So what do you think it is? If it he markup is 100%, then net revenue to the operator is 4m. Let them skim 1m profit. The gross revenue for the terms of this contract will be 3m. So that's somewhere just north of 2m. Which is a long way short of the 8m you suggested.
But the gross revenue you're talking about is all going to be contingent on the deal they can negotiate with the catering operators (Deleware North, etc).
Given what we've seen so far, how confident are you in their abilities to get a good deal ?
You dont go from net back to gross again, so lets qualify that from a gross of £8 million to a net of £3 million as you suggest, which isnt 'just north' of £2 million - it's £1 million more (just to be clear).
So going back to the original calculation, and taking your number as gospel, again we get to (excluding the idea of consistent top ten finish or any other performance related payments) £2.5 + £3 + £5 + = £10.5 million. The LLDC mentioned in one of it's minutes that the cost-to-benefit analysis with regards to what to do with the stadium post games was done over a 25 year basis. So taking the above figure on a PV basis equals £262.5 million plus the unknown extra revenues that having a 60k stadium brings over and above the originally planned 25k stadium, which everyone, including Barry Hearn, said would lose money every year (the amount touted is £5 million per year = -£210 million over the 25 year horizon including conversion, which was originally scheduled to cost about £90 million). Is it not inconceivable that the result of this analysis showed that the decision to go with what they went for was clearly better for the taxpayer than the alternative?
Just to spell it out again, the decision is a 25k which provides a net cost of -£210 million, versus what we have now = 262.5 - £272 = -£9.5 million plus the revenue from events over and above what the stadium would earn over and above the alternative. And then of course taking it beyond the 25 year horizon and looking at the 99 year tenancy its clear that West Ham's tenure contributes significantly to the public purse.
You are at liberty of course to entertain an alternative scenario where West Ham spend a few years (given the clubs history, at maximum about 5 of the 25) out of the Premier League, which effects rent and potentially stadium naming rights but still the two alternatives are miles away in terms of benefit-to-cost analysis. And of course you can fall back on the argument against the best interest of the public purse (which is ostensibly what this entire thing was about) to justify not having West Ham there, by which time by your own standards you've already lost the thread of everything you've been claiming to be for.
I do this admittedly with some distaste because it's a fact that a club's fortunes are more than that, it more often comes down to good management at board and manager level (as you unfortunately are witnessing now), but simply to point out that the claims about this being a 'terrible deal for the taxpayer' are false.
You're still talking revenues as if costs have nothing to do with it. It's estimated that the match day costs alone could be as high as £3.5m pa - eg the policing is likely to be high because this is a top category terrorist target - let alone the opportunity cost of handing WHU thousands of square feet of prime retail and office space. Just on the rent alone they're losing money, not making it.
So anything else already has to offset those losses. Let's take your word that £6m is realised in stadium naming rights. Whilst that looks like £5m in revenues, in order to attribute that to WHU you have to consider what the rights would have even worth anyway, and/or with a different type of client. Let's conservatively say that would be worth £3m - West Ham's presence has added £2m, not £5m.
Plus the other thing you keep missing is that all these revenues go to the E20 partnership, of which the LLDC is just 65%. So all monies coming back to the taxpayer are reduced.
The retail catering aspect I need to refresh my memory and look into in more detail numbers wise, but revenues are only a share of Da Vinci's profits, and they are shared with (not given by) WHU before the LLDC gets their 65%. It will be a fraction of what you're suggesting.
The conversion costs will never be recovered. The taxpayer will never be repaid. In the meantime the stadium will deliver more margin to WHU's accounts in year one than the paltry amount contributed towards the conversion. And that's before the gift of keeping all proceeds from the Upton Park sale.
Gavros you have shifted from saying there is a return to taxpayers after 15 years to 25 years. We are supposed to think that is good? You did not engage with me earlier, and in your patronising arrogance you said it was a stupid question, but I ask it again, what happens if the LLDC goes bust? Given the useless nature of the LLDC (something everybody seems to agree on) it is likely to me that they won't survive anything like 25 years, or if they survive it would probably be because of more taxpayer subsidy I don't know why you continue with all this, it would be more honest if you slithered away and gloried in West Hams taxpayer funded largesse, whilst laughing at the rest of us as moaning jealous mugs.
The other thing you're consistently missing is that no one is saying WHU shouldn't be there. It's being paid by the taxpayer to be there is what people object to.
Gavros you have shifted from saying there is a return to taxpayers after 15 years to 25 years. We are supposed to think that is good? You did not engage with me earlier, and in your patronising arrogance you said it was a stupid question, but I ask it again, what happens if the LLDC goes bust? Given the useless nature of the LLDC (something everybody seems to agree on) it is likely to me that they won't survive anything like 25 years, or if they survive it would probably be because of more taxpayer subsidy
I have just now been reading some recent comments on Knees Up Mother Brown. I think it is understandable that they vilify Charlton fans there, and also misrepresent our line of approach. They are free to say what they like on their board after all. It is interesting however that gavros and GEE in his/her other guise are getting a bit of a telling off from some of their own. I can't see posts from our fans there, but GEE And gavros come here to provoke. If the situations were reversed* then I would probably be honest enough to think 'it might be dodgy money, but it is great for us so bollocks to the critics', and it is quite interesting to see the West Ham fans continually try to represent this deal as anything other than a massive slice of financial luck, no chaps, it is a massive slice of free money, simple as that. My advice to the West Ham fans is to be honest enough to say 'we're considerably richer than you, ha ha'.
*If the situation were reversed I for one would hate it because we would lose the Valley we fought so hard for. I am not across all this, but surely for a lot of West Ham fans losing the Boelyn must be breaking their hearts? A bit like going from lovely home cooked dinners to an eternal diet of MacDonald's.
The other thing you're consistently missing is that no one is saying WHU shouldn't be there. It's being paid by the taxpayer to be there is what people object to.
I'm saying they shouldn't be there, but accept it is too late to change that now. So only fair they pay a fair price.
Barry Hearn reckons his dog could have got a better deal for the taxpayer over the Olympic Stadium. If his dog had any say in selling Leyton Orient to Francesco Becchetti and his cabal of manager-eating clowns, Fido may not be the master negotiator of popular imagination.
The most laughable claim is that West Ham's contract with the London Legacy Development Corporation amounts to state aid. West Ham CEO Karren Brady secured a fantastic deal for the club in their use of the Olympic Stadium Cutting a bad deal isn't aid. It's poor business. A claim is not the same as negotiation. If West Ham did well, that is down to the skills of the executive in the room, Karren Brady. If the LLDC did poorly, that is their mistake, not a pay-out. If you have a Stradivarius in the attic and end up selling it for 50 quid, you haven't 'aided' the buyer. You've messed up. The LLDC messed up. It wasn't state aid, but state incompetence that proved costly; and it wasn't Barry Hearn's dog that was missing from the government's side in those negotiations. It was a proper Rottweiler, like Brady.
Barry Hearn reckons his dog could have got a better deal for the taxpayer over the Olympic Stadium. If his dog had any say in selling Leyton Orient to Francesco Becchetti and his cabal of manager-eating clowns, Fido may not be the master negotiator of popular imagination.
The most laughable claim is that West Ham's contract with the London Legacy Development Corporation amounts to state aid. West Ham CEO Karren Brady secured a fantastic deal for the club in their use of the Olympic Stadium Cutting a bad deal isn't aid. It's poor business. A claim is not the same as negotiation. If West Ham did well, that is down to the skills of the executive in the room, Karren Brady. If the LLDC did poorly, that is their mistake, not a pay-out. If you have a Stradivarius in the attic and end up selling it for 50 quid, you haven't 'aided' the buyer. You've messed up. The LLDC messed up. It wasn't state aid, but state incompetence that proved costly; and it wasn't Barry Hearn's dog that was missing from the government's side in those negotiations. It was a proper Rottweiler, like Brady.
Barry Hearn reckons his dog could have got a better deal for the taxpayer over the Olympic Stadium. If his dog had any say in selling Leyton Orient to Francesco Becchetti and his cabal of manager-eating clowns, Fido may not be the master negotiator of popular imagination.
The most laughable claim is that West Ham's contract with the London Legacy Development Corporation amounts to state aid. West Ham CEO Karren Brady secured a fantastic deal for the club in their use of the Olympic Stadium Cutting a bad deal isn't aid. It's poor business. A claim is not the same as negotiation. If West Ham did well, that is down to the skills of the executive in the room, Karren Brady. If the LLDC did poorly, that is their mistake, not a pay-out. If you have a Stradivarius in the attic and end up selling it for 50 quid, you haven't 'aided' the buyer. You've messed up. The LLDC messed up. It wasn't state aid, but state incompetence that proved costly; and it wasn't Barry Hearn's dog that was missing from the government's side in those negotiations. It was a proper Rottweiler, like Brady.
Barry Hearn reckons his dog could have got a better deal for the taxpayer over the Olympic Stadium. If his dog had any say in selling Leyton Orient to Francesco Becchetti and his cabal of manager-eating clowns, Fido may not be the master negotiator of popular imagination.
The most laughable claim is that West Ham's contract with the London Legacy Development Corporation amounts to state aid. West Ham CEO Karren Brady secured a fantastic deal for the club in their use of the Olympic Stadium Cutting a bad deal isn't aid. It's poor business. A claim is not the same as negotiation. If West Ham did well, that is down to the skills of the executive in the room, Karren Brady. If the LLDC did poorly, that is their mistake, not a pay-out. If you have a Stradivarius in the attic and end up selling it for 50 quid, you haven't 'aided' the buyer. You've messed up. The LLDC messed up. It wasn't state aid, but state incompetence that proved costly; and it wasn't Barry Hearn's dog that was missing from the government's side in those negotiations. It was a proper Rottweiler, like Brady.
Surely Brady had a conflict of interest, as she works for the government?
Do you think that he misunderstands state aid?
Yes, he clearly does. It was what the deal amounts to that is important. The anology he used a crap one because the Stradivarius is the seller's property - tax payer's money - which they committed to West Ham - isn't.
Barry Hearn reckons his dog could have got a better deal for the taxpayer over the Olympic Stadium. If his dog had any say in selling Leyton Orient to Francesco Becchetti and his cabal of manager-eating clowns, Fido may not be the master negotiator of popular imagination.
The most laughable claim is that West Ham's contract with the London Legacy Development Corporation amounts to state aid. West Ham CEO Karren Brady secured a fantastic deal for the club in their use of the Olympic Stadium Cutting a bad deal isn't aid. It's poor business. A claim is not the same as negotiation. If West Ham did well, that is down to the skills of the executive in the room, Karren Brady. If the LLDC did poorly, that is their mistake, not a pay-out. If you have a Stradivarius in the attic and end up selling it for 50 quid, you haven't 'aided' the buyer. You've messed up. The LLDC messed up. It wasn't state aid, but state incompetence that proved costly; and it wasn't Barry Hearn's dog that was missing from the government's side in those negotiations. It was a proper Rottweiler, like Brady.
Surely Brady had a conflict of interest, as she works for the government?
Well that's ended that debate then. The Hammer supporting, Lady Brady adoring, fat turd that is Martin Samuel has clearly spent his weekend analysing the deal in such depth and with a such an expert, critical eye that I for one am convinced that there's no issue of state aid being involved here.
Move along folks, nothing to see here, Gavin and his Teutonic pal were right all along.
Barry Hearn reckons his dog could have got a better deal for the taxpayer over the Olympic Stadium. If his dog had any say in selling Leyton Orient to Francesco Becchetti and his cabal of manager-eating clowns, Fido may not be the master negotiator of popular imagination.
The most laughable claim is that West Ham's contract with the London Legacy Development Corporation amounts to state aid. West Ham CEO Karren Brady secured a fantastic deal for the club in their use of the Olympic Stadium Cutting a bad deal isn't aid. It's poor business. A claim is not the same as negotiation. If West Ham did well, that is down to the skills of the executive in the room, Karren Brady. If the LLDC did poorly, that is their mistake, not a pay-out. If you have a Stradivarius in the attic and end up selling it for 50 quid, you haven't 'aided' the buyer. You've messed up. The LLDC messed up. It wasn't state aid, but state incompetence that proved costly; and it wasn't Barry Hearn's dog that was missing from the government's side in those negotiations. It was a proper Rottweiler, like Brady.
Surely Brady had a conflict of interest, as she works for the government?
Do you think that he misunderstands state aid?
Yes, he clearly does. It was what the deal amounts to that is important. The anology he used a crap one because the Stradivarius is the seller's property - tax payer's money - which they committed to West Ham - isn't.
Apologies, Posting without reading the last 150-odd posts.
My biggest problem since the announcement of the details is David Gold, on talkSPORT said that He and West Ham have saved the Stadium for becoming a "bus station" or "a white elephant" like Greece or Beijing. So, I'm thinking that concerts, Athletic meetings, Rugby matches, possible cricket matches, etc would not happen if West Ham were not there for 25 days a year ?
Barry Hearn reckons his dog could have got a better deal for the taxpayer over the Olympic Stadium. If his dog had any say in selling Leyton Orient to Francesco Becchetti and his cabal of manager-eating clowns, Fido may not be the master negotiator of popular imagination.
The most laughable claim is that West Ham's contract with the London Legacy Development Corporation amounts to state aid. West Ham CEO Karren Brady secured a fantastic deal for the club in their use of the Olympic Stadium Cutting a bad deal isn't aid. It's poor business. A claim is not the same as negotiation. If West Ham did well, that is down to the skills of the executive in the room, Karren Brady. If the LLDC did poorly, that is their mistake, not a pay-out. If you have a Stradivarius in the attic and end up selling it for 50 quid, you haven't 'aided' the buyer. You've messed up. The LLDC messed up. It wasn't state aid, but state incompetence that proved costly; and it wasn't Barry Hearn's dog that was missing from the government's side in those negotiations. It was a proper Rottweiler, like Brady.
Surely Brady had a conflict of interest, as she works for the government?
Do you think that he misunderstands state aid?
Yes, he clearly does. It was what the deal amounts to that is important. The anology he used a crap one because the Stradivarius is the seller's property - tax payer's money - which they committed to West Ham - isn't.
"My bad, carry on" doesn't quite cut it does it.
He also overlooks the likelihood of the potential buyer of his fictional Stradivarius committing potential offences under Sections 2 & 4 the Fraud Act i.e if you know something is worth £100,000's due to your profession or experience but you either lie about the value of the item so you benefit (Section 2) or abuse your position in the deal by dishonestly not telling them so that you benefit (Section 4), then you're committing fraud.
To be compared to a shonky, door to door antiques dealer is not particularly flattering to Brady I'd suggest but the Fraud Act angle to the negotiations has occurred to myself over this deal e.g. if it transpires that WHU have a joint shirt/stadium sponsorship deal lined up that equates to anything less than an honest split.
"It wasn't state aid, but state incompetence that proved costly; and it wasn't Barry Hearn's dog that was missing from the government's side in those negotiations. It was a proper Rottweiler, like Brady. "
So Samuel calls Brady a dog. Nice chap. I think he needs some diversity training.
However, don't worry. He's used it to make a bunch of unrelated conclusions to support his friends in the Boleyn boardroom.
It's been obvious for some time that whoever negotiated the contract knew less about football than Barry Hearn's dog. It seems that the LLDC allowed it to be negotiated by lawyers and consultants working for the most expensive firms, and kidded themselves that this would ensure a good result.
Now imagine that instead they had taken on, say, Steve Kavanagh as a consultant to help them negotiate with Brady and co. (I was going to say Peter Varney until I remembered that he counts Gullivan as his friends). But never mind; do you suppose Steve or Peter, or any other senior commercial manager from football would have agreed to:
- West Ham not paying the overheads - West Ham not paying for policing - West Ham keeping all the hospitality money.
Of course not, but these jokers did, and that's part of the reason why the deal is such a joke. To that extent, we agree with Samuel.
But the question of State Aid is separate. It is perfectly possible that as a result of their incompetence, there could be a State Aid complaint. Samuel obviously has no clue about EC State Aid law (and to be fair neither did I until I started my complaint process). We know that at least one heavy duty law firm is closely examining the issue, while the architect Steve Lawrence is continuing his own dogged investigation into the possibility.
However the OS Coalition moved on from the State Aid question a while ago. There seems to be this perception that State Aid is exclusively something the EC decides on. That is not the case. This public money has been assigned by British public servants under the direction of British politicians for a project of alleged benefit to British citizens. They are the people whom we hold accountable and whom we demand should address the issue. That will be our focus in the coming weeks.
There's a good comment on the letters page of tonight's Standard if one of you tech savvy youngsters is able to copy and paste a link on here for others to access. Some chap from a tax payers group has weighed in with his view
There's a good comment on the letters page of tonight's Standard if one of you tech savvy youngsters is able to copy and paste a link on here for others to access. Some chap from a tax payers group has weighed in with his view
It's The Taxpayers Alliance, who are very late to the party...
There's a good comment on the letters page of tonight's Standard if one of you tech savvy youngsters is able to copy and paste a link on here for others to access. Some chap from a tax payers group has weighed in with his view
It's The Taxpayers Alliance, who are very late to the party...
There's a good comment on the letters page of tonight's Standard if one of you tech savvy youngsters is able to copy and paste a link on here for others to access. Some chap from a tax payers group has weighed in with his view
It's The Taxpayers Alliance, who are very late to the party...
There's a good comment on the letters page of tonight's Standard if one of you tech savvy youngsters is able to copy and paste a link on here for others to access. Some chap from a tax payers group has weighed in with his view
If West Ham fans thought the club’s purchase of midfielder Dimitri Payet in the summer was a bargain, it was nothing in comparison with the absurdly generous deal the club has secured from the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) for the rent of the Olympic Stadium [April 14] starting next season.
Poor forward planning means at least £272 million of taxpayers’ money was spent making the stadium fit for purpose — of which the club only contributed a paltry £15 million. And beside the fact that £2.5 million a year is a ludicrously cheap rent for use of such a world-class facility, taxpayers will be astounded to find themselves picking up the bill for the heating, lighting, cleaning, security and even the goalposts and corner flags.
The dreadful negotiations aside, a healthy amount of taxpayers’ cash appears to have been used to try to keep details of the deal secret. Serious questions need to be asked of all those responsible and no stone should be left unturned in an effort to unveil why such terms were agreed by the LLDC, which has done taxpayers a huge disservice. Jonathan Isaby, The TaxPayers’ Alliance
Article suggests IMG were trying to get a £15m per annum deal...that went well then!
One thing to potentially look into. The "blue block" in the article with various figures, suggests that the Stadium sponsorship returns are shared over a 20 year period. Is there anything in the released papers that say whether this split/share is the same throughout the tenancy?
Comments
So anything else already has to offset those losses. Let's take your word that £6m is realised in stadium naming rights. Whilst that looks like £5m in revenues, in order to attribute that to WHU you have to consider what the rights would have even worth anyway, and/or with a different type of client. Let's conservatively say that would be worth £3m - West Ham's presence has added £2m, not £5m.
Plus the other thing you keep missing is that all these revenues go to the E20 partnership, of which the LLDC is just 65%. So all monies coming back to the taxpayer are reduced.
The retail catering aspect I need to refresh my memory and look into in more detail numbers wise, but revenues are only a share of Da Vinci's profits, and they are shared with (not given by) WHU before the LLDC gets their 65%. It will be a fraction of what you're suggesting.
The conversion costs will never be recovered. The taxpayer will never be repaid. In the meantime the stadium will deliver more margin to WHU's accounts in year one than the paltry amount contributed towards the conversion. And that's before the gift of keeping all proceeds from the Upton Park sale.
We are supposed to think that is good?
You did not engage with me earlier, and in your patronising arrogance you said it was a stupid question, but I ask it again, what happens if the LLDC goes bust?
Given the useless nature of the LLDC (something everybody seems to agree on) it is likely to me that they won't survive anything like 25 years, or if they survive it would probably be because of more taxpayer subsidy
I don't know why you continue with all this, it would be more honest if you slithered away and gloried in West Hams taxpayer funded largesse, whilst laughing at the rest of us as moaning jealous mugs.
I think it is understandable that they vilify Charlton fans there, and also misrepresent our line of approach. They are free to say what they like on their board after all. It is interesting however that gavros and GEE in his/her other guise are getting a bit of a telling off from some of their own. I can't see posts from our fans there, but GEE And gavros come here to provoke.
If the situations were reversed* then I would probably be honest enough to think 'it might be dodgy money, but it is great for us so bollocks to the critics', and it is quite interesting to see the West Ham fans continually try to represent this deal as anything other than a massive slice of financial luck, no chaps, it is a massive slice of free money, simple as that.
My advice to the West Ham fans is to be honest enough to say 'we're considerably richer than you, ha ha'.
*If the situation were reversed I for one would hate it because we would lose the Valley we fought so hard for. I am not across all this, but surely for a lot of West Ham fans losing the Boelyn must be breaking their hearts? A bit like going from lovely home cooked dinners to an eternal diet of MacDonald's.
The taxpayer needed a bite like Brady's
Barry Hearn reckons his dog could have got a better deal for the taxpayer over the Olympic Stadium. If his dog had any say in selling Leyton Orient to Francesco Becchetti and his cabal of manager-eating clowns, Fido may not be the master negotiator of popular imagination.
The most laughable claim is that West Ham's contract with the London Legacy Development Corporation amounts to state aid.
West Ham CEO Karren Brady secured a fantastic deal for the club in their use of the Olympic Stadium
Cutting a bad deal isn't aid. It's poor business. A claim is not the same as negotiation. If West Ham did well, that is down to the skills of the executive in the room, Karren Brady.
If the LLDC did poorly, that is their mistake, not a pay-out. If you have a Stradivarius in the attic and end up selling it for 50 quid, you haven't 'aided' the buyer. You've messed up.
The LLDC messed up. It wasn't state aid, but state incompetence that proved costly; and it wasn't Barry Hearn's dog that was missing from the government's side in those negotiations. It was a proper Rottweiler, like Brady.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-3544689/It-absolute-scandal-Joao-Carvalho-legally-beaten-death-public.html#ixzz46BMAhXYh
Surely Brady had a conflict of interest, as she works for the government?
Move along folks, nothing to see here, Gavin and his Teutonic pal were right all along.
Posting without reading the last 150-odd posts.
My biggest problem since the announcement of the details is David Gold, on talkSPORT said that He and West Ham have saved the Stadium for becoming a "bus station" or "a white elephant" like Greece or Beijing.
So, I'm thinking that concerts, Athletic meetings, Rugby matches, possible cricket matches, etc would not happen if West Ham were not there for 25 days a year ?
Again, me neither.
To be compared to a shonky, door to door antiques dealer is not particularly flattering to Brady I'd suggest but the Fraud Act angle to the negotiations has occurred to myself over this deal e.g. if it transpires that WHU have a joint shirt/stadium sponsorship deal lined up that equates to anything less than an honest split.
So Samuel calls Brady a dog.
Nice chap. I think he needs some diversity training.
However, don't worry. He's used it to make a bunch of unrelated conclusions to support his friends in the Boleyn boardroom.
It's been obvious for some time that whoever negotiated the contract knew less about football than Barry Hearn's dog. It seems that the LLDC allowed it to be negotiated by lawyers and consultants working for the most expensive firms, and kidded themselves that this would ensure a good result.
Now imagine that instead they had taken on, say, Steve Kavanagh as a consultant to help them negotiate with Brady and co. (I was going to say Peter Varney until I remembered that he counts Gullivan as his friends). But never mind; do you suppose Steve or Peter, or any other senior commercial manager from football would have agreed to:
- West Ham not paying the overheads
- West Ham not paying for policing
- West Ham keeping all the hospitality money.
Of course not, but these jokers did, and that's part of the reason why the deal is such a joke. To that extent, we agree with Samuel.
But the question of State Aid is separate. It is perfectly possible that as a result of their incompetence, there could be a State Aid complaint. Samuel obviously has no clue about EC State Aid law (and to be fair neither did I until I started my complaint process). We know that at least one heavy duty law firm is closely examining the issue, while the architect Steve Lawrence is continuing his own dogged investigation into the possibility.
However the OS Coalition moved on from the State Aid question a while ago. There seems to be this perception that State Aid is exclusively something the EC decides on. That is not the case. This public money has been assigned by British public servants under the direction of British politicians for a project of alleged benefit to British citizens. They are the people whom we hold accountable and whom we demand should address the issue. That will be our focus in the coming weeks.
standard.co.uk/comment/letters/letters-to-the-editor-buildtorent-is-the-way-forward-a3228151.html
tech savvy youngster, me :-)doh! Old and past it...
If West Ham fans thought the club’s purchase of midfielder Dimitri Payet in the summer was a bargain, it was nothing in comparison with the absurdly generous deal the club has secured from the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) for the rent of the Olympic Stadium [April 14] starting next season.
Poor forward planning means at least £272 million of taxpayers’ money was spent making the stadium fit for purpose — of which the club only contributed a paltry £15 million. And beside the fact that £2.5 million a year is a ludicrously cheap rent for use of such a world-class facility, taxpayers will be astounded to find themselves picking up the bill for the heating, lighting, cleaning, security and even the goalposts and corner flags.
The dreadful negotiations aside, a healthy amount of taxpayers’ cash appears to have been used to try to keep details of the deal secret. Serious questions need to be asked of all those responsible and no stone should be left unturned in an effort to unveil why such terms were agreed by the LLDC, which has done taxpayers a huge disservice.
Jonathan Isaby, The TaxPayers’ Alliance
Not £10m either @gavros.
One thing to potentially look into. The "blue block" in the article with various figures, suggests that the Stadium sponsorship returns are shared over a 20 year period. Is there anything in the released papers that say whether this split/share is the same throughout the tenancy?