Came to the Barbarians v Samoa rugby match and I can only hope there is a vast improvement before RWC 15 kicks off. Gates open at 1 o'clock according to the ticket. At 1.15 staff were being shown how to search peoples bags surely this should have been done behind closed doors and long before the gates were due to open!!! Being a rugby match we went looking for the bar, not a chance. People scattered around selling drinks at hugely inflated prices and by half time it had sold out apart from cans of John Smiths 20 cans for £12 in Tesco but here £4.90 for 1 can, bargain. The stadium itself is fantastic but definitely not suited to rugby unless you are a non smoking non drinking rugby fan. Hope you get something sorted out in the next 3 weeks. Good luck.
Came to the Barbarians v Samoa rugby match and I can only hope there is a vast improvement before RWC 15 kicks off. Gates open at 1 o'clock according to the ticket. At 1.15 staff were being shown how to search peoples bags surely this should have been done behind closed doors and long before the gates were due to open!!! Being a rugby match we went looking for the bar, not a chance. People scattered around selling drinks at hugely inflated prices and by half time it had sold out apart from cans of John Smiths 20 cans for £12 in Tesco but here £4.90 for 1 can, bargain. The stadium itself is fantastic but definitely not suited to rugby unless you are a non smoking non drinking rugby fan. Hope you get something sorted out in the next 3 weeks. Good luck.
If anyone has experience with or understanding of how commercial property is valued in financial accounting, and wishes to help the campaign, could you please give me a shout privately? One person has already taken a look at what we have discovered but we'd like to get a second opinion, before going public with it. Thanks.
"Following the completion of its transformation programme the Stadium will be - unlike so many previous Olympic Stadiums - a world-class multi-use arena with a long-term future, and one that won’t require continuous support from the taxpayer."
I suppose the last line ("one that won’t require continuous support from the taxpayer") is a more polite way of describing spunking £100m+ of taxpayers' money into this travesty all in one go. Much like how my 2-year phone contract might not be a continuous cost...if I offered to pay the entire sum up front.
"As a long-term concessionaire West Ham United will only access the full stadium facilities for and shortly ahead of home matches, anticipated to be an average of 25 games a year. The stadium’s other anchor concession-holder, British Athletics, has a concession for one month a year. The stadium will be available for commercial and other uses at all times outside of these existing commitments."
The problem here is that the taxpayer subsidising British Athletics or any one-off uses of the stadium (which will almost certainly be not related to professional adult men's football) is not going to impact other franchises in the city or Country. Maybe if there was a competing 'British Athletics South East London' or 'British Athletics Orient' or even 'British Athletics Manchester City' then this paragraph might even be slightly relevant.
In fact almost the entire response is irrelevant to the actual concerns of fans and the other clubs in London and the Premier League. There is only mention of a EC 'consideration' of the deal and that there is no case to answer. What a cop out.
It is secret because it is commercially sensitive is absolutely absurd to me. So another football club, say Thurrock, apply to play in the stadium, and the people who run it say to themselves 'well we can get away with charging Thurrock more than West ham as they don't know the financial detail of the West Ham deal'. That would be bollocks because they couldn't have two alike businesses (football clubs) competing for the same space once West Ham are ensconced. There is no like for like commercial activity to be 'sensitive' about is there?
"As a long-term concessionaire West Ham United will only access the full stadium facilities for and shortly ahead of home matches"
This contradicts what rikofold was saying about three days' access around the day of the match.
"anticipated to be an average of 25 games a year"
I'm probably obsessing about this bit but it seems to change with every statement or announcement. This phrasing appears to suggest that there's no extra payment if West Ham need the ground for, say, 30 matches in a season. It also suggests that the ground will always be available for them if they need it, regardless of whether there are other events due to take place the day of an FA Cup replay or Europa League first preliminary qualifying round match. Regarding cost, at most it appears to say that West Ham would have to pay additional costs only if they exceeded 2475 home matches over the next 99 years.
A few questions, and the Trust folks probably have the answers. Who actually negotiated this deal? Was it the "world class stadium operator" or do they have to work within the constraints of what the LLDC left them with? If it was the LLDC, then I wonder what's in it for this wonderful operator. Surely they would have preferred to take over the contract at the start and negotiate with West Ham or other interested tenants, even if British Athletics were always going to be awarded the month of July. I'm inclined to think that at a minimum, the taxpayer benefits from profits earned only if they exceed a certain threshold. I would also think it's likely the operators have a minimal level of exposure to risk if the venture is not profitable. If they had been awarded the contract before the negotiations with West Ham started, private company v private company, that would possibly be more likely to have resulted in an outcome that was good for the taxpayer (since private companies are always better run )
"The outcome has been tested in the courts and upheld."
Given the passage talks later on about the European Commission (which is not a court), what is this referring to?
Please lets have more of your considered thoughts on their answer, thanks for those above. Heard it all before,myself, but interested to hear which points most strike you, whether they seem absurd or sound.
I've just figured out the best way to get the best value for the taxpayer from this deal - make West Ham play all their home league games consecutively. I don't mean consecutive days, I mean one match begins straight after the other. This will greatly reduce clean up times, policing costs, staff and overheads etc. and that will free up as much as the stadium for other events as possible as the retractable seating only needs to be put up and taken down once a year. Since the LLDC and the Government clearly don't care about how the deal will impact football or the other clubs competing with West Ham, I doubt they'll understand why West Ham may have objections to having to play 28.5 hours of football in one sitting.
Prague, I think their strongest arguments are the following:
This has been done in accordance with EU law and was checked by the EC, who had access to the full contract. This was tested in the courts and upheld. Publishing the contract will reduce returns for the taxpayer
The first two would barely resonate with the public, I think, so the third one is the biggie
And, sorry Prague, while that question is a good one, that's not really what I meant. What I mean was who was on the other side of the table from West Ham - was it the LLDC or Vinci? However, I think from the way you phrased your question and your superior knowledge of this subject... and the Brady fluff piece... I think you've answered my question. It must have been the LLDC or persons acting on behalf of the LLDC who negotiated it.
In which case Vinci are forced to work within the constraints of whatever the contract is. I think it's fairly likely that the deal that was then negotiated was generous to Vinci.
And, sorry Prague, while that question is a good one, that's not really what I meant. What I mean was who was on the other side of the table from West Ham - was it the LLDC or Vinci? However, I think from the way you phrased your question and your superior knowledge of this subject... and the Brady fluff piece... I think you've answered my question. It must have been the LLDC or persons acting on behalf of the LLDC who negotiated it.
In which case Vinci are forced to work within the constraints of whatever the contract is. I think it's fairly likely that the deal that was then negotiated was generous to Vinci.
Ah yes, definitely people acting for the LLDC. Vinci were only appointed a few months ago.
Is it normal practise to respond to one of these petitions at a certain level of signatures? Or have they made a special effort to head it off at the pass?
I suppose if you are so generous in the contract terms to a party, you have to keep the contract secret as other future potential parties may want a similar deal if they know it is so generous and features massive tax payer subsidy and they may not be friends of Boris Johnson.
"As a long-term concessionaire West Ham United will only access the full stadium facilities for and shortly ahead of home matches, anticipated to be an average of 25 games a year. The stadium’s other anchor concession-holder, British Athletics, has a concession for one month a year. The stadium will be available for commercial and other uses at all times outside of these existing commitments."
Again, trying to downplay the deal in comparison to British Athletics ie WHU only get an average of 25 days (whatever that refers to) implying to the casual reader this is less than the other anchor tenant. Conveniently forgetting the configuration time required should the stadium host anything other than football, rugby, etc.
Think it is also worth diggng a bit more into Vinci and how they won the contract and their 'world class' credentials from reports at the weekend.
Anyone on here happen to know anything about them?
I didn't want to say anything but they are a a bit like Wimpy/Conway in France - if it is the same people. I have worked with many events companies for a previous employer and don't recall working on anything for them.
Think it is also worth diggng a bit more into Vinci and how they won the contract and their 'world class' credentials from reports at the weekend.
Anyone on here happen to know anything about them?
I didn't want to say anything but they are a a bit like Wimpy/Conway in France - if it is the same people. I have worked with many events companies for a previous employer and don't recall working on anything for them.
It looks like the Stade de France is their biggest venue. I'm sure they're very profitable, but a look on their website wasn't what I expected to see for a "world class stadium operator". They look more like a world class motorway services operator.
Think it is also worth diggng a bit more into Vinci and how they won the contract and their 'world class' credentials from reports at the weekend.
Anyone on here happen to know anything about them?
lol.... Nice one, Boris.
"Olympic Stadium operators accused of forced labour in Qatar for build up to 2022 World Cup
French firm Vinci, which was last month awarded the contract to manage the London 2012 centrepiece, was the subject of a complaint lodged with a [French] prosecutor on Monday by campaign group Sherpa."
Picking up on what someone said earlier, would it not be possible for West Ham to play all their home games one after the other so 23 home games then 23 away games cutting the time from say 11 months down to 5, thus leaving more available time for the venue to be rented out for other things?
So how did Vinci get the contract and what is their downside
Who were they in competition with and how much of the gravy train will they be entitled to in comparison to what the public ownership (E20 Stadium LLP – a joint venture between the London Legacy Development Corporation and Newham Council) will be receiving What other , comparable , deals are out there with public ownership / Vinci style operators / West Ham style tenancy
Who else will E20/Vinci be negotiating with that will be looking for a comparable contract to West Ham " The detail of the rental agreement between the Stadium owners and West Ham United is commercially sensitive. Disclosing details of the contract would undermine the future negotiating position of the Stadium's operator, Vinci, who are working hard to bring in future events to get the greatest possible return and ensure that the Stadium is a commercial success"
"The contract, awarded after an open public competition, has been widely scrutinised and tested in court." - How can it be widely scrutinised if it is secret?
"one that won’t require continuous support from the taxpayer" - The terms of the contract mean it is permanent support from the taxpayer.
"the profits from its multiple uses will flow to the taxpayer" - What profits? Income doesn't equal "profit"
"West Ham United will only access the full stadium facilities for and shortly ahead of home matches, anticipated to be an average of 25 games a year." And prevent access for other purposes for at least 50 other days excluding reservations for cup games etc.
"The Stadium is a multi-use venue, which has already hosted a major athletics meet this year" - Only because its empty at the moment. Wait til WH have a say on whether proposed events interfere with their needs.
"All revenues from these events will be shared by the operator and the Stadium owners" - After costs how much "profit" left for Stadium operator.
"The agreement with West Ham United, including their contribution to transformation costs and rent, followed an open competitive process, which was delivered under EU rules," - Deliver under any rules you want, it distorts competition and was a deal done at any cost simply to allow athletics to take place whatever the cost to the taxpayer.
"As the winning bid this constituted the best available return for the taxpayer" - Apart from allowing any bid that would have had a better outcome for the taxpayer without being an athletics stadium.
"The EC has considered this issue on more than one occasion and has done so with full sight of the contractual terms, comprehensive detail of the tender exercise and in depth legal opinion on compliance with UK and EU law." - And who knows perhaps in return for the UK making a concession on some other issue, compromise is how the EU works.
"The detail of the rental agreement between the Stadium owners and West Ham United is commercially sensitive." - Its an established precedent in FOI cases that information in a contract created as a result of the contract cannot be confidential and only information existing pre contract can be confidential. It can only be withheld if national interests override the public interest.
"It is important that the stadium owners and operator are able to negotiate future contracts in a way that derive maximum value and are not constrained by any one agreement. Such arrangements are standard practice" - Bullshit. I've given Prague a list of anomalies and arguments that challenge this.
The stadium remains in public ownership (E20 Stadium LLP – a joint venture between the London Legacy Development Corporation and Newham Council) and the profits from its multiple uses will flow to the taxpayer.
So how much profit will flow to the taxpayer from the West Ham deal?
Over the 99 years, they won't pay back the conversion cost.
Is it normal practise to respond to one of these petitions at a certain level of signatures? Or have they made a special effort to head it off at the pass?
The government will respond after 10,000 signatures and 'consider' a debate after 100,000.
Comments
2 of 5 stars Reviewed August 29, 2015 NEW
Came to the Barbarians v Samoa rugby match and I can only hope there is a vast improvement before RWC 15 kicks off. Gates open at 1 o'clock according to the ticket. At 1.15 staff were being shown how to search peoples bags surely this should have been done behind closed doors and long before the gates were due to open!!! Being a rugby match we went looking for the bar, not a chance. People scattered around selling drinks at hugely inflated prices and by half time it had sold out apart from cans of John Smiths 20 cans for £12 in Tesco but here £4.90 for 1 can, bargain. The stadium itself is fantastic but definitely not suited to rugby unless you are a non smoking non drinking rugby fan. Hope you get something sorted out in the next 3 weeks. Good luck.
Visited August 201
A report on Trip Advisor
Sounds familiar ?
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106355
I suppose the last line ("one that won’t require continuous support from the taxpayer") is a more polite way of describing spunking £100m+ of taxpayers' money into this travesty all in one go. Much like how my 2-year phone contract might not be a continuous cost...if I offered to pay the entire sum up front.
"As a long-term concessionaire West Ham United will only access the full stadium facilities for and shortly ahead of home matches, anticipated to be an average of 25 games a year. The stadium’s other anchor concession-holder, British Athletics, has a concession for one month a year. The stadium will be available for commercial and other uses at all times outside of these existing commitments."
The problem here is that the taxpayer subsidising British Athletics or any one-off uses of the stadium (which will almost certainly be not related to professional adult men's football) is not going to impact other franchises in the city or Country. Maybe if there was a competing 'British Athletics South East London' or 'British Athletics Orient' or even 'British Athletics Manchester City' then this paragraph might even be slightly relevant.
In fact almost the entire response is irrelevant to the actual concerns of fans and the other clubs in London and the Premier League. There is only mention of a EC 'consideration' of the deal and that there is no case to answer. What a cop out.
This contradicts what rikofold was saying about three days' access around the day of the match.
"anticipated to be an average of 25 games a year"
I'm probably obsessing about this bit but it seems to change with every statement or announcement. This phrasing appears to suggest that there's no extra payment if West Ham need the ground for, say, 30 matches in a season. It also suggests that the ground will always be available for them if they need it, regardless of whether there are other events due to take place the day of an FA Cup replay or Europa League first preliminary qualifying round match. Regarding cost, at most it appears to say that West Ham would have to pay additional costs only if they exceeded 2475 home matches over the next 99 years.
A few questions, and the Trust folks probably have the answers. Who actually negotiated this deal? Was it the "world class stadium operator" or do they have to work within the constraints of what the LLDC left them with? If it was the LLDC, then I wonder what's in it for this wonderful operator. Surely they would have preferred to take over the contract at the start and negotiate with West Ham or other interested tenants, even if British Athletics were always going to be awarded the month of July. I'm inclined to think that at a minimum, the taxpayer benefits from profits earned only if they exceed a certain threshold. I would also think it's likely the operators have a minimal level of exposure to risk if the venture is not profitable. If they had been awarded the contract before the negotiations with West Ham started, private company v private company, that would possibly be more likely to have resulted in an outcome that was good for the taxpayer (since private companies are always better run
"The outcome has been tested in the courts and upheld."
Given the passage talks later on about the European Commission (which is not a court), what is this referring to?
Please lets have more of your considered thoughts on their answer, thanks for those above. Heard it all before,myself, but interested to hear which points most strike you, whether they seem absurd or sound.
Who negotiated the deal? Good question. Seems to need an FOI request to get the answer, so that's what we've done.
"The outcome has been tested in the courts and upheld." This will refer to the judicial review initiated by Barry Hearn.
This has been done in accordance with EU law and was checked by the EC, who had access to the full contract.
This was tested in the courts and upheld.
Publishing the contract will reduce returns for the taxpayer
The first two would barely resonate with the public, I think, so the third one is the biggie
In which case Vinci are forced to work within the constraints of whatever the contract is. I think it's fairly likely that the deal that was then negotiated was generous to Vinci.
Anyone on here happen to know anything about them?
Again, trying to downplay the deal in comparison to British Athletics ie WHU only
get an average of 25 days (whatever that refers to) implying to the casual reader this is less than the other anchor tenant. Conveniently forgetting the configuration time required should the stadium host anything other than football, rugby, etc.I have worked with many events companies for a previous employer and don't recall working on anything for them.
"Olympic Stadium operators accused of forced labour in Qatar for build up to 2022 World Cup
French firm Vinci, which was last month awarded the contract to manage the London 2012 centrepiece, was the subject of a complaint lodged with a [French] prosecutor on Monday by campaign group Sherpa."
telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/11492043/Olympic-Stadium-operators-accused-of-forced-labour-in-Qatar-for-build-up-to-2022-World-Cup.html
Who were they in competition with and how much of the gravy train will they be entitled to in comparison to what the public ownership (E20 Stadium LLP – a joint venture between the London Legacy Development Corporation and Newham Council) will be receiving
What other , comparable , deals are out there with public ownership / Vinci style operators / West Ham style tenancy
Who else will E20/Vinci be negotiating with that will be looking for a comparable contract to West Ham
"
The detail of the rental agreement between the Stadium owners and West Ham United is commercially sensitive. Disclosing details of the contract would undermine the future negotiating position of the Stadium's operator, Vinci, who are working hard to bring in future events to get the greatest possible return and ensure that the Stadium is a commercial success"
"one that won’t require continuous support from the taxpayer" - The terms of the contract mean it is permanent support from the taxpayer.
"the profits from its multiple uses will flow to the taxpayer" - What profits? Income doesn't equal "profit"
"West Ham United will only access the full stadium facilities for and shortly ahead of home matches, anticipated to be an average of 25 games a year." And prevent access for other purposes for at least 50 other days excluding reservations for cup games etc.
"The Stadium is a multi-use venue, which has already hosted a major athletics meet this year" - Only because its empty at the moment. Wait til WH have a say on whether proposed events interfere with their needs.
"All revenues from these events will be shared by the operator and the Stadium owners" - After costs how much "profit" left for Stadium operator.
"The agreement with West Ham United, including their contribution to transformation costs and rent, followed an open competitive process, which was delivered under EU rules," - Deliver under any rules you want, it distorts competition and was a deal done at any cost simply to allow athletics to take place whatever the cost to the taxpayer.
"As the winning bid this constituted the best available return for the taxpayer" - Apart from allowing any bid that would have had a better outcome for the taxpayer without being an athletics stadium.
"The EC has considered this issue on more than one occasion and has done so with full sight of the contractual terms, comprehensive detail of the tender exercise and in depth legal opinion on compliance with UK and EU law." - And who knows perhaps in return for the UK making a concession on some other issue, compromise is how the EU works.
"The detail of the rental agreement between the Stadium owners and West Ham United is commercially sensitive." - Its an established precedent in FOI cases that information in a contract created as a result of the contract cannot be confidential and only information existing pre contract can be confidential. It can only be withheld if national interests override the public interest.
"It is important that the stadium owners and operator are able to negotiate future contracts in a way that derive maximum value and are not constrained by any one agreement. Such arrangements are standard practice" - Bullshit. I've given Prague a list of anomalies and arguments that challenge this.
So how much profit will flow to the taxpayer from the West Ham deal?
Over the 99 years, they won't pay back the conversion cost.