corporate seats/lounges income share etc.
But West Ham as mentioned were the only viable solution left which the LLDC knew and West Ham too.
So West Ham said: We are only prepared to pay amount y, take it or leave, we might as well stay where we are.
I understand you are concerned about the competitive balance in English football as it obviously already is a level playing field for all clubs up and down the divisions as it is. I very much doubt (especially once a court sees the deal between the LLDC and West Ham in detail) you will find any court in Europe (or FIFA) that will force the parties to renegotiate. It may give you a good feeling of having done something about big bad West Ham and the know-nothing twats in government and public services.
It'll still be ultimately futile. The European Commission already said they don't see a case of state aid here.
As I've said before although you don't accept it - for me this isn't about West Ham - it's about the use of taxpayers money.
I have however corrected one thing in your post - it's been 49 years since West Ham won the World Cup!
As mentioned dozens of times, the gripe is not with the Hamsters, but with the other 'negotiating' parties.
I read West Ham have the OS for 25 games (included in the rental deal), each additional game (cup runs, European Cup, preseason friendly against Barcelona) will cost West Ham 100K.
This is from a letter from Denis Hone, chief executive of the LLDC:
"In broad terms the deal provides WHU with a 99 year lease, which ensures the stadium has ongoing, year round use. With regards to financial payments by the club, they have made public their £15 contribution to the capital costs of transforming the stadium which is personally guaranteed by the owners. They will also pay an annual index linked usage fee which more than covers the cost of them hosting matches at the stadium. LLDC also negotiated a two pronged protection of taxpayers interest: WHU will pay the grantor a percentage of the uplift of the value of the club should the owners sell their shares after their move to the stadium, and if WHU's performance exceeds their baseline assumptions, the LLDC will receive performance payments. All annual and performance payments are RPI linked"
And this is from a West Ham spokesman in April 2015:
"Indeed, the European Commission looked into a complaint in relation to our move to Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in 2013 but 'decided not to further pursue' the matter. "The club was selected as anchor concessionaire following a fair, transparent and robust process that was open to any group or organisation in the country."
I couldn't find anything in relation to the European Commission investigating West Ham.
But I know you're all currently busy working on the matter so there will be an investigation.
Good luck with that!
Does it actually say that or are you dividing £2.5m by 25? If they take over the OS early to play euro qualifying rounds or preseason friendlies will they have to pay compensation to the BA.
Take this article for example. In which a fan says that taking a seat in the OS that is further away from the pitch than any seat in Upton Park is "too good an offer to refuse." Is it incontrovertible fact that "it doesn't get any better than that"?
That 25 game thing is easy enough to manage, 25 games included in the rent, if at the end of the season you have more games than 25 then each game on top is another 100K in the coffers of the LLDC.
Of course there may be seasons when no additional games will be needed anyway due to early cup exits, no Europa League (nevermind CL) and maybe just one friendly or preseason game.