My office only works Mon.-Fri. but I'm paying rent for the entire month! How can I tell my landlord that I will only be paying for the days I'm actually there and open for business? #smallbusinessambassador
West Ham are paying for the seat reconfiguration themselves. So the seating should not be changed now, right, to reflect West Ham's presence there as anchor concessionaire? What do you want ? A club renting for 99 years, paying for the whole conversion, giving up the majority of income streams and having no club colours in there at all ? It's a bloody give and take. The LLDC wanted someone to lease the OS for 99 years, so they needed to make this an attractive offer. West Ham are contributing in relation to the number of days they will use the stadium. It can of course be argued whether they should have contributed more, but that is a question you have to put to the LLDC who will probably say they couldn't get more contribution upfront without the anchor concessionaire becoming disinterested in closing a deal altogether. Your asking for a bigger contribution is understandable, but with that comes the question how much contribution upfront you can realistically demand from a club tying itself to that stadium for 99 years without having ownership of the place or benefitting from the staging of other events in there, events that will also improve from the various conversion works. Most events need a roof, most events need seating that is close to the pitch. If West Ham paid 50 million towards conversion would you be happy with West Ham getting a bigger share of the naming rights for the next 99 years as a result of that bigger contribution ?
I'll tell you the sort of deal I would have done if I were leading the negotiations on behalf of the LLDC.
- 99 year fully repairable lease with option to renew/extend/escape at xx years - any seat colour changes etc... fine but would need to be returned to original if lease not renewed. - Rental of £5m pa - increases year on year linked to CPI or similar (that gets the original construction costs back over the lifetime of the lease) - WH meet the full £170m costs of conversion with 75% of that covered by an interest free loan from LLDC only repayable out of proceeds above xxxm if/when club was sold or if lease not renewed or escape clause activated. - No Stadium naming rights - it stays THE OLYMPIC STADIUM
The Stadium with the retail etc.. is then West Hams in full and any additional revenue generated from other uses would be theirs - with perhaps some copper plate deals for Athletics built in.
Edit: Plus West Ham meet the full match day running costs, police, security etc... like all other clubs have to.
Yes because you have a business brain and some understanding of the football business. It would appear that no-one on the LLDC side had that all, even though Brady was whining about their legions. So I have been wondering who these legions consist of. And I thought that, since the LLDC have not heard from me in a while, they might like another FOI on the question….
I agree with this actually, not least because whilst the seats at the CoMS are sky blue there is no lettering made out from the seats. It is not their stadium.
West Ham are paying for the seat reconfiguration themselves. So the seating should not be changed now, right, to reflect West Ham's presence there as anchor concessionaire? What do you want ? A club renting for 99 years, paying for the whole conversion, giving up the majority of income streams and having no club colours in there at all ? It's a bloody give and take. The LLDC wanted someone to lease the OS for 99 years, so they needed to make this an attractive offer. West Ham are contributing in relation to the number of days they will use the stadium. It can of course be argued whether they should have contributed more, but that is a question you have to put to the LLDC who will probably say they couldn't get more contribution upfront without the anchor concessionaire becoming disinterested in closing a deal altogether. Your asking for a bigger contribution is understandable, but with that comes the question how much contribution upfront you can realistically demand from a club tying itself to that stadium for 99 years without having ownership of the place or benefitting from the staging of other events in there, events that will also improve from the various conversion works. Most events need a roof, most events need seating that is close to the pitch. If West Ham paid 50 million towards conversion would you be happy with West Ham getting a bigger share of the naming rights for the next 99 years as a result of that bigger contribution ?
I'll tell you the sort of deal I would have done if I were leading the negotiations on behalf of the LLDC.
- 99 year fully repairable lease with option to renew/extend/escape at xx years - any seat colour changes etc... fine but would need to be returned to original if lease not renewed. - Rental of £5m pa - increases year on year linked to CPI or similar (that gets the original construction costs back over the lifetime of the lease) - WH meet the full £170m costs of conversion with 75% of that covered by an interest free loan from LLDC only repayable out of proceeds above xxxm if/when club was sold or if lease not renewed or escape clause activated. - No Stadium naming rights - it stays THE OLYMPIC STADIUM
The Stadium with the retail etc.. is then West Hams in full and any additional revenue generated from other uses would be theirs - with perhaps some copper plate deals for Athletics built in.
Edit: Plus West Ham meet the full match day running costs, police, security etc... like all other clubs have to.
Yes because you have a business brain and some understanding of the football business. It would appear that no-one on the LLDC side had that all, even though Brady was whining about their legions. So I have been wondering who these legions consist of. And I thought that, since the LLDC have not heard from me in a while, they might like another FOI on the question….
West Ham are paying for the seat reconfiguration themselves. So the seating should not be changed now, right, to reflect West Ham's presence there as anchor concessionaire? What do you want ? A club renting for 99 years, paying for the whole conversion, giving up the majority of income streams and having no club colours in there at all ? It's a bloody give and take. The LLDC wanted someone to lease the OS for 99 years, so they needed to make this an attractive offer. West Ham are contributing in relation to the number of days they will use the stadium. It can of course be argued whether they should have contributed more, but that is a question you have to put to the LLDC who will probably say they couldn't get more contribution upfront without the anchor concessionaire becoming disinterested in closing a deal altogether. Your asking for a bigger contribution is understandable, but with that comes the question how much contribution upfront you can realistically demand from a club tying itself to that stadium for 99 years without having ownership of the place or benefitting from the staging of other events in there, events that will also improve from the various conversion works. Most events need a roof, most events need seating that is close to the pitch. If West Ham paid 50 million towards conversion would you be happy with West Ham getting a bigger share of the naming rights for the next 99 years as a result of that bigger contribution ?
I'll tell you the sort of deal I would have done if I were leading the negotiations on behalf of the LLDC.
- 99 year fully repairable lease with option to renew/extend/escape at xx years - any seat colour changes etc... fine but would need to be returned to original if lease not renewed. - Rental of £5m pa - increases year on year linked to CPI or similar (that gets the original construction costs back over the lifetime of the lease) - WH meet the full £170m costs of conversion with 75% of that covered by an interest free loan from LLDC only repayable out of proceeds above xxxm if/when club was sold or if lease not renewed or escape clause activated. - No Stadium naming rights - it stays THE OLYMPIC STADIUM
The Stadium with the retail etc.. is then West Hams in full and any additional revenue generated from other uses would be theirs - with perhaps some copper plate deals for Athletics built in.
Edit: Plus West Ham meet the full match day running costs, police, security etc... like all other clubs have to.
I have no objection to claret and blue seats, but as the stadium is multi-use there shouldn't be any permanent West Ham lettering in the seats.
But it's hard to argue with this. West Ham still makes a fortune, they still become a bigger club, but they do it through football economics rather than public money.
I've been trying to put together a business case to stay at Upton Park - does anyone know how much it would have cost them to build their replacement East Stand had they stayed? I'm looking at Liverpool's, which is around £75m plus land etc. West Ham wouldn't need to buy land, but I'm imagining that a 10k seater stand would cost no less than £50m, am I right?
West Ham are paying for the seat reconfiguration themselves. So the seating should not be changed now, right, to reflect West Ham's presence there as anchor concessionaire? What do you want ? A club renting for 99 years, paying for the whole conversion, giving up the majority of income streams and having no club colours in there at all ? It's a bloody give and take. The LLDC wanted someone to lease the OS for 99 years, so they needed to make this an attractive offer. West Ham are contributing in relation to the number of days they will use the stadium. It can of course be argued whether they should have contributed more, but that is a question you have to put to the LLDC who will probably say they couldn't get more contribution upfront without the anchor concessionaire becoming disinterested in closing a deal altogether. Your asking for a bigger contribution is understandable, but with that comes the question how much contribution upfront you can realistically demand from a club tying itself to that stadium for 99 years without having ownership of the place or benefitting from the staging of other events in there, events that will also improve from the various conversion works. Most events need a roof, most events need seating that is close to the pitch. If West Ham paid 50 million towards conversion would you be happy with West Ham getting a bigger share of the naming rights for the next 99 years as a result of that bigger contribution ?
Out of the £15m? Manchester City have sky blue seats but no writing. Let's not forget you're a tenant in someone else's stadium.
As for the contribution towards conversion, why should that secure them even more revenue? For crying out loud, this is a stadium being built for them, they have a net zero rent for 99 years - they should be paying that and more regardless.
Being on different sides you see Samuel's comments as crap arguments and snide remarks while taking those of other journos as gospel who are also guilty of choosing which arguments to present and which facts to conveniently leave out. Let's just see Samuel's comments as another piece of information that may help people forming their own opinions on this.
I believe you are missing the point regarding just how snide Martin Samuels is. However we organised out support to travel to the Valley WE DID NOT USE TAXPAYERS MONEY TO DO SO. Get it?
I agree with this actually, not least because whilst the seats at the CoMS are sky blue there is no lettering made out from the seats. It is not their stadium.
Me as well. As we are constantly being told WHU are "paying their way" as the anchor tenants but the stadium will still be marketed as a multi usage venue, including provision for UK Athletics events.
By allowing the OTT Westhamification (sic!) of the stadium surely this presents its own problems in any future negotiations with prospective tenants? Say for example London gets an NFL franchise, which has been mooted for some time. At the very least the fact the stadium is swathed in Claret & Blue is going to be a stumbling block in any attempt to secure that contract for any NFL tenant (that doesn't share those colours) and at worse cost us more money toning down what's already been done or reducing the potential contract value.
Tbf I have no idea if this covered within the contract but then again...
Yes, I get it. But you seem to devise clever business plans which is easy enough to do if you are not actually repsonsible sitting on that negotiating table having to make the best of a crap situation and negotiating position. I'm sure you would have been happy enough to leave that negotiating table with no deal in place. While I find you posture completely understandable from the persepctive of a rival football club's supporter I think you are being extremly naive expecting the terms you mentioned being accepted by anyone leasing the OS. It's one thing ridiculing and mocking the LLDC for being shit negotiators. It's a whole different thing negotiating a deal for a 99 years lease with better terms for the taxpayer in the real world without handing over any ownership.
I agree with this actually, not least because whilst the seats at the CoMS are sky blue there is no lettering made out from the seats. It is not their stadium.
Me as well. As we are constantly being told WHU are "paying their way" as the anchor tenants but the stadium will still be marketed as a multi usage venue, including provision for UK Athletics events.
By allowing the OTT Westhamification (sic!) of the stadium surely this presents its own problems in any future negotiations with prospective tenants? Say for example London gets an NFL franchise, which has been mooted for some time. At the very least the fact the stadium is swathed in Claret & Blue is going to be a stumbling block in any attempt to secure that contract for any NFL tenant (that doesn't share those colours) and at worse cost us more money toning down what's already been done or reducing the potential contract value.
Tbf I have no idea if this covered within the contract but then again...
That's my concern too ...it will quite clearly be a football stadium covered in West Ham branding and colours. How can that possibly be attractive to other prospective clients, not to mention the enormous amount of free PR they will get when any athletics events are televised.
I agree with this actually, not least because whilst the seats at the CoMS are sky blue there is no lettering made out from the seats. It is not their stadium.
Me as well. As we are constantly being told WHU are "paying their way" as the anchor tenants but the stadium will still be marketed as a multi usage venue, including provision for UK Athletics events.
By allowing the OTT Westhamification (sic!) of the stadium surely this presents its own problems in any future negotiations with prospective tenants? Say for example London gets an NFL franchise, which has been mooted for some time. At the very least the fact the stadium is swathed in Claret & Blue is going to be a stumbling block in any attempt to secure that contract for any NFL tenant (that doesn't share those colours) and at worse cost us more money toning down what's already been done or reducing the potential contract value.
Tbf I have no idea if this covered within the contract but then again...
I imagine any London NFL team would be based at Wembley but it would certainly hinder the LLDC's bid if they were interested.
Yes, I get it. But you seem to devise clever business plans which is easy enough to do if you are not actually repsonsible sitting on that negotiating table having to make the best of a crap situation and negotiating position. I'm sure you would have been happy enough to leave that negotiating table with no deal in place. While I find you posture completely understandable from the persepctive of a rival football club's supporter I think you are being extremly naive expecting the terms you mentioned being accepted by anyone leasing the OS. It's one thing ridiculing and mocking the LLDC for being shit negotiators. It's a whole different thing negotiating a deal for a 99 years lease with better terms for the taxpayer in the real world without handing over any ownership.
It cost £537m of taxpayers money to build - I accept it's used so how about £500 million and it's yours?
Yes, I get it. But you seem to devise clever business plans which is easy enough to do if you are not actually repsonsible sitting on that negotiating table having to make the best of a crap situation and negotiating position. I'm sure you would have been happy enough to leave that negotiating table with no deal in place. While I find you posture completely understandable from the persepctive of a rival football club's supporter I think you are being extremly naive expecting the terms you mentioned being accepted by anyone leasing the OS. It's one thing ridiculing and mocking the LLDC for being shit negotiators. It's a whole different thing negotiating a deal for a 99 years lease with better terms for the taxpayer in the real world without handing over any ownership.
GermanEastEnder I am sincere in admiring your resilience. However you say what will be will be, and I am not sure about that. Football fans have very long individual, collective and morphic memories, and no matter how many Hammers journalists you have on your side, equivocating and defending the indefensible, this matter will never go away unless there is a real shift from where we are now. maybe that shift is for the government to award every sports club in the UK the same amount of free money they are giving away to West Ham. Realistic? No not realistic is it? Then again maybe the way forward is to get everything out in the complete open to be scrutinised and questioned, and then if it is wholesome, and sits well, we will all shut up. The reason given to me regarding secrecy is that it is commercially sensitive information, now I'm sorry but that is complete rubbish and is a smokescreen. The balance of probabilities is that things are secret because it is embarrassing, politically damaging, and may indeed expose criminal corruption. I urge you to sign the petition if only to let the whole world know the detail of what is occurring. natural justice if you like. I await a reply from Baroness Thompson who sits on the board of the LDCC, and will be decidedly unimpressed if she equivocates like everybody else is doing, and I also intend to go to the surgery of my local London MP to raise the matter too. What on earth is wrong with complete transparency in this matter?
What on earth is wrong with complete transparency in this matter?
From the perspective of everyone outside the deal, nothing.
But it would appear that some participants are not so keen or else we would have see it by now. It's only a matter of time before they may have no choice.
I suggest we each send one email per day to Matt Jackson who is dealing with this matter. So mark your email FAO Matt Jackson.
You might have to start to be creative regarding your email addresses when he starts to block you, or be cute about the subject heading, or if you get a cut and paste reply that would be an open door to push at by replying to that reply in order to land thousands of emails in his inbox on a daily basis. We have a chance to clog up the works on this thing if they don't put everything out in the open.
I suggest we each send one email per day to Matt Jackson who is dealing with this matter. So mark your email FAO Matt Jackson.
You might have to start to be creative regarding your email addresses when he starts to block you, or be cute about the subject heading, or if you get a cut and paste reply that would be an open door to push at by replying to that reply in order to land thousands of emails in his inbox on a daily basis. We have a chance to clog up the works on this thing if they don't put everything out in the open.
press@queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk
I think the petition is the way to go - wouldn't want to be seen to play dirty (that's for the Brady bunch).
If you don't want to sign the petition can I suggest you join the Charlton Athletic Supporters Trust instead ? Excellent value. Only a fiver. Informative quarterly magazine. Enamel badge when you renew. Warm feeling in your heart. And it keeps rickofold and PragueAddick occupied and out of trouble.
I can't believe that anyone else reading this thread isn't a fully paid up member and we'd hate you to feel excluded.
I suggest we each send one email per day to Matt Jackson who is dealing with this matter. So mark your email FAO Matt Jackson.
You might have to start to be creative regarding your email addresses when he starts to block you, or be cute about the subject heading, or if you get a cut and paste reply that would be an open door to push at by replying to that reply in order to land thousands of emails in his inbox on a daily basis. We have a chance to clog up the works on this thing if they don't put everything out in the open.
press@queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk
I think the petition is the way to go - wouldn't want to be seen to play dirty (that's for the Brady bunch).
Well I agree we should not play dirty. However I would also like to encourage as many people as possible to write to as many relevant politicians and authorities as possible, and let us know their answers. That is our right as citizens, These people report to us and we should hold them to account. The petition is like the central rallying point but definitely not the only activity. Nor is there any organisation, with leaders. We all know the issue but we don't have the answers. The more we hassle them for answers the more likely they will make some mistake and let something slip.
The IAAF confirmed the dates for the 2017 World Athletics Championships that will be held in the Olympic Stadium in London.
The nine day competition will begin on Saturday 5 August and finish on Sunday 13 August.
This will clash with the football season, WH will not be able to take over until 20th of August at the earliest. In reality not until beginning of September.
West Ham are paying for the seat reconfiguration themselves. So the seating should not be changed now, right, to reflect West Ham's presence there as anchor concessionaire? What do you want ? A club renting for 99 years, paying for the whole conversion, giving up the majority of income streams and having no club colours in there at all ? It's a bloody give and take. The LLDC wanted someone to lease the OS for 99 years, so they needed to make this an attractive offer. West Ham are contributing in relation to the number of days they will use the stadium. It can of course be argued whether they should have contributed more, but that is a question you have to put to the LLDC who will probably say they couldn't get more contribution upfront without the anchor concessionaire becoming disinterested in closing a deal altogether. Your asking for a bigger contribution is understandable, but with that comes the question how much contribution upfront you can realistically demand from a club tying itself to that stadium for 99 years without having ownership of the place or benefitting from the staging of other events in there, events that will also improve from the various conversion works. Most events need a roof, most events need seating that is close to the pitch. If West Ham paid 50 million towards conversion would you be happy with West Ham getting a bigger share of the naming rights for the next 99 years as a result of that bigger contribution ?
Even one of the above would be fine...you know, in the spirit of give and take!
I cannot sign the petition as I am a German based in Germany and I wouldn't sign because I trust you to get enough signatures without me anyway. Of course West Ham aren't paying for the policing if the arrangement is such that we only lease, so for all those costs like stewarding the LLDC need to take care of that, same as your landlord will take care of repairs if your heating doesn't work or water is coming through the roof. That's what happens if you rent opposed to buying and owning. The OS being rented out is worth exactly as much as someone out there in the real world is willing to pay. It doesn't matter how expensive it was to build. It doesn't matter how much money West Ham may have. If you are looking at a market price it is what it is. I'm selling my mom's house at the moment and of course I'd love to raise half a million for that if possible. I may even think it is worth that much. But I have to find someone willing to pay real money in the real world for the house on offer and that will then be the market price. Which may be a lot lower than half a million. And it will not be more even if the buyer in question could actually pay half a million if he wanted to.
I'm no politician, merely an overseas fan who used to work in East London for a while, becoming a West Ham supporter there and then. I know our owners and Brady are mainly shrewd businesspeople and I don't like everything I say and I certainly don't like everything about our move there, despite me being detached from it all of course as i can only make very few games in person anyway. Again, I cannot sign the petition anyway because I'm no longer based in the UK. AS for the OS in recent days more and more pics have been released from people working on the conversion. It is quite obviously a compromise solution (again), not comparable to the Boleyn, and in general you are further away from the pitch which is apparently a problem for some, but certainly not for all. I've seen pics from the dead end, the worst seats in the house, behind the goals, furthest away from the pitch, the seats that actually will not even be sold but cordoned off with a tarpaulin. I would have no problem at all watching and enjoying my football from one of those seats, especially taking into account the price for tickets near that area. And don't worry about the atmosphere, the atmosphere has gone down in the Boleyn for years. It really depends on the football served on the pitch, our crowd can be incredibly vocal, but also quiet on occasion. The OS as such will not create or destroy the atmosphere, it will be the fans.
Didn't Bayern Munich move from their OS for the very reason that the Athletics track made fans too far away from the action ?
I cannot sign the petition as I am a German based in Germany and I wouldn't sign because I trust you to get enough signatures without me anyway. Of course West Ham aren't paying for the policing if the arrangement is such that we only lease, so for all those costs like stewarding the LLDC need to take care of that, same as your landlord will take care of repairs if your heating doesn't work or water is coming through the roof. That's what happens if you rent opposed to buying and owning. The OS being rented out is worth exactly as much as someone out there in the real world is willing to pay. It doesn't matter how expensive it was to build. It doesn't matter how much money West Ham may have. If you are looking at a market price it is what it is. I'm selling my mom's house at the moment and of course I'd love to raise half a million for that if possible. I may even think it is worth that much. But I have to find someone willing to pay real money in the real world for the house on offer and that will then be the market price. Which may be a lot lower than half a million. And it will not be more even if the buyer in question could actually pay half a million if he wanted to.
I cannot sign the petition as I am a German based in Germany and I wouldn't sign because I trust you to get enough signatures without me anyway. Of course West Ham aren't paying for the policing if the arrangement is such that we only lease, so for all those costs like stewarding the LLDC need to take care of that, same as your landlord will take care of repairs if your heating doesn't work or water is coming through the roof. That's what happens if you rent opposed to buying and owning. The OS being rented out is worth exactly as much as someone out there in the real world is willing to pay. It doesn't matter how expensive it was to build. It doesn't matter how much money West Ham may have. If you are looking at a market price it is what it is. I'm selling my mom's house at the moment and of course I'd love to raise half a million for that if possible. I may even think it is worth that much. But I have to find someone willing to pay real money in the real world for the house on offer and that will then be the market price. Which may be a lot lower than half a million. And it will not be more even if the buyer in question could actually pay half a million if he wanted to.
Will you keep your mum informed about the process and the progress and the financial details, so she can judge as to whether her son is doing a good job of it?
West Ham are paying for the seat reconfiguration themselves. So the seating should not be changed now, right, to reflect West Ham's presence there as anchor concessionaire? What do you want ? A club renting for 99 years, paying for the whole conversion, giving up the majority of income streams and having no club colours in there at all ? It's a bloody give and take. The LLDC wanted someone to lease the OS for 99 years, so they needed to make this an attractive offer. West Ham are contributing in relation to the number of days they will use the stadium. It can of course be argued whether they should have contributed more, but that is a question you have to put to the LLDC who will probably say they couldn't get more contribution upfront without the anchor concessionaire becoming disinterested in closing a deal altogether. Your asking for a bigger contribution is understandable, but with that comes the question how much contribution upfront you can realistically demand from a club tying itself to that stadium for 99 years without having ownership of the place or benefitting from the staging of other events in there, events that will also improve from the various conversion works. Most events need a roof, most events need seating that is close to the pitch. If West Ham paid 50 million towards conversion would you be happy with West Ham getting a bigger share of the naming rights for the next 99 years as a result of that bigger contribution ?
I'm struggling now. What events will NEED the football configuration and hence the new roof apart from WHU ?
I cannot sign the petition as I am a German based in Germany and I wouldn't sign because I trust you to get enough signatures without me anyway. Of course West Ham aren't paying for the policing if the arrangement is such that we only lease, so for all those costs like stewarding the LLDC need to take care of that, same as your landlord will take care of repairs if your heating doesn't work or water is coming through the roof. That's what happens if you rent opposed to buying and owning. The OS being rented out is worth exactly as much as someone out there in the real world is willing to pay. It doesn't matter how expensive it was to build. It doesn't matter how much money West Ham may have. If you are looking at a market price it is what it is. I'm selling my mom's house at the moment and of course I'd love to raise half a million for that if possible. I may even think it is worth that much. But I have to find someone willing to pay real money in the real world for the house on offer and that will then be the market price. Which may be a lot lower than half a million. And it will not be more even if the buyer in question could actually pay half a million if he wanted to.
Will you keep your mum informed about the process and the progress and the financial details, so she can judge as to whether her son is doing a good job of it?
No doubt he will show her the contract, it will heavily redacted though
I cannot sign the petition as I am a German living in Germany and I wouldn't sign because I trust you to get enough signatures without me anyway. Of course West Ham aren't paying for the policing if the arrangement is such that we only lease, so for all those costs like stewarding the LLDC need to take care of that, same as your landlord will take care of repairs if your heating doesn't work or water is coming through the roof. That's what happens if you rent opposed to buying and owning. The OS being rented out is worth exactly as much as someone out there in the real world is willing to pay. It doesn't matter how expensive it was to build. It doesn't matter how much money West Ham may have. If you are looking at a market price it is what it is. I'm selling my mom's house at the moment and of course I'd love to raise half a million for that if possible. I may even think it is worth that much. But I have to find someone willing to pay real money in the real world for the house on offer and that will then be the market price. Which may be a lot lower than half a million. And it will not be more even if the buyer in question could actually pay half a million if he wanted to.
Are you really equating the long term lease of one if the world's most expensive pieces of publically owned commercial property with someone looking to rent out a one bedroom flat in Dagenham? Seriously, that's how you think these things work???
Comments
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/external_professional_services_u#incoming-698748
But it's hard to argue with this. West Ham still makes a fortune, they still become a bigger club, but they do it through football economics rather than public money.
I've been trying to put together a business case to stay at Upton Park - does anyone know how much it would have cost them to build their replacement East Stand had they stayed? I'm looking at Liverpool's, which is around £75m plus land etc. West Ham wouldn't need to buy land, but I'm imagining that a 10k seater stand would cost no less than £50m, am I right?
As for the contribution towards conversion, why should that secure them even more revenue? For crying out loud, this is a stadium being built for them, they have a net zero rent for 99 years - they should be paying that and more regardless.
Fans Groups Demand Public Inquiry into Stadium Deal.
Just thought i'd give it a mention.
Get it?
By allowing the OTT Westhamification (sic!) of the stadium surely this presents its own problems in any future negotiations with prospective tenants? Say for example London gets an NFL franchise, which has been mooted for some time. At the very least the fact the stadium is swathed in Claret & Blue is going to be a stumbling block in any attempt to secure that contract for any NFL tenant (that doesn't share those colours) and at worse cost us more money toning down what's already been done or reducing the potential contract value.
Tbf I have no idea if this covered within the contract but then again...
I'm sure you would have been happy enough to leave that negotiating table with no deal in place.
While I find you posture completely understandable from the persepctive of a rival football club's supporter I think you are being extremly naive expecting the terms you mentioned being accepted by anyone leasing the OS.
It's one thing ridiculing and mocking the LLDC for being shit negotiators.
It's a whole different thing negotiating a deal for a 99 years lease with better terms for the taxpayer in the real world without handing over any ownership.
every other club in the uk have to pay their own policing cost but don't worry WH, it's on the house.
maybe that shift is for the government to award every sports club in the UK the same amount of free money they are giving away to West Ham. Realistic? No not realistic is it?
Then again maybe the way forward is to get everything out in the complete open to be scrutinised and questioned, and then if it is wholesome, and sits well, we will all shut up.
The reason given to me regarding secrecy is that it is commercially sensitive information, now I'm sorry but that is complete rubbish and is a smokescreen. The balance of probabilities is that things are secret because it is embarrassing, politically damaging, and may indeed expose criminal corruption.
I urge you to sign the petition if only to let the whole world know the detail of what is occurring. natural justice if you like.
I await a reply from Baroness Thompson who sits on the board of the LDCC, and will be decidedly unimpressed if she equivocates like everybody else is doing, and I also intend to go to the surgery of my local London MP to raise the matter too.
What on earth is wrong with complete transparency in this matter?
From the perspective of everyone outside the deal, nothing.
But it would appear that some participants are not so keen or else we would have see it by now. It's only a matter of time before they may have no choice.
You might have to start to be creative regarding your email addresses when he starts to block you, or be cute about the subject heading, or if you get a cut and paste reply that would be an open door to push at by replying to that reply in order to land thousands of emails in his inbox on a daily basis.
We have a chance to clog up the works on this thing if they don't put everything out in the open.
press@queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk
If you don't want to sign the petition can I suggest you join the Charlton Athletic Supporters Trust instead ? Excellent value. Only a fiver. Informative quarterly magazine. Enamel badge when you renew. Warm feeling in your heart. And it keeps rickofold and PragueAddick occupied and out of trouble.
I can't believe that anyone else reading this thread isn't a fully paid up member and we'd hate you to feel excluded.
Its easy: castrust.org/join/
PS. AFKABartram - is the cheque in the post ?
Go for it, everyone.
The nine day competition will begin on Saturday 5 August and finish on Sunday 13 August.
This will clash with the football season, WH will not be able to take over until 20th of August at the earliest. In reality not until beginning of September.
That's what happens if you rent opposed to buying and owning.
The OS being rented out is worth exactly as much as someone out there in the real world is willing to pay.
It doesn't matter how expensive it was to build. It doesn't matter how much money West Ham may have.
If you are looking at a market price it is what it is.
I'm selling my mom's house at the moment and of course I'd love to raise half a million for that if possible.
I may even think it is worth that much. But I have to find someone willing to pay real money in the real world for the house on offer and that will then be the market price. Which may be a lot lower than half a million.
And it will not be more even if the buyer in question could actually pay half a million if he wanted to.