This is my view – but one I feel passionately about. When it was announced the stadium (pre-games) was not to be used for football, I was delighted. This wasn’t due to football tribalism but pride. I thought it was great that British Athletics could have a home that could inspire future athletes and as for the costs – it is in London with fantastic transport links – there would be massive demand for it to be used for other sporting and commercial events! Maybe not every day, but enough to be a lot cheaper than paying £272million on top of everything to allow West Ham to use it. In fact, what excited me was the prospect of youngsters getting to perform in this legendary stadium, with it’s fantastic facilities and for them to be inspired. A bit like building a velodrome helped to transform British cycling. Coe had the job of winning the games – my point and I think it is an important one, is that job would have been much more difficult if the Olympic committee thought the legacy would be that some premiership football club would have main use of it on the cheap! By designing a stadium unsuitable for football, that message could be delivered loud and clear. Now basic maths says that if the stadium was making a loss – and I contest that would have been the case – but the loss over many, many years (my lifetime I suspect) would be less at the very least than the money that has been subsequently pumped into it to make it into a football stadium. Politicians are rubbish at seeing the potential of things and the value of things outside corrupt monetary interests. I was annoyed by the criticism of the Dome. I thought at the time and said and argued as much, ‘what a fantastic thing to build’! The issue was the government didn’t know what to put in it, thinking it had to be something educational as it shouldn’t touch anything commercial. This is the short-sightedness and uselessness of politics. The O2 is a fantastic venue and it didn’t need that much additional vision for it to be so. It could be making income for the taxpayer – I know for some I have uttered sinful words here! And if the stadium could not be reasonably self-sustaining over the initial years, there would never be a shortage of private concerns coverting it! That is my personal view – but I commend the initial bid team. It is not their fault that everybody else missed the point and corruption and self-interest took over.
Those who decided to leave the country with a legacy and a flawed stadium to fulfil it are the people who should be being made accountable by the press at this time not the LLDC unless there is proof of corruption while they try to make the best of this situation.
Worth repeating:
The LLDC is a government body, answerable directly to the GLA. The head of the GLA is the London Mayor.
Since 2008 the Mayor has been Boris Johnson. The LLDC -WHU contract was signed in 2013.
Despite several rounds of negotiations with potential tenants, London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) elected to adhere to its bid commitment to provide a legacy for athletics at the stadium, with capacity reduced to a more financially viable 25,000. However, the newly elected Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, stated that all parties need to look carefully at the legacy plans for the stadium and did not rule out use by either a professional football or rugby team. With this in mind, the contract for building the stadium clearly stated that it must stay as a usable athletics track available for competition and training at any time.
Mutltley CAFC sorry if I am come across as smug if that is your opinion of me but I do object to the abusive language in your post.
I actually think the original plans were to have no roof which I think would have made an unsuitable stadium even more unappealing, so as a result I don't think any costs were set out but it would be fair to assume if one was put in place the cost would have been a sizeable chunk of that £272m as has been in the conversion that has happened.
There is a reason why Crystal Palace is a dump which is the same one most other Athletics venues are too.
We are not going to agree so I will leave it there but thanks again for taking the time to respond.
This is my view – but one I feel passionately about. When it was announced the stadium (pre-games) was not to be used for football, I was delighted. This wasn’t due to football tribalism but pride. I thought it was great that British Athletics could have a home that could inspire future athletes and as for the costs – it is in London with fantastic transport links – there would be massive demand for it to be used for other sporting and commercial events! Maybe not every day, but enough to be a lot cheaper than paying £272million on top of everything to allow West Ham to use it. In fact, what excited me was the prospect of youngsters getting to perform in this legendary stadium, with it’s fantastic facilities and for them to be inspired. A bit like building a velodrome helped to transform British cycling. Coe had the job of winning the games – my point and I think it is an important one, is that job would have been much more difficult if the Olympic committee thought the legacy would be that some premiership football club would have main use of it on the cheap! By designing a stadium unsuitable for football, that message could be delivered loud and clear. Now basic maths says that if the stadium was making a loss – and I contest that would have been the case – but the loss over many, many years (my lifetime I suspect) would be less at the very least than the money that has been subsequently pumped into it to make it into a football stadium. Politicians are rubbish at seeing the potential of things and the value of things outside corrupt monetary interests. I was annoyed by the criticism of the Dome. I thought at the time and said and argued as much, ‘what a fantastic thing to build’! The issue was the government didn’t know what to put in it, thinking it had to be something educational as it shouldn’t touch anything commercial. This is the short-sightedness and uselessness of politics. The O2 is a fantastic venue and it didn’t need that much additional vision for it to be so. It could be making income for the taxpayer – I know for some I have uttered sinful words here! And if the stadium could not be reasonably self-sustaining over the initial years, there would never be a shortage of private concerns coverting it! That is my personal view – but I commend the initial bid team. It is not their fault that everybody else missed the point and corruption and self-interest took over.
Those who decided to leave the country with a legacy and a flawed stadium to fulfil it are the people who should be being made accountable by the press at this time not the LLDC unless there is proof of corruption while they try to make the best of this situation.
Worth repeating:
The LLDC is a government body, answerable directly to the GLA. The head of the GLA is the London Mayor.
Since 2008 the Mayor has been Boris Johnson. The LLDC -WHU contract was signed in 2013.
Despite several rounds of negotiations with potential tenants, London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) elected to adhere to its bid commitment to provide a legacy for athletics at the stadium, with capacity reduced to a more financially viable 25,000. However, the newly elected Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, stated that all parties need to look carefully at the legacy plans for the stadium and did not rule out use by either a professional football or rugby team. With this in mind, the contract for building the stadium clearly stated that it must stay as a usable athletics track available for competition and training at any time.
Thanks for highlighting this because if Boris Johnson is one of those responsible for committing to a legacy whilst signing up to a totally unsuitable facility to do this post 2012 then of course he should be accountable but I had always read it as he had inherited these plans and was the instigator in setting about reconsidering options that had previously been dismissed to ensure the legacy could be properly delivered.
Mutltley CAFC sorry if I am come across as smug if that is your opinion of me but I do object to the abusive language in your post.
I actually think the original plans were to have no roof which I think would have made an unsuitable stadium even more unappealing, so as a result I don't think any costs were set out but it would be fair to assume if one was put in place the cost would have been a sizeable chunk of that £272m as has been in the conversion that has happened.
There is a reason why Crystal Palace is a dump which is the same one most other Athletics venues are too.
We are not going to agree so I will leave it there but thanks again for taking the time to respond.
I object to your reference to the real world - that my friend is smug!!!!!!!
This is my view – but one I feel passionately about. When it was announced the stadium (pre-games) was not to be used for football, I was delighted. This wasn’t due to football tribalism but pride. I thought it was great that British Athletics could have a home that could inspire future athletes and as for the costs – it is in London with fantastic transport links – there would be massive demand for it to be used for other sporting and commercial events! Maybe not every day, but enough to be a lot cheaper than paying £272million on top of everything to allow West Ham to use it. In fact, what excited me was the prospect of youngsters getting to perform in this legendary stadium, with it’s fantastic facilities and for them to be inspired. A bit like building a velodrome helped to transform British cycling. Coe had the job of winning the games – my point and I think it is an important one, is that job would have been much more difficult if the Olympic committee thought the legacy would be that some premiership football club would have main use of it on the cheap! By designing a stadium unsuitable for football, that message could be delivered loud and clear. Now basic maths says that if the stadium was making a loss – and I contest that would have been the case – but the loss over many, many years (my lifetime I suspect) would be less at the very least than the money that has been subsequently pumped into it to make it into a football stadium. Politicians are rubbish at seeing the potential of things and the value of things outside corrupt monetary interests. I was annoyed by the criticism of the Dome. I thought at the time and said and argued as much, ‘what a fantastic thing to build’! The issue was the government didn’t know what to put in it, thinking it had to be something educational as it shouldn’t touch anything commercial. This is the short-sightedness and uselessness of politics. The O2 is a fantastic venue and it didn’t need that much additional vision for it to be so. It could be making income for the taxpayer – I know for some I have uttered sinful words here! And if the stadium could not be reasonably self-sustaining over the initial years, there would never be a shortage of private concerns coverting it! That is my personal view – but I commend the initial bid team. It is not their fault that everybody else missed the point and corruption and self-interest took over.
Those who decided to leave the country with a legacy and a flawed stadium to fulfil it are the people who should be being made accountable by the press at this time not the LLDC unless there is proof of corruption while they try to make the best of this situation.
Worth repeating:
The LLDC is a government body, answerable directly to the GLA. The head of the GLA is the London Mayor.
Since 2008 the Mayor has been Boris Johnson. The LLDC -WHU contract was signed in 2013.
Despite several rounds of negotiations with potential tenants, London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) elected to adhere to its bid commitment to provide a legacy for athletics at the stadium, with capacity reduced to a more financially viable 25,000. However, the newly elected Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, stated that all parties need to look carefully at the legacy plans for the stadium and did not rule out use by either a professional football or rugby team. With this in mind, the contract for building the stadium clearly stated that it must stay as a usable athletics track available for competition and training at any time.
We all knew FIFA was corrupt because of the end result - what is the difference here? The plan was financially viable and the alternative was a crazy waste of tax payers money. The Olympics made us all proud to be British, the lasting memorial was the athletics stadium legacy - Unitil that lovable (not to me) fake oaf had his corrupt intervention.
My elder son and I paid our final respects to the Boleyn on Monday last week. A crowd of 10,000 paid a fiver each to witness a U21 League Cup Final vs Hull. By co-incidence, before the game, like the guy in the article I watched the biggest Roller I've ever seen - reg nr D GOLD - sweep by.
I won't be going to Taxpayers Park unless Charlton are playing there. Good luck to those expecting to find some matchday comfort in that joyless concrete jungle. I won't be going to Westfield either - plenty of shops elsewhere. E20 has all the appeal of Chernobyl on a wet Tuesday in February.
Funny Owen Gibson made mention of 0% social housing. It's a private development; it's going to have 0% social housing. The developer as part of the planning permission had to promise to at least 25% affordable housing, which is a decent proportion of total by current standards.
The recently submitted match day travel plan shows they now intend to close off Mountfitchet Road and numerous other roads on match days. These roads can easily take some stalls on them without hindering crowd flow and I reckon that the LLDC will offer up leases on pitches at some point.
Finally, the club are flogging off the Upton Park seats at £50 a pop. 35k of those would be £1.75 million, close to 12% of the total upfront fee the club contributed to the £272 million conversion.
Funny Owen Gibson made mention of 0% social housing. It's a private development; it's going to have 0% social housing. The developer as part of the planning permission had to promise to at least 25% affordable housing, which is a decent proportion of total by current standards.
The recently submitted match day travel plan shows they now intend to close off Mountfitchet Road and numerous other roads on match days. These roads can easily take some stalls on them without hindering crowd flow and I reckon that the LLDC will offer up leases on pitches at some point.
Finally, the club are flogging off the Upton Park seats at £50 a pop. 35k of those would be £1.75 million, close to 12% of the total upfront fee the club contributed to the £272 million conversion.
BBC report - over 50000 season tickets sold. Surely that leaves little room for the 100K free Newham tickets and any casual sales.
Nothing in the contract stipulates what kind of games they offer to Newham. I think Capital One Cup at home to Torquay will account for a third of the allocation.
50 quid for an old seat!! When we left the Old Den we just ripped the seats out and took them home with us. I remember being in the Prince of Windsor in New Cross after the game and one of our lot standing there having a pint with one of the goal posts leaning up against his shoulder.
50 quid for an old seat!! When we left the Old Den we just ripped the seats out and took them home with us. I remember being in the Prince of Windsor in New Cross after the game and one of our lot standing there having a pint with one of the goal posts leaning up against his shoulder.
@gavros: What's your understanding of 50,000 season tickets in light of the published 54,000 capacity in football mode? In a reply to one of my FOI requests the LLDC seemed to suggest it's 60,000 but my understanding was the sight lines made 6000 seats non compliant with Premier League rules.
19*4000 is a bit short of 100,000 giveaways for Newham isn't it? Even if it was 60,000, with more than 5,000 given away on average (and a maximum of 10,000) how much room for walk ups? Doesn't make sense to me.
West Ham have announced that they have sold more than 50,000 season tickets for The People’s Stadium of East London. “Without doubt, our stadium move is an unrivalled success story!” kerchinged vice-chairman Karren Brady from a bath full of taxpayer cash.
@gavros: What's your understanding of 50,000 season tickets in light of the published 54,000 capacity in football mode? In a reply to one of my FOI requests the LLDC seemed to suggest it's 60,000 but my understanding was the sight lines made 6000 seats non compliant with Premier League rules.
19*4000 is a bit short of 100,000 giveaways for Newham isn't it? Even if it was 60,000, with more than 5,000 given away on average (and a maximum of 10,000) how much room for walk ups? Doesn't make sense to me.
@gavros: What's your understanding of 50,000 season tickets in light of the published 54,000 capacity in football mode? In a reply to one of my FOI requests the LLDC seemed to suggest it's 60,000 but my understanding was the sight lines made 6000 seats non compliant with Premier League rules.
19*4000 is a bit short of 100,000 giveaways for Newham isn't it? Even if it was 60,000, with more than 5,000 given away on average (and a maximum of 10,000) how much room for walk ups? Doesn't make sense to me.
What's the average season ticket price?
First of all its 52,000 season tickets, as confirmed by David Gold on Twitter today. The capacity switch to 60,000 in football mode was granted a couple of months ago. There is no premier league, UEFA or FIFA rule about distance to pitch, in this regard the Olympic Stadium is very much in line with the Berlin Olypiastadion, the Maracana etc. By the way those two hosted the last and UEFA Champions League final and FIFA World Cup final respectively and sold all seats out. West Ham intend to, if demand is there, sell another 7,000 or so seats at the back in the following season and can expand capacity even further if necessary. Around this point in the debate someone brings up UEFA Category 4 staus and distance from the pitch but just to be clear; UEFA categorisation says nothing about distance to pitch. It's simply a FIFA advisory that they themselves are happy to ignore.
As stands the club will allocate only the minimum required (10% upto 3,000 = 3,000) tickets to away fans and Gold today as well confirmed that for league games the remaining 5,000 will go to fans. So it looks like the Newham quota will be taken up for friendlies and early cup matches. Note too that West Ham don't have to give away 100,000 tickets; the requirement is 100,000 tickets for all sporting events and concerts, so West Ham will make up a fraction (albeit significant) of the total 100,000.
@gavros: What's your understanding of 50,000 season tickets in light of the published 54,000 capacity in football mode? In a reply to one of my FOI requests the LLDC seemed to suggest it's 60,000 but my understanding was the sight lines made 6000 seats non compliant with Premier League rules.
19*4000 is a bit short of 100,000 giveaways for Newham isn't it? Even if it was 60,000, with more than 5,000 given away on average (and a maximum of 10,000) how much room for walk ups? Doesn't make sense to me.
What's the average season ticket price?
First of all its 52,000 season tickets, as confirmed by David Gold on Twitter today. The capacity switch to 60,000 in football mode was granted a couple of months ago. There is no premier league, UEFA or FIFA rule about distance to pitch, in this regard the Olympic Stadium is very much in line with the Berlin Olypiastadion, the Maracana etc. By the way those two hosted the last and UEFA Champions League final and FIFA World Cup final respectively and sold all seats out. West Ham intend to, if demand is there, sell another 7,000 or so seats at the back in the following season and can expand capacity even further if necessary. Around this point in the debate someone brings up UEFA Category 4 staus and distance from the pitch but just to be clear; UEFA categorisation says nothing about distance to pitch. It's simply a FIFA advisory that they themselves are happy to ignore.
As stands the club will allocate only the minimum required (10% upto 3,000 = 3,000) tickets to away fans and Gold today as well confirmed that for league games the remaining 5,000 will go to fans. So it looks like the Newham quota will be taken up for friendlies and early cup matches. Note too that West Ham don't have to give away 100,000 tickets; the requirement is 100,000 tickets for all sporting events and concerts, so West Ham will make up a fraction (albeit significant) of the total 100,000.
There's a distinctive gloating tone to your more recent posts Gavin. At long last you're being honest rather than still trying to present it as a good deal for taxpayers.
There's a distinctive gloating tone to your more recent posts Gavin. At long last you're being honest rather than still trying to present it as a good deal for taxpayers.
Not in the slightest, all ive done is quote the facts, as best as i understand them.
There's a distinctive gloating tone to your more recent posts Gavin. At long last you're being honest rather than still trying to present it as a good deal for taxpayers.
Not in the slightest, all ive done is quote the facts, as best as i understand them.
@gavros: What's your understanding of 50,000 season tickets in light of the published 54,000 capacity in football mode? In a reply to one of my FOI requests the LLDC seemed to suggest it's 60,000 but my understanding was the sight lines made 6000 seats non compliant with Premier League rules.
19*4000 is a bit short of 100,000 giveaways for Newham isn't it? Even if it was 60,000, with more than 5,000 given away on average (and a maximum of 10,000) how much room for walk ups? Doesn't make sense to me.
What's the average season ticket price?
First of all its 52,000 season tickets, as confirmed by David Gold on Twitter today. The capacity switch to 60,000 in football mode was granted a couple of months ago. There is no premier league, UEFA or FIFA rule about distance to pitch, in this regard the Olympic Stadium is very much in line with the Berlin Olypiastadion, the Maracana etc. By the way those two hosted the last and UEFA Champions League final and FIFA World Cup final respectively and sold all seats out. West Ham intend to, if demand is there, sell another 7,000 or so seats at the back in the following season and can expand capacity even further if necessary. Around this point in the debate someone brings up UEFA Category 4 staus and distance from the pitch but just to be clear; UEFA categorisation says nothing about distance to pitch. It's simply a FIFA advisory that they themselves are happy to ignore.
As stands the club will allocate only the minimum required (10% upto 3,000 = 3,000) tickets to away fans and Gold today as well confirmed that for league games the remaining 5,000 will go to fans. So it looks like the Newham quota will be taken up for friendlies and early cup matches. Note too that West Ham don't have to give away 100,000 tickets; the requirement is 100,000 tickets for all sporting events and concerts, so West Ham will make up a fraction (albeit significant) of the total 100,000.
Well that's not what Newham said. There in black and white, 100k tickets to WHU matches. Doesn't seem likely - possible even - that commitment will be fulfilled.
However I make you right that those tickets will be given away only to games likely to be poorly attended. Doesn't seem the best of faith though does it - wonder if that's what Newham expected.
I think football fans around the country should create their new nickname for West Ham from now on - 'The Scroungers', like MK Dons are Franchise FC - it describes what they are perfectly. Thank you poor tax payers. The ugly face of football and a once great club. Very sad!
@gavros Who will pay for the increase in capacity if West Ham need it?
And while you are at it. @gavros, who will pay for the inevitable upgrade which will be demanded after maybe 25 years? (because the Stadium is in a 'competitive market' blah, blah, blah).
(Hint: you can just look up the answers here. Great, isn't it? saves you coming out with some bollocks, only to be corrected by Charlton Life :-))
Sullivan in The Metro saying the OS gives them 'about £12m extra revenue a year' and that they are bidding £24m, £20m and £25m for players this summer.
I think football fans around the country should create their new nickname for West Ham from now on - 'The Scroungers', like MK Dons are Franchise FC - it describes what they are perfectly. Thank you poor tax payers. The ugly face of football and a once great club. Very sad!
Love the nickname for the ground Taxpayers Park. it should always be known as that b
Sullivan in The Metro saying the OS gives them 'about £12m extra revenue a year' and that they are bidding £24m, £20m and £25m for players this summer.
This is what I find so depressing about the whole thing. £12m is peanuts in the context of premier league revenue.
We have an unstable agreement which can only work if
West Ham stay in the premier league for 100 years.
No significant changes to the stadium are required for 100 years.
Hooliganism and high security costs do not return in the next 100 years..
£12m revenue pa? Extraordinarily conservative. One might even say deliberately misleading.
Given the minimum adult walkup ticket price is £60, it's reasonable to assume even with season ticket holders that that's the minimum revenue per seat WHU are aiming for. With an additional 25,000 seats over Upton Park, that's £38m right there (assuming 25 home games) - and that's not beginning to take into account the hospitality revenues. And all of it is pure margin, not a penny more in costs. In fact West Ham have zero matchday costs, which isn't the case today.
Comments
The LLDC is a government body, answerable directly to the GLA. The head of the GLA is the London Mayor.
Since 2008 the Mayor has been Boris Johnson. The LLDC -WHU contract was signed in 2013.
From Wikipedia:
Despite several rounds of negotiations with potential tenants, London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) elected to adhere to its bid commitment to provide a legacy for athletics at the stadium, with capacity reduced to a more financially viable 25,000. However, the newly elected Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, stated that all parties need to look carefully at the legacy plans for the stadium and did not rule out use by either a professional football or rugby team. With this in mind, the contract for building the stadium clearly stated that it must stay as a usable athletics track available for competition and training at any time.
I actually think the original plans were to have no roof which I think would have made an unsuitable stadium even more unappealing, so as a result I don't think any costs were set out but it would be fair to assume if one was put in place the cost would have been a sizeable chunk of that £272m as has been in the conversion that has happened.
There is a reason why Crystal Palace is a dump which is the same one most other Athletics venues are too.
We are not going to agree so I will leave it there but thanks again for taking the time to respond.
http://gu.com/p/4jv7x?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Absolutely superb article.
My elder son and I paid our final respects to the Boleyn on Monday last week. A crowd of 10,000 paid a fiver each to witness a U21 League Cup Final vs Hull. By co-incidence, before the game, like the guy in the article I watched the biggest Roller I've ever seen - reg nr D GOLD - sweep by.
I won't be going to Taxpayers Park unless Charlton are playing there. Good luck to those expecting to find some matchday comfort in that joyless concrete jungle. I won't be going to Westfield either - plenty of shops elsewhere. E20 has all the appeal of Chernobyl on a wet Tuesday in February.
Still, I'm only jealous, eh ?
The recently submitted match day travel plan shows they now intend to close off Mountfitchet Road and numerous other roads on match days. These roads can easily take some stalls on them without hindering crowd flow and I reckon that the LLDC will offer up leases on pitches at some point.
Finally, the club are flogging off the Upton Park seats at £50 a pop. 35k of those would be £1.75 million, close to 12% of the total upfront fee the club contributed to the £272 million conversion.
BBC report - over 50000 season tickets sold. Surely that leaves little room for the 100K free Newham tickets and any casual sales.
19*4000 is a bit short of 100,000 giveaways for Newham isn't it? Even if it was 60,000, with more than 5,000 given away on average (and a maximum of 10,000) how much room for walk ups? Doesn't make sense to me.
What's the average season ticket price?
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/09/a-bicycle-with-a-puncture-abandoned-on-a-nearby-hillside
West Ham have announced that they have sold more than 50,000 season tickets for The People’s Stadium of East London. “Without doubt, our stadium move is an unrivalled success story!” kerchinged vice-chairman Karren Brady from a bath full of taxpayer cash.
As stands the club will allocate only the minimum required (10% upto 3,000 = 3,000) tickets to away fans and Gold today as well confirmed that for league games the remaining 5,000 will go to fans. So it looks like the Newham quota will be taken up for friendlies and early cup matches. Note too that West Ham don't have to give away 100,000 tickets; the requirement is 100,000 tickets for all sporting events and concerts, so West Ham will make up a fraction (albeit significant) of the total 100,000.
However I make you right that those tickets will be given away only to games likely to be poorly attended. Doesn't seem the best of faith though does it - wonder if that's what Newham expected.
Who will pay for the increase in capacity if West Ham need it?
(Hint: you can just look up the answers here. Great, isn't it? saves you coming out with some bollocks, only to be corrected by Charlton Life :-))
We have an unstable agreement which can only work if
- West Ham stay in the premier league for 100 years.
- No significant changes to the stadium are required for 100 years.
- Hooliganism and high security costs do not return in the next 100 years..
It will all end in tears eventually.Just to save a few peanuts.
Given the minimum adult walkup ticket price is £60, it's reasonable to assume even with season ticket holders that that's the minimum revenue per seat WHU are aiming for. With an additional 25,000 seats over Upton Park, that's £38m right there (assuming 25 home games) - and that's not beginning to take into account the hospitality revenues. And all of it is pure margin, not a penny more in costs. In fact West Ham have zero matchday costs, which isn't the case today.