Yes, but Chelsea ans Spurs will be short-term users, West Ham will pay a rent each year for 99 years. Simple rule of economics, you commit yourself for longer you get a better rate. Not rocket science.
Yes, but Chelsea ans Spurs will be short-term users, West Ham will pay a rent each year for 99 years. Simple rule of economics, you commit yourself for longer you get a better rate. Not rocket science.
Would appreciate it if you could find me a landlord in London willing to rent me a 2 bed apartment at 25% of market rate if I commit to 5 or 10 years!
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...
Don't West Ham have a say on who uses the OS, including no premiership football other than themselves? Still that we go out the window if they go down.
@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.
Gav - I know who you are even if Prague's forgotten - the E20 LLP may benefit (after Vinci's share) from West Ham's events, but that's hardly the same thing as making a direct contribution.
Let's make a clear path through the misdirecting rhetoric offered by the porn twins and their muse. The only contribution West Ham are making is the £15m contribution towards the capital transformation project. That's it. Nothing more. Zip. etc.
They pay at most (and probably much less) £2.5m rent for the use of the stadium. That, we're told, is a market rent that West Ham are paying, so absolutely none of it can be counted towards the cost of the conversion, despite what the Hammers board wants you to believe. That is, they're either paying for the conversion - in which case they're getting it rent free for 99 years - or they're paying rent.
From West Ham's perspective, and that business case for moving, everything else is on the bottom line. 20,000 more seats to sell, each pure margin (@ just £45 a seat that's £17m for the season). 3700 Club London seats, those executive 'super-boxes', executive catering, retail catering, advertising, naming rights, etc. etc. All this at no additional cost and in many cases lower than at Upton Park. Even if it's just a share from some of those things, there is no business case that remotely compares for staying at Upton Park.
All that for £15m. And it seems likely that they're even avoiding more cost than they pay in rent.
So how does the LLDC benefit, via E20? They get a share of Vinci's profits on some of those items. They also get a share of naming rights. I dunno, it just doesn't seem that their projection of £200k income in 2017 via E20's share of stadium revenues remotely compares to what West Ham get from the deal.
Thing is, when you leave aside the angle presented by the LLDC and West Ham and look a bit more objectively, well there's gonna have to be some amazing stuff under that black ink to make this look remotely win/win - and if it's that good for the taxpayer, why cover it up? I suspect, and think you know deep down, that it's under black ink because Joe Public and Frank Footballclub wouldn't be happy at any of it.
Yes, but Chelsea ans Spurs will be short-term users, West Ham will pay a rent each year for 99 years. Simple rule of economics, you commit yourself for longer you get a better rate. Not rocket science.
Would appreciate it if you could find me a landlord in London willing to rent me a 2 bed apartment at 25% of market rate if I commit to 5 or 10 years!
I forgot to mention I would also like this landlord to pay for all the overhead costs while I am living there.
As it happens, the Govt is at this very moment planning to introduce changes to FOI rules, so that, when they drag their heels over responding, you will then have to pay £100 for a written appeal or £600 for a court hearing to force the issue. They don't like the bright light of scrutiny falling on their sordid little schemes.
Yes, but Chelsea ans Spurs will be short-term users, West Ham will pay a rent each year for 99 years. Simple rule of economics, you commit yourself for longer you get a better rate. Not rocket science.
Would appreciate it if you could find me a landlord in London willing to rent me a 2 bed apartment at 25% of market rate if I commit to 5 or 10 years!
Newham council will I think - they'll even convert it into a 5 bedroom apartment for you free of charge.
Yes, but the landlord agreed to that deal and he was willing to sign it despite maybe not giving him the kind of money he was looking for. That's how a market works. If you have less partners to do business with you are likely having to compromise on the terms. You still haven't explained why the government would willingly throw money away just so West Ham could benefit and grow as a club. Let's be honest, even with the deal published you will still not be happy. You will be saying they didn't put any dodgy stuff in writing (which nobody would do anyway). If you are still pusrsuing this line of unlawful and dodgy dealings you may have to provide some proof for those allegations.
Yes, but the landlord agreed to that deal and he was willing to sign it despite maybe not giving him the kind of money he was looking for. That's how a market works. If you have less partners to do business with you are likely having to compromise on the terms. You still haven't explained why the government would willingly throw money away just so West Ham could benefit and grow as a club. Let's be honest, even with the deal published you will still not be happy. You will be saying they didn't put any dodgy stuff in writing (which nobody would do anyway). If you are still pusrsuing this line of unlawful and dodgy dealings you may have to provide some proof for those allegations.
State aid is unlawful under European competition law. It doesn't have to be 'dodgy dealings', the reason could be as simple as the LLDC being poor negotiators, Boris wanting this done and dusted whatever the cost because it was damaging his leadership ambitions, or anything else. If government money - in whatever form - is going to a select private enterprise to the extent that it gives the latter an advantage and distorts competition, then it's not lawful.
EDIT: Of course, it is surprising that the idea of dodgy dealing raises its head when you consider David Sullivan, David Gold and Karren Brady are the paragons of innocence and honesty.
Of course it's not West Ham's responsibility to make the government compliant, but they should be diligent to insist on it because the consequences for them are potentially severe: at the very least the aid will stop, will likely have to be repaid, with potential fines in the order of €500m. So they could have been diligent, they could have asked the government to indemnify them - or insisted the LLDC apply for an exemption, which was a route open to them. Or they could have agreed to keep it as hush hush as possible, and hope that troublemakers such as Citizen Prague don't notice.
The stuff flying about on this and other fans pages is often frankly laughable. Do you really think that an army of government and private sector laywers pouring over a contract that had been won in a fair and open tender after a prior tender had been thrown out over state aid concerns would not ensure that it complied with state aid laws?
The publishing of the contract under the ruling of the FOIC will exonerate West Ham and the LLDC of all this in the public's eyes, though no doubt many of its opponents including people here will continue to try to drag the name of the club through the mud.
I also heard the European Commission saw the full contract with nothing blacked out or redacted and they saw no case to answer for state aid. Unlike with other football clubs under investigation they saw nothing wrong with West Ham renting the OS under the terms of their deal. But that apparently isn't good enough until the deal has been officially rubberstamped by the state aid experts Richard Hunt and Mat Roper.
I also heard the European Commission saw the full contract with nothing blacked out or redacted and they saw no case to answer for state aid. Unlike with other football clubs under investigation they saw nothing wrong with West Ham renting the OS under the terms of their deal. But that apparently isn't good enough until the deal has been officially rubberstamped by the state aid experts Richard Hunt and Mat Roper.
You better stop digging Richard as GEE has heard that the European Commission has seen the full contract.......
I also heard the European Commission saw the full contract with nothing blacked out or redacted and they saw no case to answer for state aid. Unlike with other football clubs under investigation they saw nothing wrong with West Ham renting the OS under the terms of their deal. But that apparently isn't good enough until the deal has been officially rubberstamped by the state aid experts Richard Hunt and Mat Roper.
Well as I understand it the EC left the door open on the matter. As has been already said, the complainant could hardly challenge the assertion, "had he seen the details of the contract..." because, well, he hadn't - that was the point. The EC got the LLDC angle, what they wanted to present - and I might be wrong but I thought they quoted the terms rather than produced the contract in their 26 page response. When the full terms are out and can be properly analysed and contextualised, we'll see.
The stuff flying about on this and other fans pages is often frankly laughable. Do you really think that an army of government and private sector laywers pouring over a contract that had been won in a fair and open tender after a prior tender had been thrown out over state aid concerns would not ensure that it complied with state aid laws?
The publishing of the contract under the ruling of the FOIC will exonerate West Ham and the LLDC of all this in the public's eyes, though no doubt many of its opponents including people here will continue to try to drag the name of the club through the mud.
Well you'd think and army of Irish government and Apple's private lawyers would also have ensured their deal complied with state aid laws.
We already know the LLDC failed to apply for the exemption they should have, what makes you so confident in them?
As I understand it the European Commission didn't get the LLDC angle, they didn't get a redacted version, they apparently saw the full deal. And found nothing to suggest a case of state aid in this instance. If anyone can appeal the publication of the deal it is the LLDC by the way, not West Ham. By the way: Would you be also interested to find out the finer details of the deal struck between the LLDC and UK Athletics ? Maybe you should as the taxpayers' money is at the heart of your campaign, innit ? Yet you are still only interested in the West Ham deal, despite it not being about West Ham renting the OS ?
As I understand it the European Commission didn't get the LLDC angle, they didn't get a redacted version, they apparently saw the full deal. And found nothing to suggest a case of state aid in this instance. If anyone can appeal the publication of the deal it is the LLDC by the way, not West Ham. By the way: Would you be also interested to find out the finer details of the deal struck between the LLDC and UK Athletics ? Maybe you should as the taxpayers' money is at the heart of your campaign, innit ? Yet you are still only interested in the West Ham deal, despite it not being about West Ham renting the OS ?
It's about unfair state aid to a private business. What part of that are you not getting?
How many times will British Athletics get to use the stadium per year..??
UK Athletics isn't a private business either. Unlike West Ham.
How lucky that the Rugby World Cup is this year and not next as well as I assume Brady et al would have vetoed that income for the taxpayer that GEE cares so dearly about.
The stuff flying about on this and other fans pages is often frankly laughable. Do you really think that an army of government and private sector laywers pouring over a contract that had been won in a fair and open tender after a prior tender had been thrown out over state aid concerns would not ensure that it complied with state aid laws?
Yes, I do. Two private individuals were responsible for the State Aid complaints that the EC considered. I'm one, the other is not Mat Roper, but Steve Lawrence. I freely admit that I knew jack about State Aid law until I took this on out of curiosity. Steve Lawrence is another matter. I'd worry about him if I were you. He knows his stuff, and he is club neutral. And he is still at it with the EC.
In the case of my complaint we made three submissions. The third one hit the mark enough for the LLDC to have to make a 26 page submission addressing not just every point we made but also a string of questions the EC put themselves as a result of our complaint. The EC concluded that on the basis of the information at their disposal they did not envisage proceeding further. During the filming of the "lamentable" documentary, I was startled to be told by the producer that they had called the EC about the issue (of course; if the BBC call, you pick up the phone, be you ever so high). The comments in the film on the matter reflect that conversation. Basically the EC are waiting to hear from other businesses directly affected by unfair State Aid - namely the other clubs.
In July I was even more startled to open up my email and find one from the globally famous lawyers Mishcon de Reya. They simply asked for my help with my contacts (case officers) in the EC and assured me that their request was not 'problematic' for Charlton. I didn't waste time asking them what they were up to, but subsequently we learnt they are engaged by two other London clubs. You can be sure that as soon as I get the contract I will be passing it to Mishcon.
The trouble with you guys is that you come on here armed with little more than Brady propaganda and publicly available documents which we've already looked at. You don't seem to grasp that a lot of us have done a lot of work, and learnt about specialist issues, and the group doing this is growing fast, to the point that I am struggling to keep up with the pace of this multi-Trust effort.
CAST won't be pursuing the State Aid issue for a variety of reasons, not least that we don't think it necessary to rely on the EC to sort out issues decided by British politicians acting - allegedly - for British taxpayers. But the only reason you think this problem has gone away is because Brady says that, and the LLDC parrots her.
As I understand it the European Commission didn't get the LLDC angle, they didn't get a redacted version, they apparently saw the full deal. And found nothing to suggest a case of state aid in this instance. If anyone can appeal the publication of the deal it is the LLDC by the way, not West Ham. By the way: Would you be also interested to find out the finer details of the deal struck between the LLDC and UK Athletics ? Maybe you should as the taxpayers' money is at the heart of your campaign, innit ? Yet you are still only interested in the West Ham deal, despite it not being about West Ham renting the OS ?
You're quite wrong - I have a copy of the UK Athletics deal. It has some redacted passages, but nothing like the West Ham deal. See Prague's last post for the rest.
How many times will British Athletics get to use the stadium per year..??
They get it for 45 days, "almost twice as much as West Ham". Obviously they'll be hosting international tournaments in it every day from the middle of June until the end of July...
I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt that UK Athletics got a very good deal - after all, they had to contribute to the costs of converting the stadium for West Ham.
As I understand it the European Commission didn't get the LLDC angle, they didn't get a redacted version, they apparently saw the full deal. And found nothing to suggest a case of state aid in this instance. If anyone can appeal the publication of the deal it is the LLDC by the way, not West Ham. By the way: Would you be also interested to find out the finer details of the deal struck between the LLDC and UK Athletics ? Maybe you should as the taxpayers' money is at the heart of your campaign, innit ? Yet you are still only interested in the West Ham deal, despite it not being about West Ham renting the OS ?
Absolute rubbish. Everyone accepts there is state aid, the figures are common knowledge. The EU only looked at the method of the tender and on the evidence supplied accepted it was a competitive tender so the question of state aid didn't have to be considered.
The point is that the terms of the agreement may suggest that coupled with the structure of the tender, it could only have been acceptable to one potential buyer so could not have qualified as a competitive tender. It was a stitch up to get LLDC off the hook from which West Ham benefitted.
The exposure of the terms will show the extent of the state aid and whether worthwhile to make a fresh challenge of the original EU decision based on a full and transparent disclosure of the facts.
UK Athletics (UKA) is the governing body for the sport of athletics in the United Kingdom. It is responsible for overseeing the governance of athletics events in the UK as well as athletes, their development, and athletics officials. UK Athletics introduced the British Athletics brand in 2013 to act as the identity for athletics in the United Kingdom, while UK Athletics continue in the role of governance.[1]
It has four member organisations, one from each of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom: England Athletics, Scottishathletics, Welsh Athletics, and Athletics Northern Ireland.
Wikipedia. The UK Athletics website is opening more slowly than the Thames Barrier...
How many times will British Athletics get to use the stadium per year..??
They get it for 45 days, "almost twice as much as West Ham". Obviously they'll be hosting international tournaments in it every day from the middle of June until the end of July...
I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt that UK Athletics got a very good deal - after all, they had to contribute to the costs of converting the stadium for West Ham.
Do they get a big megastore too..?? Or hospitality suites decked out in their colours..??
Yes, but the landlord agreed to that deal and he was willing to sign it despite maybe not giving him the kind of money he was looking for. That's how a market works. If you have less partners to do business with you are likely having to compromise on the terms. You still haven't explained why the government would willingly throw money away just so West Ham could benefit and grow as a club. Let's be honest, even with the deal published you will still not be happy. You will be saying they didn't put any dodgy stuff in writing (which nobody would do anyway). If you are still pusrsuing this line of unlawful and dodgy dealings you may have to provide some proof for those allegations.
Well it isn't quite in the terms you put it in my view.
First of all you have a great big Olympic development that is supposed to provide a legacy of some sort after it's all over. In practical terms the people in charge don't want a rusting stadium and crumbling concrete concourse left behind like in Athens and elsewhere, not so much for business reasons but from the pride aspect of legacy...'look how we have built such a dandy legacy, unlike others. Britain is best, London is best, Boris is best, Coe is best, Cameron is best, we can all be writ into history as our legacy lives on'.
('Scuse me I'm getting a bit watery-eyed and choked up at this, and contemplating these Gods of leadership, and contemplating how to crowd source a fund to build a statue to them all.)
So what's to be done about it, to gain face, save face, not to lose face?
'Got to get someone in there, got to make this one work as the Airport on Foulness has died a death. get West Ham in, that'll do for a start. Lock something long term in there, like building a Waitrose in a run down area and watch the rest come flocking in. We want to make a legacy for the sake of the glory of it, and we're willing to throw money at it to make it happen. The Olympics cost a shed load of money, the books will never balance on that one, lets do the doings first, and worry about the costs and details later. Build that blimmin legacy guys.'
So my rant is basically saying the Government is throwing our money away to create something spuriously called a legacy, not to help West Ham grow and benefit. West Ham are simply one player in the bigger picture.
Comments
Simple rule of economics, you commit yourself for longer you get a better rate. Not rocket science.
Let's make a clear path through the misdirecting rhetoric offered by the porn twins and their muse. The only contribution West Ham are making is the £15m contribution towards the capital transformation project. That's it. Nothing more. Zip. etc.
They pay at most (and probably much less) £2.5m rent for the use of the stadium. That, we're told, is a market rent that West Ham are paying, so absolutely none of it can be counted towards the cost of the conversion, despite what the Hammers board wants you to believe. That is, they're either paying for the conversion - in which case they're getting it rent free for 99 years - or they're paying rent.
From West Ham's perspective, and that business case for moving, everything else is on the bottom line. 20,000 more seats to sell, each pure margin (@ just £45 a seat that's £17m for the season). 3700 Club London seats, those executive 'super-boxes', executive catering, retail catering, advertising, naming rights, etc. etc. All this at no additional cost and in many cases lower than at Upton Park. Even if it's just a share from some of those things, there is no business case that remotely compares for staying at Upton Park.
All that for £15m. And it seems likely that they're even avoiding more cost than they pay in rent.
So how does the LLDC benefit, via E20? They get a share of Vinci's profits on some of those items. They also get a share of naming rights. I dunno, it just doesn't seem that their projection of £200k income in 2017 via E20's share of stadium revenues remotely compares to what West Ham get from the deal.
Thing is, when you leave aside the angle presented by the LLDC and West Ham and look a bit more objectively, well there's gonna have to be some amazing stuff under that black ink to make this look remotely win/win - and if it's that good for the taxpayer, why cover it up? I suspect, and think you know deep down, that it's under black ink because Joe Public and Frank Footballclub wouldn't be happy at any of it.
You still haven't explained why the government would willingly throw money away just so West Ham could benefit and grow as a club.
Let's be honest, even with the deal published you will still not be happy.
You will be saying they didn't put any dodgy stuff in writing (which nobody would do anyway).
If you are still pusrsuing this line of unlawful and dodgy dealings you may have to provide some proof for those allegations.
EDIT: Of course, it is surprising that the idea of dodgy dealing raises its head when you consider David Sullivan, David Gold and Karren Brady are the paragons of innocence and honesty.
Of course it's not West Ham's responsibility to make the government compliant, but they should be diligent to insist on it because the consequences for them are potentially severe: at the very least the aid will stop, will likely have to be repaid, with potential fines in the order of €500m. So they could have been diligent, they could have asked the government to indemnify them - or insisted the LLDC apply for an exemption, which was a route open to them. Or they could have agreed to keep it as hush hush as possible, and hope that troublemakers such as Citizen Prague don't notice.
Oh...
The publishing of the contract under the ruling of the FOIC will exonerate West Ham and the LLDC of all this in the public's eyes, though no doubt many of its opponents including people here will continue to try to drag the name of the club through the mud.
But that apparently isn't good enough until the deal has been officially rubberstamped by the state aid experts Richard Hunt and Mat Roper.
We already know the LLDC failed to apply for the exemption they should have, what makes you so confident in them?
If anyone can appeal the publication of the deal it is the LLDC by the way, not West Ham.
By the way: Would you be also interested to find out the finer details of the deal struck between the LLDC and UK Athletics ? Maybe you should as the taxpayers' money is at the heart of your campaign, innit ?
Yet you are still only interested in the West Ham deal, despite it not being about West Ham renting the OS ?
How lucky that the Rugby World Cup is this year and not next as well as I assume Brady et al would have vetoed that income for the taxpayer that GEE cares so dearly about.
In the case of my complaint we made three submissions. The third one hit the mark enough for the LLDC to have to make a 26 page submission addressing not just every point we made but also a string of questions the EC put themselves as a result of our complaint. The EC concluded that on the basis of the information at their disposal
they did not envisage proceeding further. During the filming of the "lamentable" documentary, I was startled to be told by the producer that they had called the EC about the issue (of course; if the BBC call, you pick up the phone, be you ever so high). The comments in the film on the matter reflect that conversation. Basically the EC are waiting to hear from other businesses directly affected by unfair State Aid - namely the other clubs.
In July I was even more startled to open up my email and find one from the globally famous lawyers Mishcon de Reya. They simply asked for my help with my contacts (case officers) in the EC and assured me that their request was not 'problematic' for Charlton. I didn't waste time asking them what they were up to, but subsequently we learnt they are engaged by two other London clubs. You can be sure that as soon as I get the contract I will be passing it to Mishcon.
The trouble with you guys is that you come on here armed with little more than Brady propaganda and publicly available documents which we've already looked at. You don't seem to grasp that a lot of us have done a lot of work, and learnt about specialist issues, and the group doing this is growing fast, to the point that I am struggling to keep up with the pace of this multi-Trust effort.
CAST won't be pursuing the State Aid issue for a variety of reasons, not least that we don't think it necessary to rely on the EC to sort out issues decided by British politicians acting - allegedly - for British taxpayers. But the only reason you think this problem has gone away is because Brady says that, and the LLDC parrots her.
Once again, we'll see about that.
I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt that UK Athletics got a very good deal - after all, they had to contribute to the costs of converting the stadium for West Ham.
The point is that the terms of the agreement may suggest that coupled with the structure of the tender, it could only have been acceptable to one potential buyer so could not have qualified as a competitive tender. It was a stitch up to get LLDC off the hook from which West Ham benefitted.
The exposure of the terms will show the extent of the state aid and whether worthwhile to make a fresh challenge of the original EU decision based on a full and transparent disclosure of the facts.
UK Athletics (UKA) is the governing body for the sport of athletics in the United Kingdom. It is responsible for overseeing the governance of athletics events in the UK as well as athletes, their development, and athletics officials. UK Athletics introduced the British Athletics brand in 2013 to act as the identity for athletics in the United Kingdom, while UK Athletics continue in the role of governance.[1]
It has four member organisations, one from each of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom: England Athletics, Scottishathletics, Welsh Athletics, and Athletics Northern Ireland.
Wikipedia. The UK Athletics website is opening more slowly than the Thames Barrier...
First of all you have a great big Olympic development that is supposed to provide a legacy of some sort after it's all over. In practical terms the people in charge don't want a rusting stadium and crumbling concrete concourse left behind like in Athens and elsewhere, not so much for business reasons but from the pride aspect of legacy...'look how we have built such a dandy legacy, unlike others. Britain is best, London is best, Boris is best, Coe is best, Cameron is best, we can all be writ into history as our legacy lives on'.
('Scuse me I'm getting a bit watery-eyed and choked up at this, and contemplating these Gods of leadership, and contemplating how to crowd source a fund to build a statue to them all.)
So what's to be done about it, to gain face, save face, not to lose face?
'Got to get someone in there, got to make this one work as the Airport on Foulness has died a death. get West Ham in, that'll do for a start. Lock something long term in there, like building a Waitrose in a run down area and watch the rest come flocking in. We want to make a legacy for the sake of the glory of it, and we're willing to throw money at it to make it happen.
The Olympics cost a shed load of money, the books will never balance on that one, lets do the doings first, and worry about the costs and details later.
Build that blimmin legacy guys.'
So my rant is basically saying the Government is throwing our money away to create something spuriously called a legacy, not to help West Ham grow and benefit. West Ham are simply one player in the bigger picture.