I believe the £4m includes the lot, but happy to be corrected. They used to pay a share of gate receipts only, which averaged around £2m. I think the deal is a considerable improvement on what it was.
GEE / Gavros, you are very, very confident in your assumptions/guesses about the contract. If by any chance the contract does get released and shows that the deal does show state aid, will you come back on here and say 'Wow, you were right all along chaps!'
BTW, it's not just Charlton fans moaning about this, there are several other clubs trusts involved.
I think everyone involved know that the investment into East Manchester was more about dodging FFP and not about some wonderful regeneration policy. No FFP, and City would have developed in Carrington
Looking at OS costs, I assume they are liable for Business Rates ? If so who is paying it ? The RV is £1.2M so that would make them roughly £600k I think. I am sure the experts on here will have already looked at this.
If state aid should indeed be proven I will obviously acknowledge defeat, hold my hands up and praise you accordingly. Will you do the same if no state aid issue is being proven ?
I think everyone involved know that the investment into East Manchester was more about dodging FFP and not about some wonderful regeneration policy. No FFP, and City would have developed in Carrington
I think everyone involved know that the investment into East Manchester was more about dodging FFP and not about some wonderful regeneration policy. No FFP, and City would have developed in Carrington
Do tell us all how Mansour pouring £900m into regeneration schemes (source; senior Manchester Council bod, and fan of Yorkshire team) is all about "dodging FFP". That money is -obviously - not going anywhere near the accounts of MCFC. Maine Road area is being regenerated by the council because they were given the ground for free. Why didn't Newham use that benchmark and demand the same. What's that? Robin Wales? Oh...
Looking at OS costs, I assume they are liable for Business Rates ? If so who is paying it ? The RV is £1.2M so that would make them roughly £600k I think. I am sure the experts on here will have already looked at this.
I don't think anybody has yet, thanks for the tip :-)
Regular CL'ers have come with several tips like that. It's great. Keep 'em coming, people.
If state aid should indeed be proven I will obviously acknowledge defeat, hold my hands up and praise you accordingly. Will you do the same if no state aid issue is being proven ?
I would have no problem with saying well Done as I do not care where West Ham play.
And helped along by significant central government funding which Manchester is getting as the hub of the Northern Powerhouse concept. The idea Mansoor is doing this all because he feels like it, is fantasy land, he's riding on the coat tails of billions of pounds of tax payers money already pumped into East Manchester.
As for FFP dodging, the whole Etihad deal was called out by the Council of Europe as 'improper'
GEE is freaking me out i mean how can you write that well and be that bothered to waste that much time waffling on about a team from another country on another teams forum , seriously its just too weird and doesn't add up
GEE / Gavros are very welcome contributors in my view. You don't have to agree with them to acknowledge that. Not only are they both articulate, but their input has helped to keep our thinking sharp on this matter.
And helped along by significant central government funding which Manchester is getting as the hub of the Northern Powerhouse concept. The idea Mansoor is doing this all because he feels like it, is fantasy land, he's riding on the coat tails of billions of pounds of tax payers money already pumped into East Manchester.
As for FFP dodging, the whole Etihad deal was called out by the Council of Europe as 'improper'
And helped along by significant central government funding which Manchester is getting as the hub of the Northern Powerhouse concept. The idea Mansoor is doing this all because he feels like it, is fantasy land, he's riding on the coat tails of billions of pounds of tax payers money already pumped into East Manchester.
As for FFP dodging, the whole Etihad deal was called out by the Council of Europe as 'improper'
That is an article about a wholly unrelated matter, which I agree is highly unsatisfactory. But unrelated to this thread.
But more to the point, if Rothko thinks the City deal is a bad one, what must he think of the West Ham one?
Middle Eastern businessmen can be extraordinarily generous with community schemes, actually their religion can play a large part in that motivation, but even if it did lack any altruism whatsoever it's still happening, the community still feels the benefit of Sheik Mansoor's investment - which sets it way aside from the West Ham arrangement.
Talking of sponsorship though, it struck me last night that one reason it's so hard to estimate the value of naming rights is that it's so often an unquantified part of a larger sponsorship deal, as with Etihad, Emirates and indeed Betway. The might mean that the attraction of a Premier League club in the stadium is the unification between shirts and stadium (Sony might not want to see their shirt sponsorship deal undermined by Samsung stadium sponsorship, for example). If best value is realised only through combining the two, someone has to quantify the naming rights element - and if worth is defined by what someone wants to pay for it, what's to stop a sponsor reducing that part to ensure their client West Ham make most from the deal through their shirt?
GEE / Gavros are very welcome contributors in my view. You don't have to agree with them to acknowledge that. Not only are they both articulate, but their input has helped to keep our thinking sharp on this matter.
This...and every post means the thread remains near the top of the page...
I don't think the City one was bad, David Bernstein did a cracking job on the deal, and its worked out well for all, in the same way Brady (when you read through this thread, the casual misogyny towards her is almost as bad as the moralising over adult industries) has done and what LLDC have too.
What I think your trying to do conflate property speculation in East Manchester 15 years after the stadium was built to whats happening on Olympic Park.
I don't think the City one was bad, David Bernstein did a cracking job on the deal, and its worked out well for all, in the same way Brady (when you read through this thread, the casual misogyny towards her is almost as bad as the moralising over adult industries) has done and what LLDC have too.
What I think your trying to do conflate property speculation in East Manchester 15 years after the stadium was built to whats happening on Olympic Park.
I don't know if you are referring to me with that last remark, but I'm just humbly reporting the considered view of Manchester City Council. But what do they know?
This is from the Newham Council homepage, they don't sound unhappy about the OS and what it will bring to the community, do they ?
Mayor of Newham Sir Robin Wales said: “Those lucky enough to have secured a place in the first event in the Stadium this Summer - the Morrisons Great Newham London Run on 19 July - will see a magnificent world class stadium in action once again.
“We are proud that we have been able to help make this transformation happen. Our agreement with the LLDC from the outset was to provide a fixed £40m loan investment. We have not contributed to any change in the transformation costs, and it is a repayable loan so we expect no long term cost to the council.
“In addition we have secured a series of benefits for Newham residents including free tickets, community athletics, community days in the Stadium and job targets. We are proud that what might have been a 25,000-seater stadium after the 2012 Games will be a fantastic multi-purpose stadium for athletics, football, rugby, motor sport and concerts amongst a whole range of activities.
“Our vision for the 2012 Games was always to ensure significant benefits for our community. The former Olympic Stadium will have a fitting legacy that is good for Newham residents, London and the nation."
The lasting legacy for the community includes:
Year-round access for school clubs to a new floodlit 400m London Marathon Charitable Trust Community Track, which will also be home to Newham and Essex Beagles.
Ten exclusive mass participation events in the Stadium per year for Newham residents including the Morrisons Great Newham London Run with more than 2,000 free places for Newham residents.
Up to 100,000 free tickets every year for Newham residents to West Ham United matches.
A training and education centre in the Stadium.
Up to 75 per cent of jobs created at the Stadium will go to Newham residents.
Sounds great GEE, and if it only costs £40m which will be repaid to Newham then even better. Was this press release before they committed to another £5m which was recognized in council minutes as "unlikely ever to be repaid"? The presser was certainly issued prior to Newham asking it's own residents to make £50m in savings on services, but that's another matter I guess.
GEE, when the deal was first announced I thought fair play. However, as time as gone on and the deal was published, albeit heavily redacted I thought, hold on a minute. Then, as all of those involved in the deal just said 'It's a great deal' but without providing any proof my suspicions have grown. Whose wouldn't?
Prague Addick - in the interests of transparency are you happy to confirm that you or any of your colleagues have at no time been in contact with representatives of Tottenham Hostpur or people/bodies working on their behalf? That this is totally driven by the Independant supporters association and why Charlton Athletic football club have chosen not to get involved in your work? I note that you claim that legal representatives of Tottenham Hostpsur football club contacted you following the BBC documentary, it would be reassuring for both Charlton Athletic and West Ham fans to know that this was the first contact anyone in your group has had with anyone associated with that football club and that your campaign is totally independant of any other groups that have challenged the awarding of the stadium to West Ham since the start of the process.
Prague Addick - in the interests of transparency are you happy to confirm that you or any of your colleagues have at no time been in contact with representatives of Tottenham Hostpur or people/bodies working on their behalf? That this is totally driven by the Independant supporters association and why Charlton Athletic football club have chosen not to get involved in your work? I note that you claim that legal representatives of Tottenham Hostpsur football club contacted you following the BBC documentary, it would be reassuring for both Charlton Athletic and West Ham fans to know that this was the first contact anyone in your group has had with anyone associated with that football club and that your campaign is totally independant of any other groups that have challenged the awarding of the stadium to West Ham since the start of the process.
Gosh they really are desperate to find out what we know!!!! I presume that @Knuckles is a new poster? Are GEE and @gavros bringing in the heavy mob?
Prague Addick - in the interests of transparency are you happy to confirm that you or any of your colleagues have at no time been in contact with representatives of Tottenham Hostpur or people/bodies working on their behalf? That this is totally driven by the Independant supporters association and why Charlton Athletic football club have chosen not to get involved in your work? I note that you claim that legal representatives of Tottenham Hostpsur football club contacted you following the BBC documentary, it would be reassuring for both Charlton Athletic and West Ham fans to know that this was the first contact anyone in your group has had with anyone associated with that football club and that your campaign is totally independant of any other groups that have challenged the awarding of the stadium to West Ham since the start of the process.
What a strange first post. Welcome to the site
Why, what is it to you and how would it alter the legitimacy of the arguments?
And since you are asking about transparency what is your real name, what is your connection with West Ham United FC, are you know or have you ever been an employer of Gold and/or Sullivan or of West Ham United FC.
Comments
BTW, it's not just Charlton fans moaning about this, there are several other clubs trusts involved.
Regular CL'ers have come with several tips like that. It's great. Keep 'em coming, people.
As for FFP dodging, the whole Etihad deal was called out by the Council of Europe as 'improper'
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/mar/07/manchester-city-etihad-deal-improper
i mean how can you write that well and be that bothered to waste that much time waffling on about a team from another country on another teams forum , seriously its just too weird and doesn't add up
GEE.................I'm still trying to get my own back even after all this time!
Middle Eastern businessmen can be extraordinarily generous with community schemes, actually their religion can play a large part in that motivation, but even if it did lack any altruism whatsoever it's still happening, the community still feels the benefit of Sheik Mansoor's investment - which sets it way aside from the West Ham arrangement.
Talking of sponsorship though, it struck me last night that one reason it's so hard to estimate the value of naming rights is that it's so often an unquantified part of a larger sponsorship deal, as with Etihad, Emirates and indeed Betway. The might mean that the attraction of a Premier League club in the stadium is the unification between shirts and stadium (Sony might not want to see their shirt sponsorship deal undermined by Samsung stadium sponsorship, for example). If best value is realised only through combining the two, someone has to quantify the naming rights element - and if worth is defined by what someone wants to pay for it, what's to stop a sponsor reducing that part to ensure their client West Ham make most from the deal through their shirt?
What I think your trying to do conflate property speculation in East Manchester 15 years after the stadium was built to whats happening on Olympic Park.
Mayor of Newham Sir Robin Wales said: “Those lucky enough to have secured a place in the first event in the Stadium this Summer - the Morrisons Great Newham London Run on 19 July - will see a magnificent world class stadium in action once again.
“We are proud that we have been able to help make this transformation happen. Our agreement with the LLDC from the outset was to provide a fixed £40m loan investment. We have not contributed to any change in the transformation costs, and it is a repayable loan so we expect no long term cost to the council.
“In addition we have secured a series of benefits for Newham residents including free tickets, community athletics, community days in the Stadium and job targets. We are proud that what might have been a 25,000-seater stadium after the 2012 Games will be a fantastic multi-purpose stadium for athletics, football, rugby, motor sport and concerts amongst a whole range of activities.
“Our vision for the 2012 Games was always to ensure significant benefits for our community. The former Olympic Stadium will have a fitting legacy that is good for Newham residents, London and the nation."
The lasting legacy for the community includes:
Year-round access for school clubs to a new floodlit 400m London Marathon Charitable Trust Community Track, which will also be home to Newham and Essex Beagles.
Ten exclusive mass participation events in the Stadium per year for Newham residents including the Morrisons Great Newham London Run with more than 2,000 free places for Newham residents.
Up to 100,000 free tickets every year for Newham residents to West Ham United matches.
A training and education centre in the Stadium.
Up to 75 per cent of jobs created at the Stadium will go to Newham residents.
GEE, when the deal was first announced I thought fair play. However, as time as gone on and the deal was published, albeit heavily redacted I thought, hold on a minute. Then, as all of those involved in the deal just said 'It's a great deal' but without providing any proof my suspicions have grown. Whose wouldn't?
Let's wait and see what the deal states
Why, what is it to you and how would it alter the legitimacy of the arguments?
And since you are asking about transparency what is your real name, what is your connection with West Ham United FC, are you know or have you ever been an employer of Gold and/or Sullivan or of West Ham United FC.