It's not really acceptable to shift football teams around.
For me it's always beggared belief that the Arsenal still carry the cannon as a logo and their name despite having left the Woolwich Arsenal for financial reasons in 1913.
What's the point of a ground away from your support (AFC wimbledrones and MK Dons)
With the Olympic stadium, West Ham are in their historic catchment area, as would have been Spurs maybe. It's going to be a fantastic ground.
It's going to be very cheap compared to delivering an equivalent out of your own resources.
Whether it is criminally cheap (by this I mean against EU law rather than any suggestion of individual criminality m'lud) will, if there are sufficient grounds, decided in court.
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".
It's Barry Hearn's view that the only viable business case for non-West Ham use is now to focus on the smaller community event use. He's got a point. Events like athletics World Championships and Rugby World Cups come around once in a generation, even imagining Wembley and Twickenham aren't in competition. How many stadium bands are there for whom Stratford is a better option than the larger capacity Wembley? How many O2 size bands will look to use the OS?
Newham's exposure is presumably the 35% part they take in the E20 LLP.
The best deal for the taxpayer was always Spurs. But Coe wanted to keep the OS as a prestige home for athletics for a month every year. Wonder if that was worth £700m...
We should definitely keep your post as reference when your scenario comes to pass.
The reality is the conversion costs have been paid for by the taxpayer.
It will take 25 years at the very least to pay that off from the deal with West Ham.
Do all the mental gymnastics you like, but it is more honest to accept that West Ham have wangled a great deal (open bidding process is laughable in my view) and you should join in with the rest of your mates in laughing at your good fortune, and viewing the rest of us as jealous moaning mugs.
Your hollow words about Charlton are as authentic as the crocodile tears some will shed on the last day at the Boelyn.
West Ham used to be a decent club with a degree of credibility and authenticity, but your fascist Tory mates have put an end to that.
Katrien Brady took a break from felching to vote as a Baroness (yeah she is part of the government for gods sake) to withdraw tax credits from the poor. Well you have to free up some money for the benefit of West Ham somehow.
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.
West Ham will get a 40% reduction in their rental terms after 20 years if they choose to forego their share of naming rights revenue. Alternatively, they can stick with the existing agreement
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 ?
Straw man arguments butter no parsnips with me, although I doubt many could have done a worse job than the LLDC have done.
I've said several times that for me any negotiations should have started with the proceeds from the sale of Upton Park as a contribution towards the capital costs of conversion. It is extraordinary that this isn't the case, especially when comparing to Manchester.
The bid that Tottenham put forward would have cost them more than the cost of converting the stadium has cost. It would, however, have cost the tax payer nothing. To suggest it's unrealistic to ask a Premier League club to make a greater contribution to the conversion of a stadium primarily to accommodate them is proved untrue by that very fact. Arsenal rebuilt their stadium, Chelsea are looking to do the same with theirs - are you suggesting they should budget only £15m to achieve that?
Where West Ham differed is that they accepted the athletics compromise, one that I doubt will last 99 years. This left them the only Premier League football club prepared to offer a bid compliant with the ludicrous provisions required by Coe. They exploited this with an extraordinarily weak LLDC negotiating team to obtain a contract that effectively means they are paid by the taxpayer to take a place in the stadium for the next century.
The realistic alternative was to raze the stadium, which given the lack of realistic legacy planning in its design was always the best option. The Tottenham bid proves there was a better option for the taxpayer, for athletics and no doubt for local regeneration given that the Council would likely be a lot better off.
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 ?
Wasn't going to go down was it?
How do they know what stadium sponsorship would be available in 50 years' time?
You structure a contract to make the best opportunity for both parties, not the one telling you they have you over a barrel.
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.
You're correct, I forgot about the effective cap. How much do you think the rights are actually going to go for, incidentally? Whilst it's hard to quantify what other clubs have done given the tie ins with shirt sponsorship, a football financial expert suggested to me a while back that £5m would be a fair estimate, although the prestige of the stadium may inflate that somewhat.
On your other point, can you explain why the rent goes down by 50% if West Ham are relegated if TV income variation can't be provisioned in the contract?
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 ?
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.
Even that's pretty irrelevant. If I was an organisation looking to stage a large event, be it boxing or a concert etc I would need to secure the venue well in advance. If I were now to approach the LLDC for available dates from 6-12months time, they wouldn't be able to supply them. WHU could play on any Saturday, Sunday or Monday in the yet to be announced premier league fixtures. That rules out Friday's and Tuesday's as football set up/down days, leaving only Wednesday and Thursday. I would say my event may also need a day either side for set up/ down so it's a non starter. This doesn't even take into account midweek premiership, league cup, FA cup, European matches and I think some youth cup matches have to be played at the clubs main ground (are they included in the 25 days).
Can't they rape Chelsea or Spurs for 5 million or more ? I believe they still can (although the publication of the deal indeed isn't really helping the LLDC to get the best possible deals for other events in the OS, but then again I suppose you don't buy that...).
It's still demand and supply which is why West Ham could negotiate this incredible deal in the first place. There was one big OS tendered out for rent and only very few suitors which played into West Ham's hands.
If another club is desperate to use the OS short-term for a season or two though they can do that if their offer is attractive enough for the LLDC to go through with it (for taxpayer's sake they need to look to maximise income from the likes of Spurs or Chelsea too, shouldn't they ? Or does maximising income only apply for West Ham playing there ?). The terms can obviously not be the same as for West Ham as we have committed ourselves for 99 years, so any other football club would obviously have to pay more if they only need the OS for one or two seasons.
With West Ham effectively having control of the stadium for the entire football season, that leaves very little space for other events.
As the football season starts in early August, and assuming West Ham will play at least one pre season friendly there, that only leaves June and July for other events? Indeed, this year the diamond league takes place on the 22nd and 23rd July, while AC/DC play in June
But what happens if West Ham are in the Inter Toto cup?
Can't they rape Chelsea or Spurs for 5 million or more ? I believe they still can (although the publication of the deal indeed isn't really helping the LLDC to get the best possible deals for other events in the OS, but then again I suppose you don't buy that...).
It's still demand and supply which is why West Ham could negotiate this incredible deal in the first place. There was one big OS tendered out for rent and only very few suitors which played into West Ham's hands.
If another club is desperate to use the OS short-term for a season or two though they can do that if their offer is attractive enough for the LLDC to go through with it (for taxpayer's sake they need to look to maximise income from the likes of Spurs or Chelsea too, shouldn't they ? Or does maximising income only apply for West Ham playing there ?). The terms can obviously not be the same as for West Ham as we have committed ourselves for 99 years, so any other football club would obviously have to pay more if they only need the OS for one or two seasons.
Well the LLDC were unable (twice) to demonstrate to the tribunal that the publication of the deal would have any significant impact on their negotiating ability (the lack of being one factor perhaps). It seems to suit you to ignore that.
What its publication does do is show just how poorly negotiated a deal it was from the LLDC's and therefore the taxpayer's perspective. Yes West Ham have an 'anchor tenant' status, but such is supposed to be aimed at making things viable. How is it viable if it's costing you more to have them there than not to? Further, unlike say securing M&S as an anchor tenant for a shopping centre with a reduced rent with the aim of attracting other stores, what other tenants are West Ham actually attracting to the OS, especially with their exclusivity clause which seems to forget that the very point of anchor status is to attract like businesses.
Look, as I've said before, no-one blames West Ham for taking advantage. It's a terrible deal for everyone else though, and an appalling indictment of the governance of public funds.
West Ham have a veto on others using the pitch so I understand. Also there is a lot made about 25 days only, so the set up and take down days are conveniently ignored. Are the West Ham images and so on going to be removed by West Ham for 340 days of the year? I urge you to be honest and to wallow with glee in your good fortune whilst viewing others as jealous mugs.
Of course you could have provisioned for future TV deals and sponsorships in the OS deal, but the LLDC negotiators didn't. I agree that West Ham exploited the situation, but I reckon that's exactly what every club would have done. Or do you think Levy out of his natural goodness would have voluntarily surrendered any advantage to his club in order to spend more money for usage of the OS if he had been in West Ham's shoes ?
As for the naming rights I do believe a global brand will be ready to initially pay 7-10 million a year. I understand a deal has been struck already, so we should learn the outcome soon anyway.
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.
This whole deal stinks to high heaven. It not just the ineptitude, it's corrupt. Political contributions, peerages and a lot of pockets being lined with our money.....
As was pointed out in that letter LLDC gets the majority of catering and pouring rights and the majority of stadium sponsorship. This is my best guess
Rent - £2.5 mil indexed to RPI
Catering and pouring rights for standard seats - 80% to LLDC
Stadium sponsorship: first £10 million per annum to LLDC after which 60% share to LLDC
Naming rights deals in England, most recent deals I could find on page 1 of Google, figures are per annum. Not all of the named clubs own the stadiums - some are even tenants
Posting this again for the West Ham fans who think the taxpayer will be getting big revenues from naming rights.
The major thing about this ground in respect of naming rights is that it's the Olympic Stadium, with an iconic design, not that Stratford London United will play there.
I deliberately excluded 'naming rights deals' that could have been negotiated in a phonebox. This is despite the fact that when Gold & Sullivan sell to Qataris, the Olympic Stadium can have the same.
you might be interested that Sullivan phoned up Talksport unplanned about 11.10 last night to try and defend it. Didn't think he come across particularly well
Of course you could have provisioned for future TV deals and sponsorships in the OS deal, but the LLDC negotiators didn't. I agree that West Ham exploited the situation, but I reckon that's exactly what every club would have done. Or do you think Levy out of his natural goodness would have voluntarily surrendered any advantage to his club in order to spend more money for usage of the OS if he had been in West Ham's shoes ?
As for the naming rights I do believe a global brand will be ready to initially pay 7-10 million a year. I understand a deal has been struck already, so we should learn the outcome soon anyway.
Yes of course, except you said this: "...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 ?"
You're not really reading yourself are you? How many times do we have to say we accept West Ham acted in the best interests of their shareholders and got the best deal they could. However this isn't a local supplier, this is public money we're talking about and there's accountability to the taxpayer for what is agreed.
Just as West Ham tried to pretend the law didn't apply to them with the FOIA, perhaps if Arsenal or another Prem or London club get arsy enough to make a complaint they may find out that the state aid laws do apply to them too.
A private enterprise with turnover in excess of £100m (and no doubt double that in the next accounts) is being paid to play at the Olympic Stadium using public funds to avoid some shit hitting politicians. West Ham, Spurs or otherwise, that's just plain wrong.
Well, push for legal proceedings about state aid then, go for it. I'm sure you'll find willing helpers among the clubs represented by your Fan Coalition. Maybe you can convince Spurs to officially throw their hat into the ring. Or Everton. Or Chelsea who of course were a shining beacon for fairness in football and keeping a level playing field when Abramovich bankrolled the club to several titles.
I'm fairly relaxed as the European Commission already had a look into the deal and figures and said there was no case. You sound confident enough, so I reckon you should give it a proper go. As you can be sure that the LLDC and West Ham won't change the deal unless they are forced to by a court of law.
Over 45,000 season ticket holders are tourists, are they?
No-one will get a match day ticket without being a member.
The same can be said of Spurs. And their atmosphere is hardly top-notch. Same with Arsenal.
Upton Park, as it is, is hardly known for its partizan crowd. I don't see that changing at the Olympic Stadium; the opposite in fact.
Let's not pretend all of next year's season-ticket holders are die-hard 'Ammers either. I regularly see adverts in the Evening Standard and Metro advertising tickets you've struggled to sell at Upton Park. So how comes you'll now have more season-ticket holders than the sum of your average gate this season?
Well, push for legal proceedings about state aid then, go for it. I'm sure you'll find willing helpers among the clubs represented by your Fan Coalition. Maybe you can convince Spurs to officially throw their hat into the ring. Or Everton. Or Chelsea who of course were a shining beacon for fairness in football and keeping a level playing field when Abramovich bankrolled the club to several titles.
I'm fairly relaxed as the European Commission already had a look into the deal and figures and said there was no case. You sound confident enough, so I reckon you should give it a proper go. As you can be sure that the LLDC and West Ham won't change the deal unless they are forced to by a court of law.
What else do you suggest ? If you feel unfairly treated you need to go to court. Or do you reckon it'll be enough if the media keep pounding the same drum long enough so the government will change the terms of the deal ? For the time being it is very much a legally binding contract and if the LLDC were trying to unilaterally change the terms West Ham could in fact sue the LLDC for breach of contract.
So, yes I'm sticking to my story and suggest you start legal proceedings with the European Union in order to prove state aid...
Well, push for legal proceedings about state aid then, go for it. I'm sure you'll find willing helpers among the clubs represented by your Fan Coalition. Maybe you can convince Spurs to officially throw their hat into the ring. Or Everton. Or Chelsea who of course were a shining beacon for fairness in football and keeping a level playing field when Abramovich bankrolled the club to several titles.
I'm fairly relaxed as the European Commission already had a look into the deal and figures and said there was no case. You sound confident enough, so I reckon you should give it a proper go. As you can be sure that the LLDC and West Ham won't change the deal unless they are forced to by a court of law.
I thought the EC rejected the complaint because it wasn't made by a direct competitor, not that there was no case to answer. Now the deal has been published other clubs can have a look at it. I can't believe the owners of these clubs will roll over and allow another to be funded in such a manner.
Well, push for legal proceedings about state aid then, go for it. I'm sure you'll find willing helpers among the clubs represented by your Fan Coalition. Maybe you can convince Spurs to officially throw their hat into the ring. Or Everton. Or Chelsea who of course were a shining beacon for fairness in football and keeping a level playing field when Abramovich bankrolled the club to several titles.
I'm fairly relaxed as the European Commission already had a look into the deal and figures and said there was no case. You sound confident enough, so I reckon you should give it a proper go. As you can be sure that the LLDC and West Ham won't change the deal unless they are forced to by a court of law.
As far as I am aware, the way it was described in the Tribunal was that the Commission had had a brief sight of what was proposed (the inference I drew was that it was not in the sort of detail that has been revealed as of yesterday).
So, there is every chance, provided a competitor of some sort wishes to challenge the support provided by the lease, that the Commission will look into it again.
I really don't want to have to defend Chelsea, or any oligarch owner, (because they're odious and represent, along with FIFA and UEFA, all that is wrong with football) but the amounts by which they have been bankrolled is immaterial, unless you can demonstrate that the bankrolling was public money.
What else do you suggest ? If you feel unfairly treated you need to go to court. Or do you reckon it'll be enough if the media keep pounding the same drum long enough so the government will change the terms of the deal ? For the time being it is very much a legally binding contract and if the LLDC were trying to unilaterally change the terms West Ham could in fact sue the LLDC for breach of contract.
So, yes I'm sticking to my story and suggest you start legal proceedings with the European Union in order to prove state aid...
The irony being I suspect that if the LLDC did tear up the deal and even if WHU successfully sued for their losses it would be still be cheaper in the long run than the current situation.
Comments
For me it's always beggared belief that the Arsenal still carry the cannon as a logo and their name despite having left the Woolwich Arsenal for financial reasons in 1913.
What's the point of a ground away from your support (AFC wimbledrones and MK Dons)
With the Olympic stadium, West Ham are in their historic catchment area, as would have been Spurs maybe. It's going to be a fantastic ground.
It's going to be very cheap compared to delivering an equivalent out of your own resources.
Whether it is criminally cheap (by this I mean against EU law rather than any suggestion of individual criminality m'lud) will, if there are sufficient grounds, decided in court.
Newham's exposure is presumably the 35% part they take in the E20 LLP.
The best deal for the taxpayer was always Spurs. But Coe wanted to keep the OS as a prestige home for athletics for a month every year. Wonder if that was worth £700m...
We should definitely keep your post as reference when your scenario comes to pass.
The reality is the conversion costs have been paid for by the taxpayer.
It will take 25 years at the very least to pay that off from the deal with West Ham.
Do all the mental gymnastics you like, but it is more honest to accept that West Ham have wangled a great deal (open bidding process is laughable in my view) and you should join in with the rest of your mates in laughing at your good fortune, and viewing the rest of us as jealous moaning mugs.
Your hollow words about Charlton are as authentic as the crocodile tears some will shed on the last day at the Boelyn.
West Ham used to be a decent club with a degree of credibility and authenticity, but your
fascistTory mates have put an end to that.Katrien Brady took a break from felching to vote as a Baroness (yeah she is part of the government for gods sake) to withdraw tax credits from the poor.
Well you have to free up some money for the benefit of West Ham somehow.
West Ham will get a 40% reduction in their rental terms after 20 years if they choose to forego their share of naming rights revenue. Alternatively, they can stick with the existing agreement
I've said several times that for me any negotiations should have started with the proceeds from the sale of Upton Park as a contribution towards the capital costs of conversion. It is extraordinary that this isn't the case, especially when comparing to Manchester.
The bid that Tottenham put forward would have cost them more than the cost of converting the stadium has cost. It would, however, have cost the tax payer nothing. To suggest it's unrealistic to ask a Premier League club to make a greater contribution to the conversion of a stadium primarily to accommodate them is proved untrue by that very fact. Arsenal rebuilt their stadium, Chelsea are looking to do the same with theirs - are you suggesting they should budget only £15m to achieve that?
Where West Ham differed is that they accepted the athletics compromise, one that I doubt will last 99 years. This left them the only Premier League football club prepared to offer a bid compliant with the ludicrous provisions required by Coe. They exploited this with an extraordinarily weak LLDC negotiating team to obtain a contract that effectively means they are paid by the taxpayer to take a place in the stadium for the next century.
The realistic alternative was to raze the stadium, which given the lack of realistic legacy planning in its design was always the best option. The Tottenham bid proves there was a better option for the taxpayer, for athletics and no doubt for local regeneration given that the Council would likely be a lot better off.
How do they know what stadium sponsorship would be available in 50 years' time?
You structure a contract to make the best opportunity for both parties, not the one telling you they have you over a barrel.
On your other point, can you explain why the rent goes down by 50% if West Ham are relegated if TV income variation can't be provisioned in the contract?
If I was an organisation looking to stage a large event, be it boxing or a concert etc I would need to secure the venue well in advance.
If I were now to approach the LLDC for available dates from 6-12months time, they wouldn't be able to supply them.
WHU could play on any Saturday, Sunday or Monday in the yet to be announced premier league fixtures. That rules out Friday's and Tuesday's as football set up/down days, leaving only Wednesday and Thursday. I would say my event may also need a day either side for set up/ down so it's a non starter.
This doesn't even take into account midweek premiership, league cup, FA cup, European matches and I think some youth cup matches have to be played at the clubs main ground (are they included in the 25 days).
It's still demand and supply which is why West Ham could negotiate this incredible deal in the first place.
There was one big OS tendered out for rent and only very few suitors which played into West Ham's hands.
If another club is desperate to use the OS short-term for a season or two though they can do that if their offer is attractive enough for the LLDC to go through with it (for taxpayer's sake they need to look to maximise income from the likes of Spurs or Chelsea too, shouldn't they ? Or does maximising income only apply for West Ham playing there ?).
The terms can obviously not be the same as for West Ham as we have committed ourselves for 99 years, so any other football club would obviously have to pay more if they only need the OS for one or two seasons.
As the football season starts in early August, and assuming West Ham will play at least one pre season friendly there, that only leaves June and July for other events? Indeed, this year the diamond league takes place on the 22nd and 23rd July, while AC/DC play in June
But what happens if West Ham are in the Inter Toto cup?
What its publication does do is show just how poorly negotiated a deal it was from the LLDC's and therefore the taxpayer's perspective. Yes West Ham have an 'anchor tenant' status, but such is supposed to be aimed at making things viable. How is it viable if it's costing you more to have them there than not to? Further, unlike say securing M&S as an anchor tenant for a shopping centre with a reduced rent with the aim of attracting other stores, what other tenants are West Ham actually attracting to the OS, especially with their exclusivity clause which seems to forget that the very point of anchor status is to attract like businesses.
Look, as I've said before, no-one blames West Ham for taking advantage. It's a terrible deal for everyone else though, and an appalling indictment of the governance of public funds.
West Ham have a veto on others using the pitch so I understand.
Also there is a lot made about 25 days only, so the set up and take down days are conveniently ignored.
Are the West Ham images and so on going to be removed by West Ham for 340 days of the year?
I urge you to be honest and to wallow with glee in your good fortune whilst viewing others as jealous mugs.
Or do you think Levy out of his natural goodness would have voluntarily surrendered any advantage to his club in order to spend more money for usage of the OS if he had been in West Ham's shoes ?
As for the naming rights I do believe a global brand will be ready to initially pay 7-10 million a year.
I understand a deal has been struck already, so we should learn the outcome soon anyway.
The major thing about this ground in respect of naming rights is that it's the Olympic Stadium, with an iconic design, not that Stratford London United will play there.
I deliberately excluded 'naming rights deals' that could have been negotiated in a phonebox. This is despite the fact that when Gold & Sullivan sell to Qataris, the Olympic Stadium can have the same.
you might be interested that Sullivan phoned up Talksport unplanned about 11.10 last night to try and defend it. Didn't think he come across particularly well
you can listen to the call on the link below:
http://talksport.com/football/david-sullivan-exclusive-people-are-jealous-west-hams-olympic-stadium-deal-its-good-deal
You're not really reading yourself are you? How many times do we have to say we accept West Ham acted in the best interests of their shareholders and got the best deal they could. However this isn't a local supplier, this is public money we're talking about and there's accountability to the taxpayer for what is agreed.
Just as West Ham tried to pretend the law didn't apply to them with the FOIA, perhaps if Arsenal or another Prem or London club get arsy enough to make a complaint they may find out that the state aid laws do apply to them too.
A private enterprise with turnover in excess of £100m (and no doubt double that in the next accounts) is being paid to play at the Olympic Stadium using public funds to avoid some shit hitting politicians. West Ham, Spurs or otherwise, that's just plain wrong.
I'm fairly relaxed as the European Commission already had a look into the deal and figures and said there was no case. You sound confident enough, so I reckon you should give it a proper go.
As you can be sure that the LLDC and West Ham won't change the deal unless they are forced to by a court of law.
Upton Park, as it is, is hardly known for its partizan crowd. I don't see that changing at the Olympic Stadium; the opposite in fact.
Let's not pretend all of next year's season-ticket holders are die-hard 'Ammers either. I regularly see adverts in the Evening Standard and Metro advertising tickets you've struggled to sell at Upton Park. So how comes you'll now have more season-ticket holders than the sum of your average gate this season?
For the time being it is very much a legally binding contract and if the LLDC were trying to unilaterally change the terms West Ham could in fact sue the LLDC for breach of contract.
So, yes I'm sticking to my story and suggest you start legal proceedings with the European Union in order to prove state aid...
So, there is every chance, provided a competitor of some sort wishes to challenge the support provided by the lease, that the Commission will look into it again.
I really don't want to have to defend Chelsea, or any oligarch owner, (because they're odious and represent, along with FIFA and UEFA, all that is wrong with football) but the amounts by which they have been bankrolled is immaterial, unless you can demonstrate that the bankrolling was public money.