Yes, some fellow posters on West Ham forums may consider me to be a muppet, but that comes with the territory of having a multitude of fans discussing their favourite club and disagreeing on certain issues, no, I don't like every single West Ham fan either just because they support the same club. Of course I do a lot of assumptions, same as you, simply because the deal hasn't been published yet. As for being muppets both your forum and Prague Addick are being seen as a bit controversial to say the least. So not everybody is your fan either on other Charlton forums. The LLDC will appeal which will prolong matters for another month or two, then the deal is likely to be published and then we'll all see what happens then. You still think you may be in a position to ultimately change the terms while I think it'll pretty much remain as it is. All we can do is wait at this point. And I agree, I've been spending far too much time on here, I've got an article to write for a West Ham blog, full of assumptions, muppeting and devoid of any facts. Don't be too sad on losing again at Cardiff. I'm sure there will be some easier games for you soon.
Yet another patronising and arrogant post.
Will be interesting to watch the smirk disappear from your face over the next couple of months.
Not patronising, just reacting to some of the stuff thrown out here. But I agree, this is not leading anywhere and is unhealthy for both sides, it was ultimately a bad idea coming on here. As for whose smirk will be disappearing I suppose we'll find that out soon enough.
Yes, some fellow posters on West Ham forums may consider me to be a muppet, but that comes with the territory of having a multitude of fans discussing their favourite club and disagreeing on certain issues, no, I don't like every single West Ham fan either just because they support the same club. Of course I do a lot of assumptions, same as you, simply because the deal hasn't been published yet. As for being muppets both your forum and Prague Addick are being seen as a bit controversial to say the least. So not everybody is your fan either on other Charlton forums. The LLDC will appeal which will prolong matters for another month or two, then the deal is likely to be published and then we'll all see what happens then. You still think you may be in a position to ultimately change the terms while I think it'll pretty much remain as it is. All we can do is wait at this point. And I agree, I've been spending far too much time on here, I've got an article to write for a West Ham blog, full of assumptions, muppeting and devoid of any facts. Don't be too sad on losing again at Cardiff. I'm sure there will be some easier games for you soon.
Really? What for, asking pertinent questions? I'm pretty sure that the only people to think that are the ones who don't want the answers out in public.
Yes, some fellow posters on West Ham forums may consider me to be a muppet, but that comes with the territory of having a multitude of fans discussing their favourite club and disagreeing on certain issues, no, I don't like every single West Ham fan either just because they support the same club. Of course I do a lot of assumptions, same as you, simply because the deal hasn't been published yet. As for being muppets both your forum and Prague Addick are being seen as a bit controversial to say the least. So not everybody is your fan either on other Charlton forums. The LLDC will appeal which will prolong matters for another month or two, then the deal is likely to be published and then we'll all see what happens then. You still think you may be in a position to ultimately change the terms while I think it'll pretty much remain as it is. All we can do is wait at this point. And I agree, I've been spending far too much time on here, I've got an article to write for a West Ham blog, full of assumptions, muppeting and devoid of any facts. Don't be too sad on losing again at Cardiff. I'm sure there will be some easier games for you soon.
Really? What for, asking pertinent questions? I'm pretty sure that the only people to think that are the ones who don't want the answers out in public.
Yup ...and as GEE states above 'we'll find that out soon enough'.
"I've got an article to write for a West Ham blog, full of assumptions, muppeting and devoid of any facts", well, he has had enough practice of that on here so it shouldn't take him that long to finish it.
Not patronising, just reacting to some of the stuff thrown out here. But I agree, this is not leading anywhere and is unhealthy for both sides, it was ultimately a bad idea coming on here. As for whose smirk will be disappearing I suppose we'll find that out soon enough.
You and your pal Gavin's whole approach throughout this discussion has been extremely patronising, antagonistic, largely fact free and based on an incorrect assumption that this is a partisan campaign because we are all jealous of where WHU may be in years to come.
You have ignored all the views pointing out this is and has never been the case, and all independently gathered and scrupulously sourced evidence that has patiently been presented to you, over and over again. Choosing instead to suggest, initially anyway, that this was only some ego trip for Prague and now, even more laughably that the coalition of (10+ is it now?) supporters trusts are only doing what they are doing at the behest of Spurs! In the meantime you've been privy to far more advanced information and indication of future tactics, etc than I would be happy to reveal but that's a decision that those directly involved took...only for you to get all snarky in response.
Frankly you've had more than a fair hearing for your point of views aka bias, guesswork and assumptions, and far more than any one of us would receive on a WHU forum if the situation were reversed. I believe the appropriate expression would be for you to wind your neck in or take yourself elsewhere. Again.
Had a look on KUMB to see GEE being ripped apart by West Ham fans (on issues not really relevant to us, specifically whether a new owner would buy the ground and renovate). This was on a thread where the unquestioned assumption is that West Ham can get naming rights of over 6.5 multiplied by the largest naming rights deal with an external sponsor ever in English football.
Plenty of West Ham fans who think that it's a bad deal for the taxpayer and should be made public. For example, this guy seems to be a moderator on KUMB.
I signed the petition and am proud to see its brought transparity to the deal, the miopic view of this deal, from people on here who pay taxes is poor, the deal stinks and if it wasnt whufc benefiting you'd all be wetting yourselves in disgust
Theres no comparison to draw from mcfc as they were planned tennants before the coms was even planned and built and the conversion to their needs was part of the build plans, unlike the athletic track at stratford, which was and is still an abortion of a project, and whufc a reluctant afterthought, the stadium should have been scaled down as was planned and left as a 25000 seater stadium, and the london schools and other events fund it, that was the legacy and should have stayed that way
Hope the **** really hits the fan for lldc and whufc when the deals released, this should never have been so hush hush to come to this ever, and has brought this about, the problem is lldc and whufc keeping it secret when public money is being spent, this is not at all the petition, the other clubs fans, or our fans that signed it, or other clubs questioning its fault, the issue here is lack of transparity of public funds and ultimately competition rules for any company gaining unfairly from govt monies, across not just the uk but europe,
And this was flagged up by some of us years ago, but shouted down by the usual suspects on here
Not to that post. GEE thinks it would be a "good plan" to buy the stadium, allow athletics free use every summer, knock it down, rent Wembley and build the ground that Tottenham had planned (ie no athletics track).
Gavros thinks that when the deal is published, West Ham fans will be angry because he thinks the club is paying too much. From what he's heard.
Not to that post. GEE thinks it would be a "good plan" to buy the stadium, allow athletics free use every summer, knock it down, rent Wembley and build the ground that Tottenham had planned (ie no athletics track).
Gavros thinks that when the deal is published, West Ham fans will be angry because he thinks the club is paying too much. From what he's heard.
Some will be, some wont, most will just get on with it like fans tend to do.
If the recent Mail story that Spurs are having informal talks with the LLDC are true, and I don't see why they wouldn't be as playing off sides against each other is a classic Levy tactic, then there's even more reason for the LLDC to appeal and drag out the process. That plus securing the stadium sponsor, which I believe is at an advanced stage. West Ham may grumble about it, but Sullivan's been on the record for months in saying that the club can't stop a temporary ground share. What they probably would like first though would be to get their targeted number of season ticket holders in (40,000), so that any thoughts of ground sharing with Spurs doesn't deter people for weighing out for a season ticket.
Just as an aside what would be the tenants position if the stadium was, in the future, sold on? Could life for them be made awkward in the same way as private landlords sometimes do?
Just as an aside what would be the tenants position if the stadium was, in the future, sold on? Could life for them be made awkward in the same way as private landlords sometimes do?
If you buy a freehold to a house which has been leased into flats (which there is a market for as you pick up ground rent) there's sod all you can do to affect the tenants other than perhaps messing them about by being strict on the covenants in the lease (such as, say, having a dog at the house or not sub-letting or not playing one's gramophone at certain times, which are all in my lease and which I ignore). I'd imagine it'd be much the same with this deal.
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
Ok, back to the facts for the moment. Let's assume Gav's figures are accurate (which they're not by the way - £10m pa stadium sponsorship, you could have a career in standup).
Could Gav or GEE explain how any of this is the concessionaire's to give away?
No, all this is owned by the LLDC, and operated by Vinci. If West Ham have a 20% share in retail catering, that's a value their rent is purchasing. We already know they keep all executive hospitality.
West Ham don't own the stadium, so they don't have a stadium for which to sell naming rights - but actually we do know from that 2013 letter that the LLDC is relying on West Ham to negotiate stadium naming rights on their behalf as part of a combined shirt/stadium sponsorship deal. As part of that, West Ham get to benefit from stadium naming rights above a certain threshold - or is it the other way round, do they get to keep it all up to a threshold? It's a bit ambiguous in that letter, to be frank.
Throw in that West Ham already have a shirt/stadium sponsor called Betway, with whom they have a 3 year deal running to, er, 2018 - their second season in the OS. So what's happening to that exactly? I can guarantee one thing - West Ham won't be "giving away" a penny of the £20m in that contract.
Could Gav or GEE explain how any of this is the concessionaire's to give away?
Quite easy really. If West Ham were not there the LLDC would get 100% of catering and pouring rights = £0.
West Ham's tenancy also enhances the appeal of the stadium to a sponsor and so West Ham can rightfully argue it deserves some of that.
I'm sure that the club would have preferred to do a Man City and buy up the naming rights for themselves and then sell it on. I'd imagine that having seen City do over the Council by buying the rights for £2 million and then announcing a sponsorship deal of £45 million per annum, the government were far more savvy in that aspect of the deal this time around.
Could Gav or GEE explain how any of this is the concessionaire's to give away?
Quite easy really. If West Ham were not there the LLDC would get 100% of catering and pouring rights = £0.
West Ham's tenancy also enhances the appeal of the stadium to a sponsor and so West Ham can rightfully argue it deserves some of that.
I'm sure that the club would have preferred to do a Man City and buy up the naming rights for themselves and then sell it on. I'd imagine that having seen City do over the Council by buying the rights for £2 million and then announcing a rights deal of £45 million per annum, the government we're far more savvy in that aspect of the deal this time around.
The Man City deal could have been negotiated in a phone box.
I've given a comprehensive breakdown of the naming rights deals in the top two flights of English football on an earlier page. The suggested numbers for West Ham are several multiples of the highest external deal ever negotiated in English football.
Your explanation is still not something "given away" by West Ham, anyway.
Could Gav or GEE explain how any of this is the concessionaire's to give away?
Quite easy really. If West Ham were not there the LLDC would get 100% of catering and pouring rights = £0.
West Ham's tenancy also enhances the appeal of the stadium to a sponsor and so West Ham can rightfully argue it deserves some of that.
I'm sure that the club would have preferred to do a Man City and buy up the naming rights for themselves and then sell it on. I'd imagine that having seen City do over the Council by buying the rights for £2 million and then announcing a sponsorship deal of £45 million per annum, the government were far more savvy in that aspect of the deal this time around.
I just can't see how West Ham enhances the appeal. Granted if the advantage allows them to be a challenger then this may be the case, but that isn't now.
I just can't see how West Ham enhances the appeal. Granted if the advantage allows them to be a challenger then this may be the case, but that isn't now.
Which is why I believe the bar is set very high for West Ham to start earning from it.
in relation to shares of match day revenues, Coventry City's travails bear witness to the fact that a club needs access to match day revenues to make it a viable tenant.
"Our objective has been and remains, as a club, to be financially sustainable....This is fully in line with the aspiration of the Football League that all clubs become sustainable and not dependent upon owner funding.
Limited income, operating in a stadium owned by any third party, makes this aspiration impossible.
We returned to the Ricoh on a fair rent deal – less than 10 per cent of the previous rent. A deal that sees the club participate in match day revenues beyond ticketing for the first time since 2005.
The new ownership of the Ricoh means we have a new landlord who understands sport and the business of sport, and match day operations, as well as the critical relevance of non-match day income"
And stadium sponsorship revenues
"The first signs are that the club and Wasps will develop a mutually-beneficial relationship with both clubs eager to develop additional revenue streams.
On the back of early stage discussions with the management and commercial staff at Wasps, we are exploring mutual approaches to revenue generation e.g. around seat or stand sponsorship that may favour both clubs. Any monies generated in the interim period are a bonus to CCFC and must be explored"
No doubt someone would at this point chime in with "but it's not a public body they're dealing with so that's not an issue" but it clearly shows for such deals to work, revenue share is critical.
I just can't see how West Ham enhances the appeal. Granted if the advantage allows them to be a challenger then this may be the case, but that isn't now.
Which is why I believe the bar is set very high for West Ham to start earning from it.
in relation to shares of match day revenues, Coventry City's travails bear witness to the fact that a club needs access to match day revenues to make it a viable tenant.
"The new ownership of the Ricoh means we have a new landlord who understands sport and the business of sport, and match day operations, as well as the critical relevance of non-match day income"
And stadium sponsorship revenues
"The first signs are that the club and Wasps will develop a mutually-beneficial relationship with both clubs eager to develop additional revenue streams.
On the back of early stage discussions with the management and commercial staff at Wasps, we are exploring mutual approaches to revenue generation e.g. around seat or stand sponsorship that may favour both clubs. Any monies generated in the interim period are a bonus to CCFC and must be explored"
No doubt someone would at this point chime in with "but it's not a public body they're dealing with so that's not an issue" but it clearly shows for such deals to work, revenue share is critical.
Could Gav or GEE explain how any of this is the concessionaire's to give away?
Quite easy really. If West Ham were not there the LLDC would get 100% of catering and pouring rights = £0.
West Ham's tenancy also enhances the appeal of the stadium to a sponsor and so West Ham can rightfully argue it deserves some of that.
I'm sure that the club would have preferred to do a Man City and buy up the naming rights for themselves and then sell it on. I'd imagine that having seen City do over the Council by buying the rights for £2 million and then announcing a sponsorship deal of £45 million per annum, the government were far more savvy in that aspect of the deal this time around.
That somewhat assumes, doesn't it, that there is no alternative to West Ham. In which case, the idea of an open competitive tender is a sham and the Hammers have received government money on a selective basis. Which is it?
I just can't see how West Ham enhances the appeal. Granted if the advantage allows them to be a challenger then this may be the case, but that isn't now.
Which is why I believe the bar is set very high for West Ham to start earning from it.
in relation to shares of match day revenues, Coventry City's travails bear witness to the fact that a club needs access to match day revenues to make it a viable tenant.
"The new ownership of the Ricoh means we have a new landlord who understands sport and the business of sport, and match day operations, as well as the critical relevance of non-match day income"
And stadium sponsorship revenues
"The first signs are that the club and Wasps will develop a mutually-beneficial relationship with both clubs eager to develop additional revenue streams.
On the back of early stage discussions with the management and commercial staff at Wasps, we are exploring mutual approaches to revenue generation e.g. around seat or stand sponsorship that may favour both clubs. Any monies generated in the interim period are a bonus to CCFC and must be explored"
No doubt someone would at this point chime in with "but it's not a public body they're dealing with so that's not an issue" but it clearly shows for such deals to work, revenue share is critical.
Well, yeah.
And of course revenue share is critical, unless West Ham are about to redefine themselves as a not for profit company. I mean, they won the world cup, they're doing us all a big favour by taking on the OS despite it being such a pain for them, NFP is surely the next step?
This isn't about stopping West Ham being successful in the Olympic Stadium - I think you're persistently defending something not under attack. It's important for the stadium, the taxpayer and for West Ham - but it needs to be balanced and it needs to be fair. West Ham are more than able to make this a great opportunity without the state leg up.
I'll say it again, I don't believe there's a comparable business case for staying at Upton Park even if West Ham took on the entire conversion costs themselves - so why are they paying just £15m, and effectively getting all those annual revenues for nothing? Or is the new stadium sponsor 'The Taxpayer'?
That somewhat assumes, doesn't it, that there is no alternative to West Ham. In which case, the idea of an open competitive tender is a sham and the Hammers have received government money on a selective basis. Which is it?
1. What other credible offers were there when the second tender came up?
2. Why does West Ham being the only credible tenant for the stadium that the LLDC decided to build mean that state aid must have occurred?
Comments
Will be interesting to watch the smirk disappear from your face over the next couple of months.
You have ignored all the views pointing out this is and has never been the case, and all independently gathered and scrupulously sourced evidence that has patiently been presented to you, over and over again. Choosing instead to suggest, initially anyway, that this was only some ego trip for Prague and now, even more laughably that the coalition of (10+ is it now?) supporters trusts are only doing what they are doing at the behest of Spurs! In the meantime you've been privy to far more advanced information and indication of future tactics, etc than I would be happy to reveal but that's a decision that those directly involved took...only for you to get all snarky in response.
Frankly you've had more than a fair hearing for your point of views aka bias, guesswork and assumptions, and far more than any one of us would receive on a WHU forum if the situation were reversed. I believe the appropriate expression would be for you to wind your neck in or take yourself elsewhere. Again.
Plenty of West Ham fans who think that it's a bad deal for the taxpayer and should be made public. For example, this guy seems to be a moderator on KUMB. Link
Gavros thinks that when the deal is published, West Ham fans will be angry because he thinks the club is paying too much. From what he's heard.
If the recent Mail story that Spurs are having informal talks with the LLDC are true, and I don't see why they wouldn't be as playing off sides against each other is a classic Levy tactic, then there's even more reason for the LLDC to appeal and drag out the process. That plus securing the stadium sponsor, which I believe is at an advanced stage. West Ham may grumble about it, but Sullivan's been on the record for months in saying that the club can't stop a temporary ground share. What they probably would like first though would be to get their targeted number of season ticket holders in (40,000), so that any thoughts of ground sharing with Spurs doesn't deter people for weighing out for a season ticket.
Sounds a well dodgy geezer to me.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Rr_DTozbH8E
Could Gav or GEE explain how any of this is the concessionaire's to give away?
No, all this is owned by the LLDC, and operated by Vinci. If West Ham have a 20% share in retail catering, that's a value their rent is purchasing. We already know they keep all executive hospitality.
West Ham don't own the stadium, so they don't have a stadium for which to sell naming rights - but actually we do know from that 2013 letter that the LLDC is relying on West Ham to negotiate stadium naming rights on their behalf as part of a combined shirt/stadium sponsorship deal. As part of that, West Ham get to benefit from stadium naming rights above a certain threshold - or is it the other way round, do they get to keep it all up to a threshold? It's a bit ambiguous in that letter, to be frank.
Throw in that West Ham already have a shirt/stadium sponsor called Betway, with whom they have a 3 year deal running to, er, 2018 - their second season in the OS. So what's happening to that exactly? I can guarantee one thing - West Ham won't be "giving away" a penny of the £20m in that contract.
West Ham's tenancy also enhances the appeal of the stadium to a sponsor and so West Ham can rightfully argue it deserves some of that.
I'm sure that the club would have preferred to do a Man City and buy up the naming rights for themselves and then sell it on. I'd imagine that having seen City do over the Council by buying the rights for £2 million and then announcing a sponsorship deal of £45 million per annum, the government were far more savvy in that aspect of the deal this time around.
I've given a comprehensive breakdown of the naming rights deals in the top two flights of English football on an earlier page. The suggested numbers for West Ham are several multiples of the highest external deal ever negotiated in English football.
Your explanation is still not something "given away" by West Ham, anyway.
in relation to shares of match day revenues, Coventry City's travails bear witness to the fact that a club needs access to match day revenues to make it a viable tenant.
"Our objective has been and remains, as a club, to be financially sustainable....This is fully in line with the aspiration of the Football League that all clubs become sustainable and not dependent upon owner funding.
Limited income, operating in a stadium owned by any third party, makes this aspiration impossible.
We returned to the Ricoh on a fair rent deal – less than 10 per cent of the previous rent. A deal that sees the club participate in match day revenues beyond ticketing for the first time since 2005.
The new ownership of the Ricoh means we have a new landlord who understands sport and the business of sport, and match day operations, as well as the critical relevance of non-match day income"
And stadium sponsorship revenues
"The first signs are that the club and Wasps will develop a mutually-beneficial relationship with both clubs eager to develop additional revenue streams.
On the back of early stage discussions with the management and commercial staff at Wasps, we are exploring mutual approaches to revenue generation e.g. around seat or stand sponsorship that may favour both clubs. Any monies generated in the interim period are a bonus to CCFC and must be explored"
coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-reveal-plans-8372949
No doubt someone would at this point chime in with "but it's not a public body they're dealing with so that's not an issue" but it clearly shows for such deals to work, revenue share is critical.
This isn't about stopping West Ham being successful in the Olympic Stadium - I think you're persistently defending something not under attack. It's important for the stadium, the taxpayer and for West Ham - but it needs to be balanced and it needs to be fair. West Ham are more than able to make this a great opportunity without the state leg up.
I'll say it again, I don't believe there's a comparable business case for staying at Upton Park even if West Ham took on the entire conversion costs themselves - so why are they paying just £15m, and effectively getting all those annual revenues for nothing? Or is the new stadium sponsor 'The Taxpayer'?
2. Why does West Ham being the only credible tenant for the stadium that the LLDC decided to build mean that state aid must have occurred?