Guys I think @GermanEastEnder said on an other forum that he is selling it with his brother which would indicate a need to sell, you get my drift. Lets not get to personal as he has been very upfront and it is very good to have his input - lets keep things in the spirit of CL and welcome him like we do with everyone who supports other clubs but adds to the site in many ways.
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.
Ah now you are starting to make serious mistakes.
In Britain both commercial and residential leases expect the tenant to pay separately for all utilities. That is why Manchester City pay all theirs. Policing is a particularly vexatious overhead as the police regard football matches as a useful source of income. They jack up the overtime estimate and blackmail the clubs into paying. They also try to over-estimate the physical area which they should legitimately cover as part of the match day operation. If they decide to include Westfield, the bill for policing the OS will be huge. Other clubs have managers who negotiate these issues with plod. Charlton's is particularly experienced and has successfully negotiated for the footprint around the Valley to be much less than what plod proposed. Imagine how he feels, knowing that West Ham just shrug and say , not our problem, E20 will pay.
I note the home changing room and ice bath are already decked out in claret and blue, but I'm not sure if that came as a job lot with the goal posts, nets and corner flags or they paid for it themselves.
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 believe policing costs are split in two; inside the stadium and outside/the surrounding area. Policing inside the stadium is paid for by the club. Outside its a bit different. Traditionally it has been paid for by the police but they are trying to get clubs to pay some or all of the costs. Police costs could rise considerably, unconnected to any RPI rises. Without sight of the contract we don't know how much, if any, of these potentially high increases will be borne by WHU.
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 have a veto. I imagine they have agreed this and the fixture list will give them an opening away fixture.
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 believe policing costs are split in two; inside the stadium and outside/the surrounding area. Policing inside the stadium is paid for by the club. Outside its a bit different. Traditionally it has been paid for by the police but they are trying to get clubs to pay some or all of the costs. Police costs could rise considerably, unconnected to any RPI rises. Without sight of the contract we don't know how much, if any, of these potentially high increases will be borne by WHU.
As I understand it, the police set a footprint around the stadium whereby they say "we have to have personnel here only because of your game" and they seriously try it on. ME has done a lot of work to get that footprint around the Valley minimised. As far as West Ham are concerned it can stretch all the way to Southend, E20 will pay (and will not have an experienced manager like ME to tell plod to stop trying it on. So in fact, we will pay. Great.
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.
Firstly, you're absolutely right - market rate is what someone is prepared to pay for it. However, what they're willing to pay isn't necessarily the same as what they can pay or the best deal they are offered. All of us go into house purchases with a price we're prepared to pay, but attempting to get the lowest price possible.
Simply, I don't believe in a million years, that West Ham wouldn't have paid more if the LLDC were better negotiators. The deal is simply too good for them.
Secondly, it is not unreasonable to include whatever services you like within a rent, that's fair. No other football club in England has all those costs paid for them within their rent, but that doesn't mean this deal shouldn't have them.
However, what landlord sets a rent for at most what it's costing him ? That makes no sense at all, does it. What if his costs go up? He is not in full control of his costs for stewarding, security, policing, pitch maintenance, etc., certainly not for 99 years. What if the government decides football clubs have to pay double for policing? What happens if the pitch unexpectedly needs relaying? How have these risks been demonstrably covered within a 99 year lease? Indexation, my friend, does not cut it.
I agree with you, this is not necessarily of West Ham's making - the LLDC have been inadequate - but that doesn't mean that the deal shouldn't be scrutinised and appropriate reparation found if it's agreed that the deal, in the event, is providing unfair state aid.
Indeed we are not selling my mom's house for fun, she passed away this spring after a painstakingly short bout with cancer. And I know these comparisons are always a bit awkward, contrasting the OS deal with selling a house in Dagenham or Germany. I don't like West Ham being painted as the villain by many (other fans and media) when they have merely done what any other club would have done under the circumstances. If your gripe indeed is with the LLDC go for it. But if it's not a frivolous deal to begin with it is indeed a binding contract, so if you change the terms to West Ham's detriment now I reckon West Ham could well sue. Or do you think Brady held a fully loaded pumpgun at the heads of those LLDC negotiators and force them signing a vastly unfavourable deal for the taxpayer ?
Indeed we are not selling my mom's house for fun, she passed away this spring after a painstakingly short bout with cancer. And I know these comparisons are always a bit awkward, contrasting the OS deal with selling a house in Dagenham or Germany. I don't like West Ham being painted as the villain by many (other fans and media) when they have merely done what any other club would have done under the circumstances. If your gripe indeed is with the LLDC go for it. But if it's not a frivolous deal to begin with it is indeed a binding contract, so if you change the terms to West Ham's detriment now I reckon West Ham could well sue. Or do you think Brady held a fully loaded pumpgun at the heads of those LLDC negotiators and force them signing a vastly unfavourable deal for the taxpayer ?
Apologies for my earlier comment, I didn't know you'd lost your mum, condolences.
Seth Plum, no need to apologise. I feel that a lot of the tension will be gone once more info is being released and once we start hearing about other events booked and happening at the OS. If we can see that Vinci is really driving business and there are loads of other things happening there apart from West Ham, generating more income for the taxpayer, it may help to calm things down. You will still feel West Ham don't pay quite enough though. Which is natural I guess if you have no attachment to West Ham.
Have you asked for the UK Athletics contract to be released under FoI?
They have a veto on calendar clashes. It's in the stuff we can read in West Ham's, for example:
"Overriding Priority Principle means the principle that all Competitive Matches shall (subject to the Championship window): (a) take precedence over any other activity, event or use of the Stadium (b) be staged at the Stadium, on the dates that are notified to the Concessionaire group by a Governing Body from time to time, notwithstanding any event that is set out in the Agreed Event Calendar or otherwise."
That said, provision for the 2017 athletics events was specified in the contract and 'Championship window' refers to it. In the contract, it's 1 July - 21 August, then you have to add a week to put it into football mode. Although if it finishes on 13th, then it will be available to West Ham from the 20th, which I believe is the second week of the Premier League.
Indeed we are not selling my mom's house for fun, she passed away this spring after a painstakingly short bout with cancer. And I know these comparisons are always a bit awkward, contrasting the OS deal with selling a house in Dagenham or Germany. I don't like West Ham being painted as the villain by many (other fans and media) when they have merely done what any other club would have done under the circumstances. If your gripe indeed is with the LLDC go for it. But if it's not a frivolous deal to begin with it is indeed a binding contract, so if you change the terms to West Ham's detriment now I reckon West Ham could well sue. Or do you think Brady held a fully loaded pumpgun at the heads of those LLDC negotiators and force them signing a vastly unfavourable deal for the taxpayer ?
No, I think they were utterly incompetent. I don't blame West Ham at all - but that doesn't mean I don't think the terms shouldn't be reviewed.
It was tongue in cheek, we're all entitled to our views fella, even if our jobs make it more difficult for them to be expressed or considered objective.
Mine are that the LLDC failed in their duty to obtain best value in this deal. Early work on the case to stay at Upton Park tells me there is no comparative case to stay. Over the course of the lease, I believe West Ham could pay the entire conversion cost and still be better off than had they stayed.
Not that I think that would be correct, but they certainly shouldn't be paid to be there. And if I can get to a basic understanding of the relative business cases, why weren't the LLDC better prepared for their negotiations?
Btw my employers aren't funders of the stadium, or I believe the community track. Our chairman is, but I suspect through his role at the London Marathon, who are funding the community track.
We do fund facilities and programmes now on QEOP, and are receiving funds back from the sale of land and the athletes village.
Which is far better deal then the public got from Wembley, where £170m went to for the rebuild, and only now has a trust been established for a small amount of the profits to be used for community projects.
Everyone knows that the real value in the deal for the LLDC is washing their hands of a very costly and sensitive white elephant. They have calculated that the publicity cost of handing over the stadium dirt cheap to West Ham was better than the bad publicity from mothballing the stadium. The damage this will do in terms of the knock-on effects on the rest of the Premier League, other London clubs and as Prague kept pointing out earlier in the thread other European clubs of a similar standard who would hope to sign players of a similar standard to West Ham's targets is incalculable.
The whole thing has been a disgusting farce from start to finish. If you're going to piss hundreds of millions of public money away on a quality piece of land with great transport links, they should have prioritised affordable housing over making sure West Ham's owners can afford to pay their marina and greens fees for the next 2000 years. It has already been established that any kind of Olympic legacy for athletics has gone out the window, why pretend a thinly veiled attempt to boost West Ham up the Premier League by destroying smaller clubs' fan bases is anything otherwise. Too late now, obviously, but let's not pretend that this is a bad deal for everyone except West Ham's owners.
Is there an idiots guide or link to the key points of this issue. I am surrounded by Hammers and I want to be better equipped to explain / argue the issue without the need to read and digest every post on the thread ....call me lazy but I am a big picture person
Great shame that the number of people signing the petition seems to have slowed to a crawl. Any ideas for giving it another push?
I went through my contacts on my phone and forwarded the link to anyone I thought might be interested in it, (including a hamster, who's a MD of another club) if everyone done that, it might accelerate the number. Having said that, the figure is over 23k.
Great shame that the number of people signing the petition seems to have slowed to a crawl. Any ideas for giving it another push?
Are the various trusts promoting it as much as CAST? If Utd, Arsenal or Chelsea can get it on Twitter that should give it an extra push.
Generally only Orient and Spurs are at a present. But we have to be patient with the others. We have to prepare a few things and then we will get back to asking the others for more of a boost. There is lots of goodwill from the others, we just need to push it up their agendas.
But 23k is more than enough for a politician to say. "Significant public interest" . It is already no 10 in the ranking of more than 600 live petitions on the site.
Is there an idiots guide or link to the key points of this issue. I am surrounded by Hammers and I want to be better equipped to explain / argue the issue without the need to read and digest every post on the thread ....call me lazy but I am a big picture person
Sure. Would you have a look at the home page of the Trust website, and tell me if what you can read there gives you that overview? It will be updated anyway, but it will be useful to know how we can improve it for the more casual reader.
Don't worry about Gold and Sullivan paying for their greenfees. They don't need the OS deal for that. They already have anough assembled wealth to even have two warm meals a day if they fancy. There are easier and more lucrative ways to invest your money instead of putting it into a football club where far too many variables are out of your control and things can go pearshaped on the whistle of a referee. It's been mentioned time and time again that they will not sell but hand the club over to their children. No doubt they'll be making back the money they spent at West Ham with a tidy profit on top. But they took many risks when taking over West Ham and it wasn't even certain we'd be moving to the OS. If anything I reckon they have been very much surprised at how good a deal they were managing to get. This may see certain people from the LLDC receiving punishment. But we won't necessarily see the terms of the deal being amended.
Indeed we are not selling my mom's house for fun, she passed away this spring after a painstakingly short bout with cancer. And I know these comparisons are always a bit awkward, contrasting the OS deal with selling a house in Dagenham or Germany. I don't like West Ham being painted as the villain by many (other fans and media) when they have merely done what any other club would have done under the circumstances. If your gripe indeed is with the LLDC go for it. But if it's not a frivolous deal to begin with it is indeed a binding contract, so if you change the terms to West Ham's detriment now I reckon West Ham could well sue. Or do you think Brady held a fully loaded pumpgun at the heads of those LLDC negotiators and force them signing a vastly unfavourable deal for the taxpayer ?
That could get interesting. West Ham fighting a State Aid case by suing the government. Meanwhile they've already sold UP so they would have to groundshare at Brisbane Road.
Comments
Lets not get to personal as he has been very upfront and it is very good to have his input - lets keep things in the spirit of CL and welcome him like we do with everyone who supports other clubs but adds to the site in many ways.
In Britain both commercial and residential leases expect the tenant to pay separately for all utilities. That is why Manchester City pay all theirs. Policing is a particularly vexatious overhead as the police regard football matches as a useful source of income. They jack up the overtime estimate and blackmail the clubs into paying. They also try to over-estimate the physical area which they should legitimately cover as part of the match day operation. If they decide to include Westfield, the bill for policing the OS will be huge. Other clubs have managers who negotiate these issues with plod. Charlton's is particularly experienced and has successfully negotiated for the footprint around the Valley to be much less than what plod proposed. Imagine how he feels, knowing that West Ham just shrug and say , not our problem, E20 will pay.
Simply, I don't believe in a million years, that West Ham wouldn't have paid more if the LLDC were better negotiators. The deal is simply too good for them.
Secondly, it is not unreasonable to include whatever services you like within a rent, that's fair. No other football club in England has all those costs paid for them within their rent, but that doesn't mean this deal shouldn't have them.
However, what landlord sets a rent for at most what it's costing him ? That makes no sense at all, does it. What if his costs go up? He is not in full control of his costs for stewarding, security, policing, pitch maintenance, etc., certainly not for 99 years. What if the government decides football clubs have to pay double for policing? What happens if the pitch unexpectedly needs relaying? How have these risks been demonstrably covered within a 99 year lease? Indexation, my friend, does not cut it.
I agree with you, this is not necessarily of West Ham's making - the LLDC have been inadequate - but that doesn't mean that the deal shouldn't be scrutinised and appropriate reparation found if it's agreed that the deal, in the event, is providing unfair state aid.
If your gripe indeed is with the LLDC go for it. But if it's not a frivolous deal to begin with it is indeed a binding contract, so if you change the terms to West Ham's detriment now I reckon West Ham could well sue.
Or do you think Brady held a fully loaded pumpgun at the heads of those LLDC negotiators and force them signing a vastly unfavourable deal for the taxpayer ?
Have you asked for the UK Athletics contract to be released under FoI?
You will still feel West Ham don't pay quite enough though. Which is natural I guess if you have no attachment to West Ham.
"Overriding Priority Principle means the principle that all Competitive Matches shall (subject to the Championship window):
(a) take precedence over any other activity, event or use of the Stadium
(b) be staged at the Stadium, on the dates that are notified to the Concessionaire group by a Governing Body from time to time,
notwithstanding any event that is set out in the Agreed Event Calendar or otherwise."
That said, provision for the 2017 athletics events was specified in the contract and 'Championship window' refers to it. In the contract, it's 1 July - 21 August, then you have to add a week to put it into football mode. Although if it finishes on 13th, then it will be available to West Ham from the 20th, which I believe is the second week of the Premier League.
Sorry about your mom, fella.
Mine are that the LLDC failed in their duty to obtain best value in this deal. Early work on the case to stay at Upton Park tells me there is no comparative case to stay. Over the course of the lease, I believe West Ham could pay the entire conversion cost and still be better off than had they stayed.
Not that I think that would be correct, but they certainly shouldn't be paid to be there. And if I can get to a basic understanding of the relative business cases, why weren't the LLDC better prepared for their negotiations?
We do fund facilities and programmes now on QEOP, and are receiving funds back from the sale of land and the athletes village.
Which is far better deal then the public got from Wembley, where £170m went to for the rebuild, and only now has a trust been established for a small amount of the profits to be used for community projects.
Just for full disclosure
The whole thing has been a disgusting farce from start to finish. If you're going to piss hundreds of millions of public money away on a quality piece of land with great transport links, they should have prioritised affordable housing over making sure West Ham's owners can afford to pay their marina and greens fees for the next 2000 years. It has already been established that any kind of Olympic legacy for athletics has gone out the window, why pretend a thinly veiled attempt to boost West Ham up the Premier League by destroying smaller clubs' fan bases is anything otherwise. Too late now, obviously, but let's not pretend that this is a bad deal for everyone except West Ham's owners.
Generally only Orient and Spurs are at a present. But we have to be patient with the others. We have to prepare a few things and then we will get back to asking the others for more of a boost. There is lots of goodwill from the others, we just need to push it up their agendas.
But 23k is more than enough for a politician to say. "Significant public interest" . It is already no 10 in the ranking of more than 600 live petitions on the site.
There are easier and more lucrative ways to invest your money instead of putting it into a football club where far too many variables are out of your control and things can go pearshaped on the whistle of a referee.
It's been mentioned time and time again that they will not sell but hand the club over to their children.
No doubt they'll be making back the money they spent at West Ham with a tidy profit on top.
But they took many risks when taking over West Ham and it wasn't even certain we'd be moving to the OS.
If anything I reckon they have been very much surprised at how good a deal they were managing to get.
This may see certain people from the LLDC receiving punishment. But we won't necessarily see the terms of the deal being amended.