How exactly are the LLDC (try to remember the acronym, the LDDC were the now defunct London Docklands Development Corporation) subsidising West Ham? Anyone with a bit of gumption can work out that the taxpayer will benefit to the tune of £10 million or above per season from this, much more than Manchester Council benefit from the Man City deal, which you lot seem to think is fine.
Rugby has already been seen at the stadium of course and it will do so in future. Cricket too, as confirmed recently by representatives of Essex CCC. And of course athletics.
As for being 'gleeful', I have no idea why I would be. I am actually slightly disappointed by some aspects of the deal such as the stadium sponsorship rights that are capped at about £4 million for West Ham regardless of the size of the total deal. I've been on here for months saying that I support Prague's efforts and once people get around the outrage of the warped reporting of it and actually analyse it in detail, they'll understand its a perfectly good deal for the taxpayer. That's why it overcomes all concerns about state aid easily.
The taxpayer has paid out á huge amount already. You seem to assume that a line is drawn now as if the stadium and it's conversion appeared by magic and this is year zero. Anybody with any gumption (?) can see the taxpayer does not benefit until the initial costs are recouped.
I have not drawn comparisons with Manchester City, you must mean somebody else. You predicted (I think) that to LLDC would win their redaction case and they didn't.
If there was a state aid case can you be so sure it wouldn't have legs? Here we have a case where a private business has wangled a shedloads of state aid. Wouldn't it be at least open to scrutiny?
What would happen if the LLDC went bust? There would be a scenario where West Ham would demand somebody would pick up the tab, and presumably that would mean the taxpayer...who else?
There are at least three people in my office who have a season ticket at West Ham next year.
They are all 30 something armchair football fans supporting Aston Villa, Man U and Liverpool who live East London/City and are going as "it's a good chance to see some footy." Simply got tickets through "contacts and mates"
I know this happened with us to a certain extent from '98 onwards but this does feel different.
West Ham pay nothing to the taxpayer until the revenue exceeds the running costs of the stadium. The WH revenue was never designed to cover overheads, it only has usage for 25 days a year
In my view the stadium will never be able to meet its overheads from filling in the remaining days with odds and sods events. It is currently burning the loan from central government which means it has to start making a profit soon otherwise Newham Council start filling the hole. The stadium is not owned by LLDC but a commercial consortium vehicle including Newham Council, and it cannot trade if it becomes insolvent.
When it becomes insolvent, not if, it will have no value as an investment with a sitting tenant and a rent not covering upkeep of the property, let alone return on assets. It will then be available for nominal consideration of £1.
I wonder who would want to buy a stadium for £1, let me guess, the sitting tenant?
Newham will have no option but to offload the stadium to avoid the debt falling on local council taxpayers, there is no possible source of any new funding. This was a high risk venture and i cannot believe a risk analysis was not carried out. Perversely, the risks might have looked attractive. Because if you want a reason why West Ham screwed the LLDC and the LLDC were happy to be screwed look no further than needing to get to insolvency as soon as possible. The taxpayer is off the hook and the stadium becomes what it always was destined to be, a London football club ground. And Boris and co shrug their shoulders and say "we did our best".
One thing that will come from this, is that West Ham will move from a club that a lot of people had respect for, to becoming the most hated team in the country. If success is everything, the Golds, Brady and their corrupt Tory mates have almost guaranteed that on the backs of tax payers. if this is what football has become, I'm not sure I want to keep following it. Absolutely disgusting.
It's a bit like FIFA - any logical person can see the corruption from the end product. I hope one day it is exposed like FiFA's was. Boris Johnson is the biggest self serving fraud I have seen in my lifetime. I know people fall for his bumbling self effacing charm but it doesn't take much to see the real bastard he is. The way he stitches his own colleagues up is disgusting and they know all about his ruthless ambition in his own party. Ask Liverpool fans. He needs the fall that will come his way to come sooner rather than later. I will enjoy seeing that. And so will many from his party colleagues.
How exactly are the LLDC (try to remember the acronym, the LDDC were the now defunct London Docklands Development Corporation) subsidising West Ham? Anyone with a bit of gumption can work out that the taxpayer will benefit to the tune of £10 million or above per season from this, much more than Manchester Council benefit from the Man City deal, which you lot seem to think is fine.
Rugby has already been seen at the stadium of course and it will do so in future. Cricket too, as confirmed recently by representatives of Essex CCC. And of course athletics.
As for being 'gleeful', I have no idea why I would be. I am actually slightly disappointed by some aspects of the deal such as the stadium sponsorship rights that are capped at about £4 million for West Ham regardless of the size of the total deal. I've been on here for months saying that I support Prague's efforts and once people get around the outrage of the warped reporting of it and actually analyse it in detail, they'll understand its a perfectly good deal for the taxpayer. That's why it overcomes all concerns about state aid easily.
Still waiting for those calculations from you for Newham vs. Manchester.
How exactly are the LLDC (try to remember the acronym, the LDDC were the now defunct London Docklands Development Corporation) subsidising West Ham? Anyone with a bit of gumption can work out that the taxpayer will benefit to the tune of £10 million or above per season from this, much more than Manchester Council benefit from the Man City deal, which you lot seem to think is fine.
Rugby has already been seen at the stadium of course and it will do so in future. Cricket too, as confirmed recently by representatives of Essex CCC. And of course athletics.
As for being 'gleeful', I have no idea why I would be. I am actually slightly disappointed by some aspects of the deal such as the stadium sponsorship rights that are capped at about £4 million for West Ham regardless of the size of the total deal. I've been on here for months saying that I support Prague's efforts and once people get around the outrage of the warped reporting of it and actually analyse it in detail, they'll understand its a perfectly good deal for the taxpayer. That's why it overcomes all concerns about state aid easily.
The consortium that owns the stadium is burning £40m a year just keeping the park open. It goes up as soon as stadium events start happening, that £40m figure excludes the expenditure yet to be incurred for policing and the additional staff (and goal posts etc :-) ) when WH start usage.
Revenue is currently around £4m excluding WH payments.
I smile when I see West Ham are "sharing' the catering revenue. Who pays for the caterers and the food that generates the revenue? More accurately WH is getting a share of the stadium's catering rights given up to them on match days.
So I'm afraid the delusion points in your direction @gavros.
As I don't post much but have on this topic the last time I did some seemed the question my motivation for posting rather than discuss the issues I raised so I am little bit apprehensive about having my say in the fear this might go the same way as I am probably not going to take the party line on this issue.
For me there a two main points they being are West Ham doing anything unfair and are the LLDC getting a good deal.
The West Ham question unless they can be proven to be doing something willingly and purposely unlawful then this to me something that is purely subjective which is influenced too much in my eyes by football tribalism to ever fairly assess it so I am not sure if it can really be answered by most football fans especially before they have even moved in there.
I am sure both Coventry City and Manchester City both thought they had good deals before they both moved to their respective stadiums but look how differently both have actually turned out, for me only time will tell whether this is a good or bad deal so maybe 5 or 10 years down the line everyone will be in a much stronger position to debate this question.
Now for me to question are the LLDC getting a good deal is a different one as to whether are the taxpayer getting one back for all the investment made into the stadium because ultimately surely the LLDC are not accountable for the initial outlay made building the stadium for the Olympics but only the investment needed afterwards to give the stadium a viable future and legacy. On that basis of course again only time will tell but on paper it looks like it is a reasonable one for the LLDC with the opportunity to capitalise on it to ensure there is no future burden and more likely a return to the taxpayer happens in the future. It is easy to highlight individual aspect of a deal because it is a compromise and some aspects will always be more beneficial to one side and vice versa on others, take the the issue of no charge for matchday costs listening to David Sullivan last night West Ham offered to pay all these on the basis they kept all revenue for things like catering but the OS like many venues chose not to accept that option as they obviously felt it would not give them the best return, this then usually means the venue also then meets the costs for security and so on that they are providing though as they would expect that to have been factored this into the income they hope to generate that night from things like catering which 60,000 customers will bring so rather than just every individual aspect the LLDC are looking at the bigger picture for their return.
As I have said previously I have had a far more laid back approach to this subject and was far more concerned about the going ons at Charlton which at the time seemed to raise far less passion amongst some to the extent that I questioned their motives being simply anti-West Ham or self serving than pro-Charlton and seeing the fallout I still struggle to see what exactly is going on with the Olympic Stadium as a bigger risk to the club's future than what it is currently inflicting on itself.
If the Supporters Coalition's actions lead to exploiting unlawful corruption and illegal activities then they have my respect and congratulations in achieving that but if not what exactly will it do other than harm the LLDC's ability to maximise revenue and have a dig at West Ham?
The thing I can see that as result now is the LLDC are now handicapped in negotiating with future customers aware that everything will be made public unlike at say at Wembley and knowing some promoters they will not be touching OS with a bargepole, that is unless the Supporters Coalition is saying that they will not be putting other deals (Out of interest have they made similar requests over the UK Athletics deal?) under such scrutiny but that will be irrelevant because be it unwittingly their actions have protected the interests of other competing venues against the OS who must be rubbing their hands now. West Ham only have the stadium for 25 dates a year with at times up to 14 consecutive days free between them even in the football season for the LLDC to utilise it for other events though some will fail to admit it but the LLDC chances to exploit this fully has been severely damaged now they cannot keep any deals confidential.
Looking at this matter football tribalism apart I struggle to see other than competing venues what would be motivation in knowing this information as I am not sure how it helps the taxpayer at this time likewise the actions on the alleged state aid by Newham Council that caused the original deal to be torn up being one where West Ham would have been meeting most if not all the cost everyone seems to be jumping up and down about has saved the Taxpayer exactly what if this result is this deal?
The real scandal here is the waste made by the politicians that decided that a Don Valley type legacy rather than City of Manchester one was the viable one for London and I would say that decision has lost the taxpayer far more money than anything and is something that someone should be investigated instead of simply just focusing on those trying to correct it.
This is a Charlton forum so my issue is ultimately how is this going to impact the club and maybe naively I fear less about what West Ham will do than what the club will do it to itself, as both our club and Orient have probably done more damage to their respective clubs' long term fortunes in the last year than West Ham could possibly do in the next 10 or more. It will always be for me what the club does on the field that will determine where we go as clubs like Burnley in the shadows of big clubs are proving now and likewise for West Ham having big crowds and a bit of money guarantees nothing in football just look at Newcastle, so call me foolish I simply cannot get as outraged as some on this Olympic Stadium saga above what is going on at The Valley and therefore without some envy of West Ham have always looked at it completely different to others I guess.
I love the fact West Ham claim they're only using the stadium for 25 days a year. Where are their offices going to be during the week? Above the bookies' on Stratford High Street?
My earlier FOI request shows they have offices, retail space, and various other rooms for their use 365 x 24 included in the rental.
As I don't post much but have on this topic the last time I did some seemed the question my motivation for posting rather than discuss the issues I raised so I am little bit apprehensive about having my say in the fear this might go the same way as I am probably not going to take the party line on this issue.
For me there a two main points they being are West Ham doing anything unfair and are the LLDC getting a good deal.
The West Ham question unless they can be proven to be doing something willingly and purposely unlawful then this to me something that is purely subjective which is influenced too much in my eyes by football tribalism to ever fairly assess it so I am not sure if it can really be answered by most football fans especially before they have even moved in there.
I am sure both Coventry City and Manchester City both thought they had good deals before they both moved to their respective stadiums but look how differently both have actually turned out, for me only time will tell whether this is a good or bad deal so maybe 5 or 10 years down the line everyone will be in a much stronger position to debate this question.
Now for me to question are the LLDC getting a good deal is a different one as to whether are the taxpayer getting one back for all the investment made into the stadium because ultimately surely the LLDC are not accountable for the initial outlay made building the stadium for the Olympics but only the investment needed afterwards to give the stadium a viable future and legacy. On that basis of course again only time will tell but on paper it looks like it is a reasonable one for the LLDC with the opportunity to capitalise on it to ensure there is no future burden and more likely a return to the taxpayer happens in the future. It is easy to highlight individual aspect of a deal because it is a compromise and some aspects will always be more beneficial to one side and vice versa on others, take the the issue of no charge for matchday costs listening to David Sullivan last night West Ham offered to pay all these on the basis they kept all revenue for things like catering but the OS like many venues chose not to accept that option as they obviously felt it would not give them the best return, this then usually means the venue also then meets the costs for security and so on that they are providing though as they would expect that to have been factored this into the income they hope to generate that night from things like catering which 60,000 customers will bring so rather than just every individual aspect the LLDC are looking at the bigger picture for their return.
As I have said previously I have had a far more laid back approach to this subject and was far more concerned about the going ons at Charlton which at the time seemed to raise far less passion amongst some to the extent that I questioned their motives being simply anti-West Ham or self serving than pro-Charlton and seeing the fallout I still struggle to see what exactly is going on with the Olympic Stadium as a bigger risk to the club's future than what it is currently inflicting on itself.
If the Supporters Coalition's actions lead to exploiting unlawful corruption and illegal activities then they have my respect and congratulations in achieving that but if not what exactly will it do other than harm the LLDC's ability to maximise revenue and have a dig at West Ham?
The thing I can see that as result now is the LLDC are now handicapped in negotiating with future customers aware that everything will be made public unlike at say at Wembley and knowing some promoters they will not be touching OS with a bargepole, that is unless the Supporters Coalition is saying that they will not be putting other deals (Out of interest have they made similar requests over the UK Athletics deal?) under such scrutiny but that will be irrelevant because be it unwittingly their actions have protected the interests of other competing venues against the OS who must be rubbing their hands now. West Ham only have the stadium for 25 dates a year with at times up to 14 consecutive days free between them even in the football season for the LLDC to utilise it for other events though some will fail to admit it but the LLDC chances to exploit this fully has been severely damaged now they cannot keep any deals confidential.
Looking at this matter football tribalism apart I struggle to see other than competing venues what would be motivation in knowing this information as I am not sure how it helps the taxpayer at this time likewise the actions on the alleged state aid by Newham Council that caused the original deal to be torn up being one where West Ham would have been meeting most if not all the cost everyone seems to be jumping up and down about has saved the Taxpayer exactly what if this result is this deal?
The real scandal here is the waste made by the politicians that decided that a Don Valley type legacy rather than City of Manchester one was the viable one for London and I would say that decision has lost the taxpayer far more money than anything and is something that someone should be investigated instead of simply just focusing on those trying to correct it.
This is a Charlton forum so my issue is ultimately how is this going to impact the club and maybe naively I fear less about what West Ham will do than what the club will do it to itself, as both our club and Orient have probably done more damage to their respective clubs' long term fortunes in the last year than West Ham could possibly do in the next 10 or more. It will always be for me what the club does on the field that will determine where we go as clubs like Burnley in the shadows of big clubs are proving now and likewise for West Ham having big crowds and a bit of money guarantees nothing in football just look at Newcastle, so call me foolish I simply cannot get as outraged as some on this Olympic Stadium saga above what is going on at The Valley and therefore without some envy of West Ham have always looked at it completely different to others I guess.
If you read the Tribunal decision, it is clear that the impact of the disclosure on the LLDC negotiating position for other users (because of the dominant position of WHUFC as anchor tenant) is negligible.
WH got a fantastic deal for them. It's so fantastic that there is a very reasonable belief that it amounts to state aid (which is unlawful).
I would agree that the scandal is also the attitude of politicians (the public have been lied to about the Olympic legacy throughout the process of preparing for the Games and after).
As for passion, I'd suggest that we are more exercised about what it happening at the Valley, but there is a lot to get annoyed about with the OS deal.
In effect, when you consider the value of the TV rights, WHUFC are paying a tiny percentage of their expected income for exclusive control of the football use of the stadium (and if we look at the costs that will be incurred by the owners, it may well be argued that it is free rental). The relationship between the OS owners and WHUFC means that every taxpayer in the UK is now a supporter of that club - personally, I'd like to have more of a choice about how may taxes are used (I can, with a bit of effort, accept that taxes will be used for things that I find morally difficult - like Trident).
If I was crude, I might suggesting that the UK taxpayer was looking for a continuing use for the stadium, and WHUFC gave him/her one....
Folks, that's what you get if you build an Olympic Stadium without future use in mind and if you don't allow a party/club to buy the bloody thing outright, but only let them become an anchor concessionaire/tenant. That's what happens if a club has to rent a stadium instead of owning it. The LLDC were in a crap negotiating position and the deal obviously reflects that. On the other hand, just like the stadium itself, the deal is a compromise, financial give and take both for the taxpayer and West Ham. Otherwise there would have been no deal and we'd have the white elephant which I'm sure most of you would have prefered.
As if the often quoted goalposts and cornerflags are serious cost factors. If you want to criticise costs and share of same, then criticise policing costs or stewarding. Naming rights are the big money maker for the LLDC as West Ham's share is capped at around 2.5 million a year, everything above that goes to the taxpayer and this could be huge long term.
Also don't forget that the deal was struck before the new massive TV deal was agreed, and I agree that the numbers don't reflect the value of that TV deal to any Premier League club.
Will be interesting to see how you follow this up now you have finally succeeded in getting the deal out in the open (Congratulations again to Richard Hunt, this was quite an achievement!). Also interesting to find out if any entity (and if so, who) will start legal proceedings in terms of any state aid issues in the upcoming months/years because of this deal.
Good luck to you in your endeavours to drive out your current owner at Charlton and finding one eventually who will restore some pride and joy at your club. Charlton have always been a decent London club and simply belong among the other London clubs. I hope things improve at your club again in the not too distant future. You deserve better.
The bottom line here is that West Ham pay £2.5m for services and accommodation worth way in excess of that. Or in other words, they are being paid by the taxpayer to play there. On top of that they have new revenue opportunity that in itself dwarves most non Prem clubs' turnovers.
And all this with effectively paying nothing towards its conversion for them and keeping the entirety of the proceeds of the sale of their existing ground, which will more than cover their moving and branding costs. They have first call over the stadium's use, 75 days are committed to their football matches and they have substantial office and retail accommodation all part of the deal.
The LLDC was in a much stronger negotiating position than it realised. West Ham played it well, but it would have taken an astronomical rental figure for the business case to stay at Upton Park to make more sense than to leave. As Sullivan said when he took over, the OS was always a key strategic objective of theirs, and that in itself should have provided leverage for the LLDC. The 'free' tender should have done as well, but they hamstrung themselves with the commitment to athletics.
Barry Hearn got it right when he said he wouldn't trust the LLDC to run a newsagents. I've never blamed West Ham for taking advantage of the LLDC's situation, but I think there remains questions not only over state aid but whether this profligacy with public finances has exceeded appropriate authority. Something for the PAC perhaps to investigate.
@dh1970 Your argument is hard to follow owing to your writing style, but from what I did pick up on, your main points of issue were dealt with by a court of law and found to be wanting.
What's more, you frame your response as a considered rebuff of some vague and insulting notion of "a party line" on the subject, when your lengthy post is nothing that hasn't been dealt with comprehensively on this very thread, or again, by a court of law.
With regards to the damage inflicted by Roland being greater than any damage done by this deal, your stance is nothing more than deflection. I can only guess at why; but it really doesn't matter. Rather than go down that road, I'd rather ask why you think that the two are mutually exclusive. Why would attention to the Olympic Stadium deal lessen attention to what is happening at Charlton? If you're so concerned with what others are doing, it begs the question: what are you doing? Prague, by way of example, has managed to carry this fight to reveal the terms the Olympic Stadium deal on behalf of the UK taxpayer (not just Charlton or Charlton supporters), whilst maintaining his active role in the Supporters' Trust and CARD, bringing pressure to Roland and the Board of Charlton Athletic to account for their governance of the club. To imply that Prague is motivated by envy and outraged through tribalism is an insult.
You're not a maverick free from envy and tribalism: you're just lazy!
Have you guys even been reading the deal you get so wound up about ? Naming rights first 4 million go 100% to the LLDC, after that there is a 50/50 split between West Ham and the LLDC, but capped for West Ham in a way that their naming rights income cannot exceed their yearly rent and performance related bonuses.
Which effectively gives West Ham a maximum of between 2.5 and 3.5 million of naming rights share per year. Don't you see that this is where the LLDC can make a lot of money on the back of West Ham playing there? This is a London Stadium. I suggest though that the LLDC don't use the same negotiators as they did for the West Ham deal, but if they find some savvy negotiators they should be able to sell the naming rights for big bucks to a global brand (I actually believe this has already happened).
Once a decent deal is in place the vast majority of that goes to the LLDC. Look at Manchester City and their naming rights deal. Yes, their whole shirt/stadium sponsorship deal is rumoured to be constructed in a way to get around FFP, but there is still a good chance that the OS will earn itself a pretty decent naming rights deal, most of which will be for the benefit of the LLDC.
I love the fact West Ham claim they're only using the stadium for 25 days a year. Where are their offices going to be during the week? Above the bookies' on Stratford High Street?
So if I offered the LLDC £500 to hire the ground every Friday for corporate events that would be ok with West Ham?
West Ham 25 days and UK Athletics have it for a month. So for ~309 days it's free to be rented out yeah.
Actually the LLDC have confirmed to the EC that a day either side of WHU's matches is also reserved for set up and set down. So there's a minimum of 75 days committed to the deal with WHU.
Plus maintenance cost, who pays for renewal of seats etc every ten years or so.
Like renting a house worth £500000, for £132 per month
Yes but I'm only using the house for 25 full days a year. So it's a good deal for the owner.
Obviously I'll still keep all my stuff in the house, and can prevent anyone else from getting in, and will be in and out of the house temporarily on other days (eg for sleep), and the owner is responsible for repairing damage to anything in the house. But it's a great deal for the owner.
This is more like renting the garden for 75 days a year and getting the house thrown in all year for nothing, along with security, a gardener, a decorator, a housekeeper...
I love the fact West Ham claim they're only using the stadium for 25 days a year. Where are their offices going to be during the week? Above the bookies' on Stratford High Street?
So if I offered the LLDC £500 to hire the ground every Friday for corporate events that would be ok with West Ham?
West Ham 25 days and UK Athletics have it for a month. So for ~309 days it's free to be rented out yeah.
Actually the LLDC have confirmed to the EC that a day either side of WHU's matches is also reserved for set up and set down. So there's a minimum of 75 days committed to the deal with WHU.
Realistically then the only time it'll be used for anything other than West Ham will be during the summer.
Plus, I understand the discrepancy of certain amounts in the deal and the money brought to clubs by the new massive TV deal for Premier League teams. Then again the OS deal was struck and signed well before the new TV deal was confirmed and announced.
So how could the LLDC or West Ham know what the TV deal would be in advance in order to factor the TV income in and reflect that TV income in the amounts of rent, income shares and the like ?
Plus maintenance cost, who pays for renewal of seats etc every ten years or so.
Like renting a house worth £500000, for £132 per month
Yes but I'm only using the house for 25 full days a year. So it's a good deal for the owner.
Obviously I'll still keep all my stuff in the house, and can prevent anyone else from getting in, and will be in and out of the house temporarily on other days (eg for sleep), and the owner is responsible for repairing damage to anything in the house. But it's a great deal for the owner.
This is more like renting the garden for 75 days a year and getting the house thrown in all year for nothing, along with security, a gardener, a decorator, a housekeeper...
But don't worry, we'll put a sign on top of the pergola and sell the rights to a global brand that'll leave you with a good chance that you'll make a pretty decent fortune!"
Plus, I understand the discrepancy of certain amounts in the deal and the new maddive TV deal for premier League teams. Then again the OS deal was struck and signed well before the new TV deal was confirmed and announced.
So how could the LLDC or West Ham know what the TV deal would be in advance in order to factor the TV income in and reflect that TV income in the amounts of rent, income shares and the like ?
Stupid point to make. Even when the deal was signed it was still a bargain.
As I don't post much but have on this topic the last time I did some seemed the question my motivation for posting rather than discuss the issues I raised so I am little bit apprehensive about having my say in the fear this might go the same way as I am probably not going to take the party line on this issue.
For me there a two main points they being are West Ham doing anything unfair and are the LLDC getting a good deal.
The West Ham question unless they can be proven to be doing something willingly and purposely unlawful then this to me something that is purely subjective which is influenced too much in my eyes by football tribalism to ever fairly assess it so I am not sure if it can really be answered by most football fans especially before they have even moved in there.
I am sure both Coventry City and Manchester City both thought they had good deals before they both moved to their respective stadiums but look how differently both have actually turned out, for me only time will tell whether this is a good or bad deal so maybe 5 or 10 years down the line everyone will be in a much stronger position to debate this question.
Now for me to question are the LLDC getting a good deal is a different one as to whether are the taxpayer getting one back for all the investment made into the stadium because ultimately surely the LLDC are not accountable for the initial outlay made building the stadium for the Olympics but only the investment needed afterwards to give the stadium a viable future and legacy. On that basis of course again only time will tell but on paper it looks like it is a reasonable one for the LLDC with the opportunity to capitalise on it to ensure there is no future burden and more likely a return to the taxpayer happens in the future. It is easy to highlight individual aspect of a deal because it is a compromise and some aspects will always be more beneficial to one side and vice versa on others, take the the issue of no charge for matchday costs listening to David Sullivan last night West Ham offered to pay all these on the basis they kept all revenue for things like catering but the OS like many venues chose not to accept that option as they obviously felt it would not give them the best return, this then usually means the venue also then meets the costs for security and so on that they are providing though as they would expect that to have been factored this into the income they hope to generate that night from things like catering which 60,000 customers will bring so rather than just every individual aspect the LLDC are looking at the bigger picture for their return.
As I have said previously I have had a far more laid back approach to this subject and was far more concerned about the going ons at Charlton which at the time seemed to raise far less passion amongst some to the extent that I questioned their motives being simply anti-West Ham or self serving than pro-Charlton and seeing the fallout I still struggle to see what exactly is going on with the Olympic Stadium as a bigger risk to the club's future than what it is currently inflicting on itself.
If the Supporters Coalition's actions lead to exploiting unlawful corruption and illegal activities then they have my respect and congratulations in achieving that but if not what exactly will it do other than harm the LLDC's ability to maximise revenue and have a dig at West Ham?
The thing I can see that as result now is the LLDC are now handicapped in negotiating with future customers aware that everything will be made public unlike at say at Wembley and knowing some promoters they will not be touching OS with a bargepole, that is unless the Supporters Coalition is saying that they will not be putting other deals (Out of interest have they made similar requests over the UK Athletics deal?) under such scrutiny but that will be irrelevant because be it unwittingly their actions have protected the interests of other competing venues against the OS who must be rubbing their hands now. West Ham only have the stadium for 25 dates a year with at times up to 14 consecutive days free between them even in the football season for the LLDC to utilise it for other events though some will fail to admit it but the LLDC chances to exploit this fully has been severely damaged now they cannot keep any deals confidential.
Looking at this matter football tribalism apart I struggle to see other than competing venues what would be motivation in knowing this information as I am not sure how it helps the taxpayer at this time likewise the actions on the alleged state aid by Newham Council that caused the original deal to be torn up being one where West Ham would have been meeting most if not all the cost everyone seems to be jumping up and down about has saved the Taxpayer exactly what if this result is this deal?
The real scandal here is the waste made by the politicians that decided that a Don Valley type legacy rather than City of Manchester one was the viable one for London and I would say that decision has lost the taxpayer far more money than anything and is something that someone should be investigated instead of simply just focusing on those trying to correct it.
This is a Charlton forum so my issue is ultimately how is this going to impact the club and maybe naively I fear less about what West Ham will do than what the club will do it to itself, as both our club and Orient have probably done more damage to their respective clubs' long term fortunes in the last year than West Ham could possibly do in the next 10 or more. It will always be for me what the club does on the field that will determine where we go as clubs like Burnley in the shadows of big clubs are proving now and likewise for West Ham having big crowds and a bit of money guarantees nothing in football just look at Newcastle, so call me foolish I simply cannot get as outraged as some on this Olympic Stadium saga above what is going on at The Valley and therefore without some envy of West Ham have always looked at it completely different to others I guess.
I pretty much agree with this. I tried to post something similar weeks ago on this thread (I think) but couldn't articulate it nearly as well. The real culprit IMHO is Seb Coe and his posse who were stuck in an anything but football mode when it came to the post games stadium. Everything after is fall out from that clusterfuck.
I've just done some quick and dirty calculations and its clear that the Grantor (E20 LLP) will get over £10 millio a year from this deal, more than double what Manchester Council get from Man City. Case closed.
Cheers.
Ok three things in response to this.
1. Leaving aside whether your maths are correct, at what cost? If you want to compare with Manchester, let's throw in the value of the Maine Road development and the big sums City continue to pour into the regeneration there. And the conversion cost the council £20m, which is about 7.5% of the Olympic Stadium. This also means any financing costs aren't incurred by them, unlike E20 who pay huge sums to service funding.
2. What revenues does the contract bring E20 directly? Most of the contract is about what West Ham get for their £2.5m. I mean, let's face it. If they get £2.5m back in naming rights, it's arguable they're not effectively paying a penny to E20 whatsoever. The cost of this contract to the LLDC is considerably higher than what they gain from West Ham.
3. In particular I presume you're not including all the stadium naming rights, because the Olympic Stadium has a prestige of its own that doesn't need West Ham - and they could keep all of the money. A Premier League club I'm sure will help, although quantifying that would be interesting. What this contract is doing is assuming there is a value in West Ham's presence that improves naming rights by 50% of anything over £4m per annum. I think that's fanciful.
@GermanEastEnder, I just hope you don't waste the money from the sale of your old ground like my boyhood club Coventry did.
Went from owning our own ground in the centre of town to renting at the Ricoh (ticket sales only no food or hospitality sharing) with the directors lining their pockets I guess because no money was spent on the squad.
And then wasps buy the stadium. Couldnt make it up.
Still Lady Brady likely to put the money away somewhere safe so the stadium can be bought at a knock down price at some point in the future.
If you really think the glory and iconic status of the OS alone (without Premier League football in there) would be attractive enough for a global sponsor to spend some serious money on naming rights, then I suppose it doesn't really leave any foundation for debate. You seem to think the LLDC could demand 15 million in rent a year plus a club coming in willing to pay for the entire conversion costs upfront when reality is very different.
There was a tender process to find an anchor concessionaire for 99 years, a tender process which was open to everyone. So why didn't the LLDC find a club willing to pay 15 million a year rent and pay for the whole conversion costs ? Maybe they didn't, because there simply wasn't.
The whole OS saga has been managed very badly from start to finish which is why the conversion costs spiralled. I understand the anger about the inept negotiating skills of the LLDC, then again their negotiating position was poor to begin with. Are you suggesting that the Charlton Supporters Trust would have been able to negotiate a significantly better deal for the taxpayer then from the same bad negotiating position ?
Unless I'm misinterpreting the words WH get a 50% reduction in their usage fee if they allow the stadium to be used for an international or neutral game.
LLDC pay all the stadium policing costs but if WH are forced to provide extra policing outside the stadium area by the League authorities they get LLDC to cough up 50% of the cost.
What the absolute fuck?
I read it that it's reduced if it's to be used for anything other than an international or neutral game. It's the exclusivity clause that essentially means West Ham get their rent reduced by half and, inexplicably, half their contribution to the conversion back should another football club use it as their home ground. No doubt this is one clause that the LLDC didn't want in the open, because they now can't rape Spurs or Chelsea for £5m when West Ham are paying £1.25m for the same services and more.
Comments
I have not drawn comparisons with Manchester City, you must mean somebody else. You predicted (I think) that to LLDC would win their redaction case and they didn't.
If there was a state aid case can you be so sure it wouldn't have legs? Here we have a case where a private business has wangled a shedloads of state aid. Wouldn't it be at least open to scrutiny?
What would happen if the LLDC went bust? There would be a scenario where West Ham would demand somebody would pick up the tab, and presumably that would mean the taxpayer...who else?
They are all 30 something armchair football fans supporting Aston Villa, Man U and Liverpool who live East London/City and are going as "it's a good chance to see some footy." Simply got tickets through "contacts and mates"
I know this happened with us to a certain extent from '98 onwards but this does feel different.
Heard Clive Efford on Five Live just before 6am, and nearly a full page in The Times today.
When it becomes insolvent, not if, it will have no value as an investment with a sitting tenant and a rent not covering upkeep of the property, let alone return on assets. It will then be available for nominal consideration of £1.
I wonder who would want to buy a stadium for £1, let me guess, the sitting tenant?
Newham will have no option but to offload the stadium to avoid the debt falling on local council taxpayers, there is no possible source of any new funding. This was a high risk venture and i cannot believe a risk analysis was not carried out. Perversely, the risks might have looked attractive. Because if you want a reason why West Ham screwed the LLDC and the LLDC were happy to be screwed look no further than needing to get to insolvency as soon as possible. The taxpayer is off the hook and the stadium becomes what it always was destined to be, a London football club ground. And Boris and co shrug their shoulders and say "we did our best".
It's a bit like FIFA - any logical person can see the corruption from the end product. I hope one day it is exposed like FiFA's was. Boris Johnson is the biggest self serving fraud I have seen in my lifetime. I know people fall for his bumbling self effacing charm but it doesn't take much to see the real bastard he is. The way he stitches his own colleagues up is disgusting and they know all about his ruthless ambition in his own party. Ask Liverpool fans. He needs the fall that will come his way to come sooner rather than later. I will enjoy seeing that. And so will many from his party colleagues.
Revenue is currently around £4m excluding WH payments.
I smile when I see West Ham are "sharing' the catering revenue. Who pays for the caterers and the food that generates the revenue? More accurately WH is getting a share of the stadium's catering rights given up to them on match days.
So I'm afraid the delusion points in your direction @gavros.
For me there a two main points they being are West Ham doing anything unfair and are the LLDC getting a good deal.
The West Ham question unless they can be proven to be doing something willingly and purposely unlawful then this to me something that is purely subjective which is influenced too much in my eyes by football tribalism to ever fairly assess it so I am not sure if it can really be answered by most football fans especially before they have even moved in there.
I am sure both Coventry City and Manchester City both thought they had good deals before they both moved to their respective stadiums but look how differently both have actually turned out, for me only time will tell whether this is a good or bad deal so maybe 5 or 10 years down the line everyone will be in a much stronger position to debate this question.
Now for me to question are the LLDC getting a good deal is a different one as to whether are the taxpayer getting one back for all the investment made into the stadium because ultimately surely the LLDC are not accountable for the initial outlay made building the stadium for the Olympics but only the investment needed afterwards to give the stadium a viable future and legacy. On that basis of course again only time will tell but on paper it looks like it is a reasonable one for the LLDC with the opportunity to capitalise on it to ensure there is no future burden and more likely a return to the taxpayer happens in the future. It is easy to highlight individual aspect of a deal because it is a compromise and some aspects will always be more beneficial to one side and vice versa on others, take the the issue of no charge for matchday costs listening to David Sullivan last night West Ham offered to pay all these on the basis they kept all revenue for things like catering but the OS like many venues chose not to accept that option as they obviously felt it would not give them the best return, this then usually means the venue also then meets the costs for security and so on that they are providing though as they would expect that to have been factored this into the income they hope to generate that night from things like catering which 60,000 customers will bring so rather than just every individual aspect the LLDC are looking at the bigger picture for their return.
As I have said previously I have had a far more laid back approach to this subject and was far more concerned about the going ons at Charlton which at the time seemed to raise far less passion amongst some to the extent that I questioned their motives being simply anti-West Ham or self serving than pro-Charlton and seeing the fallout I still struggle to see what exactly is going on with the Olympic Stadium as a bigger risk to the club's future than what it is currently inflicting on itself.
If the Supporters Coalition's actions lead to exploiting unlawful corruption and illegal activities then they have my respect and congratulations in achieving that but if not what exactly will it do other than harm the LLDC's ability to maximise revenue and have a dig at West Ham?
The thing I can see that as result now is the LLDC are now handicapped in negotiating with future customers aware that everything will be made public unlike at say at Wembley and knowing some promoters they will not be touching OS with a bargepole, that is unless the Supporters Coalition is saying that they will not be putting other deals (Out of interest have they made similar requests over the UK Athletics deal?) under such scrutiny but that will be irrelevant because be it unwittingly their actions have protected the interests of other competing venues against the OS who must be rubbing their hands now. West Ham only have the stadium for 25 dates a year with at times up to 14 consecutive days free between them even in the football season for the LLDC to utilise it for other events though some will fail to admit it but the LLDC chances to exploit this fully has been severely damaged now they cannot keep any deals confidential.
Looking at this matter football tribalism apart I struggle to see other than competing venues what would be motivation in knowing this information as I am not sure how it helps the taxpayer at this time likewise the actions on the alleged state aid by Newham Council that caused the original deal to be torn up being one where West Ham would have been meeting most if not all the cost everyone seems to be jumping up and down about has saved the Taxpayer exactly what if this result is this deal?
The real scandal here is the waste made by the politicians that decided that a Don Valley type legacy rather than City of Manchester one was the viable one for London and I would say that decision has lost the taxpayer far more money than anything and is something that someone should be investigated instead of simply just focusing on those trying to correct it.
This is a Charlton forum so my issue is ultimately how is this going to impact the club and maybe naively I fear less about what West Ham will do than what the club will do it to itself, as both our club and Orient have probably done more damage to their respective clubs' long term fortunes in the last year than West Ham could possibly do in the next 10 or more. It will always be for me what the club does on the field that will determine where we go as clubs like Burnley in the shadows of big clubs are proving now and likewise for West Ham having big crowds and a bit of money guarantees nothing in football just look at Newcastle, so call me foolish I simply cannot get as outraged as some on this Olympic Stadium saga above what is going on at The Valley and therefore without some envy of West Ham have always looked at it completely different to others I guess.
WH got a fantastic deal for them. It's so fantastic that there is a very reasonable belief that it amounts to state aid (which is unlawful).
I would agree that the scandal is also the attitude of politicians (the public have been lied to about the Olympic legacy throughout the process of preparing for the Games and after).
As for passion, I'd suggest that we are more exercised about what it happening at the Valley, but there is a lot to get annoyed about with the OS deal.
In effect, when you consider the value of the TV rights, WHUFC are paying a tiny percentage of their expected income for exclusive control of the football use of the stadium (and if we look at the costs that will be incurred by the owners, it may well be argued that it is free rental). The relationship between the OS owners and WHUFC means that every taxpayer in the UK is now a supporter of that club - personally, I'd like to have more of a choice about how may taxes are used (I can, with a bit of effort, accept that taxes will be used for things that I find morally difficult - like Trident).
If I was crude, I might suggesting that the UK taxpayer was looking for a continuing use for the stadium, and WHUFC gave him/her one....
And all this with effectively paying nothing towards its conversion for them and keeping the entirety of the proceeds of the sale of their existing ground, which will more than cover their moving and branding costs. They have first call over the stadium's use, 75 days are committed to their football matches and they have substantial office and retail accommodation all part of the deal.
The LLDC was in a much stronger negotiating position than it realised. West Ham played it well, but it would have taken an astronomical rental figure for the business case to stay at Upton Park to make more sense than to leave. As Sullivan said when he took over, the OS was always a key strategic objective of theirs, and that in itself should have provided leverage for the LLDC. The 'free' tender should have done as well, but they hamstrung themselves with the commitment to athletics.
Barry Hearn got it right when he said he wouldn't trust the LLDC to run a newsagents. I've never blamed West Ham for taking advantage of the LLDC's situation, but I think there remains questions not only over state aid but whether this profligacy with public finances has exceeded appropriate authority. Something for the PAC perhaps to investigate.
What's more, you frame your response as a considered rebuff of some vague and insulting notion of "a party line" on the subject, when your lengthy post is nothing that hasn't been dealt with comprehensively on this very thread, or again, by a court of law.
With regards to the damage inflicted by Roland being greater than any damage done by this deal, your stance is nothing more than deflection. I can only guess at why; but it really doesn't matter. Rather than go down that road, I'd rather ask why you think that the two are mutually exclusive. Why would attention to the Olympic Stadium deal lessen attention to what is happening at Charlton? If you're so concerned with what others are doing, it begs the question: what are you doing? Prague, by way of example, has managed to carry this fight to reveal the terms the Olympic Stadium deal on behalf of the UK taxpayer (not just Charlton or Charlton supporters), whilst maintaining his active role in the Supporters' Trust and CARD, bringing pressure to Roland and the Board of Charlton Athletic to account for their governance of the club. To imply that Prague is motivated by envy and outraged through tribalism is an insult.
You're not a maverick free from envy and tribalism: you're just lazy!
Naming rights first 4 million go 100% to the LLDC, after that there is a 50/50 split between West Ham and the LLDC, but capped for West Ham in a way that their naming rights income cannot exceed their yearly rent and performance related bonuses.
Which effectively gives West Ham a maximum of between 2.5 and 3.5 million of naming rights share per year.
Don't you see that this is where the LLDC can make a lot of money on the back of West Ham playing there?
This is a London Stadium. I suggest though that the LLDC don't use the same negotiators as they did for the West Ham deal, but if they find some savvy negotiators they should be able to sell the naming rights for big bucks to a global brand (I actually believe this has already happened).
Once a decent deal is in place the vast majority of that goes to the LLDC. Look at Manchester City and their naming rights deal. Yes, their whole shirt/stadium sponsorship deal is rumoured to be constructed in a way to get around FFP, but there is still a good chance that the OS will earn itself a pretty decent naming rights deal, most of which will be for the benefit of the LLDC.
The LLDC will go bust anyway.
West Ham United do not have a home ground any more which is sad for the loyal and long standing Boelyn devotees.
So how could the LLDC or West Ham know what the TV deal would be in advance in order to factor the TV income in and reflect that TV income in the amounts of rent, income shares and the like ?
But don't worry, we'll put a sign on top of the pergola and sell the rights to a global brand that'll leave you with a good chance that you'll make a pretty decent fortune!"
1. Leaving aside whether your maths are correct, at what cost? If you want to compare with Manchester, let's throw in the value of the Maine Road development and the big sums City continue to pour into the regeneration there. And the conversion cost the council £20m, which is about 7.5% of the Olympic Stadium. This also means any financing costs aren't incurred by them, unlike E20 who pay huge sums to service funding.
2. What revenues does the contract bring E20 directly? Most of the contract is about what West Ham get for their £2.5m. I mean, let's face it. If they get £2.5m back in naming rights, it's arguable they're not effectively paying a penny to E20 whatsoever. The cost of this contract to the LLDC is considerably higher than what they gain from West Ham.
3. In particular I presume you're not including all the stadium naming rights, because the Olympic Stadium has a prestige of its own that doesn't need West Ham - and they could keep all of the money. A Premier League club I'm sure will help, although quantifying that would be interesting. What this contract is doing is assuming there is a value in West Ham's presence that improves naming rights by 50% of anything over £4m per annum. I think that's fanciful.
Went from owning our own ground in the centre of town to renting at the Ricoh (ticket sales only no food or hospitality sharing) with the directors lining their pockets I guess because no money was spent on the squad.
And then wasps buy the stadium. Couldnt make it up.
Still Lady Brady likely to put the money away somewhere safe so the stadium can be bought at a knock down price at some point in the future.
You seem to think the LLDC could demand 15 million in rent a year plus a club coming in willing to pay for the entire conversion costs upfront when reality is very different.
There was a tender process to find an anchor concessionaire for 99 years, a tender process which was open to everyone. So why didn't the LLDC find a club willing to pay 15 million a year rent and pay for the whole conversion costs ? Maybe they didn't, because there simply wasn't.
The whole OS saga has been managed very badly from start to finish which is why the conversion costs spiralled. I understand the anger about the inept negotiating skills of the LLDC, then again their negotiating position was poor to begin with.
Are you suggesting that the Charlton Supporters Trust would have been able to negotiate a significantly better deal for the taxpayer then from the same bad negotiating position ?