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.
I agree.
But in corporatelawyerland, I think an argument might be made that it gives the seller commercial information about the buyer than the buyer does not have about the seller. It therefore gives the seller an advantage, purely because the government has released this information. Blah blah commercial sensitivity blah government interference blah blah precedent blah legislation from the late 18th century.
There can be no football club sharing the OS in West Ham's first season there. After that I'm not sure how much of a say West Ham would have. I keep coming back to the deal which of course is attractive to West Ham, it had to be in order for West Ham to be enticed into selling the Boleyn ground and moving in the first place. I can understand other fans being in arms about it, but in a legal/state aid sense that's irrelevant. In order to use a publicly owned asset like the OS by renting it out to interested parties the LLDC must try and get the best possible deal, your public enquiry will hopefully sort his question out soon enough. It may the be revealed that West Ham do benefit massively, but again, it was an open tender, any London club could have applied to negotiate a similar deal. If the LLDC can prove that West Ham's deal ended up the best under the circumstances and the deal will still yield good profits over the 99 year lease there's not much that can be done. Overall the LLDC thought this was the best deal it could get for the taxpayer, it's your good right to demand an enquiry into this. But you may not like the result.
I've read various sources, including THST and the Spurs director Donna Cullen that a one season rent of the Olympic Stadium is totally out of the question for Spurs. Purely down to a West Ham veto. Thats why we're looking at Wembley or, god forbid, MK Dons.
There can be no football club sharing the OS in West Ham's first season there. After that I'm not sure how much of a say West Ham would have. I keep coming back to the deal which of course is attractive to West Ham, it had to be in order for West Ham to be enticed into selling the Boleyn ground and moving in the first place. I can understand other fans being in arms about it, but in a legal/state aid sense that's irrelevant. In order to use a publicly owned asset like the OS by renting it out to interested parties the LLDC must try and get the best possible deal, your public enquiry will hopefully sort his question out soon enough. It may the be revealed that West Ham do benefit massively, but again, it was an open tender, any London club could have applied to negotiate a similar deal. If the LLDC can prove that West Ham's deal ended up the best under the circumstances and the deal will still yield good profits over the 99 year lease there's not much that can be done. Overall the LLDC thought this was the best deal it could get for the taxpayer, it's your good right to demand an enquiry into this. But you may not like the result.
OK now you are reading from the LLDC script, and maybe if you are born and raised in Germany you won't understand what a lot of bollocks that argument is. London is unlike any other European city to the extent it has so many league clubs all with their own geographical heartland. There is no way Charlton would have gone to the OS. No way, Chelsea, Palace, Fulham, QPR, Arsenal. And you know what, from the fans point of view, no way Spurs either. It's a totally spurious claim. It was always only ever going to be West Ham, and that of itself is OK. Just not at this ridiculous price.
West Ham were the only feasible football tenant, but the Icelandic banking crisis left the club on the brink of bankruptcy. (They were also tarnished by the Tevez scandal, which they managed to escape with a derisory penalty.)
The public purse was the sole funding option. WHU's new owners played a brilliant hand, and the deal of the century must have been beyond their wildest dreams. But - now the party's coming to an end ....
Thats the biggest issue for me. I don't care that they move there, I just want the cheating buggers to pay for it like any other club.
All those millions of pounds a year. 2.5 mill, how many A&E departments could we keep open with that? How many fire stations, police on the streets, schools?
Being German I may not be privvy to insider knowledge on London. But are you telling me that the LLDC would have refused a massive deal from Spurs or Chelsea if they had come forward expressing an interest ? Of course West Ham were always trhe candidate most likely in terms of location. So which court exactly is going to force the LLDC and West Ham to renegotiate their deal so West ham pay more rent and more towards conversion ?
West Ham said: "Our presence underwrites the multi-use legacy of the stadium and our contribution alone will pay back more than the cost of building and converting the stadium."
The cost of building and converting the stadium is at least £580m. They have a 99 year lease, so ignoring inflation/interest etc they would have to be providing net revenue to LLDC/stadium operators of £5.9m per annum. The rent is cancelled out by the operating costs, so how are they contributing all this money?
All their talk seems to be about naming rights. Arsenal's deal with Emirates covers both the stadium naming and shirt sponsorship. Arsenal have sold both for £100m for the first 15 years, so together, that's £6.7m per year. Obviously, the OS can't sell shirt sponsorship, so you would be looking at less than that amount. Also, as mentioned before, the main selling point of naming rights for the Olympic Stadium is that it's the Olympic Stadium, not that West Ham play there.
West Ham said: "Our presence underwrites the multi-use legacy of the stadium and our contribution alone will pay back more than the cost of building and converting the stadium."
The cost of building and converting the stadium is at least £580m. They have a 99 year lease, so ignoring inflation/interest etc they would have to be providing net revenue to LLDC/stadium operators of £5.9m per annum. The rent is cancelled out by the operating costs, so how are they contributing all this money?
All their talk seems to be about naming rights. Arsenal's deal with Emirates covers both the stadium naming and shirt sponsorship. Arsenal have sold both for £100m for the first 15 years, so together, that's £6.7m per year. Obviously, the OS can't sell shirt sponsorship, so you would be looking at less than that amount. Also, as mentioned before, the main selling point of naming rights for the Olympic Stadium is that it's the Olympic Stadium, not that West Ham play there.
And bearing in mind if West Ham could command decent amounts for naming rights just because of their presence then their stadium wouldn't be called the Boleyn Ground.
Bollocks! The selling point of naming rights is the fact that with West Ham there will be Premier League football in there. Without Premier League football the naming rights income couldn't get anywhere near what the LLDC is likely to raise under the current deal. The Olympic Stadium as such is not a big draw for sponsors unless Premier League football is in there year after year.
Bollocks! The selling point of naming rights is the fact that with West Ham there will be Premier League football in there. Without Premier League football the naming rights income couldn't get anywhere near what the LLDC is likely to raise under the current deal. The Olympic Stadium as such is not a big draw for sponsors unless Premier League football is in there year after year.
If West Ham get relegated, do they have to compensate the LLDC for the loss of naming rights revenue?
Being German I may not be privvy to insider knowledge on London. But are you telling me that the LLDC would have refused a massive deal from Spurs or Chelsea if they had come forward expressing an interest ? Of course West Ham were always trhe candidate most likely in terms of location. So which court exactly is going to force the LLDC and West Ham to renegotiate their deal so West ham pay more rent and more towards conversion ?
No. I'm telling you that Spurs and Chelsea fans would have been up in arms if their club had moved there. Just as we rose up when our club got moved to Crystal Palace. We fought, and won. Honestly though it is difficult to understand if you are not from London.
There will not need to be a court. It will be a political settlement. Karren Brady has bigger priorities in her life than your club. I think you sense the truth in that.
This will never come to court. It will be settled by the politicians. Boris will end up doing night security at an island in the Thames - if he's lucky - after a Tory Night of the Long Knives, with the coup de grace administered up close and personal by Mr Livingstone.
The whole story is already out there, somewhere, just waiting for an exceptional investigator to come up with the scoop of a lifetime. The media wolf-pack smells blood.
Being German I may not be privvy to insider knowledge on London. But are you telling me that the LLDCwould have refused a massive deal from Spurs or Chelsea if they had come forward expressing an interest ? Of course West Ham were always trhe candidate most likely in terms of location. So which court exactly is going to force the LLDC and West Ham to renegotiate their deal so West ham pay more rent and more towards conversion ?
Bollocks! The selling point of naming rights is the fact that with West Ham there will be Premier League football in there. Without Premier League football the naming rights income couldn't get anywhere near what the LLDC is likely to raise under the current deal. The Olympic Stadium as such is not a big draw for sponsors unless Premier League football is in there year after year.
If West Ham get relegated, do they have to compensate the LLDC for the loss of naming rights revenue?
Excellent question. The answer is hidden behind a sea of black ink. Currently.
It looks like we will just fail to get to 10K ....inside 24 hours. The petition went up yesterday at 17.12 BST. The pace has dropped. But if you have not signed, please do so now. It may still be a record breaker in terms of fastest to 10k. I have asked them.
West Ham said: "Our presence underwrites the multi-use legacy of the stadium and our contribution alone will pay back more than the cost of building and converting the stadium."
The cost of building and converting the stadium is at least £580m. They have a 99 year lease, so ignoring inflation/interest etc they would have to be providing net revenue to LLDC/stadium operators of £5.9m per annum. The rent is cancelled out by the operating costs, so how are they contributing all this money?
All their talk seems to be about naming rights. Arsenal's deal with Emirates covers both the stadium naming and shirt sponsorship. Arsenal have sold both for £100m for the first 15 years, so together, that's £6.7m per year. Obviously, the OS can't sell shirt sponsorship, so you would be looking at less than that amount. Also, as mentioned before, the main selling point of naming rights for the Olympic Stadium is that it's the Olympic Stadium, not that West Ham play there.
Quite. And naming rights aren't West Ham paying it back, even if they might attract a better sponsorship deal, and I understand that above a certain threshold West Ham benefit anyway.
It's one thing to say the business case only stacks up with West Ham (or ), quite another to claim they're paying their way.
The cost of the stadium is over £750m by the way. £486m+ costs of building (£529m in today's money) plus £272m conversion. West Ham have claimed their contribution over 99 years will exceed that - but that must include rent. Rent though is paid for the use of the stadium surely, not for repayment of the capital expended. Their capital contribution is just £15m.
Alternatively, some or all of their rent is capital repayment - but then that means the taxpayer is paying them to play there. Shurely not?
Richard Pemberton should be on BBC London TV at 18.30 and 22.00. David Lammy apparently on too. He has called for a public enquiry. And now I should be on London Live TV on the 18.00 news there.
If any clever people can capture these so we can put them on the Trust website, please do it and let us know how we can link to them
AsI said, good luck with it. As you well know a lot of West Ham fans are up in arms over having to move from the Boleyn. I very much doubt though that club owners oeverall would care too much about fans not liking a business decision on behalf of the club. if Spurs had got a deal that was favourabel enough for them they would have moved to the OS, no matter if the fans had liked that or not. I think football fans sometimes overestimate their power to influence club decisions. They can of course always vote with their feet, stop going to games, stop buying merchandise and the like. And once again: The OS wasn't built for West Ham, it was built and served its purpose with hosting the Olympic Games. The decision to maintain an athletics legacy and raising further regular income from converting the OS to a multi purpose stadium made a football tenant very much necessary. The government decided they wanted to keep the OS going. And there weren't too many suitable parties around to submit financially viable bids. That's why West Ham were in a decent negotiating position and that's why they could get a good deal. The LLDC had to make the best of crap circumstances caused by bad decisions from people the media seem to be reluctant talking about. I very much doubt an enquiry will reveal the big conspiracy you might be looking for.
Comments
But in corporatelawyerland, I think an argument might be made that it gives the seller commercial information about the buyer than the buyer does not have about the seller. It therefore gives the seller an advantage, purely because the government has released this information. Blah blah commercial sensitivity blah government interference blah blah precedent blah legislation from the late 18th century.
It's not a real world argument.
I can understand other fans being in arms about it, but in a legal/state aid sense that's irrelevant.
In order to use a publicly owned asset like the OS by renting it out to interested parties the LLDC must try and get the best possible deal, your public enquiry will hopefully sort his question out soon enough.
It may the be revealed that West Ham do benefit massively, but again, it was an open tender, any London club could have applied to negotiate a similar deal.
If the LLDC can prove that West Ham's deal ended up the best under the circumstances and the deal will still yield good profits over the 99 year lease there's not much that can be done.
Overall the LLDC thought this was the best deal it could get for the taxpayer, it's your good right to demand an enquiry into this. But you may not like the result.
West Ham were the only feasible football tenant, but the Icelandic banking crisis left the club on the brink of bankruptcy. (They were also tarnished by the Tevez scandal, which they managed to escape with a derisory penalty.)
The public purse was the sole funding option. WHU's new owners played a brilliant hand, and the deal of the century must have been beyond their wildest dreams. But - now the party's coming to an end ....
All those millions of pounds a year. 2.5 mill, how many A&E departments could we keep open with that? How many fire stations, police on the streets, schools?
Of course West Ham were always trhe candidate most likely in terms of location.
So which court exactly is going to force the LLDC and West Ham to renegotiate their deal so West ham pay more rent and more towards conversion ?
The cost of building and converting the stadium is at least £580m. They have a 99 year lease, so ignoring inflation/interest etc they would have to be providing net revenue to LLDC/stadium operators of £5.9m per annum. The rent is cancelled out by the operating costs, so how are they contributing all this money?
All their talk seems to be about naming rights. Arsenal's deal with Emirates covers both the stadium naming and shirt sponsorship. Arsenal have sold both for £100m for the first 15 years, so together, that's £6.7m per year. Obviously, the OS can't sell shirt sponsorship, so you would be looking at less than that amount. Also, as mentioned before, the main selling point of naming rights for the Olympic Stadium is that it's the Olympic Stadium, not that West Ham play there.
The Olympic Stadium as such is not a big draw for sponsors unless Premier League football is in there year after year.
There will not need to be a court. It will be a political settlement. Karren Brady has bigger priorities in her life than your club. I think you sense the truth in that.
This will never come to court. It will be settled by the politicians. Boris will end up doing night security at an island in the Thames - if he's lucky - after a Tory Night of the Long Knives, with the coup de grace administered up close and personal by Mr Livingstone.
The whole story is already out there, somewhere, just waiting for an exceptional investigator to come up with the scoop of a lifetime. The media wolf-pack smells blood.
It's one thing to say the business case only stacks up with West Ham (or ), quite another to claim they're paying their way.
The cost of the stadium is over £750m by the way. £486m+ costs of building (£529m in today's money) plus £272m conversion. West Ham have claimed their contribution over 99 years will exceed that - but that must include rent. Rent though is paid for the use of the stadium surely, not for repayment of the capital expended. Their capital contribution is just £15m.
Alternatively, some or all of their rent is capital repayment - but then that means the taxpayer is paying them to play there. Shurely not?
If any clever people can capture these so we can put them on the Trust website, please do it and let us know how we can link to them
if Spurs had got a deal that was favourabel enough for them they would have moved to the OS, no matter if the fans had liked that or not. I think football fans sometimes overestimate their power to influence club decisions.
They can of course always vote with their feet, stop going to games, stop buying merchandise and the like.
And once again: The OS wasn't built for West Ham, it was built and served its purpose with hosting the Olympic Games. The decision to maintain an athletics legacy and raising further regular income from converting the OS to a multi purpose stadium made a football tenant very much necessary.
The government decided they wanted to keep the OS going. And there weren't too many suitable parties around to submit financially viable bids. That's why West Ham were in a decent negotiating position and that's why they could get a good deal. The LLDC had to make the best of crap circumstances caused by bad decisions from people the media seem to be reluctant talking about.
I very much doubt an enquiry will reveal the big conspiracy you might be looking for.