When was the last time west ham played in Europe?? Surely it would be bad business to include that in any projections?
Depends what their financial (and conjecturing from that, their on field performance) projections are. Another point I think West Ham would likely to remain redacted is a consistent rise in match day ticketing income as they push prices back up toward the London Premier League norm. That'd annoy fans of course, who have (or who have been tried to have) been sold the idea of 'affordable football'.
So after years of never getting anywhere near to play European football west ham decide to include it in there business plan and everybody thinks 'yep, that stacks up'
But surely there is financial benefit and financial benefit. The reason this campaign has caught the imagination as this principle you make sound so reasonable, in reality is verging on the ridiculous. Hundreds of millions of pounds being effectively donated to convert the stadium so West Ham can play there. Of course West Ham wouldn't be moving if it wasn't better from them, but tax payer's money is giving them a clear competitive advantage over rivals and they have already made it clear they will be using it. One of those rivals will be on their doorstep struggling to compete with a premiership club able to charge lower prices than they can. It is a scandal and at the very least a realistic deal needed to be made. What West Ham are worried about , I would imagine, is they know how ridiculously favourable the deal is for them.
Why was Upton park not the Samsung stadium or the Sony stadium? The arrogance in relation to what sway the name of West Ham brings to naming rights is simply staggering.
The more people know about this the angrier they get and West Ham fans trying to defend it only fuels the fire even more. This is becoming something big and it clearly has some way to go - again - Well done Prague and all those from other trusts who have played their part in this achievement. Where it looked impossible that justice would take place, it is hard to see the momentum not taking it much further now. Boris is already trying to distance himself.
Of course West Ham wouldn't be moving if it wasn't better from them, but tax payer's money is giving them a clear competitive advantage over rivals and they have already made it clear they will be using it. One of those rivals will be on their doorstep struggling to compete with a premiership club able to charge lower prices than they can. It is a scandal and at the very least a realistic deal needed to be made. What West Ham are worried about , I would imagine, is they know how ridiculously favourable the deal is for them.
That's patently not true. Orient gave away thousands of free season tickets to kids a couple of years back, they still have the capacity to do that if they want. Even the fig leaf band 5 seats at the Olympic Stadium, which I'm told is a maximum of 1000, are more expensive than some season tickets at Orient.
2015-16 Season Ticket Prices
Baskin Robbins North Family Stand
Adult £180 Concession £125 Under 18 £65 Under 11 £45
South Stand
Adult £290 Concession £200 Under 18 £65 Under 11 £65
So after years of never getting anywhere near to play European football west ham decide to include it in there business plan and everybody thinks 'yep, that stacks up'
The value of a private organisation (and for a plc, share price) is based on past, present AND projected future earnings. If the future projections, however optimistic (for example Wet Spam being regular Champions League participants!) are encouraging then it values the club higher, right now.
I understand there is a clause in the contract that relates to an additional payment being made by the club should Gullivan subsequently sell above a certain enhancement on current value. Gullivan would therefore lock in an element of insurance against having to make such a payment (or at least reduce the future liability) if the value at the time the deal was done was artificially inflated based on future revenues (or delusions of grandeur!).
Of course West Ham wouldn't be moving if it wasn't better from them, but tax payer's money is giving them a clear competitive advantage over rivals and they have already made it clear they will be using it. One of those rivals will be on their doorstep struggling to compete with a premiership club able to charge lower prices than they can. It is a scandal and at the very least a realistic deal needed to be made. What West Ham are worried about , I would imagine, is they know how ridiculously favourable the deal is for them.
That's patently not true. Orient gave away thousands of free season tickets to kids a couple of years back, they still have the capacity to do that if they want. Even the fig leaf band 5 seats at the Olympic Stadium, which I'm told is a maximum of 1000, are more expensive than some season tickets at Orient.
2015-16 Season Ticket Prices
Baskin Robbins North Family Stand
Adult £180 Concession £125 Under 18 £65 Under 11 £45
South Stand
Adult £290 Concession £200 Under 18 £65 Under 11 £65
You always miss the point - is it on purpose or something I should make allowances for? I think I'm wasting my time but... sigh....Orient can give tickets away to their hearts content, they are not being subsidised to do so by taxpayers.
You always miss the point - is it on purpose or something I should make allowances for? I think I'm wasting my time but... sigh....Orient can give tickets away to their hearts content, they are not being subsidised to do so by taxpayers.
It's not a point I ignore, it's a point you can't prove. If the returns to the taxpayer via the LLDC from West Ham's tenancy over the course of the lease is a significant one, then it is a good investment on the part of the taxpayer, and that's not even considering the positive externalities of providing a large scale national athletics venue, other stadium revenue streams, and wider externalities from the footfall that a major stadium brings.
You always miss the point - is it on purpose or something I should make allowances for? I think I'm wasting my time but... sigh....Orient can give tickets away to their hearts content, they are not being subsidised to do so by taxpayers.
I think it's inevitable, Mutts - our WH supporting friends see the challenge as an attack on them (understandable) and naturally defend - and the attackers respond to that defence with further attacks. Views then become polarised.
This isn't about West Ham, as you, me and most other people on here keep saying. It's about seeing the transparency, when it is clearly being deliberately avoided, regarding the use of taxpayer's money.
I'm assuming gavros is a taxpayer so would expect a similar desire for clarification (unlike GEE of course who hasn't paid a bean towards the cost of the OS or indeed it's conversion).
But I would of course be more than happy for my individual tax contribution to help Charlton so fair enough if a West Ham tax payer hasn’t got an issue with it. Of course, I wouldn’t expect non Charlton supporting taxpayers to be happy and even if Charlton were benefitting, I’d still think it was wrong if a Leyton Orient supporter had to contribute to something that could kill his or her club. Seriously, If clubs damage other clubs by fair competition, well that is the football market. But, if they do it through state aid, then it becomes a different matter. I suspect Gavros may be trying to convince himself as anybody with the power of logical thought might actually see the problem here. It really isn’t that subtle. And it is why West Ham are now pretty worried.
You always miss the point - is it on purpose or something I should make allowances for? I think I'm wasting my time but... sigh....Orient can give tickets away to their hearts content, they are not being subsidised to do so by taxpayers.
It's not a point I ignore, it's a point you can't prove. If the returns to the taxpayer via the LLDC from West Ham's tenancy over the course of the lease is a significant one, then it is a good investment on the part of the taxpayer, and that's not even considering the positive externalities of providing a large scale national athletics venue, other stadium revenue streams, and wider externalities from the footfall that a major stadium brings.
Mischon de Reya are Spurs' lawyers. Spurs and their lawyers, lest you don't know, are like flies around $hit about everything. So this is totally par for the course.
MdR have an exceptional litigation team...if you didn't provide the shit...they (and Spurs) would have nothing to be flying around!
When was the last time west ham played in Europe?? Surely it would be bad business to include that in any projections?
Gavros, people are not blaming the 'fairness' of the deal at West hams feet. In fact, I cannot think of one business that would turn down an offer at which you have been given. With this in mind, stop playing the sour grapes or victim card.
Precisely, which is why I'm looking forward to full publication of the contract and you lot getting egg all over your faces.
As for Spurs, it's fairly well known that Stadium MK is their preferred option should they not be able to get a ground share at Wembley.
Well the Spurs Trust is a member of the Coalition and if you refer to Spurs fans, I can assure that they want to go to Franchise House about as much as we wanted to go to Sellout Park. That being the case, why would Levy prefer to go there than the Olympic Stadium? Hmmm?? , and why would the LLDC not want them there, given that theyve always maintained that the plan is to maximize use of the OS? And that Brady also claims that the way we taxpayers get our money back is by other usage of the Stadium and Park, rather than by what West Ham pay.
Something doesn't quite add up there, does it, mate? And the Spurs Trust think they know why, BTW. Not long before we find out.
Well the Spurs Trust is a member of the Coalition and if you refer to Spurs fans, I can assure that they want to go to Franchise House about as much as we wanted to go to Sellout Park. That being the case, why would Levy prefer to go there than the Olympic Stadium?
and why would the LLDC not want them there, given that theyve always maintained that the plan is to maximize use of the OS? And that Brady also claims that the way we taxpayers get our money back is by other usage of the Stadium and Park, rather than by what West Ham pay.
Something doesn't quite add up there, does it, mate? And the Spurs Trust think they know why, BTW. Not long before we find out.
Neither the LLDC not West Ham have ruled out ground sharing with Spurs (Brady tried it but got slapped down for it, and Sullivan later said it was a possibility). In fact David Goldstone mentioned the possibility of it last month in a GLA meeting.
Part of the reason for the LLDC wanting to keep the deal redacted may be to strengthen its hand in negotiating with Spurs (which I'm told, has not reached a formal stage).
The LLDC may also decide to appeal the decision in order to give it the time it needs to announce the stadium sponsor, which it cannot do until the 30th October because that would be prejudicial against the sponsors of the Rugby World Cup. Boris yesterday saying that 'all the deals are done' or something to that effect hints that the sponsorship deal is in the bag already. At that point the LLDC could reveal the value of West Ham's tenancy as part of that deal, providing yet further evidence of taxpayer VFM for the deal with West Ham.
Well the Spurs Trust is a member of the Coalition and if you refer to Spurs fans, I can assure that they want to go to Franchise House about as much as we wanted to go to Sellout Park. That being the case, why would Levy prefer to go there than the Olympic Stadium?
and why would the LLDC not want them there, given that theyve always maintained that the plan is to maximize use of the OS? And that Brady also claims that the way we taxpayers get our money back is by other usage of the Stadium and Park, rather than by what West Ham pay.
Something doesn't quite add up there, does it, mate? And the Spurs Trust think they know why, BTW. Not long before we find out.
Neither the LLDC not West Ham have ruled out ground sharing with Spurs (Brady tried it but got slapped down for it, and Sullivan later said it was a possibility). In fact David Goldstone mentioned the possibility of it last month in a GLA meeting.
Part of the reason for the LLDC wanting to keep the deal redacted may be to strengthen its hand in negotiating with Spurs (which I'm told, has not reached a formal stage).
The LLDC may also decide to appeal the decision in order to give it the time it needs to announce the stadium sponsor, which it cannot do until the 30th October because that would be prejudicial against the sponsors of the Rugby World Cup. Boris yesterday saying that 'all the deals are done' or something to that effect hints that the sponsorship deal is in the bag already. At that point the LLDC could reveal the value of West Ham's tenancy as part of that deal, providing yet further evidence of taxpayer VFM for the deal with West Ham.
I've highlighted the key words.
Unless you're being coy and really know the full details of the deal then you're just guessing like the rest of us.
Well the Spurs Trust is a member of the Coalition and if you refer to Spurs fans, I can assure that they want to go to Franchise House about as much as we wanted to go to Sellout Park. That being the case, why would Levy prefer to go there than the Olympic Stadium?
and why would the LLDC not want them there, given that theyve always maintained that the plan is to maximize use of the OS? And that Brady also claims that the way we taxpayers get our money back is by other usage of the Stadium and Park, rather than by what West Ham pay.
Something doesn't quite add up there, does it, mate? And the Spurs Trust think they know why, BTW. Not long before we find out.
Neither the LLDC not West Ham have ruled out ground sharing with Spurs (Brady tried it but got slapped down for it, and Sullivan later said it was a possibility). In fact David Goldstone mentioned the possibility of it last month in a GLA meeting.
Part of the reason for the LLDC wanting to keep the deal redacted may be to strengthen its hand in negotiating with Spurs (which I'm told, has not reached a formal stage).
If spurs did have to share the OS with the hammers, I wonder what they would make of the 'Westhamification' of the stadium..?? You know, the dressing rooms, lounges and even the claret and blue seats.
I wonder if that is one of the reasons why they don't want the deal published..??
Well the Spurs Trust is a member of the Coalition and if you refer to Spurs fans, I can assure that they want to go to Franchise House about as much as we wanted to go to Sellout Park. That being the case, why would Levy prefer to go there than the Olympic Stadium?
and why would the LLDC not want them there, given that theyve always maintained that the plan is to maximize use of the OS? And that Brady also claims that the way we taxpayers get our money back is by other usage of the Stadium and Park, rather than by what West Ham pay.
Something doesn't quite add up there, does it, mate? And the Spurs Trust think they know why, BTW. Not long before we find out.
Neither the LLDC not West Ham have ruled out ground sharing with Spurs (Brady tried it but got slapped down for it, and Sullivan later said it was a possibility). In fact David Goldstone mentioned the possibility of it last month in a GLA meeting.
Part of the reason for the LLDC wanting to keep the deal redacted may be to strengthen its hand in negotiating with Spurs (which I'm told, has not reached a formal stage).
The LLDC may also decide to appeal the decision in order to give it the time it needs to announce the stadium sponsor, which it cannot do until the 30th October because that would be prejudicial against the sponsors of the Rugby World Cup. Boris yesterday saying that 'all the deals are done' or something to that effect hints that the sponsorship deal is in the bag already. At that point the LLDC could reveal the value of West Ham's tenancy as part of that deal, providing yet further evidence of taxpayer VFM for the deal with West Ham.
Even more reason for it not to be redacted surely. It keeps it fair then as we'd have the direct comparison that you were after earlier. Spurs would then know exactly what the 'going rate' is and could pay the same as West Ham for their time there.
1) Spurs (or any other football club for that matter) cannot share in West Ham's first season there as apparently that clause had to be put into the deal in order to give West Ham as the anchor tenant the chance to properly get settled there without the distraction of another club in the very first season there. A reasonable requirement I think for any club who would move into a new stadium as the anchor tenant for 99 years. 2) The 99 year lease is also very much the reason why the WestHamification will be done (the claret and blue seating pattern will actually be paid for by West Ham themselves). Again understandable. As anchor tenant West Ham have contractually committed themselves for 99 years which gives them some special rights of course as not other club/team will play more games in the OS than West Ham over the next 99 years. 3) Staying with the 99 year lease again this will also be the reason why any other club temporarily groundsharing from year 2 onwards cannot simply assume West Ham's rent as the market going rate and ask for the same (well, they can ask, but they won't get it) as the rent will obviously be higher pro-rata for temporary or single event use compared to the 99 year committment of the anchor tenant. 4) I also think the naming rights deal is more or less doen and dusted and the deal will be announced after the Rugby World Cup. It's not surprising that Spurs of all clubs have their lawyers on standby, they have good practice at it. Anyone remember the tapping up of phones of LLDC members and West Ham employees ? (which could obviously not be traced back to Spurs as clever business people never put stuff like that in writing or on tape) Or the sudden fire at Archway Metal, clearing the way for Spurs to build their new ground ? Dodgy ? Well, you needn't have made a fortune from the porn business to be capable of dodgy dealings.
Comments
Why was Upton park not the Samsung stadium or the Sony stadium? The arrogance in relation to what sway the name of West Ham brings to naming rights is simply staggering.
2015-16 Season Ticket Prices
Baskin Robbins North Family Stand
Adult £180
Concession £125
Under 18 £65
Under 11 £45
South Stand
Adult £290
Concession £200
Under 18 £65
Under 11 £65
Read more at http://www.leytonorient.com/tickets/season-tickets/index.aspx#b8xgzI61IoScbwE0.99
I understand there is a clause in the contract that relates to an additional payment being made by the club should Gullivan subsequently sell above a certain enhancement on current value. Gullivan would therefore lock in an element of insurance against having to make such a payment (or at least reduce the future liability) if the value at the time the deal was done was artificially inflated based on future revenues (or delusions of grandeur!).
Call me an old cynic!!
This isn't about West Ham, as you, me and most other people on here keep saying. It's about seeing the transparency, when it is clearly being deliberately avoided, regarding the use of taxpayer's money.
I'm assuming gavros is a taxpayer so would expect a similar desire for clarification (unlike GEE of course who hasn't paid a bean towards the cost of the OS or indeed it's conversion).
It can all be very easily resolved.
Borris, do you know there's a stadium at Stratford?
As for Spurs, it's fairly well known that Stadium MK is their preferred option should they not be able to get a ground share at Wembley.
Something doesn't quite add up there, does it, mate? And the Spurs Trust think they know why, BTW. Not long before we find out.
And if you don't know what the contract says, how do you know that people will get egg on there faces..??
"Protest"
"Straws"
"Clutching".
Your task for today, dear fellow Lifers, is to make 2 well known phrases or sayings from the above.
You need a clue ?
" A v(ery) agro(s) Hammer.
Part of the reason for the LLDC wanting to keep the deal redacted may be to strengthen its hand in negotiating with Spurs (which I'm told, has not reached a formal stage).
The LLDC may also decide to appeal the decision in order to give it the time it needs to announce the stadium sponsor, which it cannot do until the 30th October because that would be prejudicial against the sponsors of the Rugby World Cup. Boris yesterday saying that 'all the deals are done' or something to that effect hints that the sponsorship deal is in the bag already. At that point the LLDC could reveal the value of West Ham's tenancy as part of that deal, providing yet further evidence of taxpayer VFM for the deal with West Ham.
Unless you're being coy and really know the full details of the deal then you're just guessing like the rest of us.
Let's take the guess work out of it - eh?
I wonder if that is one of the reasons why they don't want the deal published..??
A reasonable requirement I think for any club who would move into a new stadium as the anchor tenant for 99 years.
2) The 99 year lease is also very much the reason why the WestHamification will be done (the claret and blue seating pattern will actually be paid for by West Ham themselves). Again understandable. As anchor tenant West Ham have contractually committed themselves for 99 years which gives them some special rights of course as not other club/team will play more games in the OS than West Ham over the next 99 years.
3) Staying with the 99 year lease again this will also be the reason why any other club temporarily groundsharing from year 2 onwards cannot simply assume West Ham's rent as the market going rate and ask for the same (well, they can ask, but they won't get it) as the rent will obviously be higher pro-rata for temporary or single event use compared to the 99 year committment of the anchor tenant.
4) I also think the naming rights deal is more or less doen and dusted and the deal will be announced after the Rugby World Cup. It's not surprising that Spurs of all clubs have their lawyers on standby, they have good practice at it. Anyone remember the tapping up of phones of LLDC members and West Ham employees ? (which could obviously not be traced back to Spurs as clever business people never put stuff like that in writing or on tape)
Or the sudden fire at Archway Metal, clearing the way for Spurs to build their new ground ?
Dodgy ? Well, you needn't have made a fortune from the porn business to be capable of dodgy dealings.