Just a quick one as I dash between meetings. How can you "give up" something you never had? Unless I've missed it and the Boleyn has been renamed the XXXBabes Stadium, or something, for the last 10 years?
So you think Lady Brady has anything to do with the future use of a public asset like the OS for 99 years ? Karren Brady may be a successful business woman. But do you think she is really that important that politicians would risk their careers over her by doing dodgy stuff and wasting taxpayers' money. As you were talking about drops in the ocean. 280 million conversion costs over a public asset that is likely to be around for 99 years generating income is indeed a drop in the ocean. Less than 3 million conversion costs a year for an asset that will easily recoup that money as you will soon enough see when the terms of the deal are published. If you really had the taxpayers' interests at heart you would want to dig into other government projects where the really big money is being spent or wasted.
If your home city wins the 2024 Summer Olympics, will you be happy if your "friends" at HSV are handed a nice new stadium at minimal cost ? What chance of St Pauli getting the same deal (don't laugh) ? Maybe now you know how it feels to us.
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.
In the UK it is normal, where a private company is given planning consent for a large development, for that company to make a financial 'payment' (I forget the Section number) in lieu of the benefits they anticipate getting, not the other way round.
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.
In the UK it is normal, where a private company is given planning consent for a large development, for that company to make a financial 'payment' (I forget the Section number) in lieu of the benefits they anticipate getting, not the other way round.
One thing I have yet to understand is how the conversion costs will be the end of it; what happens in twenty years or so when things need updating? West Ham, as only tenants will not pay for it. And nor will Newham, Vinci, LLDC, nor E20 want to pay for it (as they will not get any better return). Any rent contract signed now should start to cover the costs for the inevitable upgrades in the future. West Ham's contract blatantly does not (if it is only £2.5m a year)...
There's a lot of chat on Reddit about this, but I'm nowhere near clever enough to point them in the right direction - is there a summary I can link to, featuring questions the trust want to have answered?
You know what ? If Hamburg got the Olympics I'd be happy for a new stadium coming about. And I don't think either of the two big Hamburg clubs would use an Olympic Stadium as they have both recently renovated their old grounds and are quite happy with it. In general I'd be happy to see such an asset being put to good and long-term use, regardless of who is using it. Thankfully we will have some facts soon enough and hopefully at that point the issue can be laid to rest. You can moan all you like, you can now see the terms of the deal and I doubt you will be satisfied no matter what the figures are. You cannot expect to get to dictate the terms of this deal to the government or West Ham no matter how much you'd like to do that. If this wasn't football but a deal for a new motorway, railway tracks or some new submarines for your navy you wouldn't bat an eyelid, even though the money spent there would be significantly more than 280 million. I stick by my notion that this campaign of yours is an honest one. It's driven by sour grapes, greed and envy. Let's have that bloody contract out into the public eye now and get this sorted.
If your home city wins the 2024 Summer Olympics, will you be happy if your "friends" at HSV are handed a nice new stadium at minimal cost ? What chance of St Pauli getting the same deal (don't laugh) ? Maybe now you know how it feels to us.
Why would you think GEE has any opinion on the HSV/St Pauli rivalry ??
Top posts, GEE, moving into full-on parody now. Good work.
You know what ? If Hamburg got the Olympics I'd be happy for a new stadium coming about. And I don't think either of the two big Hamburg clubs would use an Olympic Stadium as they have both recently renovated their old grounds and are quite happy with it. In general I'd be happy to see such an asset being put to good and long-term use, regardless of who is using it. Thankfully we will have some facts soon enough and hopefully at that point the issue can be laid to rest. You can moan all you like, you can now see the terms of the deal and I doubt you will be satisfied no matter what the figures are. You cannot expect to get to dictate the terms of this deal to the government or West Ham no matter how much you'd like to do that. If this wasn't football but a deal for a new motorway, railway tracks or some new submarines for your navy you wouldn't bat an eyelid, even though the money spent there would be significantly more than 280 million. I stick by my notion that this campaign of yours is an honest one. It's driven by sour grapes, greed and envy. Let's have that bloody contract out into the public eye now and get this sorted.
You know what ? If Hamburg got the Olympics I'd be happy for a new stadium coming about. And I don't think either of the two big Hamburg clubs would use an Olympic Stadium as they have both recently renovated their old grounds and are quite happy with it. In general I'd be happy to see such an asset being put to good and long-term use, regardless of who is using it. Thankfully we will have some facts soon enough and hopefully at that point the issue can be laid to rest. You can moan all you like, you can now see the terms of the deal and I doubt you will be satisfied no matter what the figures are. You cannot expect to get to dictate the terms of this deal to the government or West Ham no matter how much you'd like to do that. If this wasn't football but a deal for a new motorway, railway tracks or some new submarines for your navy you wouldn't bat an eyelid, even though the money spent there would be significantly more than 280 million. I stick by my notion that this campaign of yours is an honest one. It's driven by sour grapes, greed and envy. Let's have that bloody contract out into the public eye now and get this sorted.
thus spoke Herman Von Sullivan .. it's not so much what the stadium would be used for .. I have no problem with West Ham FC using the place .. The objection is HOW MUCH ARE THEY PAYING FOR THE USE OF IT ..and how much a private company is getting by way of a public subsidy to the possible detriment of other local companies in the same market .. i.e. other football clubs who could well be hindered by West Ham's receipt of a huge (I'll type it again) subsidy from public and lottery funds. If the investigation proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the whole negotiation and transfer of tenancy to West Ham was 'fair' and all above board, then so be it .. whatever the outcome, the annual rent the Hammers will pay for the use of the stadium needs to be substantially increased, as does the club's outgoings in matters of maintenance and security/stewarding
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.
And now the end is near, and so I face the final ... Oops sorry - I was sure Frank Sinatra just walked in - AGAIN
GEE has said he follows St Pauli and also a team from the local leagues. HSV are the corporate model so despised by St Pauli fans, and yet WHU's ambitions on the same lines are ok, apparently.
There's a lot of chat on Reddit about this, but I'm nowhere near clever enough to point them in the right direction - is there a summary I can link to, featuring questions the trust want to have answered?
Hi Jimmy, the Trust website, for sure. We have built a "resource centre" with all the relevant stuff. But Andrew Dismore had used it to lay into Boris yesterday, as are the better journalists. We actually took some stuff down in case it assisted the LLDC lawyers in an appeal, but that actually looks a fear that is more unfounded than we expected.
GEE has said he follows St Pauli and also a team from the local leagues. HSV are the corporate model so despised by St Pauli fans, and yet WHU's ambitions on the same lines are ok, apparently.
And if I get directly asked a question I will reply. I think you will find once the deal is out that West Ham as anchor tenant (not owner of the stadium) paid a market going rate under the circumstances. I think you'll find it would have driven the market price up if there had been more competitors to rent the place. Guess what ? There weren't any other viable options who wanted to rent. That's why the rent is reasonably low, maybe Charlton should have bid to drive the price up.
There's a lot of chat on Reddit about this, but I'm nowhere near clever enough to point them in the right direction - is there a summary I can link to, featuring questions the trust want to have answered?
Hi Jimmy, the Trust website, for sure. We have built a "resource centre" with all the relevant stuff (cue Reams of Hate banging on about preening Prague Addick etc :-)). But Andrew Dismore had used it to lay into Boris yesterday, as are the better journalists. We actually took some stuff down in case it assisted the LLDC lawyers in an appeal, but that actually looks a fear that is more unfounded than we expected.
Thanks Prague.
PS Apparently I walked past you on Saturday, but didn't find out until two minutes later!? Will try and say hello next time!
There's nothing as exciting as a comeback - seeing someone with dreams, watching them fail, and then getting a second chance. Or in GEE's case, a 3rd, 4th, 5th or even 6th comeback..!!
Now he is on about 'current circumstances'. I wonder if he could elaborate on what these ' current circumstances are..??
And if I get directly asked a question I will reply. I think you will find once the deal is out that West Ham as anchor tenant (not owner of the stadium) paid a market going rate under the circumstances. I think you'll find it would have driven the market price up if there had been more competitors to rent the place. Guess what ? There weren't any other viable options who wanted to rent. That's why the rent is reasonably low, maybe Charlton should have bid to drive the price up.
So the market rate under the circumstances was net feck all?
Give us £2.5m a year rent (don't worry we'll pay all the refurb costs apart from £15m that you can take out of the £60-70m you got from the sale of that karsi down the road) and we'll give you at least the value of your rent in freebie security and stewarding and other ancillary match day costs.
There's a lot of chat on Reddit about this, but I'm nowhere near clever enough to point them in the right direction - is there a summary I can link to, featuring questions the trust want to have answered?
Hi Jimmy, the Trust website, for sure. We have built a "resource centre" with all the relevant stuff (cue Reams of Hate banging on about preening Prague Addick etc :-)). But Andrew Dismore had used it to lay into Boris yesterday, as are the better journalists. We actually took some stuff down in case it assisted the LLDC lawyers in an appeal, but that actually looks a fear that is more unfounded than we expected.
Thanks Prague.
PS Apparently I walked past you on Saturday, but didn't find out until two minutes later!? Will try and say hello next time!
And if I get directly asked a question I will reply. I think you will find once the deal is out that West Ham as anchor tenant (not owner of the stadium) paid a market going rate under the circumstances. I think you'll find it would have driven the market price up if there had been more competitors to rent the place. Guess what ? There weren't any other viable options who wanted to rent. That's why the rent is reasonably low, maybe Charlton should have bid to drive the price up.
So the market rate under the circumstances was net feck all?
Give us £2.5m a year rent (don't worry we'll pay all the refurb costs apart from £15m that you can take out of the £60-70m you got from the sale of that karsi down the road) and we'll give you at least the value of your rent in freebie security and stewarding and other ancillary match day costs.
GEE I've a question as I genuinely don't understand this.
If you're happy for your owners to piss away your history, change your badge, move your home and rename your club to London United and if it's the word "London" that's apparently the magic key that unlocks all this Arab money for sponsorship and naming rights etc. then how the fudge can't you understand that renting costs more in London than it does in scuzzy Manchester? A fudge lot more, you twonk....
And if I get directly asked a question I will reply. I think you will find once the deal is out that West Ham as anchor tenant (not owner of the stadium) paid a market going rate under the circumstances. I think you'll find it would have driven the market price up if there had been more competitors to rent the place. Guess what ? There weren't any other viable options who wanted to rent. That's why the rent is reasonably low, maybe Charlton should have bid to drive the price up.
So the market rate under the circumstances was net feck all?
Give us £2.5m a year rent (don't worry we'll pay all the refurb costs apart from £15m that you can take out of the £60-70m you got from the sale of that karsi down the road) and we'll give you at least the value of your rent in freebie security and stewarding and other ancillary match day costs.
GEE I've a question as I genuinely don't understand this.
If you're happy for your owners to piss away your history, change your badge, move your home and rename your club to London United and if it's the word "London" that's apparently the magic key that unlocks all this Arab money for sponsorship and naming rights etc. then how the fudge can't you understand that renting costs more in London than it does in scuzzy Manchester? A fudge lot more, you twonk....
"Yeah but blah blah naming rights blah given away zzzzz"
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.
In the UK it is normal, where a private company is given planning consent for a large development, for that company to make a financial 'payment' (I forget the Section number) in lieu of the benefits they anticipate getting, not the other way round.
Section 106 ?
Section 106 is used when granting planning to convert a house into flats where the owner of the property agrees to a reduction in the number of parking permits that can be sought from the whole house (or the flats that are there after development).
And if I get directly asked a question I will reply. I think you will find once the deal is out that West Ham as anchor tenant (not owner of the stadium) paid a market going rate under the circumstances. I think you'll find it would have driven the market price up if there had been more competitors to rent the place. Guess what ? There weren't any other viable options who wanted to rent. That's why the rent is reasonably low, maybe Charlton should have bid to drive the price up.
So the market rate under the circumstances was net feck all?
Give us £2.5m a year rent (don't worry we'll pay all the refurb costs apart from £15m that you can take out of the £60-70m you got from the sale of that karsi down the road) and we'll give you at least the value of your rent in freebie security and stewarding and other ancillary match day costs.
GEE I've a question as I genuinely don't understand this.
If you're happy for your owners to piss away your history, change your badge, move your home and rename your club to London United and if it's the word "London" that's apparently the magic key that unlocks all this Arab money for sponsorship and naming rights etc. then how the fudge can't you understand that renting costs more in London than it does in scuzzy Manchester? A fudge lot more, you twonk....
"Yeah but blah blah naming rights blah given away zzzzz"
.....and you don't know what you have done, this will cost the taxpayer more money, should have left it alone, pure jealousy ... ohhh and we won the world cup don't you know
Leave our history and badge to us, not all of our fans are happy with it, but most see the move to the OS as a means to an end, a necessary step to grow the club, change happens and the OS was a once in a lifetime opportunity as the OS happened to be in the borough Of Newham where West Ham have always been. So yes, a heavy dose of luck involved here. Charlton would have grasped the same opportunity if the OS had been built south of the river. A market rate is a rate that can be achieved in the real world. the market circumstances as they were gave West Ham a good negotiationg position and the LLDC a rather limited foundation to work with. So you shouldn't be surprised that the rate will be nowhere near whatever you might consider as a London market rate. Again, it was an open tender process, anyone could have made a better offer than West Ham and become the anchor tenant. You better get used to the idea.
And if I get directly asked a question I will reply. I think you will find once the deal is out that West Ham as anchor tenant (not owner of the stadium) paid a market going rate under the circumstances. I think you'll find it would have driven the market price up if there had been more competitors to rent the place. Guess what ? There weren't any other viable options who wanted to rent. That's why the rent is reasonably low, maybe Charlton should have bid to drive the price up.
So the market rate under the circumstances was net feck all?
Give us £2.5m a year rent (don't worry we'll pay all the refurb costs apart from £15m that you can take out of the £60-70m you got from the sale of that karsi down the road) and we'll give you at least the value of your rent in freebie security and stewarding and other ancillary match day costs.
GEE I've a question as I genuinely don't understand this.
If you're happy for your owners to piss away your history, change your badge, move your home and rename your club to London United and if it's the word "London" that's apparently the magic key that unlocks all this Arab money for sponsorship and naming rights etc. then how the fudge can't you understand that renting costs more in London than it does in scuzzy Manchester? A fudge lot more, you twonk....
It's when they change the colour of their shirts that I'll be laughing for real.
And if I get directly asked a question I will reply. I think you will find once the deal is out that West Ham as anchor tenant (not owner of the stadium) paid a market going rate under the circumstances. I think you'll find it would have driven the market price up if there had been more competitors to rent the place. Guess what ? There weren't any other viable options who wanted to rent. That's why the rent is reasonably low, maybe Charlton should have bid to drive the price up.
So the market rate under the circumstances was net feck all?
Give us £2.5m a year rent (don't worry we'll pay all the refurb costs apart from £15m that you can take out of the £60-70m you got from the sale of that karsi down the road) and we'll give you at least the value of your rent in freebie security and stewarding and other ancillary match day costs.
GEE I've a question as I genuinely don't understand this.
If you're happy for your owners to piss away your history, change your badge, move your home and rename your club to London United and if it's the word "London" that's apparently the magic key that unlocks all this Arab money for sponsorship and naming rights etc. then how the fudge can't you understand that renting costs more in London than it does in scuzzy Manchester? A fudge lot more, you twonk....
It's when they change the colour of their shirts that I'll be laughing for real.
And if I get directly asked a question I will reply. I think you will find once the deal is out that West Ham as anchor tenant (not owner of the stadium) paid a market going rate under the circumstances. I think you'll find it would have driven the market price up if there had been more competitors to rent the place.
Chelsea & Spurs are looking at £10m + per season for Wembley, whilst West Ham pay £2.5m for the OS.
And if I get directly asked a question I will reply. I think you will find once the deal is out that West Ham as anchor tenant (not owner of the stadium) paid a market going rate under the circumstances. I think you'll find it would have driven the market price up if there had been more competitors to rent the place.
Chelsea & Spurs are looking at £10m + per season for Wembley, whilst West Ham pay £2.5m for the OS.
Quite, and since that figure is one West Ham have been happy to have out there, you wonder why on earth one of them wouldn't instead look at the OS for £5m plus overheads. I think that's one of the things we will learn from the full release...
Comments
Just a quick one as I dash between meetings. How can you "give up" something you never had? Unless I've missed it and the Boleyn has been renamed the XXXBabes Stadium, or something, for the last 10 years?
Karren Brady may be a successful business woman. But do you think she is really that important that politicians would risk their careers over her by doing dodgy stuff and wasting taxpayers' money.
As you were talking about drops in the ocean. 280 million conversion costs over a public asset that is likely to be around for 99 years generating income is indeed a drop in the ocean.
Less than 3 million conversion costs a year for an asset that will easily recoup that money as you will soon enough see when the terms of the deal are published.
If you really had the taxpayers' interests at heart you would want to dig into other government projects where the really big money is being spent or wasted.
Sehr geehrte GEE,
If your home city wins the 2024 Summer Olympics, will you be happy if your "friends" at HSV are handed a nice new stadium at minimal cost ? What chance of St Pauli getting the same deal (don't laugh) ? Maybe now you know how it feels to us.
In general I'd be happy to see such an asset being put to good and long-term use, regardless of who is using it.
Thankfully we will have some facts soon enough and hopefully at that point the issue can be laid to rest.
You can moan all you like, you can now see the terms of the deal and I doubt you will be satisfied no matter what the figures are.
You cannot expect to get to dictate the terms of this deal to the government or West Ham no matter how much you'd like to do that. If this wasn't football but a deal for a new motorway, railway tracks or some new submarines for your navy you wouldn't bat an eyelid, even though the money spent there would be significantly more than 280 million. I stick by my notion that this campaign of yours is an honest one.
It's driven by sour grapes, greed and envy. Let's have that bloody contract out into the public eye now and get this sorted.
Top posts, GEE, moving into full-on parody now. Good work.
If the investigation proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the whole negotiation and transfer of tenancy to West Ham was 'fair' and all above board, then so be it .. whatever the outcome, the annual rent the Hammers will pay for the use of the stadium needs to be substantially increased, as does the club's outgoings in matters of maintenance and security/stewarding
Over, and over and over ..... and out.
GEE has said he follows St Pauli and also a team from the local leagues. HSV are the corporate model so despised by St Pauli fans, and yet WHU's ambitions on the same lines are ok, apparently.
I think you'll find it would have driven the market price up if there had been more competitors to rent the place.
Guess what ? There weren't any other viable options who wanted to rent.
That's why the rent is reasonably low, maybe Charlton should have bid to drive the price up.
PS Apparently I walked past you on Saturday, but didn't find out until two minutes later!? Will try and say hello next time!
Now he is on about 'current circumstances'. I wonder if he could elaborate on what these ' current circumstances are..??
Give us £2.5m a year rent (don't worry we'll pay all the refurb costs apart from £15m that you can take out of the £60-70m you got from the sale of that karsi down the road) and we'll give you at least the value of your rent in freebie security and stewarding and other ancillary match day costs.
This was a fire sale, simple as.
If you're happy for your owners to piss away your history, change your badge, move your home and rename your club to London United and if it's the word "London" that's apparently the magic key that unlocks all this Arab money for sponsorship and naming rights etc. then how the fudge can't you understand that renting costs more in London than it does in scuzzy Manchester? A fudge lot more, you twonk....
So yes, a heavy dose of luck involved here.
Charlton would have grasped the same opportunity if the OS had been built south of the river.
A market rate is a rate that can be achieved in the real world.
the market circumstances as they were gave West Ham a good negotiationg position and the LLDC a rather limited foundation to work with. So you shouldn't be surprised that the rate will be nowhere near whatever you might consider as a London market rate.
Again, it was an open tender process, anyone could have made a better offer than West Ham and become the anchor tenant. You better get used to the idea.