allowing for the conversion costs to be repaid multiple times over.
This interests me, you keep saying this BUT the conversion cost £272,000,000.
To repay this ONCE Westham need to pay £2,747,474.74 per season.
BUT as you will have the pitch maintenance, stewarding etc covered for you at a cost of around £2,500,000 per season that would mean you will need to pay a minimum of £5.247,474.74 a season to pay it back ONCE.
seems odd that multiple sources have quoted a figure of £2.5m a season in rent.
I'm not going to get into a pointless hypothetical debate with someone who cant see that without full disclosure of the deal it is impossible to judge value for money for the taxpayer. Well done on CAST for ensuring that, even though it may have an adverse effect on the ability of the LLDC to earn money back for the taxpayer from the stadium.
You started debating my points. And it may not have an adverse effect
I'm not going to get into a pointless hypothetical debate with someone who cant see that without full disclosure of the deal it is impossible to judge value for money for the taxpayer. Well done on CAST for ensuring that, even though it may have an adverse effect on the ability of the LLDC to earn money back for the taxpayer from the stadium.
I'm not going to get into a pointless hypothetical debate with someone who cant see that without full disclosure of the deal it is impossible to judge value for money for the taxpayer. Well done on CAST for ensuring that, even though it may have an adverse effect on the ability of the LLDC to earn money back for the taxpayer from the stadium.
Why not disclose it all, and then let all sports clubs have £272,000,000ish of free taxpayers money, West Ham trot on, and everybody else gets the same as them, win win all round.
I know how you are. You are the guy who chose to highlight my real name on West Ham sites, in a lamentable attempt to make it about individuals.
When was this, then? I've always broadly supported the idea that the details of the contract be published, and so have already commended you on your work here.
And anyway, assuming you are one of the people that was on that truly lamentable documentary, your name already is in the public sphere, so why should that be an issue for you?
As for me, I'm happy to be a keyboarder on this, and see going on the telly about it as somewhat cringeworthy (certainly the West Ham fans on it who were cheerleading the move).
Were YOU in the documentary? if not I apologize, you are not whom I assumed....
plus they did those interviews really early on a Sunday and I would have looked and felt like a sack of $hit.
plus I'm not wholly convinced it will be such a great deal as some of those vox poppers thought (we certainly wont be "up there with the likes of Real Madrid" just on the basis of the stadium deal) without full disclosure of the deal. So again, thanks.
I wonder if the majority of Boelyn Ground regulars want to move, or if they are being dragged along, or railroaded, or delighted with it all, or reluctantly going along with it slightly bewildered...any idea of percentages? Being an old git myself I would find making that sort of change sort of sad, I dunno, spiritually I suppose. Is there a Voice for West Ham doubters (if they exist)?
plus they did those interviews really early on a Sunday and I would have looked and felt like a sack of $hit.
plus I'm not wholly convinced it will be such a great deal as some of those vox poppers thought (we certainly wont be "up there with the likes of Real Madrid" just on the basis of the stadium deal) without full disclosure of the deal. So again, thanks.
Then I apologize. I assumed you were Sean Whetstone.
I'm not going to get into a pointless hypothetical debate with someone who cant see that without full disclosure of the deal it is impossible to judge value for money for the taxpayer. Well done on CAST for ensuring that, even though it may have an adverse effect on the ability of the LLDC to earn money back for the taxpayer from the stadium.
Sorry @gavros the role of 'very concerned for the betterment of the UK taxpayer' has already been quite forcibly acquired.
Then I apologize. I assumed you were Sean Whetstone.
Nope. I am someone who you described as "got nothing particularly striking to say". Which would patently not be true to someone who had taken at face value the BBC Documentary you participated in which did not reveal at least some of the information in the Hone-Biggs letter of 2013 with regards to rent covering costs, share of catering, share of stadium sponsorship and clawback of profits on sale. But that's all going to be revealed now so I'm happy. I understand why West Ham will be 'disappointed' and I very much doubt its because they think they have the "Deal Of The Century".
That Goering comment was very mature indeed. By the way: Huddersfield looking quite good at your place, don't they ?
I do apologise mein Freund for being euphoric and rather child like on the 15th of September. You see I live in the garden of England and spent the day gazing admirably into the sky as Spitfires and Hurricanes flew magestically in commemoration of a profound national event.
Those graphics in the BBC report are brilliant. They make me laugh every time I see them. Hardly any gap between the first row of seats and the pitch. West Ham fans must realise they are being conned. They can't be that stupid, can they?
Those graphics in the BBC report are brilliant. They make me laugh every time I see them. Hardly any gap between the first row of seats and the pitch. West Ham fans must realise they are being conned. They can't be that stupid, can they?
False advertising? Another indictment to add to the list.
If there is a presumption that revealing the details will show that West Ham are not getting such a great deal, surely that would help them in transfer dealings as without the details there is the assumption that they have the deal of the century. One of the things that cause me to raise my concerns is the weakness of the arguments for not disclosing the details. You dont even have to look very hard to see the flaws. Like the statment of the yearly deal for the taxpayer. They are clearly asking us to forget the hundreds of millions in conversion costs and west ham having hospitality, maintenance, security etc... paid for them for a peppercorn rent, for the promise that no more mo ey will be spent on the stadium. We all know that financially the details will not provide any good stories for the taxpayers at all and the maths will be too simple to decieve people.
One does wonder why WH are so concerned over the impact on the LLDC in the future. Have they lined something else then?
Yeah, maybe Boris has promised the two jazz mag magnets a knighthood if they keep schtum about the deal...or WHU are just so altruistic that they can't stand the thought of the taxpayer getting ripped off?
Sorry to burst your bubble but the Newham thing is a red herring. Newhams involvement is thanks to money it can tap from the Treasury for investment purposes only. The shortfall they're trying to make up is on the current expenditure side of the balance sheet. They couldn't have tapped the money for the stadium to plug their current budget shortfall.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the Newham thing is a red herring. Newhams involvement is thanks to money it can tap from the Treasury for investment purposes only. The shortfall they're trying to make up is on the current expenditure side of the balance sheet. They couldn't have tapped the money for the stadium to plug their current budget shortfall.
So if you are correct Newham could have spent that £40m investing in other things that would have benefited the local community? Or is the Treasury pot for investment that they tapped in to just reserved for supporting local 'for profit' private companies?
This is the biggest outrage of the whole sorry affair .... Sir Robbin' Wales makes the greatest investment since Jack parted with the family cow in exchange for the magic beans.
Comments
This interests me, you keep saying this BUT the conversion cost £272,000,000.
To repay this ONCE Westham need to pay £2,747,474.74 per season.
BUT as you will have the pitch maintenance, stewarding etc covered for you at a cost of around £2,500,000 per season that would mean you will need to pay a minimum of £5.247,474.74 a season to pay it back ONCE.
seems odd that multiple sources have quoted a figure of £2.5m a season in rent.
http://www.newham.gov.uk/Pages/News/Newham-council-to-ask-residents-and-businesses-to-help-it-save-50-million-next-year.aspx
I know how it can save £45M in one go.
If yes, well ....
plus they did those interviews really early on a Sunday and I would have looked and felt like a sack of $hit.
plus I'm not wholly convinced it will be such a great deal as some of those vox poppers thought (we certainly wont be "up there with the likes of Real Madrid" just on the basis of the stadium deal) without full disclosure of the deal. So again, thanks.
Being an old git myself I would find making that sort of change sort of sad, I dunno, spiritually I suppose. Is there a Voice for West Ham doubters (if they exist)?
By some German bloke in Hamburg
Now back to this grubby little deal...
there will be an 'investigaton'
Think it has done its job, good to see it climbing, if slowly.
This is the biggest outrage of the whole sorry affair .... Sir Robbin' Wales makes the greatest investment since Jack parted with the family cow in exchange for the magic beans.