Thanks for the info on the hospitality. Genuinely useful, although I doubt you'll be so happy about what we are going to do with it :-)
You talked about 5,000 Newham residents. Does this derive from the "100,000 tickets per year" propaganda? if so you appear to be assuming that West Ham will make those tickets available equally for every game. For example against Spurs or Chelsea. I predict the contract will show that West Ham will have absolute discretion over when they offer the Newham freebies. So like we said before, 20k for the Europa league exit, 20k for the Capital Cup against Bury, and 20k for the FA Cup against Burton...obligations fulfilled, pretty much
5k for free to Newham against Manchester United? Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha.
You really are a smug bugger, aren't you?
I look forward to your smile being wiped straight off of your face when it's proven there's no case to answer.
Your friend's recent tweet:
Steve Lawrence @SteveLawrence_ 4h4 hours ago U-turn on West Ham veto on another club sharing Olympic stadium is an essential component in demonstrating state aid is compatible with TfEU
Brady tried to suggest West Ham did have a veto but that was later retracted by Sullivan.
"Hammers admit Spurs could share OS
West Ham have tonight revealed that Spurs could share the Olympic Stadium but that it remains “hugely unlikely.”
However, A Spurs spokesman had already told the Mail : ‘We are looking at all options but Wembley is our preference.’
And this evening a very highly placed West Ham insider told ClaretandHugh exclusively: ” We are tenants, so it could happen. We keep saying we have a good deal, but it’s NOT as amazing as people think.
“Having said that nobody believes it will happen for a moment. From everything we are hearing and are being told it seems far more likely that they will go to Wembley.”
Only to wind you and your mates up. Do try to find somewhere in this thread where I made a prediction on this issue which turned out to be false. 40 years of supporting Charlton mean you don't count on anything until the fat lady is bellowing out.
@rikofold is I am sure right about how to read Steve's tweet. Indeed I think he is also suggesting that West Ham are getting more and more worried about a new State Aid complaint, and are looking to try and discourage other clubs from looking at it. Steve himself is not a man who is easily discouraged...
It would be interesting to see how much Wembley would cost spurs to rent for a season.
I believe they offered £9 mil but Chelsea trumped them with £11 mil. The obvious solution would be for both to pay £10 mil, that's fair and helps the FA out of its own financial difficulties.
It would be interesting to see how much Wembley would cost spurs to rent for a season.
I believe they offered £9 mil but Chelsea trumped them with £11 mil. The obvious solution would be for both to pay £10 mil, that's fair and helps the FA out of its own financial difficulties.
Against your £2.5m. So much for paying the going rate eh..??
Yes we do - or certainly know it's not just £2.5 million rent - as was set out by the LLDC letter of 2013
Rubbish. If you want to compare the reported bids for Wembley of those two clubs with what you are paying then remember THEY ARE PAYING FOR THEIR OWN ****** CORNER FLAGS!!!
So £10m + overheads plays £2.5m minus overheads. Which if we are cautious means £0.5m
And if I were you I wouldn't quote that 2013 letter too widely. Thanks to you, some of us have taken another look at that- and found some rather interesting things we previously overlooked
Gavros, you cannot count the catering as you are the tenant and don't own the catering. Would Spurs get 100% of the catering at Wembley? Remember, they will be tenants just like you.
Again, naming rights. There not yours as you are the tenant. Agreed that you may attract a sponsor but it's not your stadium. You cannot say that you are giving that over either.
You are paying £2.5m per year in rent. The FA want £10m per season off Spurs for the use of Wembley. Market rates eh?
No doubt Levy at Spurs will jump all over this deal when it gets published just to piss everyone off, especially if it looks as though he can save a few quid.
Now gavros, one last time, do you think that by not disclosing the deal it makes it look bad.??
And if I were you I wouldn't quote that 2013 letter too widely. Thanks to you, some of us have taken another look at that- and found some rather interesting things we previously overlooked
I'm used to people trying on this sort of poker facing. Do what you want, it is in the public sphere already after all. You ain't worrying me, far from it.
Gavros, you cannot count the catering as you are the tenant and don't own the catering. Would Spurs get 100% of the catering at Wembley? Remember, they will be tenants just like you.
You dont know what the split is, because it's a private contract, but it makes absolute sense for Spurs or Chelsea or whoever to want a share of the catering rights.
Again, naming rights. There not yours as you are the tenant. Agreed that you may attract a sponsor but it's not your stadium. You cannot say that you are giving that over either.
So you concede that West Ham add to the attractiveness of the sponsorship deal but deny that West Ham could monetise that in any way? Tosh.
No doubt Levy at Spurs will jump all over this deal when it gets published just to piss everyone off, especially if it looks as though he can save a few quid.
Let's see if he gets the chance to if and when the LLDC appeal this decision next week.
West Ham are paying themselves for the claret and blue seating. Any team groundsharing would obviously have to pay more than us as we are anchor tenants with a 99 year committment while other teams would only play there temporarily for one or two seasons. As you rightly say, we are only tenants, so why should the tenant have to pay for the conversion costs making it fit for multi-purpose ? And are you really more concerned about this OS bollox when your own club should give yourself plenty of issues at the moment to dig your teeth into in your function as the CAS Trust ? If you continue in the current vein you will have plenty more empty seats in your stadium for home games without any other London club giving out free or cheap tickets. Don't you think it might help your club more if you put a bit more effort into getting your club back into the Premier League instead of assisting Spurs in getting better terms for a possible temporary groundshare in the OS ?
West Ham are paying themselves for the claret and blue seating. Any team groundsharing would obviously have to pay more than us as we are anchor tenants with a 99 year committment while other teams would only play there temporarily for one or two seasons. As you rightly say, we are only tenants, so why should the tenant have to pay for the conversion costs making it fit for multi-purpose ? And are you really more concerned about this OS bollox when your own club should give yourself plenty of issues at the moment to dig your teeth into in your function as the CAS Trust ? If you continue in the current vein you will have plenty more empty seats in your stadium for home games without any other London club giving out free or cheap tickets. Don't you think it might help your club more if you put a bit more effort into getting your club back into the Premier League instead of assisting Spurs in getting better terms for a possible temporary groundshare in the OS ?
And how do you propose that the Trust miraculously bring the team back to form?
Not my job to tell you that. Apparently on the In the Valley forum they are suggesting you might want to put some more pressure on your club hierarchy to improve the quality of your squad. Which might be a start.
Not my job to tell you that. Apparently on the In the Valley forum they are suggesting you might want to put some more pressure on your club hierarchy to improve the quality of your squad. Which might be a start.
West Ham are paying themselves for the claret and blue seating. Any team groundsharing would obviously have to pay more than us as we are anchor tenants with a 99 year committment while other teams would only play there temporarily for one or two seasons. As you rightly say, we are only tenants, so why should the tenant have to pay for the conversion costs making it fit for multi-purpose ? And are you really more concerned about this OS bollox when your own club should give yourself plenty of issues at the moment to dig your teeth into in your function as the CAS Trust ? If you continue in the current vein you will have plenty more empty seats in your stadium for home games without any other London club giving out free or cheap tickets. Don't you think it might help your club more if you put a bit more effort into getting your club back into the Premier League instead of assisting Spurs in getting better terms for a possible temporary groundshare in the OS ?
GEE, we all know west ham are paying for the claret and blue seats, but what category will they be classed as? (Will these be standard r non standard)
What about the money from the non standard seats was my original question.
You keep resurrecting old facts without actually seeing the point. It's not about us, or indeed any other club, it's about whether or not it is state aid.
I will now ask you the same question that I have asked gavros (who has still yet to answer)
By not publishing the deal, do you not think that it makes the deal look fishy..??
As was pointed out in that letter LLDC gets the majority of catering and pouring rights and the majority of stadium sponsorship. This is my best guess
Rent - £2.5 mil indexed to RPI
Catering and pouring rights for standard seats - 80% to LLDC
Stadium sponsorship: first £10 million per annum to LLDC after which 60% share to LLDC
Naming rights deals in England, most recent deals I could find on page 1 of Google, figures are per annum. Not all of the named clubs own the stadiums - some are even tenants
As you rightly say, we are only tenants, so why should the tenant have to pay for the conversion costs making it fit for multi-purpose ?
You've been told before that tenants usually have to pay the full costs of converting a property to suit their requirements, especially with commercial rents.
They might appeal against uncovering the redaction? That's going to send out a message all right. If the appeal is lost how will they explain why any of it was secret if it is so good? All the reasons given so far regarding commercial confidentiality don't survive the slightest of scrutiny. I suppose the story will be 'well you have all the info now, as you can see, no biggie', which of course would make the appeal look ludicrous. If the appeal is won, then this thing is going to carry on isn't it? Not many are going to say 'oh all right, it's a secret but we have to trust you'. Not much chance of that, given the provenance of the people involved, and the size of all the wedge.
It may look fishy to you. Which doesn't mean it is fishy. I find it remarkable that you find it normal that the tenant should pay for converting a commercial asset like a stadium and also that the tenant shall not benefit from renting the place. I'm sorry, but once that deal is out you will still be looking to get those terms changed in such a way that West Ham benefit as little as possible from this move. Which is totally understandable from your point of view of course as you support a different club. But please stop peddling that "we want to help the taxpayer out" line. You are a useful player in this OS shenanigans and Spurs are benefittingfrom your work tremendously well. They may actually gain something from this. You and your club won't.
GEE, the following describes a number of places I have done work in. Not a unique situation.
Company leases a warehouse building from landlord, realises it doesn't want a warehouse - it actually wants office space. Work is done to convert warehouse into office building.
Comments
@rikofold is I am sure right about how to read Steve's tweet. Indeed I think he is also suggesting that West Ham are getting more and more worried about a new State Aid complaint, and are looking to try and discourage other clubs from looking at it. Steve himself is not a man who is easily discouraged...
Tell us, in simple terms what you believe the deal is. Or are going to ignore another one of my questions..??
Rent - £2.5 mil indexed to RPI
Catering and pouring rights for standard seats - 80% to LLDC
Stadium sponsorship: first £10 million per annum to LLDC after which 60% share to LLDC
So £10m + overheads plays £2.5m minus overheads. Which if we are cautious means £0.5m
And if I were you I wouldn't quote that 2013 letter too widely. Thanks to you, some of us have taken another look at that- and found some rather interesting things we previously overlooked
Again, naming rights. There not yours as you are the tenant. Agreed that you may attract a sponsor but it's not your stadium. You cannot say that you are giving that over either.
You are paying £2.5m per year in rent. The FA want £10m per season off Spurs for the use of Wembley. Market rates eh?
No doubt Levy at Spurs will jump all over this deal when it gets published just to piss everyone off, especially if it looks as though he can save a few quid.
Now gavros, one last time, do you think that by not disclosing the deal it makes it look bad.??
By not publishing the deal, do you not think that it makes the deal look fishy..??
Over to you gavros
Any team groundsharing would obviously have to pay more than us as we are anchor tenants with a 99 year committment while other teams would only play there temporarily for one or two seasons.
As you rightly say, we are only tenants, so why should the tenant have to pay for the conversion costs making it fit for multi-purpose ?
And are you really more concerned about this OS bollox when your own club should give yourself plenty of issues at the moment to dig your teeth into in your function as the CAS Trust ?
If you continue in the current vein you will have plenty more empty seats in your stadium for home games without any other London club giving out free or cheap tickets.
Don't you think it might help your club more if you put a bit more effort into getting your club back into the Premier League instead of assisting Spurs in getting better terms for a possible temporary groundshare in the OS ?
What about the money from the non standard seats was my original question.
You keep resurrecting old facts without actually seeing the point. It's not about us, or indeed any other club, it's about whether or not it is state aid.
I will now ask you the same question that I have asked gavros (who has still yet to answer)
By not publishing the deal, do you not think that it makes the deal look fishy..??
Championship
Brighton and Hove Albion - £450k
Derby County - £700k
Hull City - maybe £600k
I can't find values for Bolton Wanderers or Huddersfield. The Bolton one doesn't look like they get much money.
Premier League
Arsenal - £0 (Man Utd, Chelsea and Liverpool have all got more money from shirt sponsorship alone than Arsenal receive for shirt and stadium)
Newcastle United - £1.5m
Stoke City - £0 (deal expired summer 2015 but look what the stadium is still called)
Swansea City - £100k
West Ham United -
£910kover £10m apparentlyThat's going to send out a message all right.
If the appeal is lost how will they explain why any of it was secret if it is so good? All the reasons given so far regarding commercial confidentiality don't survive the slightest of scrutiny.
I suppose the story will be 'well you have all the info now, as you can see, no biggie', which of course would make the appeal look ludicrous.
If the appeal is won, then this thing is going to carry on isn't it? Not many are going to say 'oh all right, it's a secret but we have to trust you'.
Not much chance of that, given the provenance of the people involved, and the size of all the wedge.
But please stop peddling that "we want to help the taxpayer out" line. You are a useful player in this OS shenanigans and Spurs are benefittingfrom your work tremendously well. They may actually gain something from this.
You and your club won't.
As for peddling the same lines? Well, some of your posts must have rubbed off on me eh?
So, do you want to actually answer the question or not?
Oh, and another thing, do you know what are non standard seats?
Company leases a warehouse building from landlord, realises it doesn't want a warehouse - it actually wants office space. Work is done to convert warehouse into office building.
Who do you think paid for the conversion?