I think Prague is needed on the Talk Sport discussion they are having now!
Serious point that somebody from the Coalition should have been on there. Too late for this one, but I will mention it.
Surely one or more of the Sunday newspapers are busy putting something together for this weekend to cash in on the attention the stadium trouble has generated. There might be an opportunity there to get a few facts and viewpoints across.
@PragueAddick there's a two page (critical) article in today's Telegraph including this little nugget that blows apart Gavros' nonsense about the taxpayer earning £m's out of the stadium naming rights...
It includes the comment from an industry expert on sports marketing that without a "clean stadium" any sponsor is effectively "becoming a sponsor of West Ham".
I think Prague is needed on the Talk Sport discussion they are having now!
Serious point that somebody from the Coalition should have been on there. Too late for this one, but I will mention it.
Surely one or more of the Sunday newspapers are busy putting something together for this weekend to cash in on the attention the stadium trouble has generated. There might be an opportunity there to get a few facts and viewpoints across.
Yes, good point, we have all been a bit distracted and heading back towards our own club's issues and the rest of our lives. I'm going to talk to our co-ordinator today.
Thanks all, for all links to articles, please keep 'em coming.
@PragueAddick there's a two page (critical) article in today's Telegraph including this little nugget that blows apart Gavros' nonsense about the taxpayer earning £m's out of the stadium naming rights...
It includes the comment from an industry expert on sports marketing that without a "clean stadium" any sponsor is effectively "becoming a sponsor of West Ham".
This is just a deal that keeps on giving...
Blimey, just read this. The naming rights deal has collapsed. Wasn't aware of this at all. That blowsa huge hole in the E20 business plan, just when they face huge extra security costs too.
It'll be a penny on income tax for us all, the rate things are going pear :-)
So rent is £2.5m per year and E20 get a share of catering (so if a 50/50 split with West Ham and they make a similar £1 per customer per game profit, similar to the figure AB quoted for what we make), then income is around £3m a year
E20 outgoings: £1.5m policing (we'll use what Man City pay as an estimate) £1m-£2m stadium runnings costs, corner flags included
So E20 forked out £276m to convert the ground because it needed a football team to break even, but they're somewhere between £500k up (far less than the interest on £276m would have earned per year, and less than a fifth of what's needed to even payback the £276m over the course of the 99 year lease)) and £500k down, possibly more if any costs (repairs for example) grow.
E20 are completely reliant on a favourable stadium naming deal to have any chance of breaking even, let alone making more than simply investing that £276m would have done. And of course West ham having an uninterrupted run in the top flights so that catering revenues don't decline and sponsorship deals remain worthwhile.
@PragueAddick there's a two page (critical) article in today's Telegraph including this little nugget that blows apart Gavros' nonsense about the taxpayer earning £m's out of the stadium naming rights...
It includes the comment from an industry expert on sports marketing that without a "clean stadium" any sponsor is effectively "becoming a sponsor of West Ham".
This is just a deal that keeps on giving...
Blimey, just read this. The naming rights deal has collapsed. Wasn't aware of this at all. That blowsa huge hole in the E20 business plan, just when they face huge extra security costs too.
It'll be a penny on income tax for us all, the rate things are going pear :-)
The business about the difficulties selling the rights to a stadium that's "unclean" is further evidence that those negotiating the deal did not have a Scooby what they were doing!
@PragueAddick there's a two page (critical) article in today's Telegraph including this little nugget that blows apart Gavros' nonsense about the taxpayer earning £m's out of the stadium naming rights...
It includes the comment from an industry expert on sports marketing that without a "clean stadium" any sponsor is effectively "becoming a sponsor of West Ham".
This is just a deal that keeps on giving...
Blimey, just read this. The naming rights deal has collapsed. Wasn't aware of this at all. That blowsa huge hole in the E20 business plan, just when they face huge extra security costs too.
It'll be a penny on income tax for us all, the rate things are going pear :-)
The business about the difficulties selling the rights to a stadium that's "unclean" is further evidence that those negotiating the deal did not have a Scooby what they were doing!
@PragueAddick there's a two page (critical) article in today's Telegraph including this little nugget that blows apart Gavros' nonsense about the taxpayer earning £m's out of the stadium naming rights...
It includes the comment from an industry expert on sports marketing that without a "clean stadium" any sponsor is effectively "becoming a sponsor of West Ham".
This is just a deal that keeps on giving...
Blimey, just read this. The naming rights deal has collapsed. Wasn't aware of this at all. That blowsa huge hole in the E20 business plan, just when they face huge extra security costs too.
It'll be a penny on income tax for us all, the rate things are going pear :-)
The business about the difficulties selling the rights to a stadium that's "unclean" is further evidence that those negotiating the deal did not have a Scooby what they were doing!
I completely agree about the continuity of the trouble, they seem to have incidents at every game so something clearly needs to be done, whether that's sections of the grounds closed, more policing, threats of points deductions for incidents in league games, whatever needs to be done as it can't carry on.
Was just saying that last night seems a complete over reaction, to read the media you'd think there were mass brawls everywhere. Apart from a bit of pushing and shoving on the concourse in the lower tier i don't think there was any other trouble so west ham will probably see it as an overall success given all the talk beforehand.</blockquote
Sorry can’t agree Chris.
There may have been few injuries, but the scenes of grown men trying to get at each other, divided by hundreds of riot police and stewards isn’t exactly my idea of a family day out. The missiles lobbed were indiscriminate and children were caught in the crossfire. That situation could easily have ended in serious injury.
There were 11,000 empty seats at the game. Lets face it, anyone with half a brain knew it would happen. You would be a fool to risk your child’s well being at that game, in a stadium that is so ill equipped to deal with segregation and safety.
The trouble is these morons will now have cause for (what they see as) revenge on their own patch, and we could be in danger, once again of a downward spiral to violence becoming commonplace at football..
It has to be stamped out, not just for the sake of West Ham United, but for English football in general. Its high time WHU took responsibility and coughed up the necessary money to ensure a decent, safe environment.
Just on a slightly different tack. I’ve read several reports lately that the football TV viewing figures are on the slide. Money normally has the final say in things. WHU (in particular) need to clean up their act. Sponsors will have their patience severely tested if this goes on much longer.
Cyclists use the velodrome - why couldn't athletics use a downsized stadium? This country does not have a national dedicated athletics stadium. I don't blame the initial bid team, it is the politicians like Boris who later decided football had to be played there who are to blame. I have to ask when that was decided, why the cost neutral Spurs option that meant building a state of the art athletics stadium in Crystal Palace and a stadium built for football was not chosen. Why did the Porn barons and Baroness Brady win the amazing favour they were given? We have to keep asking this question. This problem was always going to happen and they expect all the issues to be picked up by tax payers. They are paying £2.5m a year rent. If you take the £15m they are contributing from the £272m figure spent to make it West Ham's ground, tax payers are effectively paying West Ham £2.72m a year for the next 100 years. Plus the additional costs that are going to appear like we are seeing now. They wouldn't have had to pay anything to Spurs and if it stayed an Olympic stadium, how could it cost more than it is now! How does West Ham and their hooligans provide an Olympic legacy? We have to ask questions.
E20 go bust, West Ham's lease is cancelled, stadium is demolished and the land is sold off for housing. West Ham ground share with Leyton Orient, paying £20m per year.
Cyclists use the velodrome - why couldn't athletics use a downsized stadium? This country does not have a national dedicated athletics stadium. I don't blame the initial bid team, it is the politicians like Boris who later decided football had to be played there who are to blame. I have to ask when that was decided, why the cost neutral Spurs option that meant building a state of the art athletics stadium in Crystal Palace and a stadium built for football was not chosen. Why did the Porn barons and Baroness Brady win the amazing favour they were given? We have to keep asking this question. This problem was always going to happen and they expect all the issues to be picked up by tax payers. They are paying £2.5m a year rent. If you take the £15m they are contributing from the £272m figure spent to make it West Ham's ground, tax payers are effectively paying West Ham £2.72m a year for the next 100 years. Plus the additional costs that are going to appear like we are seeing now. They wouldn't have had to pay anything to Spurs and if it stayed an Olympic stadium, how could it cost more than it is now! How does West Ham and their hooligans provide an Olympic legacy? We have to ask questions.
Cyclists use the velodrome - why couldn't athletics use a downsized stadium? This country does not have a national dedicated athletics stadium. I don't blame the initial bid team, it is the politicians like Boris who later decided football had to be played there who are to blame. I have to ask when that was decided, why the cost neutral Spurs option that meant building a state of the art athletics stadium in Crystal Palace and a stadium built for football was not chosen. Why did the Porn barons and Baroness Brady win the amazing favour they were given? We have to keep asking this question. This problem was always going to happen and they expect all the issues to be picked up by tax payers. They are paying £2.5m a year rent. If you take the £15m they are contributing from the £272m figure spent to make it West Ham's ground, tax payers are effectively paying West Ham £2.72m a year for the next 100 years. Plus the additional costs that are going to appear like we are seeing now. They wouldn't have had to pay anything to Spurs and if it stayed an Olympic stadium, how could it cost more than it is now! How does West Ham and their hooligans provide an Olympic legacy? We have to ask questions.
E20 go bust, West Ham's lease is cancelled, stadium is demolished and the land is sold off for housing. West Ham ground share with Leyton Orient, paying £20m per year.
If only...
The contract effectively says nothing more than "...the terms of the lease cease to have effect..." It doesn't say West Ham have to get out, (like it does if West Ham go bankrupt). It is left completely ambiguous with unenforceable rights in the hands of E20, so they can't evict the tenant in order to get vacant possession too sell the stadium.
It's like you moved out of the house you owned to rent it out and granted a lease to your tenant that said you can stay here for 100 years and if i go bankrupt I can't exercise any rights under the lease, nor can you. This means I can't charge any more rent, I can't take possession of my house and can't evict you. Err.....what happens then - squatters rights?
It is unimaginable that lawyers would not have thought about the most important clause in any agreement - what happens if it all goes pear shaped - not this agreement though. I would hazard a guess the clever West Ham lawyers wouldn't agree any prescriptive actions and West Ham are laughing all the way to the bank.
According to the Sun West Ham are only liable to pay for damage in excess of £5000 per event
The Sun ffs it must be true
So you know different ?
99 %of what is in the sun is total bollox so unless you are lucky enough to have stumbled across the 1% of truth i probably do
The day and date is correct; the sports results are correct; the tv schedules are correct; the headlines are pure genius; the adverts have to be factually correct; that lot alone has to be far more than 1% of the paper's content.
According to the Sun West Ham are only liable to pay for damage in excess of £5000 per event
The Sun ffs it must be true
So you know different ?
99 %of what is in the sun is total bollox so unless you are lucky enough to have stumbled across the 1% of truth i probably do
The day and date is correct; the sports results are correct; the tv schedules are correct; the headlines are pure genius; the adverts have to be factually correct; that lot alone has to be far more than 1% of the paper's content.
Comments
MP wants played behind closed doors if the violence continues. I want them evicted!
telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/10/27/west-ham-left-counting-cost-of-hooliganism-after-naming-rights-s/
It includes the comment from an industry expert on sports marketing that without a "clean stadium" any sponsor is effectively "becoming a sponsor of West Ham".
This is just a deal that keeps on giving...
Thanks all, for all links to articles, please keep 'em coming.
It'll be a penny on income tax for us all, the rate things are going pear :-)
E20 outgoings:
£1.5m policing (we'll use what Man City pay as an estimate)
£1m-£2m stadium runnings costs, corner flags included
So E20 forked out £276m to convert the ground because it needed a football team to break even, but they're somewhere between £500k up (far less than the interest on £276m would have earned per year, and less than a fifth of what's needed to even payback the £276m over the course of the 99 year lease)) and £500k down, possibly more if any costs (repairs for example) grow.
E20 are completely reliant on a favourable stadium naming deal to have any chance of breaking even, let alone making more than simply investing that £276m would have done. And of course West ham having an uninterrupted run in the top flights so that catering revenues don't decline and sponsorship deals remain worthwhile.
The business about the difficulties selling the rights to a stadium that's "unclean" is further evidence that those negotiating the deal did not have a Scooby what they were doing!
What happens if E20 go bankrupt?
Any chance West Ham can 'buy' the stadium on the cheap?
West Ham ground share with Leyton Orient, paying £20m per year.
If only...
It's like you moved out of the house you owned to rent it out and granted a lease to your tenant that said you can stay here for 100 years and if i go bankrupt I can't exercise any rights under the lease, nor can you. This means I can't charge any more rent, I can't take possession of my house and can't evict you. Err.....what happens then - squatters rights?
It is unimaginable that lawyers would not have thought about the most important clause in any agreement - what happens if it all goes pear shaped - not this agreement though. I would hazard a guess the clever West Ham lawyers wouldn't agree any prescriptive actions and West Ham are laughing all the way to the bank.