How can these so called presenters not 'understand' how this move and deal will impact on clubs like Palace ! They clearly know very little about football or their finances! Well done Matt and let's hope it kick starts further coverage. Let's aim for 10,000 today!
It's a curious thing that practically all radio interviews (both BBC and Commercial) are adversarial. The interviewer(s) take up an opposing position to the interviewee and ask questions along the lines of, "but what about this...?", "why should blah blah care...? [segmenting the population]", "but so and so says this...!". This style of interviewing does not serve the public well as it doesn't allow the interviewee to open up and explain their case, instead they are forced to defend specific counter-claims and accusations. Unfortunately, radio producers seem to have unanimously agreed that this style of interviewing is what the public wants. It's only a small handful of feature-shows on Radio 4 that buck this trend.
Absolutely agree, Stig, it really does not help (often nervous people) put their point across.
Man City deal ? Yes please, but that was different insofar as it had been designed with footballing use in mind, so the conversion costs were much lower to begin with. The rent is not so much different but Man City also can make massive profit from selling and keeping the naming rights for the stadium which West Ham cannot do. The only question really is: Could the LLDC have found another bidder that offered a better deal for the taxpayer? And if not (as apparently West Ham ended up offering the most financially viable bid) did West Ham bribe someone within the LLDC in order to make them sign a deal that would favour West Ham to the detriment of the taxpayer ? That would be be incredibly hard to prove, if anything like that happened to begin with. It'll be good once the LLDC finally reveals more details of this deal. But it doesn't really matter if West Ham should or could have paid more, that alone doesn't make this a state aid issue. The question is: Could the LLDC have found a better deal for the OS ? As the bidding process has shown apparently they couldn't, but still decided the deal was good enough in order to earn the taxpayer a tidy profit over the 99 year lease, otherwise why would they have agreed to the deal ? You really think the LLDC signed this deal to do West Ham a favour to the detriment of the taxpayer ? In that case I'd love to hear why the LLDC should do that.
GermanEastender " You really think the LLDC signed the deal to do West Ham a favour to the detriment of the taxpayer ? "
That's what we would like to find out ? If everything was above board they would have produced the agreements by now . Also West Ham are being very coy about the situation at the moment.
Man City deal ? Yes please, but that was different insofar as it had been designed with footballing use in mind, so the conversion costs were much lower to begin with. The rent is not so much different but Man City also can make massive profit from selling and keeping the naming rights for the stadium which West Ham cannot do. The only question really is: Could the LLDC have found another bidder that offered a better deal for the taxpayer? And if not (as apparently West Ham ended up offering the most financially viable bid) did West Ham bribe someone within the LLDC in order to make them sign a deal that would favour West Ham to the detriment of the taxpayer ? That would be be incredibly hard to prove, if anything like that happened to begin with. It'll be good once the LLDC finally reveals more details of this deal. But it doesn't really matter if West Ham should or could have paid more, that alone doesn't make this a state aid issue. The question is: Could the LLDC have found a better deal for the OS ? As the bidding process has shown apparently they couldn't, but still decided the deal was good enough in order to earn the taxpayer a tidy profit over the 99 year lease, otherwise why would they have agreed to the deal ? You really think the LLDC signed this deal to do West Ham a favour to the detriment of the taxpayer ? In that case I'd love to hear why the LLDC should do that.
First, thank you for your reasoned post below Sean Whetstone's pathetically personalised rant.
Earlier in the thread @rikofold demonstrated using West Ham sources that the discussion about the West Ham move to the OS goes back even longer than the Olympic award itself. The constant parroting of the "free fair and open tender" line is a device to give a veneer of respectability to a back room deal. Indeed in their submission to the European Commission, the LLDC boasted that their brilliant negotiators extracted more concessions from West Ham after they'd won the tender. When I asked how that process fits with a price set by a tender I was snootily told that i don't understand how these things work. Well then, I guess I don't. Do you?
In fact their brilliant negotiators seem to have been expensive lawyers, and therein probably lies the problem.If you've ever dealt with commercial lawyers you will know their is nothing they don't think they know about business. Try in vain to tell them otherwise about the business you may yourself work in. Across the other side of the table were two razor sharp operators who of course know their business inside out. They took the lawyers to the cleaners. Evidence? The corporate hospitality and the overheads. Any mid level commercial football manager could have advised the LLDC of the value of those two things, and told them not to give them to West Ham free. In the case of the overheads, so unaware of the value were they that they did not even redact that give-away when everything else including the paragraph numbers, was.
So the answer to your final question is "Incompetence". Which we will expose. However there are those who also say that the LLDC were under enormous political pressure to do a deal. From whom? Well you know who the "boss" of the LLDC is, right? That will be more difficult for us to prove. But that is something for the politicians.
GermanEastender " You really think the LLDC signed the deal to do West Ham a favour to the detriment of the taxpayer ? "
That's what we would like to find out ? If everything was above board they would have produced the agreements by now . Also West Ham are being very coy about the situation at the moment.
The LLDC claim they are keeping some of those figures confidential in order to raise more income for other parties renting the OS (Spurs using the OS for a season while building their own ground) or to protect their negotiation position for sponsorship deals etc.
It is very common for businesses (which is what the OS effectively is now) to have confidentiality in place to protect their business interests. Not saying it is impossible there may have been dody dealings (which I doubt), but it is not out of the ordinary to put all the terms of a business deal into the public domain. Yes, there is public money involved, so eventually they need to come out with more details. But as you are so concerned about the taxpayers here: The confidentiality could also be in place to get better deals and more income from other sources for the taxpayer.
Somy typos in there: Of course the LLDC will be aiming to raise more income FROM other parties who may be using the OS. And it is not out of the ordinary to NOT put all the terms of a business deal into the public domain.
The fact that LLDC painted themselves into a corner is immaterial to the simple question : state aid - yes or no?
As well as the inappropriate use of public funds (including, never let it be forgotten, LB Newham's significant contribution), the abuse of EU state funding rules (single market, remember) and the wilful subversion of the public's information rights, this whole affair impinges on Big Politics. Nice one, Sir Humphrey - get out of that !!
GermanEastender " You really think the LLDC signed the deal to do West Ham a favour to the detriment of the taxpayer ? "
That's what we would like to find out ? If everything was above board they would have produced the agreements by now . Also West Ham are being very coy about the situation at the moment.
The LLDC claim they are keeping some of those figures confidential in order to raise more income for other parties renting the OS (Spurs using the OS for a season while building their own ground) or to protect their negotiation position for sponsorship deals etc.
It is very common for businesses (which is what the OS effectively is now) to have confidentiality in place to protect their business interests. Not saying it is impossible there may have been dody dealings (which I doubt), but it is not out of the ordinary to put all the terms of a business deal into the public domain. Yes, there is public money involved, so eventually they need to come out with more details. But as you are so concerned about the taxpayers here: The confidentiality could also be in place to get better deals and more income from other sources for the taxpayer.
Yes but their claim sounds plausible until you actually examine it and talk to other football clubs about it. Actually it is mainly West Ham who are insisting on the commercial confidentiality. You can see that if you read the full FOI dialogue. They claim that to reveal the full contract would give other clubs an advantage over West Ham "particularly in the transfer market"
Right stop and think about it for a minute. You are the CEO of Crystal Palace, say. You already know that when they move in West Ham will be much richer than you, much better cash flow, etc. So you already know that if you bid for say Benteke, and you expect West Ham to bid too. You already know that they can outbid you. There is nothing you can do about it. Your budget is your budget, and West Hams' is theirs. Now, the contract gets released and you find out that West Ham have even more sweeties. Again, in the transfer market, there is nothing you can do about it. You make your bid and hope it is accepted. So the excuse is flat out bogus, but only those people close to the business of football will recognise that.
In reality what will happen with the release of the contract is that other big FAPL clubs will read it, go absolutely mental, and go back to the European Commission. That is certainly a reason to keep it confidential. But it is to save massive embarrassment, nothing to do with fair commercial competition.
GermanEastender " You really think the LLDC signed the deal to do West Ham a favour to the detriment of the taxpayer ? "
That's what we would like to find out ? If everything was above board they would have produced the agreements by now . Also West Ham are being very coy about the situation at the moment.
The LLDC claim they are keeping some of those figures confidential in order to raise more income for other parties renting the OS (Spurs using the OS for a season while building their own ground) or to protect their negotiation position for sponsorship deals etc.
It is very common for businesses (which is what the OS effectively is now) to have confidentiality in place to protect their business interests. Not saying it is impossible there may have been dody dealings (which I doubt), but it is not out of the ordinary to put all the terms of a business deal into the public domain. Yes, there is public money involved, so eventually they need to come out with more details. But as you are so concerned about the taxpayers here: The confidentiality could also be in place to get better deals and more income from other sources for the taxpayer.
Yes but their claim sounds plausible until you actually examine it and talk to other football clubs about it. Actually it is mainly West Ham who are insisting on the commercial confidentiality. You can see that if you read the full FOI dialogue. They claim that to reveal the full contract would give other clubs an advantage over West Ham "particularly in the transfer market"
Right stop and think about it for a minute. You are the CEO of Crystal Palace, say. You already know that when they move in West Ham will be much richer than you, much better cash flow, etc. So you already know that if you bid for say Benteke, and you expect West Ham to bid too. You already know that they can outbid you. There is nothing you can do about it. Your budget is your budget, and West Hams' is theirs. Now, the contract gets released and you find out that West Ham have even more sweeties. Again, in the transfer market, there is nothing you can do about it. You make your bid and hope it is accepted. So the excuse is flat out bogus, but only those people close to the business of football will recognise that.
In reality what will happen with the release of the contract is that other big FAPL clubs will read it, go absolutely mental, and go back to the European Commission. That is certainly a reason to keep it confidential. But it is to save massive embarrassment, nothing to do with fair commercial competition.
I agree with you that it's not giving other clubs an advantage in the transfer market where they're competing with West Ham for a purchase, but if you're the club selling Benteke, the dynamic is a little different.
Don't think it would really affect the price in the same way as a player sale would affect the price of the replacement, but it's slightly easier to argue in imaginarylegalland.
Well done all and especially the Spurs guys for pushing the online petition. It clearly is clicking on at 500+ an hour and this will continue into tomorrow so 20,000 is achievable.
10,000 in a day is obviously massive and could be a strapline for a press release - every media outlet wants to be part of a successful numbers game.
On the stadium contract issue it occurs to me that Spurs (and Chelsea) are looking for temporary homes during planned stadium reconstruction. Sight of the contract could give them a very favourable case for cheap or even free ground share at Stratford?
West Ham have no grounds to object and the lddc are obliged to max the usage and revenue.
But then this brings two FAPL clubs within 20 minutes of Kent and SE London!
Again well done for work to date and good luck with the next few months. The bigger this gets the more skill will be required to ride the tiger.
A note of warning: If we draw West Ham in the cup that will have to be handled with great care else somebody will get hurt.
Well done all and especially the Spurs guys for pushing the online petition. It clearly is clicking on at 500+ an hour and this will continue into tomorrow so 20,000 is achievable.
10,000 in a day is obviously massive and could be a strapline for a press release - every media outlet wants to be part of a successful numbers game.
On the stadium contract issue it occurs to me that Spurs (and Chelsea) are looking for temporary homes during planned stadium reconstruction. Sight of the contract could give them a very favourable case for cheap or even free ground share at Stratford?
West Ham have no grounds to object and the lddc are obliged to max the usage and revenue.
But then this brings two FAPL clubs within 20 minutes of Kent and SE London!
Again well done for work to date and good luck with the next few months. The bigger this gets the more skill will be required to ride the tiger.
A note of warning: If we draw West Ham in the cup that will have to be handled with great care else somebody will get hurt.
I thought I read elsewhere that WHU got a say/veto in other possible tenants but please don't take my word for it!
Well done all and especially the Spurs guys for pushing the online petition. It clearly is clicking on at 500+ an hour and this will continue into tomorrow so 20,000 is achievable.
10,000 in a day is obviously massive and could be a strapline for a press release - every media outlet wants to be part of a successful numbers game.
On the stadium contract issue it occurs to me that Spurs (and Chelsea) are looking for temporary homes during planned stadium reconstruction. Sight of the contract could give them a very favourable case for cheap or even free ground share at Stratford?
West Ham have no grounds to object and the lddc are obliged to max the usage and revenue.
But then this brings two FAPL clubs within 20 minutes of Kent and SE London!
Again well done for work to date and good luck with the next few months. The bigger this gets the more skill will be required to ride the tiger.
A note of warning: If we draw West Ham in the cup that will have to be handled with great care else somebody will get hurt.
Thank you. Are aware that on ITTV there is a bloke using your name who posted something completely the opposite of those nice words, including some quite confrontational ones about me? Not that I give a toss either way, but I thought you should be aware.
GermanEastender " You really think the LLDC signed the deal to do West Ham a favour to the detriment of the taxpayer ? "
That's what we would like to find out ? If everything was above board they would have produced the agreements by now . Also West Ham are being very coy about the situation at the moment.
The LLDC claim they are keeping some of those figures confidential in order to raise more income for other parties renting the OS (Spurs using the OS for a season while building their own ground) or to protect their negotiation position for sponsorship deals etc.
It is very common for businesses (which is what the OS effectively is now) to have confidentiality in place to protect their business interests. Not saying it is impossible there may have been dody dealings (which I doubt), but it is not out of the ordinary to put all the terms of a business deal into the public domain. Yes, there is public money involved, so eventually they need to come out with more details. But as you are so concerned about the taxpayers here: The confidentiality could also be in place to get better deals and more income from other sources for the taxpayer.
Yes but their claim sounds plausible until you actually examine it and talk to other football clubs about it. Actually it is mainly West Ham who are insisting on the commercial confidentiality. You can see that if you read the full FOI dialogue. They claim that to reveal the full contract would give other clubs an advantage over West Ham "particularly in the transfer market"
Right stop and think about it for a minute. You are the CEO of Crystal Palace, say. You already know that when they move in West Ham will be much richer than you, much better cash flow, etc. So you already know that if you bid for say Benteke, and you expect West Ham to bid too. You already know that they can outbid you. There is nothing you can do about it. Your budget is your budget, and West Hams' is theirs. Now, the contract gets released and you find out that West Ham have even more sweeties. Again, in the transfer market, there is nothing you can do about it. You make your bid and hope it is accepted. So the excuse is flat out bogus, but only those people close to the business of football will recognise that.
In reality what will happen with the release of the contract is that other big FAPL clubs will read it, go absolutely mental, and go back to the European Commission. That is certainly a reason to keep it confidential. But it is to save massive embarrassment, nothing to do with fair commercial competition.
I agree with you that it's not giving other clubs an advantage in the transfer market where they're competing with West Ham for a purchase, but if you're the club selling Benteke, the dynamic is a little different.
Don't think it would really affect the price in the same way as a player sale would affect the price of the replacement, but it's slightly easier to argue in imaginarylegalland.
But how would it work though? Benteke for sale. West Ham one of the bidders. You already know that they have roughly the same buying power as say Arsenal now. Full contract release and you now know you are even richer than you thought. But not that much. (Its still the TV money that will be the single biggest source, and you know exactly how much they get there). There is nothing you can do about it. Either they meet your valuation or they don't. You won't get anywhere by saying "come on you numpties you keep all the corporate, give us another £5m". Interested in what you think, so correct me if you think I'm missing something.
We did run this question past RM and he said our view was bang on the money.
Well done all and especially the Spurs guys for pushing the online petition. It clearly is clicking on at 500+ an hour and this will continue into tomorrow so 20,000 is achievable.
10,000 in a day is obviously massive and could be a strapline for a press release - every media outlet wants to be part of a successful numbers game.
On the stadium contract issue it occurs to me that Spurs (and Chelsea) are looking for temporary homes during planned stadium reconstruction. Sight of the contract could give them a very favourable case for cheap or even free ground share at Stratford?
West Ham have no grounds to object and the lddc are obliged to max the usage and revenue.
But then this brings two FAPL clubs within 20 minutes of Kent and SE London!
Again well done for work to date and good luck with the next few months. The bigger this gets the more skill will be required to ride the tiger.
A note of warning: If we draw West Ham in the cup that will have to be handled with great care else somebody will get hurt.
I thought I read elsewhere that WHU got a say/veto in other possible tenants but please don't take my word for it!
They do. Brady said so herself in the Guardian re Spurs. However the details about that in the contract are redacted. Word from the Manchester Summit was that they get some kind of rent rebate if any competitor held an event there!
Comments
http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=159626
http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/13/8947301/john-oliver-sports-stadiums-video
"What precedent is there as to a fair "rent" for a football ground?"
If only there were examples of football clubs renting their ground... I guess we'll never know now. West Ham are the one and only.
The only question really is: Could the LLDC have found another bidder that offered a better deal for the taxpayer?
And if not (as apparently West Ham ended up offering the most financially viable bid) did West Ham bribe someone within the LLDC in order to make them sign a deal that would favour West Ham to the detriment of the taxpayer ?
That would be be incredibly hard to prove, if anything like that happened to begin with.
It'll be good once the LLDC finally reveals more details of this deal.
But it doesn't really matter if West Ham should or could have paid more, that alone doesn't make this a state aid issue. The question is: Could the LLDC have found a better deal for the OS ?
As the bidding process has shown apparently they couldn't, but still decided the deal was good enough in order to earn the taxpayer a tidy profit over the 99 year lease, otherwise why would they have agreed to the deal ?
You really think the LLDC signed this deal to do West Ham a favour to the detriment of the taxpayer ?
In that case I'd love to hear why the LLDC should do that.
" You really think the LLDC signed the deal to do West Ham a favour to the detriment of the taxpayer ? "
That's what we would like to find out ?
If everything was above board they would have produced the agreements by now .
Also West Ham are being very coy about the situation at the moment.
Earlier in the thread @rikofold demonstrated using West Ham sources that the discussion about the West Ham move to the OS goes back even longer than the Olympic award itself. The constant parroting of the "free fair and open tender" line is a device to give a veneer of respectability to a back room deal. Indeed in their submission to the European Commission, the LLDC boasted that their brilliant negotiators extracted more concessions from West Ham after they'd won the tender. When I asked how that process fits with a price set by a tender I was snootily told that i don't understand how these things work. Well then, I guess I don't. Do you?
In fact their brilliant negotiators seem to have been expensive lawyers, and therein probably lies the problem.If you've ever dealt with commercial lawyers you will know their is nothing they don't think they know about business. Try in vain to tell them otherwise about the business you may yourself work in. Across the other side of the table were two razor sharp operators who of course know their business inside out. They took the lawyers to the cleaners. Evidence? The corporate hospitality and the overheads. Any mid level commercial football manager could have advised the LLDC of the value of those two things, and told them not to give them to West Ham free. In the case of the overheads, so unaware of the value were they that they did not even redact that give-away when everything else including the paragraph numbers, was.
So the answer to your final question is "Incompetence". Which we will expose. However there are those who also say that the LLDC were under enormous political pressure to do a deal. From whom? Well you know who the "boss" of the LLDC is, right? That will be more difficult for us to prove. But that is something for the politicians.
It is very common for businesses (which is what the OS effectively is now) to have confidentiality in place to protect their business interests. Not saying it is impossible there may have been dody dealings (which I doubt), but it is not out of the ordinary to put all the terms of a business deal into the public domain.
Yes, there is public money involved, so eventually they need to come out with more details.
But as you are so concerned about the taxpayers here: The confidentiality could also be in place to get better deals and more income from other sources for the taxpayer.
The fact that LLDC painted themselves into a corner is immaterial to the simple question : state aid - yes or no?
As well as the inappropriate use of public funds (including, never let it be forgotten, LB Newham's significant contribution), the abuse of EU state funding rules (single market, remember) and the wilful subversion of the public's information rights, this whole affair impinges on Big Politics. Nice one, Sir Humphrey - get out of that !!
Right stop and think about it for a minute. You are the CEO of Crystal Palace, say. You already know that when they move in West Ham will be much richer than you, much better cash flow, etc. So you already know that if you bid for say Benteke, and you expect West Ham to bid too. You already know that they can outbid you. There is nothing you can do about it. Your budget is your budget, and West Hams' is theirs. Now, the contract gets released and you find out that West Ham have even more sweeties. Again, in the transfer market, there is nothing you can do about it. You make your bid and hope it is accepted. So the excuse is flat out bogus, but only those people close to the business of football will recognise that.
In reality what will happen with the release of the contract is that other big FAPL clubs will read it, go absolutely mental, and go back to the European Commission. That is certainly a reason to keep it confidential. But it is to save massive embarrassment, nothing to do with fair commercial competition.
Don't think it would really affect the price in the same way as a player sale would affect the price of the replacement, but it's slightly easier to argue in imaginarylegalland.
10,000 in a day is obviously massive and could be a strapline for a press release - every media outlet wants to be part of a successful numbers game.
On the stadium contract issue it occurs to me that Spurs (and Chelsea) are looking for temporary homes during planned stadium reconstruction. Sight of the contract could give them a very favourable case for cheap or even free ground share at Stratford?
West Ham have no grounds to object and the lddc are obliged to max the usage and revenue.
But then this brings two FAPL clubs within 20 minutes of Kent and SE London!
Again well done for work to date and good luck with the next few months. The bigger this gets the more skill will be required to ride the tiger.
A note of warning: If we draw West Ham in the cup that will have to be handled with great care else somebody will get hurt.
It's great that this now has a number of clubs' supporters behind it. Unity is power and all that.
We did run this question past RM and he said our view was bang on the money.