£60m from direct government funding for Wembley, and £120m of lottery because DCMS needed a cover for more government money
Yes, the £120m was Sport England wasn't it Rothko, I'm sure you know it well. ;-)
I dunno, maybe it's just me. I'm not against public funding for the right things - and I thought the OS was expensive but iconic for the games - but I can't help comparing £180m for a fit-for-purpose build, with the £20m of public money that went into the City of Manchester Stadium after the games, and the £257m of public money going into the OS. That's before you count the ongoing costs of providing around £2.5m a year of additional services that effectively means West Ham get it rent free.
@Rothko, let me ask you 2 quick questions. If you were given a choice between what we have today and West Ham making a considerably larger contribution to the conversion and a rent that reflected a greater sense of balance in the deal (i.e. not West Ham taking £20m profit pa whilst the LLDC budget recognises just £200k revenues) - well simply, which would you choose? And do you really think West Ham would walk away if they'd had to hand over the keys to the Boleyn Ground and pay £5m a year - it would reduce their profits down to say £17.5m pa?
Ha, I wonder who will win that battle. Moneybags Russian or tight@rse Levy. Off to MK Dons we go
I know of a stadium down the road in East London that might be available...at the right price...and only if the sitting tenant is okay with you using it when they aren't themselves...and if you don't mind claret and blue.
Seriously, isn't the fact Spurs are looking for a temporary home and we have available a tax payer funded, (now) purpose built, state of the art football ground a few miles away and they don't even seem to be considering it, further evidence that WHU have got this deal stitched up tighter than ducks backside?
What a perfect opportunity to get a few million quid back into the public coffers and it just doesn't seem to be on the agenda.
I've read in several places, think it may have been Brady herself, or was it Gullivan, that the deal they struck ensure no other PL team could share the ground. I'm also aware that the deal WHU struck with the Upton Park developers that there is a clause to stop any other team from playing there (or something like that!)
Yet it is one of the many clauses totally redacted in the current release of the contract under FOI. Frankly I don't know why she didn't keep her gob shut on this, because I promise you we are all over it in respect of Chelsea and Spurs needing a new temporary home.
We keep getting told that WHam only have the stadium for 25 days. "we're only tenants"...they plead. And yet...this line stands out in that Guardian interview with the indomitable Lady Brady..
"We are the anchor tenant for the winter matches and nothing else can happen in that time without our permission and our football matches take priority over everything else.”
The LLDC apparently have the final say, but it has to be with WHam's consent. That doesn't sound like the final say to me.
Their lawyers should be checking the document and doing all they can to get Spurs in for the season they need. WHam get priority, but it can't be outside the realms of possibility that the FAPL calendar can be arranged so that WHam and Arsenal are at home one week and Spurs the next.
For a 25 day a year tenant...WHam seem to hold way too many cards here.
That's my reading of the unredacted bit. Actually, the contract says that the Grantor (LLDC) can't override WHU on that one - WHU not to withhold unreasonably etc.
(...and it's 75 days (3 days for each football event) plus extra matches, plus office space, retail, etc. Their crest cut out in the seats, their livery everywhere... Not bad for £2.5m a year).
I have never understood why it had to be a football stadium. West Ham had a perfectly suitable ground already for their needs and Spurs are a North London club. There has been much talk of a legacy, but what is a legacy? The definition I understand is something handed down from the past to the future. I can't understand where West Ham fits into that. I can only presume that the legacy criteria was seen around the stadium being used and used to near capacity for sport in the years to come. Football being the only sport that fits that bill in terms of numbers. If that is the case, this is the big error. For far less taxpayer subsidy, if any at all, the stadium could have been used for other activities and its main tenant should have been British Athletics. Now that would have been a legacy. The scandal here is the amount of money that has been spent converting the stadium to a football ground when it was not designed to be one. West Ham say the stadium was badly designed. I didn't hear how badly designed it was at the Olympic games, it was badly designed as a football ground which is what it should never have been,
When decided that it had to be football, it gave West Ham a fantastic bargaining position which they have maximised. Unfortunately there has either been a major stitch up or major incompetence. The deal that has been struck is a massive and immoral use of tax payers money. It would have been much more cost effective to invest the conversion cost in bonds and rake in the interest. Completely stupid of course but much more cost effective than what has happened. The stadium handed down is not the same stadium that was a symbol of a proud moment for Britain. Politicians will want this to die, but it can't because at the heart of it all has been a major injustice. People seem to be so angry when dodgy unemployed people abuse/steal tax payers money, but when rich porn barons do it, isn't it even worse?
If there anything more passive aggressive then a ?
Sport England's remit was different when the Wembley deal was agreed, if it happened now it would be taking money away from grassroots sport. The FA have only just started to return a fraction back via the trust, and are now trying to get out of that. A lot of the funding was predicated on a running track being used at Wembley for World champs and any Olympic bid.
The CoMS is tiny in comparison to the OS, so the costs are different, the main reason the Manchester conversion was cheaper, was the main cost was to dig down and lay a pitch, all the hospitality was already in place, and the forth stand which football required was paid for by Lottery and Manchester council in the original bill.
I look at it another way, the stadium now will be long term a not be pull on Lottery and HMG money moving forward, getting West Ham in has secured it, the local economy will benefit long term, LLDC will make more then that a year both through football, Athletics, concerts etc etc (they've budgeted conservatively in year 1).
I have never understood why it had to be a football stadium. West Ham had a perfectly suitable ground already for their needs and Spurs are a North London club. There has been much talk of a legacy, but what is a legacy? The definition I understand is something handed down from the past to the future. I can't understand where West Ham fits into that. I can only presume that the legacy criteria was seen around the stadium being used and used to near capacity for sport in the years to come. Football being the only sport that fits that bill in terms of numbers. If that is the case, this is the big error. For far less taxpayer subsidy, if any at all, the stadium could have been used for other activities and its main tenant should have been British Athletics. Now that would have been a legacy. The scandal here is the amount of money that has been spent converting the stadium to a football ground when it was not designed to be one. West Ham say the stadium was badly designed. I didn't hear how badly designed it was at the Olympic games, it was badly designed as a football ground which is what it should never have been,
When decided that it had to be football, it gave West Ham a fantastic bargaining position which they have maximised. Unfortunately there has either been a major stitch up or major incompetence. The deal that has been struck is a massive and immoral use of tax payers money. It would have been much more cost effective to invest the conversion cost in bonds and rake in the interest. Completely stupid of course but much more cost effective than what has happened. The stadium handed down is not the same stadium that was a symbol of a proud moment for Britain. Politicians will want this to die, but it can't because at the heart of it all has been a major injustice. People seem to be so angry when dodgy unemployed people abuse/steal tax payers money, but when rich porn barons do it, isn't it even worse?
Good to meet you too, Len. Also good to meet @Dippenhall, and later on in the Long Pond @Strasburger.
you know how you start to form a visual impression of people here after a while? Well obviously I figured Len must be of my generation, because of his name. I'm telling you people, in real life Len could pass for mid 30s.
Anyway guys thank you all for your interest in and help with this campaign. It's great to see how people with different perspectives and skills are united in disgust at this shoddy misappropriation of our money Next week we will take another step forward.....
To which, not for the first time, my answer is, we'll see about that.
Anyway, to bring people in to the picture. when I got back to Eltham on Saturday I found a letter from the Information Commissioner. They upheld our complaint, and ordered the LLDC TO MAKE AVAILABLE ALL THE COMMERCIAL ASPECTS OF THE CONTRACT, as we had requested. No ifs, no buts. The whole letter will be up in the Trust website soon.
Tomorrow is Mayor's Question time. A couple of GLA guys, including Murad Qureshi, were already planning some questions for Boris on the issue. Those questions just got a bit tastier. We've been invited to attend and set up a meet after with the press, although I'm not sure how many will attend. Owen Gibson is definitely attending though.
We will put the pressure on Johnson to tell the LLDC Not to go through with the appeal, because to do so will increase the impression of a huge coverup. Interestingly Owen told me that Johnson quietly relinquished formal role as head of the LLDC recently. I recall @Addickted mentioned that he'd heard the slimy fat bastard was trying to back away from the whole thing. Although admittedly he didn't use that description.
Big, big breakthrough for the campaign
Anyone not signed the petition, please do it. And please join/ rejoin CAST!
Superb work. Expecting Johnson to lose his rag at City Hall tomorrow, which is always fun to see.
Will you be there? I'm getting there around 12.
Nope, but hope it goes well. Murad Qureshi's a nice guy, despite being a Man Utd fan. Embarrassment in it for Labour as well as the Tories, so good on him for chasing it.
Congratulations! You've achieved your main aim by the looks of it, the release of the entire details of the deal. However, I'm not sure you'll enjoy the potential consequences nearly quite as much. Unless unlawful stuff has happened when the deal was being negotiated and signed then there is no legal way to change the commercial terms of this deal. The LLDC and West Ham lawyers will have been through this. By publishing the commercial details however (as the LLDC have warned before) Vinci may not be able to negotiate the most lucrative deals for other future events in the OS, hence making less money back for the taxpayer than might have been possible with keeping those details secret. So in essence you would know all the details, but you would have harmed the taxpayers' purse with your actions. Would you still be happy with your campaign then ? Over and out!
Congratulations! You've achieved your main aim by the looks of it, the release of the entire details of the deal. However, I'm not sure you'll enjoy the potential consequences nearly quite as much. Unless unlawful stuff has happened when the deal was being negotiated and signed then there is no legal way to change the commercial terms of this deal. The LLDC and West Ham lawyers will have been through this. By publishing the commercial details however (as the LLDC have warned before) Vinci may not be able to negotiate the most lucrative deals for other future events in the OS, hence making less money back for the taxpayer than might have been possible with keeping those details secret. So in essence you would know all the details, but you would have harmed the taxpayers' purse with your actions. Would you still be happy with your campaign then ? Over and out!
Comments
I dunno, maybe it's just me. I'm not against public funding for the right things - and I thought the OS was expensive but iconic for the games - but I can't help comparing £180m for a fit-for-purpose build, with the £20m of public money that went into the City of Manchester Stadium after the games, and the £257m of public money going into the OS. That's before you count the ongoing costs of providing around £2.5m a year of additional services that effectively means West Ham get it rent free.
@Rothko, let me ask you 2 quick questions. If you were given a choice between what we have today and West Ham making a considerably larger contribution to the conversion and a rent that reflected a greater sense of balance in the deal (i.e. not West Ham taking £20m profit pa whilst the LLDC budget recognises just £200k revenues) - well simply, which would you choose? And do you really think West Ham would walk away if they'd had to hand over the keys to the Boleyn Ground and pay £5m a year - it would reduce their profits down to say £17.5m pa?
We keep getting told that WHam only have the stadium for 25 days. "we're only tenants"...they plead. And yet...this line stands out in that Guardian interview with the indomitable Lady Brady..
"We are the anchor tenant for the winter matches and nothing else can happen in that time without our permission and our football matches take priority over everything else.”
The LLDC apparently have the final say, but it has to be with WHam's consent. That doesn't sound like the final say to me.
Their lawyers should be checking the document and doing all they can to get Spurs in for the season they need. WHam get priority, but it can't be outside the realms of possibility that the FAPL calendar can be arranged so that WHam and Arsenal are at home one week and Spurs the next.
For a 25 day a year tenant...WHam seem to hold way too many cards here.
(...and it's 75 days (3 days for each football event) plus extra matches, plus office space, retail, etc. Their crest cut out in the seats, their livery everywhere... Not bad for £2.5m a year).
When decided that it had to be football, it gave West Ham a fantastic bargaining position which they have maximised. Unfortunately there has either been a major stitch up or major incompetence. The deal that has been struck is a massive and immoral use of tax payers money. It would have been much more cost effective to invest the conversion cost in bonds and rake in the interest. Completely stupid of course but much more cost effective than what has happened. The stadium handed down is not the same stadium that was a symbol of a proud moment for Britain. Politicians will want this to die, but it can't because at the heart of it all has been a major injustice. People seem to be so angry when dodgy unemployed people abuse/steal tax payers money, but when rich porn barons do it, isn't it even worse?
Sport England's remit was different when the Wembley deal was agreed, if it happened now it would be taking money away from grassroots sport. The FA have only just started to return a fraction back via the trust, and are now trying to get out of that. A lot of the funding was predicated on a running track being used at Wembley for World champs and any Olympic bid.
The CoMS is tiny in comparison to the OS, so the costs are different, the main reason the Manchester conversion was cheaper, was the main cost was to dig down and lay a pitch, all the hospitality was already in place, and the forth stand which football required was paid for by Lottery and Manchester council in the original bill.
I look at it another way, the stadium now will be long term a not be pull on Lottery and HMG money moving forward, getting West Ham in has secured it, the local economy will benefit long term, LLDC will make more then that a year both through football, Athletics, concerts etc etc (they've budgeted conservatively in year 1).
you know how you start to form a visual impression of people here after a while? Well obviously I figured Len must be of my generation, because of his name. I'm telling you people, in real life Len could pass for mid 30s.
Anyway guys thank you all for your interest in and help with this campaign. It's great to see how people with different perspectives and skills are united in disgust at this shoddy misappropriation of our money Next week we will take another step forward.....
I believe the Met Office will issue an update around 18.00...exclusively on the Guardian website
yours gleefully.....
BradGEE?Good work to all involved BTW
eventually, this will be deemed to be outwith the interest of the taxpayer to continue
Anyway, to bring people in to the picture. when I got back to Eltham on Saturday I found a letter from the Information Commissioner. They upheld our complaint, and ordered the LLDC TO MAKE AVAILABLE ALL THE COMMERCIAL ASPECTS OF THE CONTRACT, as we had requested. No ifs, no buts. The whole letter will be up in the Trust website soon.
Tomorrow is Mayor's Question time. A couple of GLA guys, including Murad Qureshi, were already planning some questions for Boris on the issue. Those questions just got a bit tastier. We've been invited to attend and set up a meet after with the press, although I'm not sure how many will attend. Owen Gibson is definitely attending though.
We will put the pressure on Johnson to tell the LLDC Not to go through with the appeal, because to do so will increase the impression of a huge coverup. Interestingly Owen told me that Johnson quietly relinquished formal role as head of the LLDC recently. I recall @Addickted mentioned that he'd heard the slimy fat bastard was trying to back away from the whole thing. Although admittedly he didn't use that description.
Big, big breakthrough for the campaign
Anyone not signed the petition, please do it. And please join/ rejoin CAST!
Annual membership is an absolute bargain for any Charlton fan interested in the long term future of our club.
However, I'm not sure you'll enjoy the potential consequences nearly quite as much.
Unless unlawful stuff has happened when the deal was being negotiated and signed then there is no legal way to change the commercial terms of this deal. The LLDC and West Ham lawyers will have been through this.
By publishing the commercial details however (as the LLDC have warned before) Vinci may not be able to negotiate the most lucrative deals for other future events in the OS, hence making less money back for the taxpayer than might have been possible with keeping those details secret.
So in essence you would know all the details, but you would have harmed the taxpayers' purse with your actions.
Would you still be happy with your campaign then ?
Over and out!