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.
@Gavros. Could you explain to me why the citizens of Newham were emphatically told in policy documents that £40m was the absolute max they'd have to stump up for the OS, yet last October the Council quietly slipped through another £5m? You can read their answer to the question on WhatDoTheyKnow. Do you believe it? Do you think it a coincidence that this was quietly slipped through as an emergency item at the same time as word leaked out in the press of the overspend on the OS roof? Most of all, do you believe Sir Robin Wales to be a man of integrity and probity (his rabid support for the Hammers notwithstanding)?
Yesterday, the Coalition, having seen off Boris Johnson, decided that Wales is next. Not my gig, I've never knowingly spent more than 10 minutes in Newham, but we will uncover the dirt there too.
Newham have confirmed that it will get a well above market rate on return on its investment (thus blowing out of the water that argument that they just should have bought bonds to have made more money) plus access for Newham related events on a number of days of the year, plus thousands of tickets for all sorts of events for Newham residents. So yeah, they did quite well out of it.
Newham have confirmed that it will get a well above market rate on return on its investment (thus blowing out of the water that argument that they just should have bought bonds to have made more money) plus access for Newham related events on a number of days of the year, plus thousands of tickets for all sorts of events for Newham residents. So yeah, they did quite well out of it.
As they have to give the tickets away free to residents how is it a good deal?
@Gavros. Could you explain to me why the citizens of Newham were emphatically told in policy documents that £40m was the absolute max they'd have to stump up for the OS, yet last October the Council quietly slipped through another £5m? You can read their answer to the question on WhatDoTheyKnow. Do you believe it? Do you think it a coincidence that this was quietly slipped through as an emergency item at the same time as word leaked out in the press of the overspend on the OS roof? Most of all, do you believe Sir Robin Wales to be a man of integrity and probity (his rabid support for the Hammers notwithstanding)?
Yes I can explain that. Its not been put through planning yet, but a school will sit at the very bottom of the community track, and this is what this extra investment relates to. You can see that in the minutes of the report that was linked into your response
"1. Note the potential development of a secondary school on the Stadium Island Site, on land owned by E20.
2. Agree the principle that appropriate compensation will be paid to E20 for agreeing to meet the Legacy Communities Scheme obligation to develop the school on the Rick Roberts Way site, and give delegated authority to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Director of Finance to determine the appropriate amount of compensation (if any) that should fall to Newham to fund, subject to appropriate conditions being met and financial due diligence confirming that the compensation will not have an adverse impact on the Council’s budget strategy
3. Agree the principle that an appropriate sum will be invested to improve venues and events included in the revised E20 remit, up to a maximum level of £5million (in addition to any sums payable under recommendation 2) in return for community and financial benefits set out in this report. Give delegated authority to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Director of Finance to determine the appropriate amounts of investment subject to appropriate conditions being met.
4. Agree that, in principle, the Council should negotiate the forming of a joint venture with LLDC (and if appropriate the other major landowner) and develop a new masterplan for the development of Rick Roberts Way site. The financial terms for the joint venture may take into account the widening of the remit of E20 Stadium LLP to include the southern area of the Olympic Park. The Mayor and Cabinet would receive a detailed report prior to the establishment of any joint venture for this purpose."
So it's for a school, not for the stadium.
You may also be aware that the LLDC have recently agreed to allow E20 LLP to take over the South park area of the Olympic Park (the bit to the south of the Orbit), and in this process Newham will more than likely be able to tap further investment funds as it prepares to welcome University College London to its new campus, which will generate a huge amount of economic growth for the area.
As to "do I believe it?" yes, I do, because I've seen the plans for the school. It will have a focus on sport and utilise the Community Track and partner with the Essex Beagles, to great success, I'd imagine.
Newham have confirmed that it will get a well above market rate on return on its investment (thus blowing out of the water that argument that they just should have bought bonds to have made more money) plus access for Newham related events on a number of days of the year, plus thousands of tickets for all sorts of events for Newham residents. So yeah, they did quite well out of it.
As they have to give the tickets away free to residents how is it a good deal?
And it's likely to be a full time job for a few people to shift the tickets so there's more cost for Newham...
Newham have confirmed that it will get a well above market rate on return on its investment (thus blowing out of the water that argument that they just should have bought bonds to have made more money) plus access for Newham related events on a number of days of the year, plus thousands of tickets for all sorts of events for Newham residents. So yeah, they did quite well out of it.
Except that:
1. "Investments" can go down as well as up. What if the projections don't materialise? (we already have some worrying figures)… 2. West Ham have total control over when the "thousands of tickets" are made available. If you think there will be 5,000 free tickets for each home game, (e.g Man Utd) I think you will be disappointed. 30,000 for the 3rd round cup tie against Bury is more likely. 3. Access for Newham related events. Great. Meanwhile the citizens are being asked to help their poor council save £50m…
@Gavros - The extra £5m does not relate to the school at all! It relates to Point 3 in the document, not to the other two points above it. You are right that it should not be used for the stadium, but on other things that might bring in revenue for Newham. The report submitted to the Council and minutes do not cover what the investment will actually be for, or what revenue they may derive, but they have stated that they should not be confident of ever having it repaid...
This is making less and less sense to me, I'm afraid. A grandiose scheme in no small part a tribute to the prodigious vanity of Newham's Dear Leader is being brazenly underpinned by sheer casino economics. London has gained its very own banana republic. The sooner the investigative journalists demolish this shameless house of cards the better.
@Gavros - The extra £5m does not relate to the school at all! It relates to Point 3 in the document, not to the other two points above it. You are right that it should not be used for the stadium, but on other things that might bring in revenue for Newham. The report submitted to the Council and minutes do not cover what the investment will actually be for, or what revenue they may derive, but they have stated that they should not be confident of ever having it repaid...
The £5 million relates to the "revised E20 remit", which presumably includes the school on the stadium island site, the school on the Rick Roberts Way site (for those that know Stratford, that's the currently unused bit of land opposite Kesslers, and the incorporation of the South Park of the Olympic Park in preparation for the arrival of UCL.
As for the costs of conversion, these are widely misunderstood. The original contract with Balfour Beatty announced at £154 million was to prepare the superstructure for and build the roof of the stadium. Problems found with the superstructure, due to the fact it was supposed to be temporary after all, cost a further £36 million to rectify. The rest of the conversion cost went on things like hospitality fit out, retractable seating, the community track and so on, and was on budget, with an overall cost of £272 million.
As was noted at the time, the LLDC covered the £36 million cost overrun out of its contingency:
"A statement from the Legacy Company, the not-for-profit organisation responsible for re-developing the Olympic Park, said extra money would come from the project contingencies and additional income they will generate from their other developments, which insidethegames understands will include other venues and the construction of approximately 6,800 homes"
So no, this £5 million is separate from the stadium costs, as was noted by the LLDC when it providedd the final costs:
"Sources of funding The funding for the Stadium transformation work comes from a number of sources: £40m: LB Newham £15m: West Ham United FC £38.7m: Games Public Sector Funding Package £1m: UK Athletics £3.5m: London Marathon Charitable Trust £25m: Government £148.8m: 2010 CSR settlement plus income generated on the Park through land sales and profits from venues"
"Sources of funding The funding for the Stadium transformation work comes from a number of sources: £40m: LB Newham £15m: West Ham United FC £38.7m: Games Public Sector Funding Package £1m: UK Athletics £3.5m: London Marathon Charitable Trust £25m: Government £148.8m: 2010 CSR settlement plus income generated on the Park through land sales and profits from venues"
@gavros do you think west ham have paid a fair price..??
I dont know, but I am certain that the documents when published (I believe within two weeks unless appealed?) will show a far greater share from West Ham toward the stadium than £2.5 million rent and £15 million capital expenditure. in fact as I've pointed out, the LLDC have already pointed out that is the case. I therefore expect the publication to put to bed in the public conscious any idea that this deal was somehow 'dodgy' or benefitting of state aid.
By 2018 London will likely have five stadia of 60000+ capacity, all modern and purpose-built. Chelsea and Tottenham will have a combined million extra Prem seats to fill. Stratford's transport links will be enhanced by Crossrail, which will open up travel not only from but also to many parts of the capital. Attracting people and major events to a bodged-up OS and charmless E20 will not be at all easy.
@gavros do you think west ham have paid a fair price..??
I dont know, but I am certain that the documents when published (I believe within two weeks unless appealed?) will show a far greater share from West Ham toward the stadium than £2.5 million rent and £15 million capital expenditure. in fact as I've pointed out, the LLDC have already pointed out that is the case. I therefore expect the publication to put to bed in the public conscious any idea that this deal was somehow 'dodgy' or benefitting of state aid.
I think most if not all of us hope that will happen.
The issue is not rival clubs having a go at West Ham per se but an interest in ensuring transparency and probity as regards use of taxpayers' money.
The only direct football aspect involved would be if West Ham somehow derived an unfair advantage over other clubs because of the deal.
If full disclosure confirms your final sentence then everyone's a winner or as Delboy would say soup de jour!
@gavros do you think west ham have paid a fair price..??
I dont know, but I am certain that the documents when published (I believe within two weeks unless appealed?) will show a far greater share from West Ham toward the stadium than £2.5 million rent and £15 million capital expenditure. in fact as I've pointed out, the LLDC have already pointed out that is the case. I therefore expect the publication to put to bed in the public conscious any idea that this deal was somehow 'dodgy' or benefitting of state aid.
You are certain? That would indicate insider knowledge - so have you seen the full clean document?
The whole point is that everyone else wants to share that certainty and if you are right then everyone's a winner. The reticence to share has lead to the rumours of a dodgy deal and there has always been a way to prove the rumour mongers wrong.
@gavros do you think west ham have paid a fair price..??
I dont know, but I am certain that the documents when published (I believe within two weeks unless appealed?) will show a far greater share from West Ham toward the stadium than £2.5 million rent and £15 million capital expenditure. in fact as I've pointed out, the LLDC have already pointed out that is the case. I therefore expect the publication to put to bed in the public conscious any idea that this deal was somehow 'dodgy' or benefitting of state aid.
If that's the case why are West Ham so reluctant for it to come out?
@gavros Can you square up your (Newham's) indication that they will get an above market return on their investment with Newham's documented advice that they don't expect to get their money back ?
@gavros Can you square up your (Newham's) indication that they will get an above market return on their investment with Newham's documented advice that they don't expect to get their money back ?
Will be surprised if he answers that, as just like GEE, he will go missing when presented with some hard nosed facts
You are certain? That would indicate insider knowledge - so have you seen the full clean document?
The whole point is that everyone else wants to share that certainty and if you are right then everyone's a winner. The reticence to share has lead to the rumours of a dodgy deal and there has always been a way to prove the rumour mongers wrong.
No I dont have insider knowledge, but I have this public document, which I've pointed out to doubters so many times I'm sick of it now myself:
LLDC Chief Exec Denis Hone: "LLDC are aiming to secure naming and other sponsorship rights over the next year through a competitive process. We will be doing this in collaboration with WHU (who retain shirt sponsorship) to ensure that the full value for shirt and stadium naming rights are maximised. The concession agreement sets a base value below which West Ham will not share. In terms of food, beverage and hospitality for WHU matches, again, LLDC have agreed a baseline below which WHU does not share, and above revenue is shared but significant in the Grantor's favour. For non WHU events the Grantor retains all food, beverage and hospitality rights. Due to confidentiality agreements in place we are unable to disclose full details but again the deal provides significant potential upside to the Grantor while ensuring that WHU are able to deliver a viable business plan which will allow the club to thrive in the stadium....
..."in broad terms the deal provides WHU with a 99 year lease, which ensures the stadium has ongoing, year round use. With regards to financial payments by the club, they have made public their £15 contribution to the capital costs of transforming the stadium which is personally guaranteed by the owners. They will also pay an annual index linked usage fee which more than covers the cost of them hosting matches at the stadium. LLDC also negotiated a two pronged protection of taxpayers interest: WHU will pay the grantor a percentage of the uplift of the value of the club should the owners sell their shares after their move to the stadium, and if WHU's performance exceeds their baseline assumptions, the LLDC will receive performance payments. All annual and performance payments are RPI linked"
This triangulates with what David Sullivan said in a recent interview with the Sunday Times
“We’ve given up virtually all the naming rights, which are worth a lot of money. The catering income — and we make vast amounts from that at Upton Park — will be shared between us and LLDC. The base rent? We’re giving a lot more back than has been said."
These are the details, already partially disclosed by both West Ham and the LLDC, which I believe will convince the public that the deal is not 'dodgy' in any way.
@gavros do you think west ham have paid a fair price..??
I dont know, but I am certain that the documents when published (I believe within two weeks unless appealed?) will show a far greater share from West Ham toward the stadium than £2.5 million rent and £15 million capital expenditure. in fact as I've pointed out, the LLDC have already pointed out that is the case. I therefore expect the publication to put to bed in the public conscious any idea that this deal was somehow 'dodgy' or benefitting of state aid.
How trusting. I think the whole thing stinks. The project should be stopped until a public enquiry has been held. Any wrong doing and I hope they are all sent to prison.
Isn't it possible that Newham Council are happy with the additional business activity the OS will bring to the whole area when events happen in the OS, restaurants, pubs, shops being more frequently used etc. ? Answer me this: Why would the government and Newham Council gang up to keep a public asset like the OS going for another 99 years willing to lose money for the taxpayer while filling the pockets of West Ham United at the same time ? Is there any plausible reason why anyone would want to do West Ham, Gold, Sullivan or Brady any financial favours to the detriment of the taxpayers ? I am happy to hear your hard nosed facts on this.
Answer me this: Why would the government and Newham Council gang up to keep a public asset like the OS going for another 99 years willing to lose money for the taxpayer while filling the pockets of West Ham United at the same time ? Is there any plausible reason why anyone would want to do West Ham, Gold, Sullivan or Brady any financial favours to the detriment of the taxpayers ? I am happy to hear your hard nosed facts on this.
1. Show us where you have hard facts to the contrary.
2. Show us where the hard nosed facts are on the appropriate appointment of Lady Brady.
Thought not, until we get the facts out about this whole tangled mess it seems only a hand full of people posting on this and other forums seem to have any idea what is and is not fact, none of us on this site do as of yet other than the slight clues uncovered we are mostly hoping for the best but expecting the worst. Now I and a number of others have asked you before. Come clean on who you are and what you know as you clearly have more answers than us or are you really that single visioned and naive?
Comments
Yesterday, the Coalition, having seen off Boris Johnson, decided that Wales is next. Not my gig, I've never knowingly spent more than 10 minutes in Newham, but we will uncover the dirt there too.
1. "Investments" can go down as well as up. What if the projections don't materialise? (we already have some worrying figures)…
2. West Ham have total control over when the "thousands of tickets" are made available. If you think there will be 5,000 free tickets for each home game, (e.g Man Utd) I think you will be disappointed. 30,000 for the 3rd round cup tie against Bury is more likely.
3. Access for Newham related events. Great. Meanwhile the citizens are being asked to help their poor council save £50m…
This is making less and less sense to me, I'm afraid. A grandiose scheme in no small part a tribute to the prodigious vanity of Newham's Dear Leader is being brazenly underpinned by sheer casino economics. London has gained its very own banana republic. The sooner the investigative journalists demolish this shameless house of cards the better.
As for the costs of conversion, these are widely misunderstood. The original contract with Balfour Beatty announced at £154 million was to prepare the superstructure for and build the roof of the stadium. Problems found with the superstructure, due to the fact it was supposed to be temporary after all, cost a further £36 million to rectify. The rest of the conversion cost went on things like hospitality fit out, retractable seating, the community track and so on, and was on budget, with an overall cost of £272 million.
As was noted at the time, the LLDC covered the £36 million cost overrun out of its contingency:
"A statement from the Legacy Company, the not-for-profit organisation responsible for re-developing the Olympic Park, said extra money would come from the project contingencies and additional income they will generate from their other developments, which insidethegames understands will include other venues and the construction of approximately 6,800 homes"
insidethegames.biz/articles/1023410/problems-with-roof-forces-36-million-london-2012-olympic-stadium-conversion-cost-hike
So no, this £5 million is separate from the stadium costs, as was noted by the LLDC when it providedd the final costs:
"Sources of funding
The funding for the Stadium transformation work comes from a number of sources:
£40m: LB Newham
£15m: West Ham United FC
£38.7m: Games Public Sector Funding Package
£1m: UK Athletics
£3.5m: London Marathon Charitable Trust
£25m: Government
£148.8m: 2010 CSR settlement plus income generated on the Park through land sales and profits from venues"
queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/media/press-releases/stadium-transformation-cost-announced-ahead-of-hosting-raft-of-world-class-sporting-events
Glad to be of help.
Have a look at this for images of one of the schools in question
https://mgov.newham.gov.uk/documents/s92215/Appendix%202%20Plans%20and%20Images.pdf
Thanks for highlighting this report, it contains some useful info.
By 2018 London will likely have five stadia of 60000+ capacity, all modern and purpose-built. Chelsea and Tottenham will have a combined million extra Prem seats to fill. Stratford's transport links will be enhanced by Crossrail, which will open up travel not only from but also to many parts of the capital. Attracting people and major events to a bodged-up OS and charmless E20 will not be at all easy.
Do any alarm bells ring when looking at the facts that have been uncovered by the trust?
The issue is not rival clubs having a go at West Ham per se but an interest in ensuring transparency and probity as regards use of taxpayers' money.
The only direct football aspect involved would be if West Ham somehow derived an unfair advantage over other clubs because of the deal.
If full disclosure confirms your final sentence then everyone's a winner or as Delboy would say soup de jour!
The whole point is that everyone else wants to share that certainty and if you are right then everyone's a winner. The reticence to share has lead to the rumours of a dodgy deal and there has always been a way to prove the rumour mongers wrong.
So £2.5m a year rent, with all match day costs included is fine when you are looking at getting at least £10m per match.
I told you that they only see things that they want to see people..!!
Can you square up your (Newham's) indication that they will get an above market return on their investment with Newham's documented advice that they don't expect to get their money back ?
london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s25244/Appendix%204%20-%20Letter%20to%20John%20Biggs%20from%20LLDC%20-%20Olympic%20Stadium%20costs.pdf
LLDC Chief Exec Denis Hone: "LLDC are aiming to secure naming and other sponsorship rights over the next year through a competitive process. We will be doing this in collaboration with WHU (who retain shirt sponsorship) to ensure that the full value for shirt and stadium naming rights are maximised. The concession agreement sets a base value below which West Ham will not share. In terms of food, beverage and hospitality for WHU matches, again, LLDC have agreed a baseline below which WHU does not share, and above revenue is shared but significant in the Grantor's favour. For non WHU events the Grantor retains all food, beverage and hospitality rights. Due to confidentiality agreements in place we are unable to disclose full details but again the deal provides significant potential upside to the Grantor while ensuring that WHU are able to deliver a viable business plan which will allow the club to thrive in the stadium....
..."in broad terms the deal provides WHU with a 99 year lease, which ensures the stadium has ongoing, year round use. With regards to financial payments by the club, they have made public their £15 contribution to the capital costs of transforming the stadium which is personally guaranteed by the owners. They will also pay an annual index linked usage fee which more than covers the cost of them hosting matches at the stadium. LLDC also negotiated a two pronged protection of taxpayers interest: WHU will pay the grantor a percentage of the uplift of the value of the club should the owners sell their shares after their move to the stadium, and if WHU's performance exceeds their baseline assumptions, the LLDC will receive performance payments. All annual and performance payments are RPI linked"
This triangulates with what David Sullivan said in a recent interview with the Sunday Times
“We’ve given up virtually all the naming rights, which are worth a lot of money. The catering income — and we make vast amounts from that at Upton Park — will be shared between us and LLDC. The base rent? We’re giving a lot more back than has been said."
https://westhamtillidie.com/posts/2015/08/10/david-sullivan-maybe-we-can-pick-off-tottenham
These are the details, already partially disclosed by both West Ham and the LLDC, which I believe will convince the public that the deal is not 'dodgy' in any way.
Answer me this: Why would the government and Newham Council gang up to keep a public asset like the OS going for another 99 years willing to lose money for the taxpayer while filling the pockets of West Ham United at the same time ? Is there any plausible reason why anyone would want to do West Ham, Gold, Sullivan or Brady any financial favours to the detriment of the taxpayers ?
I am happy to hear your hard nosed facts on this.
2. Show us where the hard nosed facts are on the appropriate appointment of Lady Brady.
Thought not, until we get the facts out about this whole tangled mess it seems only a hand full of people posting on this and other forums seem to have any idea what is and is not fact, none of us on this site do as of yet other than the slight clues uncovered we are mostly hoping for the best but expecting the worst. Now I and a number of others have asked you before. Come clean on who you are and what you know as you clearly have more answers than us or are you really that single visioned and naive?