Yes, Ajax and Man City. Again though, a market and prices develop, depending on time, location, number of market participants etc. What may have been a good deal for all sides in Amsterdam or Manchestermight not work in London. That's what I meant telling you about market conditions. The OS was a special situation where many stupid mistakes brought us to a messy situation which vastly reduced the number of suitors. Could or should the deal have been similar to Manchester or Amsterdam ? Maybe. But it is not because this is a different scenario, resulting in different negotiations and different terms. Look at the catering alone. I know most fans do their serious boozing in pubs outside the stadiums anyway, but there are still food and drink stalls inside most stadiums that are being used so there is a market for it. Let's just assume that every second fan buys food and drink for five quid (very conservative estimate). That is 125K for 19 home games = 2.375 million per season on top of the rent and we haven't even mentioned naming rights income at that point.
Catering margins are typically around 8-12%, although is probably higher in stadia like this. But if it is 12% you're talking profit of 60p on a fiver. Let's say each seat spend £5, that's less than a million profit per annum. But of course West Ham take their share of revenues, and Vinci will have the lion's share of the profits. Not quite as rich for the taxpayer than you'd think, even if that margin was doubled.
You still won't be the ones dictating the terms of this deal to the LLDC or West Ham, a court of some sort might, but I reckon it's unlikely to happen. As fans of other clubs than West Ham ideally you'd want the OS be idle rather than having West Ham in there obviously unless it's on your terms. But those are not the terms the LLDC managed to get from West Ham in the real world. When you add all those redacted numbers up (which admittedly we can't do precisely yet) I reckon it's more likely than not it's a good deal for all parties which was always the most likely outcome as it is a compromise.
We know that 100% of the corporate hospitality revenue is retained by West Ham. We know ( from CAFC directors) that margins on corporate are massive. We know that the capacity for corporate at the OS is massive, dwarfing that at virtually every other stadium in the country. We know that the OS also has the best location in the country for such corporate, right next to the City, and even with its own airport.
Now, we were always told privately that it was this revenue that Gullivan we really interested in. But I heard that somewhere they even mentioned this once in the press. If anybody could track down such quotes and link them this would be most useful, since we can then ask the LLDC why they surrendered this revenue to West Ham
And that, @GermanEastEnder, should worry you. This is why Gullivan and Brady don't care that most of you will be so far back from the action you'll need binoculars. They don't care about you. So long as they get the corporate (who hardly watch matches) and the first 30k, they are laughing. The rest of you are just bunce. You know what I mean don't you, by that word? Yes I'm sure you do, with your remarkable command of English. Bunce is for example cheap tickets offered in schools south of the river. Bunce created by the fact that the taxpayer has made West Ham cost free. That, and only that, is why CAST have made it a specific Charlton campaign issue.
You still won't be the ones dictating the terms of this deal to the LLDC or West Ham, a court of some sort might, but I reckon it's unlikely to happen. As fans of other clubs than West Ham ideally you'd want the OS be idle rather than having West Ham in there obviously unless it's on your terms. But those are not the terms the LLDC managed to get from West Ham in the real world. When you add all those redacted numbers up (which admittedly we can't do precisely yet) I reckon it's more likely than not it's a good deal for all parties which was always the most likely outcome as it is a compromise.
You still won't be the ones dictating the terms of this deal to the LLDC or West Ham, a court of some sort might, but I reckon it's unlikely to happen. As fans of other clubs than West Ham ideally you'd want the OS be idle rather than having West Ham in there obviously unless it's on your terms. But those are not the terms the LLDC managed to get from West Ham in the real world. When you add all those redacted numbers up (which admittedly we can't do precisely yet) I reckon it's more likely than not it's a good deal for all parties which was always the most likely outcome as it is a compromise.
No, I'm very happy for West Ham to be in there. It's a good opportunity for them and a great opportunity to make the place pay. But it shouldn't be at any cost, and it shouldn't skew competition because so much state money is sponsoring the opportunity for a private commercial enterprise, particularly one with the turnover West Ham already has.
This is the point I think you and your West Ham pals are missing. It's not about West Ham, we don't want West Ham not to have the stadium - it's all about the deal, the state subsidy, and what results.
So you're agreeing that we should see the numbers? To me it would make sense - who knows, all this might go away were we to be apprised of more than Gullivan soundbites and diversions.
We know that 100% of the corporate hospitality revenue is retained by West Ham. We know ( from CAFC directors) that margins on corporate are massive. We know that the capacity for corporate at the OS is massive, dwarfing that at virtually every other stadium in the country. We know that the OS also has the best location in the country for such corporate, right next to the City, and even with its own airport.
Now, we were always told privately that it was this revenue that Gullivan we really interested in. But I heard that somewhere they even mentioned this once in the press. If anybody could track down such quotes and link them this would be most useful, since we can then ask the LLDC why they surrendered this revenue to West Ham
And that, @GermanEastEnder, should worry you. This is why Gullivan and Brady don't care that most of you will be so far back from the action you'll need binoculars. They don't care about you. So long as they get the corporate (who hardly watch matches) and the first 30k, they are laughing. The rest of you are just bunce. You know what I mean don't you, by that word? Yes I'm sure you do, with your remarkable command of English. Bunce is for example cheap tickets offered in schools south of the river. Bunce created by the fact that the taxpayer has made West Ham cost free. That, and only that, is why CAST have made it a specific Charlton campaign issue.
Here you go PA...courtesy of the Daily Mail again...I really must clean out my browser history!!!
Yes, let's see the numbers. Going in circles here a bit, but I get it that the LLDC might have got more out of this deal, but in the real world they simply didn't. West Ham are paying their way but they are also obviously benefitting hugely from the corporate income as you rightly mentioned. Nobody believes that our owners (or any football club owners) are into this just because they are benign, love football or feel the need to give back to the community. And besides: Who tells you that our board will merely use this for personal gain ? It will also be to safeguard the financial future of the club. It remains a compromise deal between the LLDC and West Ham, both giving some and getting some. You cannot expect a football club giving away all the major streams of income to the LLDc just for the privilege of playing in the OS. So West Ham apparently give away huge percentages of naming rights and catering income in the deal, yet you also want them to share the corporate income too on top of that. At some point (fine lines here) the deal becomes so unattractive that you are left with a public asset that no anchor concessionaire wants to use (not for 99 years anyway). I'm sure the LLDC tried to get their hands on corporate income from West Ham too, same as West Ham may have tried to get a bigger percentage on the naming rights (real money to be made there as Man City can testify for). Once the LLDC publish more details from the deal it will turn out to be the kind of compromise deal I described above. You are obviously entitled to feel that the LLDC may have given away too much. In the real world though it simply may be the best compromise they could get without running the risk of losing an anchor concessionaire for good. Bringing us back to the white elephant.
You still won't be the ones dictating the terms of this deal to the LLDC or West Ham, a court of some sort might, but I reckon it's unlikely to happen. As fans of other clubs than West Ham ideally you'd want the OS be idle rather than having West Ham in there obviously unless it's on your terms. But those are not the terms the LLDC managed to get from West Ham in the real world. When you add all those redacted numbers up (which admittedly we can't do precisely yet) I reckon it's more likely than not it's a good deal for all parties which was always the most likely outcome as it is a compromise.
No they wouldn't want it idle - it makes total sense for West Ham to be the tenants of the OS. I'm sure me and others are getting tired of repeating that!
So that's all they could have got in the real world? Gullivan reckoned that the move to the OS would value the club at £400m - that's FOUR times what they paid for it in 2010. Those figures would indicate that the deal must have been overwhelmingly beneficial for West Ham and that LLDC were incompetent (or corrupt) in not securing a better deal for TAXPAYERS that West Ham would have surely been prepared to pay.
Yes, let's see the numbers. Going in circles here a bit, but I get it that the LLDC might have got more out of this deal, but in the real world they simply didn't. West Ham are paying their way but they are also obviously benefitting hugely from the corporate income as you rightly mentioned. Nobody believes that our owners (or any football club owners) are into this just because they are benign, love football or feel the need to give back to the community. And besides: Who tells you that our board will merely use this for personal gain ? It will also be to safeguard the financial future of the club. It remains a compromise deal between the LLDC and West Ham, both giving some and getting some. You cannot expect a football club giving away all the major streams of income to the LLDc just for the privilege of playing in the OS. So West Ham apparently give away huge percentages of naming rights and catering income in the deal, yet you also want them to share the corporate income too on top of that. At some point (fine lines here) the deal becomes so unattractive that you are left with a public asset that no anchor concessionaire wants to use (not for 99 years anyway). I'm sure the LLDC tried to get their hands on corporate income from West Ham too, same as West Ham may have tried to get a bigger percentage on the naming rights (real money to be made there as Man City can testify for). Once the LLDC publish more details from the deal it will turn out to be the kind of compromise deal I described above. You are obviously entitled to feel that the LLDC may have given away too much. In the real world though it simply may be the best compromise they could get without running the risk of losing an anchor concessionaire for good. Bringing us back to the white elephant.
I am still to see any proof that Westham ARE paying their way
Yes, let's see the numbers. Going in circles here a bit, but I get it that the LLDC might have got more out of this deal, but in the real world they simply didn't. West Ham are paying their way but they are also obviously benefitting hugely from the corporate income as you rightly mentioned. Nobody believes that our owners (or any football club owners) are into this just because they are benign, love football or feel the need to give back to the community. And besides: Who tells you that our board will merely use this for personal gain ? It will also be to safeguard the financial future of the club. It remains a compromise deal between the LLDC and West Ham, both giving some and getting some. You cannot expect a football club giving away all the major streams of income to the LLDc just for the privilege of playing in the OS. So West Ham apparently give away huge percentages of naming rights and catering income in the deal, yet you also want them to share the corporate income too on top of that. At some point (fine lines here) the deal becomes so unattractive that you are left with a public asset that no anchor concessionaire wants to use (not for 99 years anyway). I'm sure the LLDC tried to get their hands on corporate income from West Ham too, same as West Ham may have tried to get a bigger percentage on the naming rights (real money to be made there as Man City can testify for). Once the LLDC publish more details from the deal it will turn out to be the kind of compromise deal I described above. You are obviously entitled to feel that the LLDC may have given away too much. In the real world though it simply may be the best compromise they could get without running the risk of losing an anchor concessionaire for good. Bringing us back to the white elephant.
Clearly you are more in the know than the rest of the world, so save everyone the trouble and publish the contract and put an end to it, prove that our fears are misplaced and we will be happy. It might be time for you to come clear about who you really are, as you are clearly in the know about more than the collective people trying to expose the deal for what it is, a bad deal for the general public.
All 16 "super boxes" are sold on 3 year terms, giving WHam revenue surety for first 3 years, explaining why they have focused on selling all 3,600 corporate seats!
A box at the Boleyn costs £40,000...fast forward to the OS and that cost is now £120,000 per season.
So WHam have made back over a third of their outlay in just three years. Their £15m contribution towards the conversion costs, made almost exclusively for their benefit, which remained the same despite actual costs trebling since the first quote,in 2011, of £95m.
Yes, let's see the numbers. Going in circles here a bit, but I get it that the LLDC might have got more out of this deal, but in the real world they simply didn't. West Ham are paying their way but they are also obviously benefitting hugely from the corporate income as you rightly mentioned. Nobody believes that our owners (or any football club owners) are into this just because they are benign, love football or feel the need to give back to the community. And besides: Who tells you that our board will merely use this for personal gain ? It will also be to safeguard the financial future of the club. It remains a compromise deal between the LLDC and West Ham, both giving some and getting some. You cannot expect a football club giving away all the major streams of income to the LLDc just for the privilege of playing in the OS. So West Ham apparently give away huge percentages of naming rights and catering income in the deal, yet you also want them to share the corporate income too on top of that. At some point (fine lines here) the deal becomes so unattractive that you are left with a public asset that no anchor concessionaire wants to use (not for 99 years anyway). I'm sure the LLDC tried to get their hands on corporate income from West Ham too, same as West Ham may have tried to get a bigger percentage on the naming rights (real money to be made there as Man City can testify for). Once the LLDC publish more details from the deal it will turn out to be the kind of compromise deal I described above. You are obviously entitled to feel that the LLDC may have given away too much. In the real world though it simply may be the best compromise they could get without running the risk of losing an anchor concessionaire for good. Bringing us back to the white elephant.
West Ham give away nothing - they signed a deal for which they receive an awful lot. For pretty much net zero costs to West Ham. That they haven't secured absolutely everything is hardly down to the altruism of the porn boys, is it?
Let's get this right. You can essentially build margin in two ways - increase revenues, reduce costs. Preferably both. Well West Ham are doing both, spectacularly so. Had this been a deal with a private landlord I would be applauding your owners for pulling off an amazing commercial deal.
Except the private market would never afford this kind of deal to West Ham, would it? If Gullivan/Brady was running LLDC, would a football club have walked away with what they have? No, West Ham can only have this deal because the state is prepared to put so much of its own money in. The LLDC have allowed West Ham to essentially reside in the stadium for zero net cost, or rather for them zero net operational revenue - yet we're supposed to swallow the line they're doing what any private market operator would do? Hmm.
Every single penny of revenue West Ham receive from the deal is margin. It's margin! Forgive me, but I'm not about to mourn that the catering, the naming rights, doesn't all go into your pockets.
It's a crazy deal, a million miles away from what any other football club in the world could achieve without state subsidy. And it's insulting that our representatives are trying to tell us it's the best they could have got.
Yes, let's see the numbers. Going in circles here a bit, but I get it that the LLDC might have got more out of this deal, but in the real world they simply didn't. West Ham are paying their way but they are also obviously benefitting hugely from the corporate income as you rightly mentioned. Nobody believes that our owners (or any football club owners) are into this just because they are benign, love football or feel the need to give back to the community. And besides: Who tells you that our board will merely use this for personal gain ? It will also be to safeguard the financial future of the club. It remains a compromise deal between the LLDC and West Ham, both giving some and getting some. You cannot expect a football club giving away all the major streams of income to the LLDc just for the privilege of playing in the OS. So West Ham apparently give away huge percentages of naming rights and catering income in the deal, yet you also want them to share the corporate income too on top of that. At some point (fine lines here) the deal becomes so unattractive that you are left with a public asset that no anchor concessionaire wants to use (not for 99 years anyway). I'm sure the LLDC tried to get their hands on corporate income from West Ham too, same as West Ham may have tried to get a bigger percentage on the naming rights (real money to be made there as Man City can testify for). Once the LLDC publish more details from the deal it will turn out to be the kind of compromise deal I described above. You are obviously entitled to feel that the LLDC may have given away too much. In the real world though it simply may be the best compromise they could get without running the risk of losing an anchor concessionaire for good. Bringing us back to the white elephant.
Clearly you are more in the know than the rest of the world, so save everyone the trouble and publish the contract and put an end to it, prove that our fears are misplaced and we will be happy. It might be time for you to come clear about who you really are, as you are clearly in the know about more than the collective people trying to expose the deal for what it is, a bad deal for the general public.
Boris is a German name and he does have German ancestry.
I swear I read on this thread that West Ham got to keep all the proceeds of the sale of their old ground, whereas a Hammer is convinced that they are not making any money from vacating Upton Park. Is there any source for the exact amount West Ham will be benefiting by from the sale of their old ground?
A bad deal for the general public ? With the terms being changed over and over agin during various bidding processes it is amazing that they endep up with anybody left willing to sign a 99 year lease without owning anything at the OS and having to accept a lot of compromises. Even if I was in the know as some of you may think I obviously wouldn't be allowed to publish anything. Look, you want the numbers, so do I, but the LLDC apparently wants to keep some of those secret for the time being to protect their business interests (on behalf of stadium operator Vinci) in order to get some other events in there as well on favourable terms. I maintain that it needed some financial sweeteners purely to get a football club interersted in a 99 year lease at all, that is the price the LLDC had to pay for all the mistakes that were committed years ago. Isn't it weird that you have this glorious fan coalition now fighting all this while your official club hierachies are not involved in any legal challenges ? Maybe it's because they realise that the deal is very likely to be very watertight in a legal sense due to dozens of legal expets making sure of that on behalf of the LLDC and West Ham. If there really is so much wrong with this deal, why aren't all those other clubs from your coalition on this case ?
I swear I read on this thread that West Ham got to keep all the proceeds of the sale of their old ground, whereas a Hammer is convinced that they are not making any money from vacating Upton Park. Is there any source for the exact amount West Ham will be benefiting by from the sale of their old ground?
Redacted!!
I believe the proceeds of sale will be theirs - and the LLDC even say that they won't have to pay the piffling £15m towards the conversion costs UNTIL West Ham get the proceeds from the sale of UP.
It was reported that Gaillard Group paid short of the £71m asking price - but how much short I'm not sure.
@GermanEastEnder - You keep saying the LLDC had to make compromises in order to get a football club interested in the OS, whilst the reality seems to be that West Ham were keen from the the very first moment the idea was mooted, Leyton Orient were interested too. Far from the LLDC having to offer amazingly favourable terms in order to get a tenant in, West Ham seems to have bitten their arm off at the opportunity and then found the LLDC were still willing to bend over backwards to accommodate them.
It reminds me of the situation when Seth Johnson signed for Leeds. His agent said to him before they spoke to Leeds that Risdale was splashing the cash and he reckoned he could get £35k a week (a huge sum at the time). They walked in to meet Risdale and his opening line was along the lines of "We can't possibly got above £40k a week". The LLDC seem to have managed to outdo Risdale on the shockingly poor negotiating skills front.
All 16 "super boxes" are sold on 3 year terms, giving WHam revenue surety for first 3 years, explaining why they have focused on selling all 3,600 corporate seats!
A box at the Boleyn costs £40,000...fast forward to the OS and that cost is now £120,000 per season.
So WHam have made back over a third of their outlay in just three years. Their £15m contribution towards the conversion costs, made almost exclusively for their benefit, which remained the same despite actual costs trebling since the first quote,in 2011, of £95m.
I understand West Ham have 67 boxes today - that would be £5m a season at Upton Park @£40k. £40k is £200 a game per seat.
At the Olympic Stadium West Ham have 3700 Club London places that according to Sean Whetstone attract £2-300 a month additional fees. If that's over 12 months, that's up to £13m pa (£300 x 3700 x 12 months).
I would be surprised if, with just 16 super boxes, the same box prices apply. I wouldn't be amazed if they went for £1000 a seat per game, but let's work to £500 to be conservative. Thats £5000 per box per game, or another £1.5m. I think that's conservative though.
So for net zero cost, West Ham's corporate income alone will almost certainly reap them in excess of £15m a year just from super boxes and Club London. And that's not it for corporate/VIP hospitality.
GermanEastEnder have you signed the petition yet? You are remarkably resilient in standing up for West Ham and for that you deserve credit, even if you seem to be defending the indefensible. This is a government (i.e.us) and private company (i.e. West Ham) initiative. if it is all so great then explain why any secrecy at all with taxpayers money? It can't be 'commercially sensitive' for a stack of reasons, not least because it is not a business to business arrangement. Get the whole thing out in the open for public scrutiny, because secrecy, combined with the eye watering amounts being bandied around, makes an old cynic like me assume that there are bribes, hush money, sweetners and corruption going on, on quite an industrial scale which explains the rather feeble yet co-ordinated response from West Ham lovers, and those who may have a vested interest. It would be so simple, and so easy to put to bed all the doubters if it was all out in the open and subject to scrutiny. On a side issue, unless the owners have allowed Upton Park to fall into terminal disrepair, that stadium seems to me to be a fine football ground, with a loyal local support, and there is no particular reason to betray the current West Ham fans who love the place, however when vast sums of money are to be grabbed by the greedy, the decent loyal West H.am fans who are resistant to change are being treated like pawns and fodder. Step One Reveal all the details of the deal down to the last penny and the smallest screw, after all it is our money being played with.
I swear I read on this thread that West Ham got to keep all the proceeds of the sale of their old ground, whereas a Hammer is convinced that they are not making any money from vacating Upton Park. Is there any source for the exact amount West Ham will be benefiting by from the sale of their old ground?
Redacted!!
I believe the proceeds of sale will be theirs - and the LLDC even say that they won't have to pay the piffling £15m towards the conversion costs UNTIL West Ham get the proceeds from the sale of UP.
It was reported that Gaillard Group paid short of the £71m asking price - but how much short I'm not sure.
I cannot imagine that much short. So basically West Ham could have in the region of £60m extra transfer fee revenue and because all of this lovely money has been provided by the taxpayer it for some reason lies outside of FFP, unless someone can reassure me otherwise that the hundreds of millions in public losses will be included in West Ham's FFP calculation.
I think someone with the knowledge to concisely sum up the basis for the petition should add their comments to the Standard's comment box. Standard ran story about Man Utd group joining in at lunchtime.
I think someone with the knowledge to concisely sum up the basis for the petition should add their comments to the Standard's comment box. Standard ran story about Man Utd group joining in at lunchtime.
I'm surprised that Man Utd and Liverpool haven't jumped on this, considering London is where most of their fans seem to live.
A bad deal for the general public ? With the terms being changed over and over agin during various bidding processes it is amazing that they endep up with anybody left willing to sign a 99 year lease without owning anything at the OS and having to accept a lot of compromises. Even if I was in the know as some of you may think I obviously wouldn't be allowed to publish anything. Look, you want the numbers, so do I, but the LLDC apparently wants to keep some of those secret for the time being to protect their business interests (on behalf of stadium operator Vinci) in order to get some other events in there as well on favourable terms. I maintain that it needed some financial sweeteners purely to get a football club interersted in a 99 year lease at all, that is the price the LLDC had to pay for all the mistakes that were committed years ago. Isn't it weird that you have this glorious fan coalition now fighting all this while your official club hierachies are not involved in any legal challenges ? Maybe it's because they realise that the deal is very likely to be very watertight in a legal sense due to dozens of legal expets making sure of that on behalf of the LLDC and West Ham. If there really is so much wrong with this deal, why aren't all those other clubs from your coalition on this case ?
A deal can be water tight, legally - but still unfair and imbalanced to one side of the agreement. The fact that in this case the other side is the taxpayer makes it public interest.
We don't know if there's anything 'so much wrong' with this private sector/public sector deal because neither party wants to share the details.
A bad deal for the general public ? With the terms being changed over and over agin during various bidding processes it is amazing that they endep up with anybody left willing to sign a 99 year lease without owning anything at the OS and having to accept a lot of compromises. Even if I was in the know as some of you may think I obviously wouldn't be allowed to publish anything. Look, you want the numbers, so do I, but the LLDC apparently wants to keep some of those secret for the time being to protect their business interests (on behalf of stadium operator Vinci) in order to get some other events in there as well on favourable terms. I maintain that it needed some financial sweeteners purely to get a football club interersted in a 99 year lease at all, that is the price the LLDC had to pay for all the mistakes that were committed years ago. Isn't it weird that you have this glorious fan coalition now fighting all this while your official club hierachies are not involved in any legal challenges ? Maybe it's because they realise that the deal is very likely to be very watertight in a legal sense due to dozens of legal expets making sure of that on behalf of the LLDC and West Ham. If there really is so much wrong with this deal, why aren't all those other clubs from your coalition on this case ?
I think it's got more to do with the fact football clubs have to do business with each other.
I swear I read on this thread that West Ham got to keep all the proceeds of the sale of their old ground, whereas a Hammer is convinced that they are not making any money from vacating Upton Park. Is there any source for the exact amount West Ham will be benefiting by from the sale of their old ground?
Redacted!!
I believe the proceeds of sale will be theirs - and the LLDC even say that they won't have to pay the piffling £15m towards the conversion costs UNTIL West Ham get the proceeds from the sale of UP.
It was reported that Gaillard Group paid short of the £71m asking price - but how much short I'm not sure.
I cannot imagine that much short. So basically West Ham could have in the region of £60m extra transfer fee revenue and because all of this lovely money has been provided by the taxpayer it for some reason lies outside of FFP, unless someone can reassure me otherwise that the hundreds of millions in public losses will be included in West Ham's FFP calculation.
The £71m was West Ham's valuation of the ground in 2013. This, if memory serves, was based on a rebuild cost. By 2014 they'd written £55m of that value off, by virtue of changing the accounting basis so that it reflected the actual expenditure of building the original ground. Frankly, for what Galliard stand to gain from that deal (over £330m according to Whetstone) I'd be amazed if it went for less than £60m - yet of course Brady keeps banging on about how she hopes there will be enough from that deal to cover the cost of their stadium investment.
If they weren't so relentlessly and transparently disingenuous, maybe we'd be more generous with them.
Isn't it weird that you have this glorious fan coalition now fighting all this while your official club hierachies are not involved in any legal challenges ? Maybe it's because they realise that the deal is very likely to be very watertight in a legal sense due to dozens of legal expets making sure of that on behalf of the LLDC and West Ham. If there really is so much wrong with this deal, why aren't all those other clubs from your coalition on this case ?
Oh dear. You really didn't read my comment earlier about your mate Mr Whetstone making himself a hostage to fortune, did you?
I would not myself be so rash as to predict whether any clubs will take legal action, however I have reason to believe that the option may be at least being reviewed by unknown clubs.
That is because late in July I received a very polite email from a world famous law firm asking for some small information to assist them in a football related matter. That is not the type of email I get every day. In fact when i saw the address come up my first reaction was WTF and then that it must be spam. It wasn't. We had a nice dialogue. More than that I would not wish to say, since I am sure The Baroness has people watching this site now (or maybe she does it herself, she told the Mail that she negotiated the contract all on her lonesome, just a wee girl against all those big powerful suits :-)). But you know, my advice is, don't gob off more than you know or can reasonably forecast. We are a pretty civil bunch but we are merciless with gobby visitors who end up looking silly as a result of events. That is why all our friends from Millwall have disappeared from the forum :-)
"GermanEastEnder" you amaze me by still repeating the same things. You are a very articulated man with excellent english, so please understand, I like many others are not against West Ham moving into the OS. I'm inclined to think you were or are in someway either involved in this deal or perhaps just knowledgeable of contracts like this.
"GermanEastEnder" you amaze me by still repeating the same things. You are a very articulated man with excellent english, so please understand, I like many others are not against West Ham moving into the OS. I'm inclined to think you were or are in someway either involved in this deal or perhaps just knowledgeable of contracts like this.
He must have some knowledge of the deal as he just casually ignores all the points made about the deal and keeps repeating the old 'your just jealous' cliche
Comments
But we need to know the numbers, right?
But those are not the terms the LLDC managed to get from West Ham in the real world.
When you add all those redacted numbers up (which admittedly we can't do precisely yet) I reckon it's more likely than not it's a good deal for all parties which was always the most likely outcome as it is a compromise.
Now, we were always told privately that it was this revenue that Gullivan we really interested in. But I heard that somewhere they even mentioned this once in the press. If anybody could track down such quotes and link them this would be most useful, since we can then ask the LLDC why they surrendered this revenue to West Ham
And that, @GermanEastEnder, should worry you. This is why Gullivan and Brady don't care that most of you will be so far back from the action you'll need binoculars. They don't care about you. So long as they get the corporate (who hardly watch matches) and the first 30k, they are laughing. The rest of you are just bunce. You know what I mean don't you, by that word? Yes I'm sure you do, with your remarkable command of English. Bunce is for example cheap tickets offered in schools south of the river. Bunce created by the fact that the taxpayer has made West Ham cost free. That, and only that, is why CAST have made it a specific Charlton campaign issue.
This is the point I think you and your West Ham pals are missing. It's not about West Ham, we don't want West Ham not to have the stadium - it's all about the deal, the state subsidy, and what results.
So you're agreeing that we should see the numbers? To me it would make sense - who knows, all this might go away were we to be apprised of more than Gullivan soundbites and diversions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2872939/West-Ham-bank-100-cent-corporate-match-day-revenue-terms-Olympic-Stadium-lease.html
Nobody believes that our owners (or any football club owners) are into this just because they are benign, love football or feel the need to give back to the community.
And besides: Who tells you that our board will merely use this for personal gain ? It will also be to safeguard the financial future of the club.
It remains a compromise deal between the LLDC and West Ham, both giving some and getting some.
You cannot expect a football club giving away all the major streams of income to the LLDc just for the privilege of playing in the OS. So West Ham apparently give away huge percentages of naming rights and catering income in the deal, yet you also want them to share the corporate income too on top of that.
At some point (fine lines here) the deal becomes so unattractive that you are left with a public asset that no anchor concessionaire wants to use (not for 99 years anyway).
I'm sure the LLDC tried to get their hands on corporate income from West Ham too, same as West Ham may have tried to get a bigger percentage on the naming rights (real money to be made there as Man City can testify for).
Once the LLDC publish more details from the deal it will turn out to be the kind of compromise deal I described above. You are obviously entitled to feel that the LLDC may have given away too much.
In the real world though it simply may be the best compromise they could get without running the risk of losing an anchor concessionaire for good. Bringing us back to the white elephant.
So that's all they could have got in the real world? Gullivan reckoned that the move to the OS would value the club at £400m - that's FOUR times what they paid for it in 2010. Those figures would indicate that the deal must have been overwhelmingly beneficial for West Ham and that LLDC were incompetent (or corrupt) in not securing a better deal for TAXPAYERS that West Ham would have surely been prepared to pay.
West Ham "gave away" catering income
The taxpayer "tried to get their hands on" corporate income
Whose ground is it?
The rest of your post is an argument for transparency, and therefore an argument in favour of signing the petition.
http://www.sportspromedia.com/magazine_features/home_under_the_hammers
All 16 "super boxes" are sold on 3 year terms, giving WHam revenue surety for first 3 years, explaining why they have focused on selling all 3,600 corporate seats!
A box at the Boleyn costs £40,000...fast forward to the OS and that cost is now £120,000 per season.
So WHam have made back over a third of their outlay in just three years. Their £15m contribution towards the conversion costs, made almost exclusively for their benefit, which remained the same despite actual costs trebling since the first quote,in 2011, of £95m.
Let's get this right. You can essentially build margin in two ways - increase revenues, reduce costs. Preferably both. Well West Ham are doing both, spectacularly so. Had this been a deal with a private landlord I would be applauding your owners for pulling off an amazing commercial deal.
Except the private market would never afford this kind of deal to West Ham, would it? If Gullivan/Brady was running LLDC, would a football club have walked away with what they have? No, West Ham can only have this deal because the state is prepared to put so much of its own money in. The LLDC have allowed West Ham to essentially reside in the stadium for zero net cost, or rather for them zero net operational revenue - yet we're supposed to swallow the line they're doing what any private market operator would do? Hmm.
Every single penny of revenue West Ham receive from the deal is margin. It's margin! Forgive me, but I'm not about to mourn that the catering, the naming rights, doesn't all go into your pockets.
It's a crazy deal, a million miles away from what any other football club in the world could achieve without state subsidy. And it's insulting that our representatives are trying to tell us it's the best they could have got.
You may have cracked it @Strasburger
I swear I read on this thread that West Ham got to keep all the proceeds of the sale of their old ground, whereas a Hammer is convinced that they are not making any money from vacating Upton Park. Is there any source for the exact amount West Ham will be benefiting by from the sale of their old ground?
Even if I was in the know as some of you may think I obviously wouldn't be allowed to publish anything.
Look, you want the numbers, so do I, but the LLDC apparently wants to keep some of those secret for the time being to protect their business interests (on behalf of stadium operator Vinci) in order to get some other events in there as well on favourable terms.
I maintain that it needed some financial sweeteners purely to get a football club interersted in a 99 year lease at all, that is the price the LLDC had to pay for all the mistakes that were committed years ago.
Isn't it weird that you have this glorious fan coalition now fighting all this while your official club hierachies are not involved in any legal challenges ?
Maybe it's because they realise that the deal is very likely to be very watertight in a legal sense due to dozens of legal expets making sure of that on behalf of the LLDC and West Ham.
If there really is so much wrong with this deal, why aren't all those other clubs from your coalition on this case ?
I believe the proceeds of sale will be theirs - and the LLDC even say that they won't have to pay the piffling £15m towards the conversion costs UNTIL West Ham get the proceeds from the sale of UP.
It was reported that Gaillard Group paid short of the £71m asking price - but how much short I'm not sure.
It reminds me of the situation when Seth Johnson signed for Leeds. His agent said to him before they spoke to Leeds that Risdale was splashing the cash and he reckoned he could get £35k a week (a huge sum at the time). They walked in to meet Risdale and his opening line was along the lines of "We can't possibly got above £40k a week". The LLDC seem to have managed to outdo Risdale on the shockingly poor negotiating skills front.
At the Olympic Stadium West Ham have 3700 Club London places that according to Sean Whetstone attract £2-300 a month additional fees. If that's over 12 months, that's up to £13m pa (£300 x 3700 x 12 months).
I would be surprised if, with just 16 super boxes, the same box prices apply. I wouldn't be amazed if they went for £1000 a seat per game, but let's work to £500 to be conservative. Thats £5000 per box per game, or another £1.5m. I think that's conservative though.
So for net zero cost, West Ham's corporate income alone will almost certainly reap them in excess of £15m a year just from super boxes and Club London. And that's not it for corporate/VIP hospitality.
This is a government (i.e.us) and private company (i.e. West Ham) initiative.
if it is all so great then explain why any secrecy at all with taxpayers money? It can't be 'commercially sensitive' for a stack of reasons, not least because it is not a business to business arrangement.
Get the whole thing out in the open for public scrutiny, because secrecy, combined with the eye watering amounts being bandied around, makes an old cynic like me assume that there are bribes, hush money, sweetners and corruption going on, on quite an industrial scale which explains the rather feeble yet co-ordinated response from West Ham lovers, and those who may have a vested interest.
It would be so simple, and so easy to put to bed all the doubters if it was all out in the open and subject to scrutiny.
On a side issue, unless the owners have allowed Upton Park to fall into terminal disrepair, that stadium seems to me to be a fine football ground, with a loyal local support, and there is no particular reason to betray the current West Ham fans who love the place, however when vast sums of money are to be grabbed by the greedy, the decent loyal West H.am fans who are resistant to change are being treated like pawns and fodder.
Step One
Reveal all the details of the deal down to the last penny and the smallest screw, after all it is our money being played with.
Deal just gets better and better doesn't it! Not for the taxpayer, obviously!!
We don't know if there's anything 'so much wrong' with this private sector/public sector deal because neither party wants to share the details.
If they weren't so relentlessly and transparently disingenuous, maybe we'd be more generous with them.
I would not myself be so rash as to predict whether any clubs will take legal action, however I have reason to believe that the option may be at least being reviewed by unknown clubs.
That is because late in July I received a very polite email from a world famous law firm asking for some small information to assist them in a football related matter. That is not the type of email I get every day. In fact when i saw the address come up my first reaction was WTF and then that it must be spam. It wasn't. We had a nice dialogue. More than that I would not wish to say, since I am sure The Baroness has people watching this site now (or maybe she does it herself, she told the Mail that she negotiated the contract all on her lonesome, just a wee girl against all those big powerful suits :-)). But you know, my advice is, don't gob off more than you know or can reasonably forecast. We are a pretty civil bunch but we are merciless with gobby visitors who end up looking silly as a result of events. That is why all our friends from Millwall have disappeared from the forum :-)
I'm inclined to think you were or are in someway either involved in this deal or perhaps just knowledgeable of contracts like this.