As far as I can tell there were 4 options post olympics:
1. Downgrade to smaller stadium for athletics 2. Leave as is and use for athletics/concerts/rugby/etc. 3. Upgrade and get a football club in 4. Sell to a football club.
1. Was abandoned as too expensive for giving very little benefit 4. Was abandoned as the only willing buyer wanted to dismantle the stadium, although this would have been by far the best option for the tax payer.
The building costs are sunk costs, option 4 being the only was to get any of that back, so we can leave those out of any calculations, as they simply aren't retrievable.
Therefore we have 2 options and to choose from.
Now the stadium has running and upkeep costs. I have no visibility of those numbers, but with football related upkeep being 1.4-2.5 million a year we can only assume they would be more than that for running/maintaining the whole stadium. So for arguments sake we'll peg those at 4 million.
Those costs exists whether in option 2 or option 3, so again can be discounted from the comparison. It could be argued that the conversion may lower some of these costs, but equally 25 West Ham games a year will cause additional wear and tear, so swings and round-abouts.
Therefore, when comparing the 2 options we simply have to compare income against outgoings. We may also want to compare community accessibility to the facilities, but that is a rather subjective measure.
Option 2 would bring in 1+ million a year, there would be little limit on what could be booked there, or the LLDC's negotiating ability with different event organisers. So any number could be achievable in theory.
Option 3 brings in 2.5 million a year in rent, but adds 2.5 million a year in costs, so brings in nothing. It severely limited what other events can be booked so brings in the same 1 million base, with little room to increase beyond that. Option 3 also costs 247 million to put in place (272 minus the 15 million paid by WH. WH's payments will go up with inflation, but not by more than the interest earning if that 247 million was simply invested, so again can be discounted). Therefore that is nearly £2.5 million a year over the 100 year lease.
So the whole thing comes down to whether naming rights + catering share is greater than the revenue £2.5 + additional revenue achievable with greater access to the stadium through WH not being there. It's a massive gamble. I cannot foresee many scenarios where LLDC will get more than £2.5 million from the naming rights. Any naming rights deal bigger than that will most likely involve shirt sponsorship, which WH will surely structure so that legally the naming rights are actually a minimal value and the shirt sponorship is the lion's share of the deal.
Of course, if WH get relegated the LLDC automatically lose the bet. Naming rights will be all, but non-existent, rent will half, catering income will drop.
And this is ignoring the necessity to refit/modernise the stadium every 30 years.
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 know what, I think Sullivan really believes himself.
When he hires Manzes pie shop for a celebratory slap up meal for the board I suppose he will ask for a share of the catering revenue for bringing in the guests.
When told to piss off he will say I would have loved all the catering revenue but they said i didn't own the shop and didn't buy in the food or pay the cooks - bloody cheek me having to give away all that catering revenue.
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 know what, I think Sullivan really believes himself.
When he hires Manzes pie shop for a celebratory slap up meal for the board I suppose he will ask for a share of the catering revenue for bringing in the guests.
When told to piss off he will say I would have loved all the catering revenue but they said i didn't own the shop and didn't buy in the food or pay the cooks - bloody cheek me having to give away all that catering revenue.
I'm going to try that down at Goals next week, see if they'll give me a share of the bar revenue because I've got a block booking on a pitch!
For those asking what I feel the party line is, it seems to be that everything about this West Ham/LLDC deal is an outrage and detrimental to Charlton.
The view I hold is that is what I see is a reasonable attempt at a compromise deal to make up for the mess and the real crime that the original OS legacy plans created followed by the handicap of the first attempt to do this being scuppered. Combine this with a belief that only badly run clubs need to worry about any fall out from West Ham's move and the answer is not to demonise West Ham but put their own clubs' house in order.
This is a view which I think is fair to say is against the general consensus here on CharltonLife.
In respect of the LLDC negotiating position being compromised I think some are missing the point as it not the fact that potential customers will know the terms of the deal to help them but they themselves will be wary that every detail of theirs can now be made public and I am pretty confident that many will put off and look elsewhere, which is why I said the likes of Wembley will be delighted with this development but in fairness to the LLDC how could they prove this about potential customers without those customers exposing themselves so little surprise the court found against them.
Some might think I am talking bull but I will be amazed if there will be any promoter that will be ever be fully comfortable dealing with the OS now knowing every detail of any deal agreed will now be public knowledge at the OS so for that reason alone many will look elsewhere to do a deal meaning ultimately the LLDC will be the loser.
I apologise if my style of writing whilst writing on the train is somewhat confusing which is probably a fair reflection of what usually comes out of my mouth and why most people avoid me but in fairness to me I am equally bemused outside of the anti-West Ham agenda and self promotion what the intended end result is here because if it is for the benefit of the taxpayer or Charlton unless I have missed the clear evidence of corruption and wilful law breaking (which if it is there I support 100% in ensuring those responsible are brought to account) I simply am not convinced with what I have seen shows much to get outraged about.
As for the poster calling me 'Lazy' well that comment pretty much confirmed what I alluded to in my first posting with the aggressive personal attacks by some to anyone who doesn't share their view on this subject and others on this board so therefore because of it this will be my last post on this subject so need to tolerate me any more.
Finally whilst I admire PragueAddicks dedication to the cause I not convinced by his arguments on this subject but what a boring place the world would be if we agreed on everything and believe me when I say if there is ever anything we agreed on he would be the first person I would want fighting for it.
For those asking what I feel the party line is, it seems to be that everything about this West Ham/LLDC deal is an outrage and detrimental to Charlton.
The view I hold is that is what I see is a reasonable attempt at a compromise deal to make up for the mess and the real crime that the original OS legacy plans created followed by the handicap of the first attempt to do this being scuppered. Combine this with a belief that only badly run clubs need to worry about any fall out from West Ham's move and the answer is not to demonise West Ham but put their own clubs' house in order.
This is a view which I think is fair to say is against the general consensus here on CharltonLife.
In respect of the LLDC negotiating position being compromised I think some are missing the point as it not the fact that potential customers will know the terms of the deal to help them but they themselves will be wary that every detail of theirs can now be made public and I am pretty confident that many will put off and look elsewhere, which is why I said the likes of Wembley will be delighted with this development but in fairness to the LLDC how could they prove this about potential customers without those customers exposing themselves so little surprise the court found against them.
Some might think I am talking bull but I will be amazed if there will be any promoter that will be ever be fully comfortable dealing with the OS now knowing every detail of any deal agreed will now be public knowledge at the OS so for that reason alone many will look elsewhere to do a deal meaning ultimately the LLDC will be the loser.
I apologise if my style of writing whilst writing on the train is somewhat confusing which is probably a fair reflection of what usually comes out of my mouth and why most people avoid me but in fairness to me I am equally bemused outside of the anti-West Ham agenda and self promotion what the intended end result is here because if it is for the benefit of the taxpayer or Charlton unless I have missed the clear evidence of corruption and wilful law breaking (which if it is there I support 100% in ensuring those responsible are brought to account) I simply am not convinced with what I have seen shows much to get outraged about.
As for the poster calling me 'Lazy' well that comment pretty much confirmed what I alluded to in my first posting with the aggressive personal attacks by some to anyone who doesn't share their view on this subject and others on this board so therefore because of it this will be my last post on this subject so need to tolerate me any more.
Finally whilst I admire PragueAddicks dedication to the cause I not convinced by his arguments on this subject but what a boring place the world would be if we agreed on everything and believe me when I say if there is ever anything we agreed on he would be the first person I would want fighting for it.
I am going to take you at your word, and tell you that you are talking bull.
The reason why the LLDC were brought to the Information Tribunal is because they are a public authority. Public authorities engage in contract negotiations all the time and, ever since 1 January 2005, anyone dealing with a public authority must be made aware/be aware that records created are subject to Freedom of Information legislation.
If you want to know the reason why this particular contract has been made available, it is quite simple 1) it's for 99 years and 2) no third party will be able to be an anchor tenant in that time (so the commercial confidentiality, that the LLDC claimed did not exist).
You can have a contract for, for example, 5 years (3 years + 1 year + 1 year extension) which, because the terms of the current contract will remain substantially the same for future contracts - in which case, the information is likely to remain confidential to protect the commercial interests of both the public authority and successful bidder. I can guarantee you that, as promoters use municipally owned stadia all the time, they will have no problem engaging with the owners of the Olympic Stadium.
Fundamentally, I do not believe that if there is illegal state aid, that that is to the benefit of the taxpayer. If illegal state aid is proved to the satisfaction of the EU Commission, surely that would be a benefit to the taxpayer - but in any event, the use of public funds must be tested. Also, if it had been shown early enough that the deal was poor for the taxpayer, then the outcome today may have been different.
The whole purpose of FOI/EIR is to increase both the transparency and the accountability of public authorities spending/wasting our taxes. If there is no other outcome than this, in this case, then the decision of the Tribunal is to be welcomed. Remember, all of this could have been avoided if the LLDC had released the information when originally requested (the Tribunal was the 4th opportunity). The reason why they withheld is because they were embarrassed at the poorness of the deal - sadly, for those who have their fingerprints all over this deal, there is no exemption for embarrassment.
Sorry, but I don't understand why you are not convinced by PragueAddick's (and Dippenhall's) arguments about this. It's clearly about accountability and probity in the use made of our taxes.
For those asking what I feel the party line is, it seems to be that everything about this West Ham/LLDC deal is an outrage and detrimental to Charlton.
The view I hold is that is what I see is a reasonable attempt at a compromise deal to make up for the mess and the real crime that the original OS legacy plans created followed by the handicap of the first attempt to do this being scuppered. Combine this with a belief that only badly run clubs need to worry about any fall out from West Ham's move and the answer is not to demonise West Ham but put their own clubs' house in order.
This is a view which I think is fair to say is against the general consensus here on CharltonLife.
In respect of the LLDC negotiating position being compromised I think some are missing the point as it not the fact that potential customers will know the terms of the deal to help them but they themselves will be wary that every detail of theirs can now be made public and I am pretty confident that many will put off and look elsewhere, which is why I said the likes of Wembley will be delighted with this development but in fairness to the LLDC how could they prove this about potential customers without those customers exposing themselves so little surprise the court found against them.
Some might think I am talking bull but I will be amazed if there will be any promoter that will be ever be fully comfortable dealing with the OS now knowing every detail of any deal agreed will now be public knowledge at the OS so for that reason alone many will look elsewhere to do a deal meaning ultimately the LLDC will be the loser.
I apologise if my style of writing whilst writing on the train is somewhat confusing which is probably a fair reflection of what usually comes out of my mouth and why most people avoid me but in fairness to me I am equally bemused outside of the anti-West Ham agenda and self promotion what the intended end result is here because if it is for the benefit of the taxpayer or Charlton unless I have missed the clear evidence of corruption and wilful law breaking (which if it is there I support 100% in ensuring those responsible are brought to account) I simply am not convinced with what I have seen shows much to get outraged about.
As for the poster calling me 'Lazy' well that comment pretty much confirmed what I alluded to in my first posting with the aggressive personal attacks by some to anyone who doesn't share their view on this subject and others on this board so therefore because of it this will be my last post on this subject so need to tolerate me any more.
Finally whilst I admire PragueAddicks dedication to the cause I not convinced by his arguments on this subject but what a boring place the world would be if we agreed on everything and believe me when I say if there is ever anything we agreed on he would be the first person I would want fighting for it.
It's clearly about accountability and probity in the use made of our taxes.
For those asking what I feel the party line is, it seems to be that everything about this West Ham/LLDC deal is an outrage and detrimental to Charlton.
The view I hold is that is what I see is a reasonable attempt at a compromise deal to make up for the mess and the real crime that the original OS legacy plans created followed by the handicap of the first attempt to do this being scuppered. Combine this with a belief that only badly run clubs need to worry about any fall out from West Ham's move and the answer is not to demonise West Ham but put their own clubs' house in order.
This is a view which I think is fair to say is against the general consensus here on CharltonLife.
In respect of the LLDC negotiating position being compromised I think some are missing the point as it not the fact that potential customers will know the terms of the deal to help them but they themselves will be wary that every detail of theirs can now be made public and I am pretty confident that many will put off and look elsewhere, which is why I said the likes of Wembley will be delighted with this development but in fairness to the LLDC how could they prove this about potential customers without those customers exposing themselves so little surprise the court found against them.
Some might think I am talking bull but I will be amazed if there will be any promoter that will be ever be fully comfortable dealing with the OS now knowing every detail of any deal agreed will now be public knowledge at the OS so for that reason alone many will look elsewhere to do a deal meaning ultimately the LLDC will be the loser.
I apologise if my style of writing whilst writing on the train is somewhat confusing which is probably a fair reflection of what usually comes out of my mouth and why most people avoid me but in fairness to me I am equally bemused outside of the anti-West Ham agenda and self promotion what the intended end result is here because if it is for the benefit of the taxpayer or Charlton unless I have missed the clear evidence of corruption and wilful law breaking (which if it is there I support 100% in ensuring those responsible are brought to account) I simply am not convinced with what I have seen shows much to get outraged about.
As for the poster calling me 'Lazy' well that comment pretty much confirmed what I alluded to in my first posting with the aggressive personal attacks by some to anyone who doesn't share their view on this subject and others on this board so therefore because of it this will be my last post on this subject so need to tolerate me any more.
Finally whilst I admire PragueAddicks dedication to the cause I not convinced by his arguments on this subject but what a boring place the world would be if we agreed on everything and believe me when I say if there is ever anything we agreed on he would be the first person I would want fighting for it.
You don't contract with a public authority if you don't want the terms public. This is what a small part of the agreement on disclosure says, the typos are in the original:
42.7 In the event of a request from the Grantor pursuant to Clause 42.3 (Freedom of Information), the Concessionaire shall as soon as practicable, and in any event within five Business Days of receipt of such request, inform the Grantor of the Concessionaire's estimated costs of complying with the request to the extent these would be recoverable if incurred by the Grantor under section 12( I) of the FOIA and the Fees Regulations. Where such costs (either on their own or in conjunction with the Grantor's own such costs in respect of such Request for Information) will exceed the appropriate limit referred to in section 12(1) of the FOIA and as set out in the Fees Regulations the Grantor shall inform the Concessionaire in writing whether or not it still requires the Concessionaire to comply with the request and where it does require the Concessionaire to comply with the request the ten Business Day period for compliance shall be extended by such number of additional days for compliance as the Grantor is entitled to under section 10 of the FOIA. In such case, the Grantor shall notify the Concessionaire of such additional days as soon as practicable after becoming aware of them and shall reimburse the Concessionaire for such costs as the Concessionaire incurs m complying with the request to the extent they are entitled to reimbursement of such costs in accordance with its own FOIA policy from time to time. The Concessionaire acknowledges that (notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 41 (Confidentiality and Announcements) the Grantor may, acting in accordance with the Department of Constitutional Affairs' Code of Pntctice on the Discharge of Functions of Public Authorities under Pan I of the Freedom of Information Act 2000), be obliged under the FOIA or the Environmental Information Regulations to disclose Information concerning the Concessionaire or the Stadium: . (a) in cenain circumstances without consulting with the Concessionaire; or . (b) following consultation with the Concessionaire and having taken its views into account, provided always that where paragraph (a) applies the Grantor shall. in accordance with the recommendations of the Depanment of Constitutional Affairs' Code of Practice on the Discharge of Functions of Public Authorities under Pan I of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, draw this to the attention of the Concessionaire prior to any disclosure.
If you want dodgy deals that protect politicians from having their mistakes revealed, or allow public servants to arrange contacts for themselves or their friends and family then we can have private non-disclosable agreements.
Pre contact everything is confidential so there is no possible chance of information being leaked to the detriment of reaching a deal. The Tribunal found no evidence that knowing how much WH were paying for a unique deal could impact any subsequent negotiations for entirely different contacts. If you think in 99 years time it might negatively affect negotiations for a new tenant you might have a point, but I doubt it.
I am also writing this from a train. I've given up on working through the contract since the train serves Pilsner Urquell on draught, and I've already noted enough new nuggets of information from the unredacted contract. There will for sure be lots to come out that you have not previously heard.
I will give you an example. This one came from the last release under FOI in Sept last year. Sullivan told the press that West Ham only need it for 25 days a year " so they have 340 days to rent it out". As @rikofold said, the LLDC told the EC that it would be 75 days a year. That's because a clause in the contract allows for a day either side for setup and takedown of "football mode".
However Sullivan was just lying, while the LLDC at best showed that they and their expensive lawyers had not the first clue about football. We presented for the Tribunal our Event Calendar, for just the first half of the season, using Spurs actual needs if they were on the OS. It means that in July, with Europa League and carling Cup commitments, they would need to block off the OS for 71 days, just until 31.December. That's because they don't know if Sky will move a league game, or how far they will go in the Europa, or the Carling , with replays. We pointed to some weeks where it looked impossible for a second FAPL club to share because there would have been a clash. The LLDCs Geraldine Murphy did not contest this at the Tribunal. The poor woman frankly looked bewildered throughout. You believe that they only need it for 25 days a year, and maybe you also believe the line that another FAPL club could share if they wanted to. Doesn't it bother you that you have been lied to by the people whose salaries you pay from your taxes?
And please don't worry about the burden on CAST of this "campaign". Because CAST is part of the network of Trusts, we quickly found that others were just as bothered as we were, and they have some very able people. So for the last year it has been mainly me and the people from the other Trusts on this,While the rest of the Trust gets on with the main Charlton task ( that said, @rikofold has done a lot of work on the detail, he cuts through dense documents like a combine harvester ). You really should not think that a decent Trust can only handle one campaign at a time.
It's up to you how you view this, but you will see in the coming days that you have been misled about what this deal means for West ham and for the taxpayer (you). How much it bothers you is a matter for personal decision. I happen to think that the more we get actively pissed off when we are lied to or told to stop being bothersome, the less likely we are to suffer incompetence and misuse of funds by public servants.
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...
Ah zer European Court... Zer last refuge of scoundrels eh?
I am also writing this from a train. I've given up on working through the contract since the train serves Pilsner Urquell on draught, and I've already noted enough new nuggets of information from the unredacted contract. There will for sure be lots to come out that you have not previously heard.
Bloody hell Prague. You're reading something you've worked to get access to for an eternity, drinking a top Pilsner beer and to top it all, as a cafc fan, doing it on a train! I think you may need to stay on for a few stops to cool off. or at least position a bag or briefcase over your nether regions when you stand up.
I am also writing this from a train. I've given up on working through the contract since the train serves Pilsner Urquell on draught, and I've already noted enough new nuggets of information from the unredacted contract. There will for sure be lots to come out that you have not previously heard.
I will give you an example. This one came from the last release under FOI in Sept last year. Sullivan told the press that West Ham only need it for 25 days a year " so they have 340 days to rent it out". As @rikofold said, the LLDC told the EC that it would be 75 days a year. That's because a clause in the contract allows for a day either side for setup and takedown of "football mode".
However Sullivan was just lying, while the LLDC at best showed that they and their expensive lawyers had not the first clue about football. We presented for the Tribunal our Event Calendar, for just the first half of the season, using Spurs actual needs if they were on the OS. It means that in July, with Europa League and carling Cup commitments, they would need to block off the OS for 71 days, just until 31.December. That's because they don't know if Sky will move a league game, or how far they will go in the Europa, or the Carling , with replays. We pointed to some weeks where it looked impossible for a second FAPL club to share because there would have been a clash. The LLDCs Geraldine Murphy did not contest this at the Tribunal. The poor woman frankly looked bewildered throughout. You believe that they only need it for 25 days a year, and maybe you also believe the line that another FAPL club could share if they wanted to. Doesn't it bother you that you have been lied to by the people whose salaries you pay from your taxes?
And please don't worry about the burden on CAST of this "campaign". Because CAST is part of the network of Trusts, we quickly found that others were just as bothered as we were, and they have some very able people. So for the last year it has been mainly me and the people from the other Trusts on this,While the rest of the Trust gets on with the main Charlton task ( that said, @rikofold has done a lot of work on the detail, he cuts through dense documents like a combine harvester ). You really should not think that a decent Trust can only handle one campaign at a time.
It's up to you how you view this, but you will see in the coming days that you have been misled about what this deal means for West ham and for the taxpayer (you). How much it bothers you is a matter for personal decision. I happen to think that the more we get actively pissed off when we are lied to or told to stop being bothersome, the less likely we are to suffer incompetence and misuse of funds by public servants.
You do yourself a small injustice here. You too have continued to contribute very actively to CAFC focused Trust business. It would be wrong for people to think you've been working solely on the OS campaign.
Prague, I suppose you only see the publication of the deal as a first step, so will you now take this to the Charlton board in order for them to start state aid investigations with the European Commission ? Will you help Orient putting out a case ? Or is it more likely you will be working with your mates at Spurs again who probably have bigger financial and legal clout to get this thing started ?
To be fair, you've had quite a run with this so far, few people would have thought it possible at all you'd be succeeding in getting the deal published in the first place. Imagine the fame and glory you could achieve if you could take the next step and prove state aid here and make West Ham pay hundreds of millions of pounds in fines and unlawfully collected state aid monies ? You'd probably get your own statue in front of the Valley...plus you'd never stop being on the BBC, Sky Sports, Talksport and even the Financial Times might run a two-page special on your behalf...good luck with all that and enjoy that Pilsner Urquell, lovely brew that...
Prague, I suppose you only see the publication of the deal as a first step, so will you now take this to the Charlton board in order for them to start state aid investigations with the European Commission ? Will you help Orient putting out a case ? Or is it more likely you will be working with your mates at Spurs again who probably have bigger financial and legal clout to get this thing started ?
To be fair, you've had quite a run with this so far, few people would have thought it possible at all you'd be succeeding in getting the deal published in the first place. Imagine the fame and glory you could achieve if you could take the next step and prove state aid here and make West Ham pay hundreds of millions of pounds in fines and unlawfully collected state aid monies ? You'd probably get your own statue in front of the Valley...plus you'd never stop being on the BBC, Sky Sports, Talksport and even the Financial Times might run a two-page special on your behalf...good luck with all that and enjoy that Pilsner Urquell, lovely brew that...
Prague, I suppose you only see the publication of the deal as a first step, so will you now take this to the Charlton board in order for them to start state aid investigations with the European Commission ? Will you help Orient putting out a case ? Or is it more likely you will be working with your mates at Spurs again who probably have bigger financial and legal clout to get this thing started ?
To be fair, you've had quite a run with this so far, few people would have thought it possible at all you'd be succeeding in getting the deal published in the first place. Imagine the fame and glory you could achieve if you could take the next step and prove state aid here and make West Ham pay hundreds of millions of pounds in fines and unlawfully collected state aid monies ? You'd probably get your own statue in front of the Valley...plus you'd never stop being on the BBC, Sky Sports, Talksport and even the Financial Times might run a two-page special on your behalf...good luck with all that and enjoy that Pilsner Urquell, lovely brew that...
All it would take is for one football club to claim unfair state aid and the European Commission would be duty bound to investigate - no need for Prague to waste much more energy on this. The Commission's verdict would be final and that would be the end of the matter if they conclude that no unfair state aid was used (or the start of the matter for, at such an outcome, a much peeved Gullivan and Brady bunch if they found to the contrary). Either way it would (already has in my view) lower the already low esteem in which your club is held.
Yesterday you were heaping praise (fake of course) in hoping Charlton's current problems will pass and that we will re-take our place as important members of the London community of football clubs, and now a feeble attempt at sarcasm. Praise and sarcasm - not attributes normally associated with your countrymen.
You initially came across as mildly irritating, and now quite frankly annoying. Now they are traits that you should be good at.
Prague, I suppose you only see the publication of the deal as a first step, so will you now take this to the Charlton board in order for them to start state aid investigations with the European Commission ? Will you help Orient putting out a case ? Or is it more likely you will be working with your mates at Spurs again who probably have bigger financial and legal clout to get this thing started ?
To be fair, you've had quite a run with this so far, few people would have thought it possible at all you'd be succeeding in getting the deal published in the first place. Imagine the fame and glory you could achieve if you could take the next step and prove state aid here and make West Ham pay hundreds of millions of pounds in fines and unlawfully collected state aid monies ? You'd probably get your own statue in front of the Valley...plus you'd never stop being on the BBC, Sky Sports, Talksport and even the Financial Times might run a two-page special on your behalf...good luck with all that and enjoy that Pilsner Urquell, lovely brew that...
Pilsner is nice. Sounds like you've had a few bitters yourself.
Talking of beer, some of you sound quite bitter. How would you expect me to react when the press keep focusing on only what the LLDC pay and not what they are likely to earn ? I heard a rumour that naming rights have been sold to a global technics firm for 6 million a year, that's one million for West Ham and 5 million for the LLDC. Add our rent and catering plus other events and you have 10 million income a year easily. Is that fair ? I don't know, you will say it's not, I think it's not too bad when you consider we were the only serious bidder. My sarcasm stems from the fact that some of you can't be bothered to read the deal or take on board anything positive that West Ham bring to the table.
I am serious by the way about wishing you well and I do understand why some of you are frustrated about the deal. State aid though might not be as easy to prove here as you may think...as I'm sure any club will find out when going to court with this. Good luck against Derby, last chance saloon for you methinks.
Talking of beer, some of you sound quite bitter. How would you expect me to react when the press keep focusing on only what the LLDC pay and not what they are likely to earn ? I heard a rumour that naming rights have been sold to a global technics firm for 6 million a year, that's one million for West Ham and 5 million for the LLDC. Add our rent and catering plus other events and you have 10 million income a year easily. Is that fair ? I don't know, you will say it's not, I think it's not too bad when you consider we were the only servus bidder. My sarcasm stems from the fact that some of you can't be bothered to read the deal or take on board anything positive that West Ham bring to the table.
I am serious by the way about wishing you well and I do understand why some of you are frustrated about the deal. State aid though might not be as easy to prove here as you may think...as I'm sure any club will find out when going to court with this. Good luck against Derby, last chance saloon for you methinks.
So.
£10 million a year income you say. How much were the conversion costs? Who paid the conversion costs? How long at £10 million a year to pay those costs?
Rejoice in your good fortune, just as we wallow in our misery.
Something positive for West Ham? Well Karren Brady was made a Tory Baroness, so kudos to you, looks very good on the headed notepaper.
Talking of beer, some of you sound quite bitter. How would you expect me to react when the press keep focusing on only what the LLDC pay and not what they are likely to earn ? I heard a rumour that naming rights have been sold to a global technics firm for 6 million a year, that's one million for West Ham and 5 million for the LLDC. Add our rent and catering plus other events and you have 10 million income a year easily. Is that fair ? I don't know, you will say it's not, I think it's not too bad when you consider we were the only serious bidder. My sarcasm stems from the fact that some of you can't be bothered to read the deal or take on board anything positive that West Ham bring to the table.
I am serious by the way about wishing you well and I do understand why some of you are frustrated about the deal. State aid though might not be as easy to prove here as you may think...as I'm sure any club will find out when going to court with this. Good luck against Derby, last chance saloon for you methinks.
There is nothing positive in what West Ham bring to the table for football or the British tax payers and you know that. But to put it very simply with rough figures; cost of building it >£700m , conversion costs >£270m, on going costs £? God knows but nothing to West Ham. And you think we will all be grateful that your club is subbed by the the tax payers to play football?
In this country many people have taken advantage of the right to buy scheme where you buy your council owned home. It's not something I agree with for many and various reasons, one being its not fair to me, I didn't get a free leg up, I paid market rate for my home. West Ham have reversed this and some. You've sold your home for millions, pocketed the proceeds and the moved into a council house at a peppercorn rent and will continue to have an unfair advantage over all football clubs everywhere, not just London or the UK. Also the British tax payers will continue to lose out.
Positive and very good for West Ham but I'm struggling to see a positive for the UK.
Dare I say move over Chelski, the most despised ex-football club in London, here comes Stratford United?
The dildo salesmen will no doubt be looking for an out as we speak whilst making arrangements to get their ill gotten loot out of the country... I am sure Lady B nd Boris have a phone number for someone in Panama.
Prague, I suppose you only see the publication of the deal as a first step, so will you now take this to the Charlton board in order for them to start state aid investigations with the European Commission ? Will you help Orient putting out a case ? Or is it more likely you will be working with your mates at Spurs again who probably have bigger financial and legal clout to get this thing started ?
To be fair, you've had quite a run with this so far, few people would have thought it possible at all you'd be succeeding in getting the deal published in the first place. Imagine the fame and glory you could achieve if you could take the next step and prove state aid here and make West Ham pay hundreds of millions of pounds in fines and unlawfully collected state aid monies ? You'd probably get your own statue in front of the Valley...plus you'd never stop being on the BBC, Sky Sports, Talksport and even the Financial Times might run a two-page special on your behalf...good luck with all that and enjoy that Pilsner Urquell, lovely brew that...
If only we knew a competition lawyer at CAFC? Oh but we do, our very own CEO, however she is not interested! Laughable and unbelievably only at Charlton. Good job we have fantastically talented people like Prague!
Where is this sponsor then GEE? You and your mate gavros have been going on about naming rights for ages but nothing has ever materialised.
whats the betting the stadium naming rights are the same company as WHU shirt sponsors and now the split is 95% of the deal is for shirts an 5% for naming rights.
Comments
1. Downgrade to smaller stadium for athletics
2. Leave as is and use for athletics/concerts/rugby/etc.
3. Upgrade and get a football club in
4. Sell to a football club.
1. Was abandoned as too expensive for giving very little benefit
4. Was abandoned as the only willing buyer wanted to dismantle the stadium, although this would have been by far the best option for the tax payer.
The building costs are sunk costs, option 4 being the only was to get any of that back, so we can leave those out of any calculations, as they simply aren't retrievable.
Therefore we have 2 options and to choose from.
Now the stadium has running and upkeep costs. I have no visibility of those numbers, but with football related upkeep being 1.4-2.5 million a year we can only assume they would be more than that for running/maintaining the whole stadium. So for arguments sake we'll peg those at 4 million.
Those costs exists whether in option 2 or option 3, so again can be discounted from the comparison. It could be argued that the conversion may lower some of these costs, but equally 25 West Ham games a year will cause additional wear and tear, so swings and round-abouts.
Therefore, when comparing the 2 options we simply have to compare income against outgoings. We may also want to compare community accessibility to the facilities, but that is a rather subjective measure.
Option 2 would bring in 1+ million a year, there would be little limit on what could be booked there, or the LLDC's negotiating ability with different event organisers. So any number could be achievable in theory.
Option 3 brings in 2.5 million a year in rent, but adds 2.5 million a year in costs, so brings in nothing. It severely limited what other events can be booked so brings in the same 1 million base, with little room to increase beyond that. Option 3 also costs 247 million to put in place (272 minus the 15 million paid by WH. WH's payments will go up with inflation, but not by more than the interest earning if that 247 million was simply invested, so again can be discounted). Therefore that is nearly £2.5 million a year over the 100 year lease.
So the whole thing comes down to whether naming rights + catering share is greater than the revenue £2.5 + additional revenue achievable with greater access to the stadium through WH not being there. It's a massive gamble. I cannot foresee many scenarios where LLDC will get more than £2.5 million from the naming rights. Any naming rights deal bigger than that will most likely involve shirt sponsorship, which WH will surely structure so that legally the naming rights are actually a minimal value and the shirt sponorship is the lion's share of the deal.
Of course, if WH get relegated the LLDC automatically lose the bet. Naming rights will be all, but non-existent, rent will half, catering income will drop.
And this is ignoring the necessity to refit/modernise the stadium every 30 years.
When he hires Manzes pie shop for a celebratory slap up meal for the board I suppose he will ask for a share of the catering revenue for bringing in the guests.
When told to piss off he will say I would have loved all the catering revenue but they said i didn't own the shop and didn't buy in the food or pay the cooks - bloody cheek me having to give away all that catering revenue.
The view I hold is that is what I see is a reasonable attempt at a compromise deal to make up for the mess and the real crime that the original OS legacy plans created followed by the handicap of the first attempt to do this being scuppered. Combine this with a belief that only badly run clubs need to worry about any fall out from West Ham's move and the answer is not to demonise West Ham but put their own clubs' house in order.
This is a view which I think is fair to say is against the general consensus here on CharltonLife.
In respect of the LLDC negotiating position being compromised I think some are missing the point as it not the fact that potential customers will know the terms of the deal to help them but they themselves will be wary that every detail of theirs can now be made public and I am pretty confident that many will put off and look elsewhere, which is why I said the likes of Wembley will be delighted with this development but in fairness to the LLDC how could they prove this about potential customers without those customers exposing themselves so little surprise the court found against them.
Some might think I am talking bull but I will be amazed if there will be any promoter that will be ever be fully comfortable dealing with the OS now knowing every detail of any deal agreed will now be public knowledge at the OS so for that reason alone many will look elsewhere to do a deal meaning ultimately the LLDC will be the loser.
I apologise if my style of writing whilst writing on the train is somewhat confusing which is probably a fair reflection of what usually comes out of my mouth and why most people avoid me but in fairness to me I am equally bemused outside of the anti-West Ham agenda and self promotion what the intended end result is here because if it is for the benefit of the taxpayer or Charlton unless I have missed the clear evidence of corruption and wilful law breaking (which if it is there I support 100% in ensuring those responsible are brought to account) I simply am not convinced with what I have seen shows much to get outraged about.
As for the poster calling me 'Lazy' well that comment pretty much confirmed what I alluded to in my first posting with the aggressive personal attacks by some to anyone who doesn't share their view on this subject and others on this board so therefore because of it this will be my last post on this subject so need to tolerate me any more.
Finally whilst I admire PragueAddicks dedication to the cause I not convinced by his arguments on this subject but what a boring place the world would be if we agreed on everything and believe me when I say if there is ever anything we agreed on he would be the first person I would want fighting for it.
The reason why the LLDC were brought to the Information Tribunal is because they are a public authority. Public authorities engage in contract negotiations all the time and, ever since 1 January 2005, anyone dealing with a public authority must be made aware/be aware that records created are subject to Freedom of Information legislation.
If you want to know the reason why this particular contract has been made available, it is quite simple 1) it's for 99 years and 2) no third party will be able to be an anchor tenant in that time (so the commercial confidentiality, that the LLDC claimed did not exist).
You can have a contract for, for example, 5 years (3 years + 1 year + 1 year extension) which, because the terms of the current contract will remain substantially the same for future contracts - in which case, the information is likely to remain confidential to protect the commercial interests of both the public authority and successful bidder. I can guarantee you that, as promoters use municipally owned stadia all the time, they will have no problem engaging with the owners of the Olympic Stadium.
Fundamentally, I do not believe that if there is illegal state aid, that that is to the benefit of the taxpayer. If illegal state aid is proved to the satisfaction of the EU Commission, surely that would be a benefit to the taxpayer - but in any event, the use of public funds must be tested. Also, if it had been shown early enough that the deal was poor for the taxpayer, then the outcome today may have been different.
The whole purpose of FOI/EIR is to increase both the transparency and the accountability of public authorities spending/wasting our taxes. If there is no other outcome than this, in this case, then the decision of the Tribunal is to be welcomed. Remember, all of this could have been avoided if the LLDC had released the information when originally requested (the Tribunal was the 4th opportunity). The reason why they withheld is because they were embarrassed at the poorness of the deal - sadly, for those who have their fingerprints all over this deal, there is no exemption for embarrassment.
Sorry, but I don't understand why you are not convinced by PragueAddick's (and Dippenhall's) arguments about this. It's clearly about accountability and probity in the use made of our taxes.
42.7
In the event of a request from the Grantor pursuant to Clause 42.3 (Freedom of Information), the Concessionaire shall as soon as practicable, and in any event within five Business Days of receipt of such request, inform the Grantor of the Concessionaire's estimated costs of complying with the request to the extent these would be recoverable if incurred by the Grantor under section 12( I) of the FOIA and the Fees Regulations. Where such costs (either on their own or in conjunction with the Grantor's own such costs in respect of such Request for Information) will exceed the appropriate limit referred to in section 12(1) of the FOIA and as set out in the Fees Regulations the Grantor shall inform the Concessionaire in writing whether or not it still requires the Concessionaire to comply with the request and where it does require the Concessionaire to comply with the request the ten Business Day period for compliance shall be extended by such number of additional days for compliance as the Grantor is entitled to under section 10 of the FOIA. In such case, the Grantor shall notify the Concessionaire of such additional days as soon as practicable after becoming aware of them and shall reimburse the Concessionaire for such costs as the Concessionaire incurs m complying with the request to the extent they are entitled to reimbursement of such costs in accordance with its own FOIA policy from time to time.
The Concessionaire acknowledges that (notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 41 (Confidentiality and Announcements) the Grantor may, acting in accordance with the Department of Constitutional Affairs' Code of Pntctice on the Discharge of Functions of Public Authorities under Pan I of the Freedom of Information Act 2000), be obliged under the FOIA or the Environmental Information Regulations to disclose Information concerning the Concessionaire or the Stadium:
. (a) in cenain circumstances without consulting with the Concessionaire; or
. (b) following consultation with the Concessionaire and having taken its views into account,
provided always that where paragraph (a) applies the Grantor shall. in accordance with the recommendations of the Depanment of Constitutional Affairs' Code of Practice on the Discharge of Functions of Public Authorities under Pan I of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, draw this to the attention of the Concessionaire prior to any disclosure.
If you want dodgy deals that protect politicians from having their mistakes revealed, or allow public servants to arrange contacts for themselves or their friends and family then we can have private non-disclosable agreements.
Pre contact everything is confidential so there is no possible chance of information being leaked to the detriment of reaching a deal. The Tribunal found no evidence that knowing how much WH were paying for a unique deal could impact any subsequent negotiations for entirely different contacts. If you think in 99 years time it might negatively affect negotiations for a new tenant you might have a point, but I doubt it.
Or is £2.5 million (or zero in real term) for 99 years.
I am also writing this from a train. I've given up on working through the contract since the train serves Pilsner Urquell on draught, and I've already noted enough new nuggets of information from the unredacted contract. There will for sure be lots to come out that you have not previously heard.
I will give you an example. This one came from the last release under FOI in Sept last year. Sullivan told the press that West Ham only need it for 25 days a year " so they have 340 days to rent it out". As @rikofold said, the LLDC told the EC that it would be 75 days a year. That's because a clause in the contract allows for a day either side for setup and takedown of "football mode".
However Sullivan was just lying, while the LLDC at best showed that they and their expensive lawyers had not the first clue about football. We presented for the Tribunal our Event Calendar, for just the first half of the season, using Spurs actual needs if they were on the OS. It means that in July, with Europa League and carling Cup commitments, they would need to block off the OS for 71 days, just until 31.December. That's because they don't know if Sky will move a league game, or how far they will go in the Europa, or the Carling , with replays. We pointed to some weeks where it looked impossible for a second FAPL club to share because there would have been a clash. The LLDCs Geraldine Murphy did not contest this at the Tribunal. The poor woman frankly looked bewildered throughout. You believe that they only need it for 25 days a year, and maybe you also believe the line that another FAPL club could share if they wanted to. Doesn't it bother you that you have been lied to by the people whose salaries you pay from your taxes?
And please don't worry about the burden on CAST of this "campaign". Because CAST is part of the network of Trusts, we quickly found that others were just as bothered as we were, and they have some very able people. So for the last year it has been mainly me and the people from the other Trusts on this,While the rest of the Trust gets on with the main Charlton task ( that said, @rikofold has done a lot of work on the detail, he cuts through dense documents like a combine harvester ). You really should not think that a decent Trust can only handle one campaign at a time.
It's up to you how you view this, but you will see in the coming days that you have been misled about what this deal means for West ham and for the taxpayer (you). How much it bothers you is a matter for personal decision. I happen to think that the more we get actively pissed off when we are lied to or told to stop being bothersome, the less likely we are to suffer incompetence and misuse of funds by public servants.
Can you put your train operator in touch with SouthEastern?
My hungover mornings into the office set off by a hair of the dog may further confirm my alcoholism but my evening journey home would be much better.
You're reading something you've worked to get access to for an eternity, drinking a top Pilsner beer and to top it all, as a cafc fan, doing it on a train!
I think you may need to stay on for a few stops to cool off. or at least position a bag or briefcase over your nether regions when you stand up.
Will you help Orient putting out a case ?
Or is it more likely you will be working with your mates at Spurs again who probably have bigger financial and legal clout to get this thing started ?
To be fair, you've had quite a run with this so far, few people would have thought it possible at all you'd be succeeding in getting the deal published in the first place. Imagine the fame and glory you could achieve if you could take the next step and prove state aid here and make West Ham pay hundreds of millions of pounds in fines and unlawfully collected state aid monies ? You'd probably get your own statue in front of the Valley...plus you'd never stop being on the BBC, Sky Sports, Talksport and even the Financial Times might run a two-page special on your behalf...good luck with all that and enjoy that Pilsner Urquell, lovely brew that...
LOL
Please note the word "fair" (not to be confused with "good"
IMHO, while I think the deal is "good" for west ham, it is most definitely nor fair for any football club elsewhere
Yesterday you were heaping praise (fake of course) in hoping Charlton's current problems will pass and that we will re-take our place as important members of the London community of football clubs, and now a feeble attempt at sarcasm. Praise and sarcasm - not attributes normally associated with your countrymen.
You initially came across as mildly irritating, and now quite frankly annoying. Now they are traits that you should be good at.
I heard a rumour that naming rights have been sold to a global technics firm for 6 million a year, that's one million for West Ham and 5 million for the LLDC.
Add our rent and catering plus other events and you have 10 million income a year easily.
Is that fair ? I don't know, you will say it's not, I think it's not too bad when you consider we were the only serious bidder.
My sarcasm stems from the fact that some of you can't be bothered to read the deal or take on board anything positive that West Ham bring to the table.
I am serious by the way about wishing you well and I do understand why some of you are frustrated about the deal. State aid though might not be as easy to prove here as you may think...as I'm sure any club will find out when going to court with this. Good luck against Derby, last chance saloon for you methinks.
£10 million a year income you say.
How much were the conversion costs?
Who paid the conversion costs?
How long at £10 million a year to pay those costs?
Rejoice in your good fortune, just as we wallow in our misery.
Something positive for West Ham? Well Karren Brady was made a Tory Baroness, so kudos to you, looks very good on the headed notepaper.
But to put it very simply with rough figures; cost of building it >£700m , conversion costs >£270m, on going costs £? God knows but nothing to West Ham.
And you think we will all be grateful that your club is subbed by the the tax payers to play football?
In this country many people have taken advantage of the right to buy scheme where you buy your council owned home. It's not something I agree with for many and various reasons, one being its not fair to me, I didn't get a free leg up, I paid market rate for my home.
West Ham have reversed this and some. You've sold your home for millions, pocketed the proceeds and the moved into a council house at a peppercorn rent and will continue to have an unfair advantage over all football clubs everywhere, not just London or the UK. Also the British tax payers will continue to lose out.
Positive and very good for West Ham but I'm struggling to see a positive for the UK.
The dildo salesmen will no doubt be looking for an out as we speak whilst making arrangements to get their ill gotten loot out of the country... I am sure Lady B nd Boris have a phone number for someone in Panama.
Why can't you guys get that this isn't because it is West Ham in there?