I am bothered because it affects my club. Come to think of it though, it looks after all that your petition may not have that much of an effect on the deal struck. You are running out of options, same as Hearn did.
But when your club affects other clubs it's ok then..??
Ethical shopping is a tough issue. Vinci are known to be tough negotiators, maximizing profit (which should be in your interest as they will be trying to maximize income from the OS), but I doubt they will be angels ina business sense. Most companies aren't and most customers only care about cheap products, not bothered too much about asking questions. Even those trying to shop in an ethical manner will struggle at some point (clothing, food, drink, local infrastructure etc.) Yes, I still feel for a majority of those signing your petition it is not about fair competition or proper use of taxpayers' money, but about keeping a rival club from benefitting from a great deal. If it was you could start numerous petitions on all kinds of projects (locally and internationally) where public money is being wasted on a regular basis. Like I said, the government and the European Commission don't appear to be a big help for your cause. So, who will you be pinning your hope on next ?
It looks like that old German problem of being a bit slow on the uptake is surfacing. So I'll repeat what i told you a few hours ago
If you take a look at any of the petitions on the website which have received a Government response you will see that every single response is a defence of the government's existing position. In our petition's case, every single aspect of their argument has been circulated previously by the LLDC or West Ham itself. I could have written that response myself just by cutting and pasting.
Do you really think we expected a response such as "Hmm yes, you guys have a point, maybe we had better look at this deal again" ?
"German"eastender, don't try and goad Prague into showing you his tic-tacs. How about you just nob off instead
That was my first thought too. I'm still not convinced he's not on the payroll of West Ham or someone connected to the deal tbh but I'm sure the Trust will be cautious about what they put out there in advance.
The government has rejected a request from a group of football supporters to investigate the rental of the Olympic Stadium to West Ham United.
Artist's impression of West Ham at the Olympic StadiumImage copyrightWest Ham Image caption West Ham will play at the Olympic Stadium from the 2016-17 season The government has rejected a request from a group of football supporters to investigate the rental of the Olympic Stadium to West Ham United. The supporters claimed the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) would subsidise rent, which it denied. The group made up of trusts from clubs including Arsenal said it was "disappointed" by the decision but had expected it. The government said the deal had been "scrutinised" and "upheld". A Freedom of Information request previously revealed West Ham contributed £15m to the £272m conversion of the stadium and will pay up to £2.5m a year in rent. The LLDC, which owns the stadium, will pay for "facilities and services" such as pitch maintenance and for stewarding on match days, which can cost £2.5m annually. In comparison, Manchester City, who moved into the former Commonwealth Games venue, pay overheads on top of £4m rent. The Olympic StadiumImage copyrightGetty Images Image caption The Olympic Stadium will host other sporting and entertainment events The coalition of supporters, made up of trusts from clubs including Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur, started an online petition which had gained more than 24,000 signatures in favour of an inquiry. Mat Roper said the group remained concerned they were expected to see it as a "fabulous deal for the taxpayer" when they had not seen any figures backing that up and one document they requested had been "completely redacted". He said: "We're no nearer the truth of what we think is in the rental agreement....until we know that then we're going to continue. "Whether it happens to be continuing with that petition, a new petition or... a new FOI request, it's certainly not dead in the water." The group said they remained concerned the deal would give the Hammers a competitive advantage. But the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said: "West Ham United has a concession at the stadium and their contributions reflect that status. "The contract, awarded after an open public competition, has been widely scrutinised and tested in court. "The stadium remains in public ownership and the profits from its multiple uses will flow to the taxpayer." While West Ham will host all of their home matches at the stadium, British Athletics will take control of the arena for one month every summer.
"German"eastender, don't try and goad Prague into showing you his tic-tacs. How about you just nob off instead
That was my first thought too. I'm still not convinced he's not on the payroll of West Ham or someone connected to the deal tbh but I'm sure the Trust will be cautious about what they put out there in advance.
"German"eastender, don't try and goad Prague into showing you his tic-tacs. How about you just nob off instead
That was my first thought too. I'm still not convinced he's not on the payroll of West Ham or someone connected to the deal tbh but I'm sure the Trust will be cautious about what they put out there in advance.
I think he's genuine. He posts on KUMB as "Hamburg Hammer" but he doesn't say much there because no one on there is capable of a post of more than two sentences (which of course isn't a bad thing, if one sentence isn't **** *** you Charlton *****). I think he's here because he thinks he's found the heart of the campaign. He doesn't understand that since the Supporters Summit in Manchester the campaign went London-wide and I'm just a bit-part player. I don't think we should help him further, but maybe we could be generous and advise him not to spend too much time on The Lion Rants, if he's looking for further intelligence.
You're right, I'm just a fan, with no connection to the West Ham hierarchy (unfortunately). I also post and write on West Ham Till I Die. But it's true, maybe this has run its course, everything has been said numerous times. my posts will not change your stance of feeling hard done by, demanding answers (you may not get, or at least not in the near future). Your posts won't change my stance that West Ham struck a good deal under the circumstances and the terms of the deal are also fair under the circumstances (also you can obviously argue, like you do, that West Ham could or should pay more). I'll continue to occasionally drop in and mainly read this thread from now on. I'm sure the next petition is already in the pipeline. Good luck again with your endeavour, whatever it may lead to...
I think we (supporters of all clubs) just need to get more signatures - the more we have the harder it will be for the government to dismiss. We have their attention! If we keep picking the scab which this deal ultimately is it won't heal. I do love the misleading nature of the government response by the way. As Prague has already said, it is predictable, but the bit about revenues flooding to the tax payer conveniently ignores the money taken from the tax payer in the first place to allow West Ham to play there that has no prospect of being paid back in not just our lifetimes, but our children's and children's children's!!!! If that isn't a scandal, I don't know what is and the government wont be able to hide thi sfrom tax payers as they have a right to know how their money has been spent - sorry wasted.
At the risk of stating the obvious. ‘The Olympic stadium - how the Hammers struck gold’ is available on youtube. I don’t think it was originally broadcast nationally. It may be of benefit to pass on to the interested parties that are further afield.
At the risk of stating the obvious. ‘The Olympic stadium - how the Hammers struck gold’ is available on youtube. I don’t think it was originally broadcast nationally. It may be of benefit to pass on to the interested parties that are further afield.
It has been linked on the front page of the Trust website since it ran, it has to be said. There are also a lot of background docs. available there. We will tidy it all up and make a "resource centre" which can b used by journalists and politicians.
Something has been bothering me about this and it's regarding the 99 year deal that is repeatedly dished out by defenders of the deal. Can anyone think of a top class stadium that has lasted 99 years without being hugely modernised and upgraded at least once? Do the apologists really think it's realistic to quote the 2.5million that will come in per year, but completely disregard any upgrade work that will be needed? This will surely come from our pockets again won't it? The stadium is still state owned after all. We might as well halve the length of the deal if we're going to look at how much income West Ham will provide, (and even 50 years seems a long time with no upgrades) because we're going to have to pay for the stadium again and they'll then be able to continue using it at the same rate. I may be going down a blind alley with this, but it does seem to me like they just lengthened the terms of the deal so the claim can be that we receive 2.5m x 99 = 247.5m which is not that far from the development outlay. In reality, (and even ignoring all those other issues previously mentioned) it won't come even remotely close.
In short - when the stadium needs updating again, who will pay for it and, if it's us, how much will it cost us this time? Will it be another 200m or so?
I have the impression that you do not fully understand what the "previous deal" actually was, and why it failed. Please tell us what you think it as, and who it was who "caused it to collapse". It will be useful for people to have the facts on that.
Other than that you make the same unjustified assertion you did on your last visit on Aug 6, namely that the vast majority of the comments on here reflect a personal crusade against West Ham. That is as untrue now as it was on Aug 6, as I pointed out to you at the time. Poster after poster has acknowledged that West Ham have done what any business would do. Indeed I read a poster on KUMB saying that if in stead Arsenal or Spurs had done such a deal, it would have been Hammers fans who would have started the petition.
My understanding was that the first deal faced lengthy legal challenges that were mainly centred on the £40m that Newham Council were putting into the stadium and when after an anonymous complaint to the EC over state aid they withdrew and the whole deal collasped.
You know exactly that I was not saying that deal was what I recommended but merely suggesting that based of the comments I have seen on here many seem to be inferring that a similar deal to the original one because of the expenses West Ham were likely to have faced now seems preferable than the one we now have and that previous complaints brought this about.
All I can say to your last comment is if Charlton were the beneficences of such a deal and you can assure me that yourself and everyone else voicing such strong opinions against this deal would equally be at the forefront of such a similar petition then I accept my assertions are misplaced otherwise you know exactly that the reason most people feel strongly about this is because their club is not benefiting and little to do about an outrage over wasting taxpayer's money, that is just the convenient excuse they are using to express their disapproval that West Ham have such a deal and not their club.
There seems to be some exception because I don't see this issue along tribal lines and see the pure hypocrisy being demonstrated by many involved, I am not happy with the situation but for me the cause of the problems go back a long way than just pointing the figure at those currently in charge and there is a fair argument that those involved today are simply making the best of situation caused by previous incompetent decisions and commitments and to be honest amongst all the comments being spouted I am not seeing many other viable suggestions being made.
For that reason I am happy to see West Ham take over the tenancy and as long Charlton get things right at their end both on and off the pitch I don't think we have much to worry about whereas someone like Spurs do and as they are a club with little moral standing in my eyes they can fight their own battles without me.
You are broadly correct about why the first deal failed. You are wrong to suggest it was some kind of conspiracy, and I am slightly curious that the only other place where I read that kind of slant on it is on West Ham boards. The fact is that it was always going to be stopped by the EC on state grounds. The deal involved West Ham and Newham jointly buying the stadium on a 50;50 basis. That meant that public money (the Newham share) would directly support the West Ham balance sheet. That clearly breaks EC rules, and they had already intervened in similar situations in the case of five Dutch clubs. It was only a matter of time as to when they found out what was going on. They do rely on people to point things out, that was the case with the Dutch clubs. The complainee is not anonymous. His name is Steve Lawrence, an architect who worked on the stadium project and is concerned about the legacy. He is not a supporter of any particular club.
Ironically, had that deal gone through then as a Charlton supporter I probably would not have taken such a close interest in it, or encouraged the rest of the Trust to do so. That plan involved a much more modest stadium which West Ham would have worked much harder to make commercially successful. Therefore they would not be flinging tickets willy nilly around Woolwich at dumping prices. It would from a Charlton point of view have been better. It just had the disadvantage of being clearly illegal according to State Aid rules. It remains to be seen if this one is legal. As I write, a team of top lawyers is investigating the issue again on behalf of two clubs (neither of them CAFC). That ought to be enough to dismiss your "tribal" accusation but since you keep coming up with the same thing, I'll say this one more time as clearly as possible:
CAST has no objection to West Ham being tenants of the Olympic Stadium. They are more than welcome to it. We object to the outrageous and unnecessary contribution to that tenancy by the taxpayer. The situation can simply be resolved by renegotiating the contract to achieve a fairer balance between what the taxpayer and what West Ham pay. Such a re-negotation took place in the City of Manchester Stadium case, to mutual benefit.
If you still seek further "assurances" (are you a member of CAST?) well as I said to GermanEastEnder look out for me at the Rotherham game, handing out copies of Trust News. I'll be happy to chat about it, and I promise not to be as stroppy as I sound, its just I get a bit tired of people coming out with the same old crap about the issue, especially when their only messages on CL ( in your case all but one of six in total) are dedicated to spouting that crap.
I need to get back on the hypocrisy issue. You keep mentioning Man City as a glowing example of a fair deal to the taxpayer. Yes, they renegotiated the rent which is slightl yhigher now. But they also pay 2 million a year to get the right to sell the naming rights of the stadium (and keep the profuts for themselves). The deal was rumoured to be 400 million for ten years, 40 million per year. If you deduct the buying expenditure of 2 million that gives City 38 million every year. Why don't I see petitions about a fairer share of that massive naming rights deal in connection with a publicly owned stadium ? Why are you moaning about conversion costs of 280 million in relation to the OS when Man City are being gifted 380 million by their council ?
I need to get back on the hypocrisy issue. You keep mentioning Man City as a glowing example of a fair deal to the taxpayer. Yes, they renegotiated the rent which is slightl yhigher now. But they also pay 2 million a year to get the right to sell the naming rights of the stadium (and keep the profuts for themselves). The deal was rumoured to be 400 million for ten years, 40 million per year. If you deduct the buying expenditure of 2 million that gives City 38 million every year. Why don't I see petitions about a fairer share of that massive naming rights deal in connection with a publicly owned stadium ? Why are you moaning about conversion costs of 280 million in relation to the OS when Man City are being gifted 380 million by their council ?
I have done nothing of the kind. The City deal is far from "glowing". However it is better than the West Ham deal in a number of ways, which the LLDC should have taken note of:
1. Notwithstanding that football was always planned as the legacy there, City still stumped up just under 50% of the conversion costs. West Ham share is just 6%, and... 2. City handed the keys to Maine Road to the council. For nothing. Whereas West Ham keep the proceeds of the Boleyn which is about three times as much as their paltry 6% contribution. 3. As a result of this the Council have generated profit on the development of Maine Road and the area which was a shit hole is now being re-generated 4. Meanwhile the area around the CoM is being developed with Mansour's money. £900m according to my source at Manchester City Council (who happens not be a Mancunian and supports a team we have recently beaten). It is not in the contract as such but is a giant win win for the City of Manchester. Remind me how much of Gullivan's fortunes are being ploughed into regeneration of Newham?
Yes, the deals are different, in some areas West ham are better off than City, in others it's vice versa. But I firmly believe that the result will ultimately be the same as you mentioned in your final paragraph. In London we will soon see the same win/win scenario as you described for Manchester. Although of course we don't have a Sheikh yet showering us in banknotes like it is the case at Man City.
Yes, the deals are different, in some areas West ham are better off than City, in others it's vice versa. But I firmly believe that the result will ultimately be the same as you mentioned in your final paragraph. In London we will soon see the same win/win scenario as you described for Manchester. Although of course we don't have a Sheikh yet showering us in banknotes like it is the case at Man City.
Yet.
Prague, I think you should stop referring to any money spent by Sheikh Mansour in the area around the CoMS as it's not related to the ground deal.
Yes, the deals are different, in some areas West ham are better off than City, in others it's vice versa. But I firmly believe that the result will ultimately be the same as you mentioned in your final paragraph. In London we will soon see the same win/win scenario as you described for Manchester. Although of course we don't have a Sheikh yet showering us in banknotes like it is the case at Man City.
Yet.
Prague, I think you should stop referring to any money spent by Sheikh Mansour in the area around the CoMS as it's not related to the ground deal.
Well the guy who I was referred to at Manchester CC (who spoke on condition of anonymity) said that in Manchester it is absolutely regarded as related. Of course it is not in the contract, but it is a direct result of it. Even at this level, human relationships can play a role. The Council and Mansour have gradually grown to trust each other. The re-negotiation of the contract has been part of that process. Mansour absolutely did not need to invest all that money in Manchester re-generation. There is even a claim that he has funded a new tram link, but that wasn't confirmed by my contact.
The reason why I think it is important to be highlighted is that overall there is no significant hostility to the deal in Manchester because so many citizens see the win-win. Where is the petition against it from United fans?
Now there is an issue with the naming rights, but @GermanEastEnder has completely failed to describe what it is. He does not actually know what the amount is, but it is widely believed to be over-priced. As such it is seen to be a way of getting round FFP. The Qataris are up to similar tricks in Paris. Now if @GermanEastEnder wants to start a petition about pseudo sponsorship deals like that, I'll be the first to sign it.
What @GermanEastEnder fails to appreciate, whether that be from selective choice or ignorance is that the Man City stadium naming rites are intrinsically linked to the club. I thought it would be clear to all but the dumbest of people that West Ham doesn't hold the same kudos - if they did there would have been people queuing up to rename Upton Park over the past few years. West Ham - and I don't mean this disrespectfully, just honestly, are a middling lower premiership club who spend a fair amount of time in the division below. Because of their rich owner, Man City are in the highest levels of world football. I am PMSL that West Ham fans are so delusional. They have a job getting decent shirt sponsors FFS.
What kind of club were Man City before they got their big break with the stadium and their new Sheikh owners ? How much did they make from naming rights for their old ground at Maine Road ? The situation between City and West Ham pre move to their new grounds is quite similar: Both are clubs, vastly underachieving in recent times with a massive fanbase (yes, I know Man City had some success many years back in the old days winning titles and cups) and being somewhat in the shadow of bigger clubs as neighbours, Man U in City's case, Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs in our case. Man City, just as West Ham, have spent some time below the top league level too. We all know what Man City have become now, due to their new ground and new owners, a situation which may be replicated by West Ham in the next few years too. There are no guarantees of course, but there is a good chance West Ham might just be the next Man City on the scene. Besides, if we are just a middling Premier League club, I don't know why you are so concerned about all this. Surely a middling Premier League club will never have the kudos to take any serious number of fans away from supporting Charlton Athletic. And of course any naming rights deal being struck at the OS will be intrinsically linked to West Ham. or do you honestly think some big company will splash the cash on a sponsorship deal due to the athletics legacy, a rugby club playing there occasionally or the odd concert by Madonna or the Red Hot Chili Peppers ? Selective choice and ignorance on my part ? Maybe. But you guys aren't far behind in that respect.
What kind of club were Man City before they got their big break with the stadium and their new Sheikh owners ? How much did they make from naming rights for their old ground at Maine Road ? The situation between City and West Ham pre move to their new grounds is quite similar: Both are clubs, vastly underachieving in recent times with a massive fanbase (yes, I know Man City had some success many years back in the old days winning titles and cups) and being somewhat in the shadow of bigger clubs as neighbours, Man U in City's case, Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs in our case. Man City, just as West Ham, have spent some time below the top league level too. We all know what Man City have become now, due to their new ground and new owners, a situation which may be replicated by West Ham in the next few years too. There are no guarantees of course, but there is a good chance West Ham might just be the next Man City on the scene. Besides, if we are just a middling Premier League club, I don't know why you are so concerned about all this. Surely a middling Premier League club will never have the kudos to take any serious number of fans away from supporting Charlton Athletic. And of course any naming rights deal being struck at the OS will be intrinsically linked to West Ham. or do you honestly think some big company will splash the cash on a sponsorship deal due to the athletics legacy, a rugby club playing there occasionally or the odd concert by Madonna or the Red Hot Chili Peppers ? Selective choice and ignorance on my part ? Maybe. But you guys aren't far behind in that respect.
Great, so the "huge" taxpayer returns from the naming rights (the one and only thing West Ham supposedly offer to one of the best known buildings in the UK) are "intrinsically linked" to Gullivan selling out at huge profit to some Russians or Qataris or whatever and them spending loads of money on West Ham's first team.
In other words, the only way the taxpayer gets any return is if Gullivan get a massive return for their £15m. Even still, that depends on who chooses to buy the club, so Gullivan will be counting their millions long before the taxpayer gets anything.
God - your arguments are so weak. What Man City have are rich owners who have spent silly money to make them one of the worlds biggest clubs. Charlton have as much chance as West Ham of getting that type of owner - it's luck. We nearly did a few years ago but that's another story. But it is nothing to do with scrounging off tax payers like the benefit cheats you see on channel 4 and 5 every other night! And the fears about taking fans away are based around what a poor draw West Ham actually is. They can’t fill the stadium so their best option will be to virtually give seats away undercutting a fantastic club like Leyton orient that is on their doorstep. Nobody would have a problem on this count if they charged proper prices but hearing Brady lecture other clubs about cheap prices really got my goat up. I wish West Ham were a big club as then they wouldn’t have the plan of using their windfall (thanks to taxpayers) to undercut honest clubs. My point is West Ham will have zero appeal to a big company – the fact that it is an Olympic stadium and loved would be a far greater draw. If I owned a company, West Ham playing in the stadium would put me off if anything!
Sometimes I wish the mods on here weren't so fair. We've heard all we need from the irons haven't we?
Well I've given up with him. I would not mind if he took on board what he reads here in reply to him, but he just keeps churning out the same old crap. Appreciate the rest of you carrying on with him, but we've got more important thing alike our latest press release, which should be up on the Trust website shortly.
@PragueAddick Has the point I made earlier about the realistic life expectancy of a stadium been made at the trust or the discussions with other clubs groups? Apologies if it's been mentioned before, but I hadn't seen it anywhere. I don't know if it's a useful angle, that's all.
"If I owned a company, West Ham playing in the stadium would put me off if anything!" And that sentence shows it is personal, biased and tribal. Sponsors don't think like that. None of them who are likely interested in sponsoring the OS are West Ham fans or gew up watching Bobby Moore. They will see Premier League football-iconic venue-London and that combination will make it work. West Ham happen to be the Premier League club which by the way had the highest attendance percentage in the league last season, so much for not being able to fill a stadium. It all doesn't work out though with all this tribalism on show here, from myself included, arguments falling on deaf ears on both parts. Good luck again for the work of your Trust and your upcoming press release. I can feel the government and West Ham alike quivering with fear already...over and out!
GermanEastEnder you talk of ignorance: Selective choice and ignorance on my part ? Maybe. But you guys aren't far behind in that respect.
What we are all ignorant of are the terms of the deal which have been redacted. We are all being kept in the dark about that, you included...that is where matters of ignorance rests. By the way 'commercial sensitivity' does not stack up for a microsecond. Because I am of that kind of mindset, the redaction unsurprisingly leads to speculation, how would you feel if when the truth comes out that Boris, and Gullivan and others were basically using the whole malarkey to line their own pockets at the expense of the ordinary citizen? For all I know (in my ignorance) that may be the real story here. The ordinary West Ham United fan, whose relatives ashes are scattered at the Boelyn, are also being treated as mere irritants in this saga, there are clearly Hammers fans who love the old place, and the prospect of moving is gutting for them, maybe they would be interested in the whole truth as to why they are experiencing such distressing upheaval.
"If I owned a company, West Ham playing in the stadium would put me off if anything!" And that sentence shows it is personal, biased and tribal. Sponsors don't think like that. None of them who are likely interested in sponsoring the OS are West Ham fans or gew up watching Bobby Moore. They will see Premier League football-iconic venue-London and that combination will make it work. West Ham happen to be the Premier League club which by the way had the highest attendance percentage in the league last season, so much for not being able to fill a stadium. It all doesn't work out though with all this tribalism on show here, from myself included, arguments falling on deaf ears on both parts. Good luck again for the work of your Trust and your upcoming press release. I can feel the government and West Ham alike quivering with fear already...over and out!
No it doesn't. And sponsors do think like that. It's how the commercial world and partnerships work - I'm sure Prague will be able to explain that to you. West Ham are not an appealing club to a big partner at the moment, no more than, say Norwich are. That's all it refers to.
Comments
If you take a look at any of the petitions on the website which have received a Government response you will see that every single response is a defence of the government's existing position. In our petition's case, every single aspect of their argument has been circulated previously by the LLDC or West Ham itself. I could have written that response myself just by cutting and pasting.
Do you really think we expected a response such as "Hmm yes, you guys have a point, maybe we had better look at this deal again" ?
How about you just nob off instead
Artist's impression of West Ham at the Olympic StadiumImage copyrightWest Ham
Image caption
West Ham will play at the Olympic Stadium from the 2016-17 season
The government has rejected a request from a group of football supporters to investigate the rental of the Olympic Stadium to West Ham United.
The supporters claimed the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) would subsidise rent, which it denied.
The group made up of trusts from clubs including Arsenal said it was "disappointed" by the decision but had expected it.
The government said the deal had been "scrutinised" and "upheld".
A Freedom of Information request previously revealed West Ham contributed £15m to the £272m conversion of the stadium and will pay up to £2.5m a year in rent.
The LLDC, which owns the stadium, will pay for "facilities and services" such as pitch maintenance and for stewarding on match days, which can cost £2.5m annually.
In comparison, Manchester City, who moved into the former Commonwealth Games venue, pay overheads on top of £4m rent.
The Olympic StadiumImage copyrightGetty Images
Image caption
The Olympic Stadium will host other sporting and entertainment events
The coalition of supporters, made up of trusts from clubs including Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur, started an online petition which had gained more than 24,000 signatures in favour of an inquiry.
Mat Roper said the group remained concerned they were expected to see it as a "fabulous deal for the taxpayer" when they had not seen any figures backing that up and one document they requested had been "completely redacted".
He said: "We're no nearer the truth of what we think is in the rental agreement....until we know that then we're going to continue.
"Whether it happens to be continuing with that petition, a new petition or... a new FOI request, it's certainly not dead in the water."
The group said they remained concerned the deal would give the Hammers a competitive advantage.
But the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said: "West Ham United has a concession at the stadium and their contributions reflect that status.
"The contract, awarded after an open public competition, has been widely scrutinised and tested in court.
"The stadium remains in public ownership and the profits from its multiple uses will flow to the taxpayer."
While West Ham will host all of their home matches at the stadium, British Athletics will take control of the arena for one month every summer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34143614
my posts will not change your stance of feeling hard done by, demanding answers (you may not get, or at least not in the near future).
Your posts won't change my stance that West Ham struck a good deal under the circumstances and the terms of the deal are also fair under the circumstances (also you can obviously argue, like you do, that West Ham could or should pay more).
I'll continue to occasionally drop in and mainly read this thread from now on. I'm sure the next petition is already in the pipeline. Good luck again with your endeavour, whatever it may lead to...
Can anyone think of a top class stadium that has lasted 99 years without being hugely modernised and upgraded at least once? Do the apologists really think it's realistic to quote the 2.5million that will come in per year, but completely disregard any upgrade work that will be needed? This will surely come from our pockets again won't it? The stadium is still state owned after all.
We might as well halve the length of the deal if we're going to look at how much income West Ham will provide, (and even 50 years seems a long time with no upgrades) because we're going to have to pay for the stadium again and they'll then be able to continue using it at the same rate.
I may be going down a blind alley with this, but it does seem to me like they just lengthened the terms of the deal so the claim can be that we receive 2.5m x 99 = 247.5m which is not that far from the development outlay. In reality, (and even ignoring all those other issues previously mentioned) it won't come even remotely close.
In short - when the stadium needs updating again, who will pay for it and, if it's us, how much will it cost us this time? Will it be another 200m or so?
You know exactly that I was not saying that deal was what I recommended but merely suggesting that based of the comments I have seen on here many seem to be inferring that a similar deal to the original one because of the expenses West Ham were likely to have faced now seems preferable than the one we now have and that previous complaints brought this about.
All I can say to your last comment is if Charlton were the beneficences of such a deal and you can assure me that yourself and everyone else voicing such strong opinions against this deal would equally be at the forefront of such a similar petition then I accept my assertions are misplaced otherwise you know exactly that the reason most people feel strongly about this is because their club is not benefiting and little to do about an outrage over wasting taxpayer's money, that is just the convenient excuse they are using to express their disapproval that West Ham have such a deal and not their club.
There seems to be some exception because I don't see this issue along tribal lines and see the pure hypocrisy being demonstrated by many involved, I am not happy with the situation but for me the cause of the problems go back a long way than just pointing the figure at those currently in charge and there is a fair argument that those involved today are simply making the best of situation caused by previous incompetent decisions and commitments and to be honest amongst all the comments being spouted I am not seeing many other viable suggestions being made.
For that reason I am happy to see West Ham take over the tenancy and as long Charlton get things right at their end both on and off the pitch I don't think we have much to worry about whereas someone like Spurs do and as they are a club with little moral standing in my eyes they can fight their own battles without me.
Ironically, had that deal gone through then as a Charlton supporter I probably would not have taken such a close interest in it, or encouraged the rest of the Trust to do so. That plan involved a much more modest stadium which West Ham would have worked much harder to make commercially successful. Therefore they would not be flinging tickets willy nilly around Woolwich at dumping prices. It would from a Charlton point of view have been better. It just had the disadvantage of being clearly illegal according to State Aid rules. It remains to be seen if this one is legal. As I write, a team of top lawyers is investigating the issue again on behalf of two clubs (neither of them CAFC). That ought to be enough to dismiss your "tribal" accusation but since you keep coming up with the same thing, I'll say this one more time as clearly as possible:
CAST has no objection to West Ham being tenants of the Olympic Stadium. They are more than welcome to it. We object to the outrageous and unnecessary contribution to that tenancy by the taxpayer. The situation can simply be resolved by renegotiating the contract to achieve a fairer balance between what the taxpayer and what West Ham pay. Such a re-negotation took place in the City of Manchester Stadium case, to mutual benefit.
If you still seek further "assurances" (are you a member of CAST?) well as I said to GermanEastEnder look out for me at the Rotherham game, handing out copies of Trust News. I'll be happy to chat about it, and I promise not to be as stroppy as I sound, its just I get a bit tired of people coming out with the same old crap about the issue, especially when their only messages on CL ( in your case all but one of six in total) are dedicated to spouting that crap.
The deal was rumoured to be 400 million for ten years, 40 million per year.
If you deduct the buying expenditure of 2 million that gives City 38 million every year.
Why don't I see petitions about a fairer share of that massive naming rights deal in connection with a publicly owned stadium ? Why are you moaning about conversion costs of 280 million in relation to the OS when Man City are being gifted 380 million by their council ?
1. Notwithstanding that football was always planned as the legacy there, City still stumped up just under 50% of the conversion costs. West Ham share is just 6%, and...
2. City handed the keys to Maine Road to the council. For nothing. Whereas West Ham keep the proceeds of the Boleyn which is about three times as much as their paltry 6% contribution.
3. As a result of this the Council have generated profit on the development of Maine Road and the area which was a shit hole is now being re-generated
4. Meanwhile the area around the CoM is being developed with Mansour's money. £900m according to my source at Manchester City Council (who happens not be a Mancunian and supports a team we have recently beaten). It is not in the contract as such but is a giant win win for the City of Manchester. Remind me how much of Gullivan's fortunes are being ploughed into regeneration of Newham?
Next?
But I firmly believe that the result will ultimately be the same as you mentioned in your final paragraph.
In London we will soon see the same win/win scenario as you described for Manchester.
Although of course we don't have a Sheikh yet showering us in banknotes like it is the case at Man City.
Prague, I think you should stop referring to any money spent by Sheikh Mansour in the area around the CoMS as it's not related to the ground deal.
The reason why I think it is important to be highlighted is that overall there is no significant hostility to the deal in Manchester because so many citizens see the win-win. Where is the petition against it from United fans?
Now there is an issue with the naming rights, but @GermanEastEnder has completely failed to describe what it is. He does not actually know what the amount is, but it is widely believed to be over-priced. As such it is seen to be a way of getting round FFP. The Qataris are up to similar tricks in Paris. Now if @GermanEastEnder wants to start a petition about pseudo sponsorship deals like that, I'll be the first to sign it.
How much did they make from naming rights for their old ground at Maine Road ?
The situation between City and West Ham pre move to their new grounds is quite similar: Both are clubs, vastly underachieving in recent times with a massive fanbase (yes, I know Man City had some success many years back in the old days winning titles and cups) and being somewhat in the shadow of bigger clubs as neighbours, Man U in City's case, Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs in our case.
Man City, just as West Ham, have spent some time below the top league level too.
We all know what Man City have become now, due to their new ground and new owners, a situation which may be replicated by West Ham in the next few years too.
There are no guarantees of course, but there is a good chance West Ham might just be the next Man City on the scene. Besides, if we are just a middling Premier League club, I don't know why you are so concerned about all this.
Surely a middling Premier League club will never have the kudos to take any serious number of fans away from supporting Charlton Athletic.
And of course any naming rights deal being struck at the OS will be intrinsically linked to West Ham.
or do you honestly think some big company will splash the cash on a sponsorship deal due to the athletics legacy, a rugby club playing there occasionally or the odd concert by Madonna or the Red Hot Chili Peppers ?
Selective choice and ignorance on my part ? Maybe. But you guys aren't far behind in that respect.
We've heard all we need from the irons haven't we?
In other words, the only way the taxpayer gets any return is if Gullivan get a massive return for their £15m. Even still, that depends on who chooses to buy the club, so Gullivan will be counting their millions long before the taxpayer gets anything.
Has the point I made earlier about the realistic life expectancy of a stadium been made at the trust or the discussions with other clubs groups? Apologies if it's been mentioned before, but I hadn't seen it anywhere. I don't know if it's a useful angle, that's all.
And that sentence shows it is personal, biased and tribal. Sponsors don't think like that. None of them who are likely interested in sponsoring the OS are West Ham fans or gew up watching Bobby Moore.
They will see Premier League football-iconic venue-London and that combination will make it work.
West Ham happen to be the Premier League club which by the way had the highest attendance percentage in the league last season, so much for not being able to fill a stadium.
It all doesn't work out though with all this tribalism on show here, from myself included, arguments falling on deaf ears on both parts.
Good luck again for the work of your Trust and your upcoming press release.
I can feel the government and West Ham alike quivering with fear already...over and out!
Selective choice and ignorance on my part ? Maybe. But you guys aren't far behind in that respect.
What we are all ignorant of are the terms of the deal which have been redacted.
We are all being kept in the dark about that, you included...that is where matters of ignorance rests. By the way 'commercial sensitivity' does not stack up for a microsecond.
Because I am of that kind of mindset, the redaction unsurprisingly leads to speculation, how would you feel if when the truth comes out that Boris, and Gullivan and others were basically using the whole malarkey to line their own pockets at the expense of the ordinary citizen? For all I know (in my ignorance) that may be the real story here.
The ordinary West Ham United fan, whose relatives ashes are scattered at the Boelyn, are also being treated as mere irritants in this saga, there are clearly Hammers fans who love the old place, and the prospect of moving is gutting for them, maybe they would be interested in the whole truth as to why they are experiencing such distressing upheaval.