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.
could HAVE should HAVE and would HAVE is something that no-one is in a position to answer until the contract is revealed in full. Which it wont be for a little while yet, is my guess.
As for Prauge's question, yes I was referring to that March meeting (how time flies).
Yes, they may have paid more, but they didn't because the negotiations settled on the soon to be revealed terms. Just because you don't like the terms doesn't mean (necessarily) that they are illegal, frivolous or amount to state aid. You are fighting the cause the LLDC should and could have fought more vigorously maybe. It'll take a proper court or the European Commission ruling to change the terms of the deal. The LLDC don't exactly appear willing or desperate to change the terms of the deal. Which would suggest they are reasonably happy with it. Don't make the same mistake Hearn did, trying to put all the blame for an uncertain future for his club on West Ham and the OS. Both Orient and Charlton have more pressing issues certainly that more directly affect attendances that West Ham moving to the OS next season.
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.
Firstly in the Ricoh Stadium case, the money was a loan at a fair rate but over an extended period of time. Coventry didn't prove that a private operator would not have done the same.
West Ham is entirely different. No loan is involved, just hundreds of millions of public money handed straight to them. Newham would have profited from the proposed purchase, but they couldn't proceed because public funds would have contributed directly to West Ham's balance sheet. Instead, theres a long term lease with the same Newham contribution but just £15m from West Ham. Allowing them to retain all monies from the disposal of Upton Park means once again effectively government money has added up to £70m to the sam, that it's indirect might save them from state aid on that single count, but it's not the only one.
But do you really think a private landlord would rent his property for no more than cost, and agree to reduce rent if the renting business didn't go as well as they thought they would? Do you think that they would have preceded with the conversion without having that deal in place that would bring them a market comparable yield? Do you think they'd have thrown in over £500k of floor space they could otherwise have offered to the market?
I'm looking forward to the LLDC defending that one for sure.
Edit. By the way, you can't say it's all about money then say the LLDC doesnt care about income. If it is about money, they'll be damned sure to get as much from the deal as possible. Actually I suspect the opposite is true. They had to have a legacy at whatever cost because the political ramifications for Boris of not delivering a legacy would be fatal to his ambitions. Why else do you think he's now shuffling aside and leaving the LLDC with all responsibility for the deal?
I do agree with Rothko that the legacy is vitally important, but not at any cost. Where we depart is that I believe a Premier League football club for whom the deal saw an overnight £300m growth should make a far bigger contribution than they are. This is where comparison with City bears mention,because they took legacy seriously and are still pouring money and resources into it, years after handing the council Maine Road for the princely sum of nothing (well, probably £1).
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.
Dear oh dear. You've probably noticed, you and Gavros that you get a much more amiable hearing on here than any of us would on KUMB, but if you keep coming back without bothering to read what we have written, people might start to get a bit pissed off with you.
No one, least of all me, is "moaning" that Vinci are the stadium operator. We simply observed that their operation must be accounted for - which gavros had forgotten about in his sweeping unsourced summaries of the revenues to be generated. I refer you to my remarks above, taken from the figures contained in the LLDC board meet in March - which @gavros claims to have read, but obviously not very closely. In summary. In the first year of West Ham's tenancy, the revenue from the stadium after Vinci's cut is just £300k, and this is wiped out by a cost line of unspecified nature called "Stadium". The Park will require £28m of taxpayers' money just to keep it afloat in the first year. So your naming rights deal will have to kick in and go some to keep the whole thing afloat, won't it?
Actually since you and Gavros are so sure of the future revenue perhaps you could apply for jobs at the LLDC and help them produce a new 10 year plan which actually has some revenue projections. That way they could sack PwC who are currently doing the job, and probably return more money to the taxpayer than the stadium rental will do next year.
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.
could HAVE should HAVE and would HAVE is something that no-one is in a position to answer until the contract is revealed in full. Which it wont be for a little while yet, is my guess.
As for Prauge's question, yes I was referring to that March meeting (how time flies).
How is the money handed straight to West Ham ? In unregistered banknotes ? With some coins throwing in ? The conversion of the OS doesn't just benefit West Ham. It is a long-term investment which helped in securing an anchor tenant for 99 years who again is pivotal to the long-term future of the OS. West Ham is just one part of the overall OS strategy implemented by the LLDC. The LLDC won't make the same kind of money from all events in the same way. But overall they will make some serious money from the OS and from West Ham, be sure of that. Man City overall got the much better deal, especially since they bought the right to market the naming rights for just 2 million and pocket the profits which are massive, around five times as much as what they are paying for the rights to the council. Yes, they gave the proceeds from the Maine Road sale and they are also paying for the stewarding, policing and the goalnets themselves. If you add in the naming rights income (which could and should have gone back to the taxpayer) they get their stadium rent-free (isn't that what you are saying about West Ham too ?). Yet in Manchester both club and council are happy and I don't hear smaller clubs like Northampton, Stockport or Oldham complaining. Letting Man City sell and keep the profits from selling naming rights for the stadium they rent amounts to daylight robbery really. If West Ham could have got a similar deal you'd be crying even more about injustice. The naming rights are a big factor that'll make the OS work financially and that'll only work because West Ham play there. And no, I do not work for Volkswagen and I don't drive one either if you must know.
Getting bored of all the talk about naming rights. Especially given the way those will be/have been negotiated will not be designed to maximise revenue for the taxpayer.
Once again, for slow West Ham fans. This is not something your club currently sells, zero value to or from West Ham United currently. Yes, it is a possible revenue stream for the owners of one of the most iconic buildings in the UK.
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.
Yeah, because you can prove that. What world do you live in?
How is the money handed straight to West Ham ? In unregistered banknotes ? With some coins throwing in ? The conversion of the OS doesn't just benefit West Ham. It is a long-term investment which helped in securing an anchor tenant for 99 years who again is pivotal to the long-term future of the OS. West Ham is just one part of the overall OS strategy implemented by the LLDC. The LLDC won't make the same kind of money from all events in the same way. But overall they will make some serious money from the OS and from West Ham, be sure of that. Man City overall got the much better deal, especially since they bought the right to market the naming rights for just 2 million and pocket the profits which are massive, around five times as much as what they are paying for the rights to the council. Yes, they gave the proceeds from the Maine Road sale and they are also paying for the stewarding, policing and the goalnets themselves. If you add in the naming rights income (which could and should have gone back to the taxpayer) they get their stadium rent-free (isn't that what you are saying about West Ham too ?). Yet in Manchester both club and council are happy and I don't hear smaller clubs like Northampton, Stockport or Oldham complaining. Letting Man City sell and keep the profits from selling naming rights for the stadium they rent amounts to daylight robbery really. If West Ham could have got a similar deal you'd be crying even more about injustice. The naming rights are a big factor that'll make the OS work financially and that'll only work because West Ham play there. And no, I do not work for Volkswagen and I don't drive one either if you must know.
Sigh.
while you are slowly learning from all you have read here, you still haven't mastered the City of Manchester deal. It only cost the taxpayer £20m to convert the stadium. City paid the other 48%. Need I remind you of the cost to the taxpayer of the OS conversion and how much West Ham contributed to that? Or the fact that City pay twice as much in rent, plus pay for their own plod and corner flags?
Then there is the reason why the Council may have been happy to let them have naming rights. Mansour has poured colossal amounts into the city. I mean, colossal. Gullivan haven't even offered to build a lap dancing club in the Park. Perhaps that was their mistake.
Getting bored of all the talk about naming rights. Especially given the way those will be/have been negotiated will not be designed to maximise revenue for the taxpayer.
Once again, for slow West Ham fans. This is not something your club currently sells, zero value to or from West Ham United currently. Yes, it is a possible revenue stream for the owners of one of the most iconic buildings in the UK.
even if westham did currently sell the naming rights for U.P, they would be giving that money up when moving to the OS, NOT giving that money up TO the OS.
How is the money handed straight to West Ham ? In unregistered banknotes ? With some coins throwing in ? The conversion of the OS doesn't just benefit West Ham. It is a long-term investment which helped in securing an anchor tenant for 99 years who again is pivotal to the long-term future of the OS. West Ham is just one part of the overall OS strategy implemented by the LLDC. The LLDC won't make the same kind of money from all events in the same way. But overall they will make some serious money from the OS and from West Ham, be sure of that. Man City overall got the much better deal, especially since they bought the right to market the naming rights for just 2 million and pocket the profits which are massive, around five times as much as what they are paying for the rights to the council. Yes, they gave the proceeds from the Maine Road sale and they are also paying for the stewarding, policing and the goalnets themselves. If you add in the naming rights income (which could and should have gone back to the taxpayer) they get their stadium rent-free (isn't that what you are saying about West Ham too ?). Yet in Manchester both club and council are happy and I don't hear smaller clubs like Northampton, Stockport or Oldham complaining. Letting Man City sell and keep the profits from selling naming rights for the stadium they rent amounts to daylight robbery really. If West Ham could have got a similar deal you'd be crying even more about injustice. The naming rights are a big factor that'll make the OS work financially and that'll only work because West Ham play there. And no, I do not work for Volkswagen and I don't drive one either if you must know.
There's also something to remember about State Aid. As regards EC State Aid law, it is of course complex beast as I have found out over the last two years, and I very much doubt GEE has had any reason to learn more than i have unless it concerns his day job. But two things should be borne in mind about it:
1. It only takes interest in issues which have the ability to affect trade across borders. That's why it is an EC law.
2. It is therefore a fallacy to suppose that only the EC takes an interest in unfair State Aid. This UK government may give you that impression, because it fits the narrative of the "UK being run from Brussels". It's rubbish of course. There is, as another Lifer pointed out to me recently, our own Competition and Markets Authority. More generally a blatant waste of taxpayer money, wasted by UK politicians allegedly acting for UK taxpayers, and spent in the UK, is a matter exclusively for British politicians to settle. They, and we, don't need the EC now. We can leave them to Mishcon de Reya.
Getting bored of all the talk about naming rights. Especially given the way those will be/have been negotiated will not be designed to maximise revenue for the taxpayer.
Once again, for slow West Ham fans. This is not something your club currently sells, zero value to or from West Ham United currently. Yes, it is a possible revenue stream for the owners of one of the most iconic buildings in the UK.
Well done, call fans of other clubs idiots.
Actually the deal with Betway (the largest in West Ham's history includes naming rights on the west stand of the Boleyn. But that's sort of by the by, as West Ham will more than likely grow significantly financially and performance wise in the stadium. At which point its value in term of naming rights rises proportionately.
I also note that everyone on here seems to bang on about the possibility of relegation, which is clearly much reduced given rising income for the club. No-one seems able to point out that if the club performs above a 'base line' level, more money goes back to E20 LLP and subsequently the taxpayer.
West Ham performing better on the pitch by the way is not evidence of 'state aid'. As stated before there has to be a reason for the club to want to move there in the first place.
Getting bored of all the talk about naming rights. Especially given the way those will be/have been negotiated will not be designed to maximise revenue for the taxpayer.
Once again, for slow West Ham fans. This is not something your club currently sells, zero value to or from West Ham United currently. Yes, it is a possible revenue stream for the owners of one of the most iconic buildings in the UK.
Well done, call fans of other clubs idiots.
Actually the deal with Betway (the largest in West Ham's history includes naming rights on the west stand of the Boleyn. But that's sort of by the by, as West Ham will more than likely grow significantly financially and performance wise in the stadium. At which point its value in term of naming rights rises proportionately.
I also note that everyone on here seems to bang on about the possibility of relegation, which is clearly much reduced given rising income for the club. No-one seems able to point out that if the club performs above a 'base line' level, more money goes back to E20 LLP and subsequently the taxpayer.
West Ham performing better on the pitch by the way is not evidence of 'state aid'. As stated before there has to be a reason for the club to want to move there in the first place.
But it could be argued that it is as West Ham will have more disposable income to spend on better players as a result of the OS deal. So, yes, it could be the impact of state aid. It would certainly be a factor, like it or not.
Yes, West Ham fans are obviously deluded. Other than you who think you are so much smarter than the legal people who have been working on this deal on behalf of the LLDC and West Ham. You think you know what constitutes a fair deal when in reality (real life you know, market conditions and all that) no club would have even considered getting anywhere near the OS under those terms you may consider as being fair. You are deluded if you think the OS could in any way, shape or form raise any kind of reasonable profit over the years without Premier League football. Of course West Ham could have paid more, but it's not up to Charlton, Orient or Spurs' fans to determine how much West Ham should pay. This is after all a compromise situation, with West Ham making sacrifices (leaving our home ground for instance, giving up a number of income streams generated by West Ham being in the OS) and the LLDC making sacrifices (reasonable rent to West Ham, LLDC paying the vast majority of conversion costs upfront). You could argue that a 25.000 atletics stadium would have been the better solution. But the government didn't want that because they saw a better financial benefit over 99 years with West Ham in there and the OS being converted into a big multi-purpose stadium. And I do think that the LLDC won't necessarily care how much income is generated by whom as long as the OS overall generates the kind of income they are looking for at the end of the day.
Getting bored of all the talk about naming rights. Especially given the way those will be/have been negotiated will not be designed to maximise revenue for the taxpayer.
Once again, for slow West Ham fans. This is not something your club currently sells, zero value to or from West Ham United currently. Yes, it is a possible revenue stream for the owners of one of the most iconic buildings in the UK.
Well done, call fans of other clubs idiots.
Actually the deal with Betway (the largest in West Ham's history includes naming rights on the west stand of the Boleyn. But that's sort of by the by, as West Ham will more than likely grow significantly financially and performance wise in the stadium. At which point its value in term of naming rights rises proportionately.
I also note that everyone on here seems to bang on about the possibility of relegation, which is clearly much reduced given rising income for the club. No-one seems able to point out that if the club performs above a 'base line' level, more money goes back to E20 LLP and subsequently the taxpayer.
West Ham performing better on the pitch by the way is not evidence of 'state aid'. As stated before there has to be a reason for the club to want to move there in the first place.
This is not true. There has been discussion on here of what the "base line" is, as all current indications seem to be that West Ham's "base line" includes regular qualification for Europe.
This discussion happened at a time while you were regularly posting on this thread, by the way.
Yes, West Ham fans are obviously deluded. Other than you who think you are so much smarter than the legal people who have been working on this deal on behalf of the LLDC and West Ham. You think you know what constitutes a fair deal when in reality (real life you know, market conditions and all that) no club would have even considered getting anywhere near the OS under those terms you may consider as being fair. You are deluded if you think the OS could in any way, shape or form raise any kind of reasonable profit over the years without Premier League football. Of course West Ham could have paid more, but it's not up to Charlton, Orient or Spurs' fans to determine how much West Ham should pay. This is after all a compromise situation, with West Ham making sacrifices (leaving our home ground for instance, giving up a number of income streams generated by West Ham being in the OS) and the LLDC making sacrifices (reasonable rent to West Ham, LLDC paying the vast majority of conversion costs upfront). You could argue that a 25.000 atletics stadium would have been the better solution. But the government didn't want that because they saw a better financial benefit over 99 years with West Ham in there and the OS being converted into a big multi-purpose stadium. And I do think that the LLDC won't necessarily care how much income is generated by whom as long as the OS overall generates the kind of income they are looking for at the end of the day.
I'm glad we agree. What's deluded GEE is your claim that the Olympic Stadium can only get a commercial partner for naming rights because West Ham are there. You do realise just how much money the Olympics brought in from commercial partnerships alone? Sorry if this is news to you, but anything with an Olympics association is a slightly more attractive proposition than a newly re-established mid-table Premier League club.
But it could be argued that it is as West Ham will have more disposable income to spend on better players as a result of the OS deal. So, yes, it could be the impact of state aid. It would certainly be a factor, like it or not.
And you call us stupid?
The deal would not have happened if there were not financial benefit to West Ham. Just like any public-private deal would not happen if there were not a financial benefit to the private partner. To say that this is evidence of state aid is ridiculous.
I didn't say that at all. I said West Ham with the Premier League brand will make sure that it will be a global player with a lucrative deal buying the naming rights. Without that of course there could be a commercial partner for the OS. But they wouldn't pay anywhere near as much without West Ham in there. And the Olympics are gone, yes, I know they were and are massive business, but only while they are actually happening. Look at Athens and Beijing, do they have big global sponsors in these days without Olympic Games ? The basic problem is: If your definition of state aid is true (a club getting more disposable income from moving to a public asset stadium) that no public asset could ever be rented out to a private company as that private company wouldn't be interested in any kinf of deal that doesn't give them more disposable income. Man City would very much fall foul of that definition of state aid as their stadium move definitely gave them more disposable income, didn't it ?
But it could be argued that it is as West Ham will have more disposable income to spend on better players as a result of the OS deal. So, yes, it could be the impact of state aid. It would certainly be a factor, like it or not.
And you call us stupid?
The deal would not have happened if there were not financial benefit to West Ham. Just like any public-private deal would not happen if there were not a financial benefit to the private partner. To say that this is evidence of state aid is ridiculous.
Where did I call you stupid?
And you've completely reinvented what I actually said.
I didn't say that at all. I said West Ham with the Premier League brand will make sure that it will be a global player with a lucrative deal buying the naming rights. Without that of course there could be a commercial partner for the OS. But they wouldn't pay anywhere near as much without West Ham in there. And the Olympics are gone, yes, I know they were and are massive business, but only while they are actually happening. Look at Athens and Beijing, do they have big global sponsors in these days without Olympic Games ? The basic problem is: If your definition of state aid is true (a club getting more disposable income from moving to a public asset stadium) that no public asset could ever be rented out to a private company as that private company wouldn't be interested in any kinf of deal that doesn't give them more disposable income. Man City would very much fall foul of that definition of state aid as their stadium move definitely gave them more disposable income, didn't it ?
Relegation - in the relatively brief period of the EPL (23 completed seasons) only seven clubs have remained members throughout. WHU were relegated five times between 1978 and 2011. Greater wealth will be no guarantee of greater success - it's not a case of how much money you spend, but how wisely you spend it.
definition of state aid is true (a club getting more disposable income from moving to a public asset stadium) that no public asset could ever be rented out to a private company as that private company wouldn't be interested in any kinf of deal that doesn't give them more disposable income. Man City would very much fall foul of that definition of state aid as their stadium move definitely gave them more disposable income, didn't it ?
Is this your definition GEE?
If so, then it is ridiculous; of course public assets could be rented out to private companies (in this case WHU), but only if it was financially viable to do so. That may, in due course, also favour the private company (or why would they want to make use of etc?). The problem here is that WHU are not making a viable or significant contribution to the costs of the renovation, nor the running costs. if they were, then nobody would have any issue with the move.
Relegation - in the relatively brief period of the EPL (23 completed seasons) only seven clubs have remained members throughout. WHU were relegated five times between 1978 and 2011. Greater wealth will be no guarantee of greater success - it's not a case of how much money you spend, but how wisely you spend it.
Absolutely. And the team that beat Man City at the Etihad on Saturday, taking West Ham to 2nd in the Premier League, was the 4th least expensively assembled that weekend in the league.
I'd say the current owners, with a few rickets aside, have been excellent in their transfer activity.
Comments
As for Prauge's question, yes I was referring to that March meeting (how time flies).
Just because you don't like the terms doesn't mean (necessarily) that they are illegal, frivolous or amount to state aid.
You are fighting the cause the LLDC should and could have fought more vigorously maybe.
It'll take a proper court or the European Commission ruling to change the terms of the deal.
The LLDC don't exactly appear willing or desperate to change the terms of the deal.
Which would suggest they are reasonably happy with it.
Don't make the same mistake Hearn did, trying to put all the blame for an uncertain future for his club on West Ham and the OS. Both Orient and Charlton have more pressing issues certainly that more directly affect attendances that West Ham moving to the OS next season.
I would not expect Bozo Bojo to now come out and say 'we screwed up with the original deal so I'd like to renegotiate it'
Welcome back again btw
West Ham is entirely different. No loan is involved, just hundreds of millions of public money handed straight to them. Newham would have profited from the proposed purchase, but they couldn't proceed because public funds would have contributed directly to West Ham's balance sheet. Instead, theres a long term lease with the same Newham contribution but just £15m from West Ham. Allowing them to retain all monies from the disposal of Upton Park means once again effectively government money has added up to £70m to the sam, that it's indirect might save them from state aid on that single count, but it's not the only one.
But do you really think a private landlord would rent his property for no more than cost, and agree to reduce rent if the renting business didn't go as well as they thought they would? Do you think that they would have preceded with the conversion without having that deal in place that would bring them a market comparable yield? Do you think they'd have thrown in over £500k of floor space they could otherwise have offered to the market?
I'm looking forward to the LLDC defending that one for sure.
Edit. By the way, you can't say it's all about money then say the LLDC doesnt care about income. If it is about money, they'll be damned sure to get as much from the deal as possible. Actually I suspect the opposite is true. They had to have a legacy at whatever cost because the political ramifications for Boris of not delivering a legacy would be fatal to his ambitions. Why else do you think he's now shuffling aside and leaving the LLDC with all responsibility for the deal?
I do agree with Rothko that the legacy is vitally important, but not at any cost. Where we depart is that I believe a Premier League football club for whom the deal saw an overnight £300m growth should make a far bigger contribution than they are. This is where comparison with City bears mention,because they took legacy seriously and are still pouring money and resources into it, years after handing the council Maine Road for the princely sum of nothing (well, probably £1).
No one, least of all me, is "moaning" that Vinci are the stadium operator. We simply observed that their operation must be accounted for - which gavros had forgotten about in his sweeping unsourced summaries of the revenues to be generated. I refer you to my remarks above, taken from the figures contained in the LLDC board meet in March - which @gavros claims to have read, but obviously not very closely. In summary. In the first year of West Ham's tenancy, the revenue from the stadium after Vinci's cut is just £300k, and this is wiped out by a cost line of unspecified nature called "Stadium". The Park will require £28m of taxpayers' money just to keep it afloat in the first year. So your naming rights deal will have to kick in and go some to keep the whole thing afloat, won't it?
Actually since you and Gavros are so sure of the future revenue perhaps you could apply for jobs at the LLDC and help them produce a new 10 year plan which actually has some revenue projections. That way they could sack PwC who are currently doing the job, and probably return more money to the taxpayer than the stadium rental will do next year.
The conversion of the OS doesn't just benefit West Ham. It is a long-term investment which helped in securing an anchor tenant for 99 years who again is pivotal to the long-term future of the OS.
West Ham is just one part of the overall OS strategy implemented by the LLDC.
The LLDC won't make the same kind of money from all events in the same way. But overall they will make some serious money from the OS and from West Ham, be sure of that.
Man City overall got the much better deal, especially since they bought the right to market the naming rights for just 2 million and pocket the profits which are massive, around five times as much as what they are paying for the rights to the council. Yes, they gave the proceeds from the Maine Road sale and they are also paying for the stewarding, policing and the goalnets themselves.
If you add in the naming rights income (which could and should have gone back to the taxpayer) they get their stadium rent-free (isn't that what you are saying about West Ham too ?).
Yet in Manchester both club and council are happy and I don't hear smaller clubs like Northampton, Stockport or Oldham complaining.
Letting Man City sell and keep the profits from selling naming rights for the stadium they rent amounts to daylight robbery really.
If West Ham could have got a similar deal you'd be crying even more about injustice.
The naming rights are a big factor that'll make the OS work financially and that'll only work because West Ham play there. And no, I do not work for Volkswagen and I don't drive one either if you must know.
Since when was Northampton near Manchester????
Once again, for slow West Ham fans. This is not something your club currently sells, zero value to or from West Ham United currently. Yes, it is a possible revenue stream for the owners of one of the most iconic buildings in the UK.
while you are slowly learning from all you have read here, you still haven't mastered the City of Manchester deal. It only cost the taxpayer £20m to convert the stadium. City paid the other 48%. Need I remind you of the cost to the taxpayer of the OS conversion and how much West Ham contributed to that? Or the fact that City pay twice as much in rent, plus pay for their own plod and corner flags?
Then there is the reason why the Council may have been happy to let them have naming rights. Mansour has poured colossal amounts into the city. I mean, colossal. Gullivan haven't even offered to build a lap dancing club in the Park. Perhaps that was their mistake.
1. It only takes interest in issues which have the ability to affect trade across borders. That's why it is an EC law.
2. It is therefore a fallacy to suppose that only the EC takes an interest in unfair State Aid. This UK government may give you that impression, because it fits the narrative of the "UK being run from Brussels". It's rubbish of course. There is, as another Lifer pointed out to me recently, our own Competition and Markets Authority. More generally a blatant waste of taxpayer money, wasted by UK politicians allegedly acting for UK taxpayers, and spent in the UK, is a matter exclusively for British politicians to settle. They, and we, don't need the EC now. We can leave them to Mishcon de Reya.
Actually the deal with Betway (the largest in West Ham's history includes naming rights on the west stand of the Boleyn. But that's sort of by the by, as West Ham will more than likely grow significantly financially and performance wise in the stadium. At which point its value in term of naming rights rises proportionately.
I also note that everyone on here seems to bang on about the possibility of relegation, which is clearly much reduced given rising income for the club. No-one seems able to point out that if the club performs above a 'base line' level, more money goes back to E20 LLP and subsequently the taxpayer.
West Ham performing better on the pitch by the way is not evidence of 'state aid'. As stated before there has to be a reason for the club to want to move there in the first place.
You think you know what constitutes a fair deal when in reality (real life you know, market conditions and all that) no club would have even considered getting anywhere near the OS under those terms you may consider as being fair.
You are deluded if you think the OS could in any way, shape or form raise any kind of reasonable profit over the years without Premier League football. Of course West Ham could have paid more, but it's not up to Charlton, Orient or Spurs' fans to determine how much West Ham should pay.
This is after all a compromise situation, with West Ham making sacrifices (leaving our home ground for instance, giving up a number of income streams generated by West Ham being in the OS) and the LLDC making sacrifices (reasonable rent to West Ham, LLDC paying the vast majority of conversion costs upfront).
You could argue that a 25.000 atletics stadium would have been the better solution. But the government didn't want that because they saw a better financial benefit over 99 years with West Ham in there and the OS being converted into a big multi-purpose stadium.
And I do think that the LLDC won't necessarily care how much income is generated by whom as long as the OS overall generates the kind of income they are looking for at the end of the day.
This discussion happened at a time while you were regularly posting on this thread, by the way.
The deal would not have happened if there were not financial benefit to West Ham. Just like any public-private deal would not happen if there were not a financial benefit to the private partner. To say that this is evidence of state aid is ridiculous.
And the Olympics are gone, yes, I know they were and are massive business, but only while they are actually happening. Look at Athens and Beijing, do they have big global sponsors in these days without Olympic Games ?
The basic problem is: If your definition of state aid is true (a club getting more disposable income from moving to a public asset stadium) that no public asset could ever be rented out to a private company as that private company wouldn't be interested in any kinf of deal that doesn't give them more disposable income.
Man City would very much fall foul of that definition of state aid as their stadium move definitely gave them more disposable income, didn't it ?
And you've completely reinvented what I actually said.
Relegation - in the relatively brief period of the EPL (23 completed seasons) only seven clubs have remained members throughout. WHU were relegated five times between 1978 and 2011. Greater wealth will be no guarantee of greater success - it's not a case of how much money you spend, but how wisely you spend it.
If so, then it is ridiculous; of course public assets could be rented out to private companies (in this case WHU), but only if it was financially viable to do so. That may, in due course, also favour the private company (or why would they want to make use of etc?). The problem here is that WHU are not making a viable or significant contribution to the costs of the renovation, nor the running costs. if they were, then nobody would have any issue with the move.
I'd say the current owners, with a few rickets aside, have been excellent in their transfer activity.