But lldc won't be getting £2.5m a year will they, they'll be getting £2.5m minus £1.7m - £2.4m in cists they've agreed to cover. So instead of £246m, it's £10m - £78m. That's very very different and both figures are significantly less than the conversion costs.
West Ham won't get away with scrounging money of hard working tax payers. They are no better than benefit cheats for even trying to. The porn barons have brought shame to a great club with a great tradition. True West Ham will see that.
No they wont because they and the public will see the extra revenues that West Ham will bring to the stadium when the deal is (finally) announced in full.
But lldc won't be getting £2.5m a year will they, they'll be getting £2.5m minus £1.7m - £2.4m in cists they've agreed to cover. So instead of £246m, it's £10m - £78m. That's very very different and both figures are significantly less than the conversion costs.
Where do Vinci fit into this? Surely these are getting their slice before E20, who would then pass part of the profit to LLDC?
No they wont because they and the public will see the extra revenues that West Ham will bring to the stadium when the deal is (finally) announced in full.
Can you elaborate on these extra streams gavros..??
No they wont because they and the public will see the extra revenues that West Ham will bring to the stadium when the deal is (finally) announced in full.
Can you elaborate on these extra streams gavros..??
Or is it yet more speculation...
Naming rights and catering would be my guess, since that's all any of the West Ham statements have mentioned. Both "given away*" to the greedy taxpayer.
Of course, West Ham fans eat an average of 28 pies per person per match, so the LLDC will make bumper profits.
* = not entirely given away. West Ham will still take part of any profit.
But lldc won't be getting £2.5m a year will they, they'll be getting £2.5m minus £1.7m - £2.4m in cists they've agreed to cover. So instead of £246m, it's £10m - £78m. That's very very different and both figures are significantly less than the conversion costs.
Where do Vinci fit into this? Surely these are getting their slice before E20, who would then pass part of the profit to LLDC?
yes absolutely they are. Light has been shed on how it works after we got hold of the minutes of an LLDC board meeting on 17th March. It sets out a revenue budget for the Park as a whole. A mate who is a KPMG trained CFO (and not a footie fan, being a Kiwi) went through it for us. His findings are pretty alarming.
There is a revenue line "E20 share of LLP profits" He understand that to mean the profit share from the Vinci operation. That is, OS rental revenue after Vinci have paid the overheads (ahem) and taken their cut. The LLDC take 65% of this figure so presumably the figure represents that, with Newham taking another 35%. The figure for both this year and next is given as 0.2. Yes £200,000. So the profit that goes back to the taxpayer is in total just £308,000.
Yet, it gets worse. There are a whole load of costs listed in running the Park, and one line is "Stadium". presumably maintenance. the amount? Yes, £300,000. However this figure dwarfed by other costs, and as a result, in the first year of operation with West Ham in place, the Olympic park will require £28m of public funding. From our pockets.
What happens after that? I can't tell you. The document has a "10 year plan". But it is the first such plan i have ever seen that is figure-free. It's just pages of empty rhetoric. Blimey even the Soviets put numbers in their 5 year plans!
Later on in the document there are some most interesting remarks about bank mandates (i.e. who can sign off what). My buddy called it a corporate governance black hole.
Of course we can only work on what we see in front of us, and need a second opinion before going too public with any claims or allegations. For this reason I passed the document with our analysis to Owen Gibson of the Guardian when we met at City Hall last week :-)
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.
to which I responded
...can you clarify the source of your statement "In fact David Goldstone mentioned the possibility of it last month in a GLA meeting." ? If it was a GLA meeting, it must be publicly available. Are you perhaps not confusing it with the meeting of the LLDC board on 17 March, wherein Goldstone claimed the possible rental by another club as a reason to refuse publication of the rent contract?...
Well? Can you help us with your claim? I realise you are not used to this fact based approach when KUMB is your natural home, but this is how we do things here...:-)
No they wont because they and the public will see the extra revenues that West Ham will bring to the stadium when the deal is (finally) announced in full.
Can you elaborate on these extra streams gavros..??
Or is it yet more speculation...
Naming rights and catering would be my guess, since that's all any of the West Ham statements have mentioned. Both "given away*" to the greedy taxpayer.
Of course, West Ham fans eat an average of 28 pies per person per match, so the LLDC will make bumper profits.
* = not entirely given away. West Ham will still take part of any profit.
And as I keep pointing out, it is a profit they don't currently have as Upton Park has not been renamed over the years!
No they wont because they and the public will see the extra revenues that West Ham will bring to the stadium when the deal is (finally) announced in full.
Can you elaborate on these extra streams gavros..??
Or is it yet more speculation...
Naming rights and catering would be my guess, since that's all any of the West Ham statements have mentioned. Both "given away*" to the greedy taxpayer.
Of course, West Ham fans eat an average of 28 pies per person per match, so the LLDC will make bumper profits.
* = not entirely given away. West Ham will still take part of any profit.
And as I keep pointing out, it is a profit they don't currently have as Upton Park has not been renamed over the years!
And furthermore, West Ham keep presenting the naming rights value as something that is entirely created by their presence. As @rikofold points out, that is not the case. The Olympic Stadium would have such a value without West Ham the footie simply bumps it up. West Ham should state by what % they claim it would be bumped up by their presence if they want to keep banging on about this.
But lldc won't be getting £2.5m a year will they, they'll be getting £2.5m minus £1.7m - £2.4m in cists they've agreed to cover. So instead of £246m, it's £10m - £78m. That's very very different and both figures are significantly less than the conversion costs.
Where do Vinci fit into this? Surely these are getting their slice before E20, who would then pass part of the profit to LLDC?
yes absolutely they are. Light has been shed on how it works after we got hold of the minutes of an LLDC board meeting on 17th March. It sets out a revenue budget for the Park as a whole. A mate who is a KPMG trained CFO (and not a footie fan, being a Kiwi) went through it for us. His findings are pretty alarming.
There is a revenue line "E20 share of LLP profits" He understand that to mean the profit share from the Vinci operation. That is, OS rental revenue after Vinci have paid the overheads (ahem) and taken their cut. The LLDC take 65% of this figure so presumably the figure represents that, with Newham taking another 35%. The figure for both this year and next is given as 0.2. Yes £200,000. So the profit that goes back to the taxpayer is in total just £308,000.
Yet, it gets worse. There are a whole load of costs listed in running the Park, and one line is "Stadium". presumably maintenance. the amount? Yes, £300,000. However this figure dwarfed by other costs, and as a result, in the first year of operation with West Ham in place, the Olympic park will require £28m of public funding. From our pockets.
What happens after that? I can't tell you. The document has a "10 year plan". But it is the first such plan i have ever seen that is figure-free. It's just pages of empty rhetoric. Blimey even the Soviets put numbers in their 5 year plans!
Later on in the document there are some most interesting remarks about bank mandates (i.e. who can sign off what). My buddy called it a corporate governance black hole.
Of course we can only work on what we see in front of us, and need a second opinion before going too public with any claims or allegations. For this reason I passed the document with our analysis to Owen Gibson of the Guardian when we met at City Hall last week :-)
This is the crux of it. Boris says in the video what a "fantastic" year it's been for the stadium, even though it's only just covering Vinci's costs, and goes on to assure us that no taxpayer money will ever be needed. What he meant was, and it is quite clear in the minutes, that no further lending will be made available by government to cover running costs. E20 will either make a profit or go bankrupt. So much rests on Vinci it's unbelievable. They will make shedloads of money whether it succeeds or not and have probably reassured LLDC that they can fill the stadium with rock concerts. Barry Hearn said he wouldn't let the LLDC run a newsagents business, let alone a multi £million events business, perhaps this is what he means.
West Ham, it would seem, are no part of the plan to repay the taxpayer. West Ham's role is simply as an anchor in the belief that as long as they cover peripheral costs, the stadium will have enough draw to fill it every day it is not being commandeered by WH. It is these other events which it is hoped will generate the revenue to repay the taxpayer in the form of profits to E20.
That's why there is such a disconnect in the engagement between us and West Ham and the LLDC. West Ham were never seen as the contributor to repaying the taxpayer, the payback is to come from selling pies, and mostly amateur and charity events. In fact every other source apart from the huge benefactors who are West Ham shareholders.
No they wont because they and the public will see the extra revenues that West Ham will bring to the stadium when the deal is (finally) announced in full.
Can you elaborate on these extra streams gavros..??
Or is it yet more speculation...
Naming rights and catering would be my guess, since that's all any of the West Ham statements have mentioned. Both "given away*" to the greedy taxpayer.
Of course, West Ham fans eat an average of 28 pies per person per match, so the LLDC will make bumper profits.
* = not entirely given away. West Ham will still take part of any profit.
And as I keep pointing out, it is a profit they don't currently have as Upton Park has not been renamed over the years!
And furthermore, West Ham keep presenting the naming rights value as something that is entirely created by their presence. As @rikofold points out, that is not the case. The Olympic Stadium would have such a value without West Ham the footie simply bumps it up. West Ham should state by what % they claim it would be bumped up by their presence if they want to keep banging on about this.
There will probably be such a figure released when the naming rights deal is concluded/announced. Due to the nature of how the naming rights deal was to be negotiated, this will be a purely notional figure (as if it wouldn't be notional regardless), as indeed will be the 'price' for the naming rights, if announced.
If, as I expect, the stadium is named after an online gambling company, what does that say for the legacy for future generations?
No they wont because they and the public will see the extra revenues that West Ham will bring to the stadium when the deal is (finally) announced in full.
Can you elaborate on these extra streams gavros..??
Or is it yet more speculation...
Naming rights and catering would be my guess, since that's all any of the West Ham statements have mentioned. Both "given away*" to the greedy taxpayer.
Of course, West Ham fans eat an average of 28 pies per person per match, so the LLDC will make bumper profits.
* = not entirely given away. West Ham will still take part of any profit.
And as I keep pointing out, it is a profit they don't currently have as Upton Park has not been renamed over the years!
And furthermore, West Ham keep presenting the naming rights value as something that is entirely created by their presence. As @rikofold points out, that is not the case. The Olympic Stadium would have such a value without West Ham the footie simply bumps it up. West Ham should state by what % they claim it would be bumped up by their presence if they want to keep banging on about this.
There will probably be such a figure released when the naming rights deal is concluded/announced. Due to the nature of how the naming rights deal was to be negotiated, this will be a purely notional figure (as if it wouldn't be notional regardless), as indeed will be the 'price' for the naming rights, if announced.
If, as I expect, the stadium is named after an online gambling company, what does that say for the legacy for future generations?
unless the westham owners want to use it to promote their other business interests.
"THE DILDO'S, WHIPS AND HANDCUFFS OLYMPIC STADIUM" it has a certain ring to it I think
No they wont because they and the public will see the extra revenues that West Ham will bring to the stadium when the deal is (finally) announced in full.
Can you elaborate on these extra streams gavros..??
Or is it yet more speculation...
Naming rights and catering would be my guess, since that's all any of the West Ham statements have mentioned. Both "given away*" to the greedy taxpayer.
Of course, West Ham fans eat an average of 28 pies per person per match, so the LLDC will make bumper profits.
* = not entirely given away. West Ham will still take part of any profit.
And as I keep pointing out, it is a profit they don't currently have as Upton Park has not been renamed over the years!
And furthermore, West Ham keep presenting the naming rights value as something that is entirely created by their presence. As @rikofold points out, that is not the case. The Olympic Stadium would have such a value without West Ham the footie simply bumps it up. West Ham should state by what % they claim it would be bumped up by their presence if they want to keep banging on about this.
There will probably be such a figure released when the naming rights deal is concluded/announced. Due to the nature of how the naming rights deal was to be negotiated, this will be a purely notional figure (as if it wouldn't be notional regardless), as indeed will be the 'price' for the naming rights, if announced.
If, as I expect, the stadium is named after an online gambling company, what does that say for the legacy for future generations?
If the stadium is to be part of the 'Olympic legacy' then it needs an ethical company to take on the sponsorship/naming ... not online gambling.
No they wont because they and the public will see the extra revenues that West Ham will bring to the stadium when the deal is (finally) announced in full.
Can you elaborate on these extra streams gavros..??
Or is it yet more speculation...
Naming rights and catering would be my guess, since that's all any of the West Ham statements have mentioned. Both "given away*" to the greedy taxpayer.
Of course, West Ham fans eat an average of 28 pies per person per match, so the LLDC will make bumper profits.
* = not entirely given away. West Ham will still take part of any profit.
And as I keep pointing out, it is a profit they don't currently have as Upton Park has not been renamed over the years!
And furthermore, West Ham keep presenting the naming rights value as something that is entirely created by their presence. As @rikofold points out, that is not the case. The Olympic Stadium would have such a value without West Ham the footie simply bumps it up. West Ham should state by what % they claim it would be bumped up by their presence if they want to keep banging on about this.
There will probably be such a figure released when the naming rights deal is concluded/announced. Due to the nature of how the naming rights deal was to be negotiated, this will be a purely notional figure (as if it wouldn't be notional regardless), as indeed will be the 'price' for the naming rights, if announced.
If, as I expect, the stadium is named after an online gambling company, what does that say for the legacy for future generations?
If the stadium is to be part of the 'Olympic legacy' then it needs an ethical company to take on the sponsorship/naming ... not online gambling.
I think it will be an online gambling company, based in a tax haven. Presumably they all are. I also now think it will be structured to minimise revenue for the taxpayer for the first few seasons.
No they wont because they and the public will see the extra revenues that West Ham will bring to the stadium when the deal is (finally) announced in full.
Can you elaborate on these extra streams gavros..??
Or is it yet more speculation...
Naming rights and catering would be my guess, since that's all any of the West Ham statements have mentioned. Both "given away*" to the greedy taxpayer.
Of course, West Ham fans eat an average of 28 pies per person per match, so the LLDC will make bumper profits.
* = not entirely given away. West Ham will still take part of any profit.
And as I keep pointing out, it is a profit they don't currently have as Upton Park has not been renamed over the years!
And furthermore, West Ham keep presenting the naming rights value as something that is entirely created by their presence. As @rikofold points out, that is not the case. The Olympic Stadium would have such a value without West Ham the footie simply bumps it up. West Ham should state by what % they claim it would be bumped up by their presence if they want to keep banging on about this.
There will probably be such a figure released when the naming rights deal is concluded/announced. Due to the nature of how the naming rights deal was to be negotiated, this will be a purely notional figure (as if it wouldn't be notional regardless), as indeed will be the 'price' for the naming rights, if announced.
If, as I expect, the stadium is named after an online gambling company, what does that say for the legacy for future generations?
If the stadium is to be part of the 'Olympic legacy' then it needs an ethical company to take on the sponsorship/naming ... not online gambling.
I think it will be an online gambling company, based in a tax haven. Presumably they all are. I also now think it will be structured to minimise revenue for the taxpayer for the first few seasons.
No they wont because they and the public will see the extra revenues that West Ham will bring to the stadium when the deal is (finally) announced in full.
Can you elaborate on these extra streams gavros..??
Or is it yet more speculation...
Naming rights and catering would be my guess, since that's all any of the West Ham statements have mentioned. Both "given away*" to the greedy taxpayer.
Of course, West Ham fans eat an average of 28 pies per person per match, so the LLDC will make bumper profits.
* = not entirely given away. West Ham will still take part of any profit.
And as I keep pointing out, it is a profit they don't currently have as Upton Park has not been renamed over the years!
And furthermore, West Ham keep presenting the naming rights value as something that is entirely created by their presence. As @rikofold points out, that is not the case. The Olympic Stadium would have such a value without West Ham the footie simply bumps it up. West Ham should state by what % they claim it would be bumped up by their presence if they want to keep banging on about this.
There will probably be such a figure released when the naming rights deal is concluded/announced. Due to the nature of how the naming rights deal was to be negotiated, this will be a purely notional figure (as if it wouldn't be notional regardless), as indeed will be the 'price' for the naming rights, if announced.
If, as I expect, the stadium is named after an online gambling company, what does that say for the legacy for future generations?
If the stadium is to be part of the 'Olympic legacy' then it needs an ethical company to take on the sponsorship/naming ... not online gambling.
I think it will be an online gambling company, based in a tax haven. Presumably they all are. I also now think it will be structured to minimise revenue for the taxpayer for the first few seasons.
No they wont because they and the public will see the extra revenues that West Ham will bring to the stadium when the deal is (finally) announced in full.
Can you elaborate on these extra streams gavros..??
Or is it yet more speculation...
Naming rights and catering would be my guess, since that's all any of the West Ham statements have mentioned. Both "given away*" to the greedy taxpayer.
Of course, West Ham fans eat an average of 28 pies per person per match, so the LLDC will make bumper profits.
* = not entirely given away. West Ham will still take part of any profit.
And as I keep pointing out, it is a profit they don't currently have as Upton Park has not been renamed over the years!
And furthermore, West Ham keep presenting the naming rights value as something that is entirely created by their presence. As @rikofold points out, that is not the case. The Olympic Stadium would have such a value without West Ham the footie simply bumps it up. West Ham should state by what % they claim it would be bumped up by their presence if they want to keep banging on about this.
There will probably be such a figure released when the naming rights deal is concluded/announced. Due to the nature of how the naming rights deal was to be negotiated, this will be a purely notional figure (as if it wouldn't be notional regardless), as indeed will be the 'price' for the naming rights, if announced.
If, as I expect, the stadium is named after an online gambling company, what does that say for the legacy for future generations?
If the stadium is to be part of the 'Olympic legacy' then it needs an ethical company to take on the sponsorship/naming ... not online gambling.
I think it will be an online gambling company, based in a tax haven. Presumably they all are. I also now think it will be structured to minimise revenue for the taxpayer for the first few seasons.
They will tie it in with their shirt sponsorship meaning westham can pocket most of it arguing that without their shirt the company wouldnt be involved at all
For once Barry Hearn was on the right track when he said this wasn't (mainly) about legacy, but money. That's why I feel you will ultimately be disappointed once the deal is being published and the state aid issue will be wiped aside easily once most sponsorship deals have been sorted out in due course. The only Olympic legacy is that you still have the running tracks and the ability to host major athletic events plus of course the prospect of uplifting the area with the events in the OS generating more business and activity in the surrounding area, not just from West Ham games but other events. The government made a very deliberate decision to make lagacy a sideshow and put emphasis on the OS making money. Soon enough you will see that after the initial lower profits (loads of public assets by the way never return profits but only cost money year in and year out) the taxpayer will be pretty well off from this deal. You moan about Vinci taking a share, of course they do because the LLDC has hired them for a very specific job, to drum up business and bring numerous events to the OS to keep it busy "all the time" as Barry Hearn once put it. It takes a professional company to do that and Vinci certainly has experience in that field. As you already labelled the LLDC as incompetent surely you must be delighted that Vinci will deal with matters in future, so you cannot deny them a fair share for doing their job as that will increase profit to the taxpayer. Same applies for the naming rights - you now want a legacy worthy sponsor, yet you want what's best for the taxpayer apparently. What's it going to be ? Hard to get both. Unicef won't pay much if anything. If a betting company, an insurance broker or a car manufacturer offers the best deal financially, then that is going to be the new sponsor. Period. Profit maximization the keyword here. I'd expect a global brand to come in. As taxpayers you have every right to see the terms of the deal (but not necessarily when you want it as the sponsorship issue may demand a delay on behalf of maximizing profit for the taxpayer), but you don't have the right or any say really in how the government/LLDC/Vinci decide to run the business in the OS. It may hurt Prague Addick to hear this, but in future Vinci won't be running every decision about any event happening in the OS including the financials past the CAS Trust. Maybe he should try to get himself elected as a local MP. He may find his opportunities to influence decisions about the OS enhanced by doing that. And it will surely give him even more airtime in the media.
"The cost of the conversion soared from the original estimate of £160m when the decision was taken to award West Ham a 99-year lease after an earlier process had collapsed amid acrimony and legal challenge"
So the conversion the make it a large multipurpose stadium was actually £112 million over the original budget.
Even if West Ham were just paying rent at £247 million over the 99 year lease in today's money, the extra work is covered.
Add in all the extras the LLDC get over and above that for West Hams tenancy, there's no case to answer.
And that's no taking into account the positive externalities of athletics having a large scale permanent home and the extra events that can happen (such as the Rugby a World Cup).
Gav, please read my earlier reply to you. No it's not covered. You're either paying rent and you're paying nothing towards the conversion, or it's capital repayment and you're paying no rent. It isn't both.
Further, the LLDC's extras. Like what exactly? They take a share of Vinci profits from catering, but that's true of all events not just football. Naming rights - the nature of the stadium means it would attract a sponsor anyway, probably true that a Premier League football club will make that a more lucrative deal, but over a certain amount the LLDC have to share it with you anyway - and is that at a level consistent with what they'd have achieved anyway?
And what happens if you get relegated? Gates down, meaning catering income down. Benefit for naming rights disappears. And of course your rent falls below cost.
Yes they are linked to RPI (which is an outdated inflation index supereced by RPIX and then CPI in recent years). Generally a CPI of 2% means an RPI of 3%. So it's a generous inflation adjustment.
Then there's the other sources of revenue for the taxpayer from West Ham that many on here conveniently ignore.
RPI hasn't been superseded by RPIX, the latter excludes mortgage interest costs. CPI measures similar things to RPI but excludes all housing costs, including rent and council tax etc. The RPI is the most suitable measure for this type of contract.
Tell me, which sources of income are being provided directly by West Ham?
The big reason the state aid issue won't necessarily be swept aside as easily German hopes/suggests is that it is state aid. The only way it isn't is if the figures/information we have to date are wildy out. If it looks like a turd and smells like a turd, that's probably what it is.
Yes they are linked to RPI (which is an outdated inflation index supereced by RPIX and then CPI in recent years). Generally a CPI of 2% means an RPI of 3%. So it's a generous inflation adjustment.
Then there's the other sources of revenue for the taxpayer from West Ham that many on here conveniently ignore.
It may be outdated but it might be considered to be more appropriate. This is because while both RPI and CPI measure inflation by taking a basket of goods, CPI leaves the costs of your home out of the basket. So rises in mortgage payments, rents, and council tax, which in real life you pay, don’t get reflected in it. The RPI does take account of those costs.
Seems reasonable, therefore that the cost increases of WHFC's "home" should be factored in don't you think? Not generous, just more realistic.
Have you ever read up the Coventry City case relating to state aid ? It isn't state aid if a) the public entity/LLDC does profit from the private company being involved and b) if the public entity/LLDC would have struck a similar deal for their asset if they were a private company. All will be revealed soon, but the answer by all accounts seems to be that the LLDC indeed decided that overall if would be profitable enough for them to sign that deal on behalf of the taxpayer.
You are also asking about income streams directly related to West Ham. The biggest bit there is the naming rights obviously and while it is hard to ascertain what percentage of the naming rights deal will be down to West Ham as the Premier League club playing in the OS or just down to the iconic nature of the OS and other events happening there I think the truth may very much be that the LLDC doesn't really care about indirect or direct income.
They will not unwisely have figured that West Ham in there with the global appeal of the Premier League will deliver a very lucrative deal for a London based OS that simply wouldn't be there with just the memories of the Olympics, some athletic events and a few rugby games and concerts. Shame we will never find out what kind of deal could have been struck for the OS if you had been in charge of negotiating. My impression is you wouldn't have found an anchor tenant willing to move in under your terms and the OS would have deteriorated over the years which from a Charlton Athletic perspective would be job well done of course.
Have you ever read up the Coventry City case relating to state aid ? It isn't state aid if a) the public entity/LLDC does profit from the private company being involved and b) if the public entity/LLDC would have struck a similar deal for their asset if they were a private company. All will be revealed soon, but the answer by all accounts seems to be that the LLDC indeed decided that overall if would be profitable enough for them to sign that deal on behalf of the taxpayer.
You are also asking about income streams directly related to West Ham. The biggest bit there is the naming rights obviously and while it is hard to ascertain what percentage of the naming rights deal will be down to West Ham as the Premier League club playing in the OS or just down to the iconic nature of the OS and other events happening there I think the truth may very much be that the LLDC doesn't really care about indirect or direct income.
They will not unwisely have figured that West Ham in there with the global appeal of the Premier League will deliver a very lucrative deal for a London based OS that simply wouldn't be there with just the memories of the Olympics, some athletic events and a few rugby games and concerts. Shame we will never find out what kind of deal could have been struck for the OS if you had been in charge of negotiating. My impression is you wouldn't have found an anchor tenant willing to move in under your terms and the OS would have deteriorated over the years which from a Charlton Athletic perspective would be job well done of course.
You don't think West Ham would have paid more for it? Most would agree with me that they could of, should of and would of.
Comments
EDIT: you may in a couple of months get that grin wiped off your face, as I reckon the LLDC will appeal this.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2946556/Raising-cash-eyebrows-Glittering-1-500-head-Tory-fundraiser-attracts-guests-PM-sex-shop-queen.html
Or is it yet more speculation...
Of course, West Ham fans eat an average of 28 pies per person per match, so the LLDC will make bumper profits.
* = not entirely given away. West Ham will still take part of any profit.
There is a revenue line "E20 share of LLP profits" He understand that to mean the profit share from the Vinci operation. That is, OS rental revenue after Vinci have paid the overheads (ahem) and taken their cut. The LLDC take 65% of this figure so presumably the figure represents that, with Newham taking another 35%. The figure for both this year and next is given as 0.2. Yes £200,000. So the profit that goes back to the taxpayer is in total just £308,000.
Yet, it gets worse. There are a whole load of costs listed in running the Park, and one line is "Stadium". presumably maintenance. the amount? Yes, £300,000. However this figure dwarfed by other costs, and as a result, in the first year of operation with West Ham in place, the Olympic park will require £28m of public funding. From our pockets.
What happens after that? I can't tell you. The document has a "10 year plan". But it is the first such plan i have ever seen that is figure-free. It's just pages of empty rhetoric. Blimey even the Soviets put numbers in their 5 year plans!
Later on in the document there are some most interesting remarks about bank mandates (i.e. who can sign off what). My buddy called it a corporate governance black hole.
Of course we can only work on what we see in front of us, and need a second opinion before going too public with any claims or allegations. For this reason I passed the document with our analysis to Owen Gibson of the Guardian when we met at City Hall last week :-)
May I remind you that on Sept 18 you wrote
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.
to which I responded
...can you clarify the source of your statement "In fact David Goldstone mentioned the possibility of it last month in a GLA meeting." ? If it was a GLA meeting, it must be publicly available. Are you perhaps not confusing it with the meeting of the LLDC board on 17 March, wherein Goldstone claimed the possible rental by another club as a reason to refuse publication of the rent contract?...
Well? Can you help us with your claim? I realise you are not used to this fact based approach when KUMB is your natural home, but this is how we do things here...:-)
And furthermore, West Ham keep presenting the naming rights value as something that is entirely created by their presence. As @rikofold points out, that is not the case. The Olympic Stadium would have such a value without West Ham the footie simply bumps it up. West Ham should state by what % they claim it would be bumped up by their presence if they want to keep banging on about this.
West Ham, it would seem, are no part of the plan to repay the taxpayer. West Ham's role is simply as an anchor in the belief that as long as they cover peripheral costs, the stadium will have enough draw to fill it every day it is not being commandeered by WH. It is these other events which it is hoped will generate the revenue to repay the taxpayer in the form of profits to E20.
That's why there is such a disconnect in the engagement between us and West Ham and the LLDC. West Ham were never seen as the contributor to repaying the taxpayer, the payback is to come from selling pies, and mostly amateur and charity events. In fact every other source apart from the huge benefactors who are West Ham shareholders.
If, as I expect, the stadium is named after an online gambling company, what does that say for the legacy for future generations?
"THE DILDO'S, WHIPS AND HANDCUFFS OLYMPIC STADIUM" it has a certain ring to it I think
That's why I feel you will ultimately be disappointed once the deal is being published and the state aid issue will be wiped aside easily once most sponsorship deals have been sorted out in due course.
The only Olympic legacy is that you still have the running tracks and the ability to host major athletic events plus of course the prospect of uplifting the area with the events in the OS generating more business and activity in the surrounding area, not just from West Ham games but other events.
The government made a very deliberate decision to make lagacy a sideshow and put emphasis on the OS making money. Soon enough you will see that after the initial lower profits (loads of public assets by the way never return profits but only cost money year in and year out) the taxpayer will be pretty well off from this deal.
You moan about Vinci taking a share, of course they do because the LLDC has hired them for a very specific job, to drum up business and bring numerous events to the OS to keep it busy "all the time" as Barry Hearn once put it.
It takes a professional company to do that and Vinci certainly has experience in that field.
As you already labelled the LLDC as incompetent surely you must be delighted that Vinci will deal with matters in future, so you cannot deny them a fair share for doing their job as that will increase profit to the taxpayer.
Same applies for the naming rights - you now want a legacy worthy sponsor, yet you want what's best for the taxpayer apparently.
What's it going to be ? Hard to get both. Unicef won't pay much if anything. If a betting company, an insurance broker or a car manufacturer offers the best deal financially, then that is going to be the new sponsor. Period.
Profit maximization the keyword here. I'd expect a global brand to come in.
As taxpayers you have every right to see the terms of the deal (but not necessarily when you want it as the sponsorship issue may demand a delay on behalf of maximizing profit for the taxpayer), but you don't have the right or any say really in how the government/LLDC/Vinci decide to run the business in the OS.
It may hurt Prague Addick to hear this, but in future Vinci won't be running every decision about any event happening in the OS including the financials past the CAS Trust.
Maybe he should try to get himself elected as a local MP. He may find his opportunities to influence decisions about the OS enhanced by doing that. And it will surely give him even more airtime in the media.
Further, the LLDC's extras. Like what exactly? They take a share of Vinci profits from catering, but that's true of all events not just football. Naming rights - the nature of the stadium means it would attract a sponsor anyway, probably true that a Premier League football club will make that a more lucrative deal, but over a certain amount the LLDC have to share it with you anyway - and is that at a level consistent with what they'd have achieved anyway?
And what happens if you get relegated? Gates down, meaning catering income down. Benefit for naming rights disappears. And of course your rent falls below cost.
No there's more than a case to answer.
Tell me, which sources of income are being provided directly by West Ham?
Seems reasonable, therefore that the cost increases of WHFC's "home" should be factored in don't you think? Not generous, just more realistic.
Edited to add: Nice try though.
All will be revealed soon, but the answer by all accounts seems to be that the LLDC indeed decided that overall if would be profitable enough for them to sign that deal on behalf of the taxpayer.
You are also asking about income streams directly related to West Ham. The biggest bit there is the naming rights obviously and while it is hard to ascertain what percentage of the naming rights deal will be down to West Ham as the Premier League club playing in the OS or just down to the iconic nature of the OS and other events happening there I think the truth may very much be that the LLDC doesn't really care about indirect or direct income.
They will not unwisely have figured that West Ham in there with the global appeal of the Premier League will deliver a very lucrative deal for a London based OS that simply wouldn't be there with just the memories of the Olympics, some athletic events and a few rugby games and concerts.
Shame we will never find out what kind of deal could have been struck for the OS if you had been in charge of negotiating. My impression is you wouldn't have found an anchor tenant willing to move in under your terms and the OS would have deteriorated over the years which from a Charlton Athletic perspective would be job well done of course.
Most would agree with me that they could of, should of and would of.