"Following typically intensive negotiations with West Ham, the E20 Stadium Partnership (the special purpose vehicle formed by Newham and LLDC that owns the stadium) is meeting most of the costs."
so much for maintaining an olympic legacy that you felt oh so strongly about!
Seb Coe has done a runner, ever since he upset the Russians. They have a Pineapple Polonium 210 cocktail on Ice, with his name on. Waiting to be imbibed.
I always thought that the term 'retractable seating' would mean that it is 'simply' pushed back when not required. But watching this hammer's video its hard to see where it would go - unless its pushed back outside the stadium somewhere ..
Also I thought that the track was to be protected from the rigours of sitting tons of WHU fans on it. Is this no longer the case?
It wasn't the BBC, it was Sky News (same difference!) about the seating dismantling and re-assembly:
"Sky News learned the estimated annual outlay of moving "retractable" seats is one of the factors behind the rise.
The cost of the seats, installed to improve the view for football, has increased from an estimated £300,000 to £8m.
Engineers have said work to move them could take 15 days at the end of the football season and 15 days to put them back after the summer - three times as long as the five days initially predicted for each period.
The seating issue threatens the viability of the stadium's summer schedule, which includes concerts as well as athletics in 2017, and could even delay West Ham's return for the start of the new football season."
How many seats are "retractable"? I thought it was a couple of thousand, less than 10k
Destroying the seats seems like better value for the taxpayer.
so much for maintaining an olympic legacy that you felt oh so strongly about!
Seb Coe has done a runner, ever since he upset the Russians. They have a Pineapple Polonium 210 cocktail on Ice, with his name on. Waiting to be imbibed.
They're now talking about redesigning the retractable seating in the summer for West Ham which kills off any other use of the stadium outside the football season.
I always thought this would be the case. Once they got in no one was ever going to kick them out. They can do what they like with it now I imagine.
The whole thing really sickens me.
As I understand it this is to implement some automation - at the moment it takes a team of people a whole week to retract the seating and a whole week to put it back again.
It shines a very bright spotlight on the appalling planning that went into this stadium, and it's yet more cost for the taxpayer. Well done Mr Khan, time this was sorted once and for all.
Although that will inevitably mean West Ham will end up owning and/or operating the stadium.
The stadium's financial model is wholly based on revenue generated outside the periods occupied by West Ham. West Ham were just regarded as an attraction paid for by the taxpayer. This was clear from the only argument put forward by LLDC at the Tribunal, that their negotiating power selling events during and outside the football season would be compromised and the taxpayer would suffer the consequences.
Wholly agree about how this will end up, I can see it being given to West Ham in compensation for terminating the contract. Sensible thing would be to demolish it and start again, but who will finance the rebuild?
This whole deal was about the Brady bunch collecting a crock of gold and they will not give that up lightly. If it all gets dirty, and the stadium in it's current shape is not viable as a football stadium, I can see the Brady bunch selling their shares to a new owner of West Ham who will do the demolishing and rebuilding. If the shares are transferred to members of their families before sale, the Brady bunch don't have to give anything back to taxpayers (contrary to what Boris promised).
Rather than getting out with a profit and passing the problem to someone else, they could admit defeat, that greed got the better of them and they will now invest some of their own money to rebuild the stadium, second thoughts...
There's only one shareholder who will ever be liable to stump up on sale and that's Sullivan. Of course he doesn't have to sell in one go, and there's a 10 year limit anyway. I think sell and pass the problem on is the likeliest scenario, although I have no doubt they saw this coming and will make a play for ownership.
I'm also quite sure they never thought it could be this bad as a football stadium though.
I think they're retractable, but it's a manual task because of the cost of the hydraulic system. Which is why they're doing a retrofit for even more expense.
Barry Hearn was right when he said he wouldn't trust the LLDC to run a newsagents.
We had a chat this afternoon. The Coalition had no inkling of the seating story and at first I thought Owen has to have that wrong, it must be a one off £8M; not £8m every year. But a journalist of his calibre checks his facts, and he is sure. This is quite gobsmacking. We know the Amsterdam Arena has a hydraulic retractable system. Given what we know about the overall costs, it seems the entire system cost less than that, and we taxpayers are going to pay this every year???
Together with the loss of the naming rights, this means the stadium will make an operating loss for the foreseeable future, unless of course West Ham are prevailed upon to pay their fair share.
I think a classroom of toddlers could have thought through this venture better! I had assumed the £8m (shocking as that is) was a one off cost for moving the seats but every summer? Disgraceful. The whole sorry story should ensure that the negotiators of the contracts never hold office again.
They should be locked up! All of them on both sides. Tax payers have been abused and exploited here! It is not acceptable to say Brady is a great business woman when the losers in this deal are the general public. Look at the furore with Sir Phillip Green. They have responsibilities!
The Chairman of LLDC, David Edmunds, has resigned. Dan Crawford, our Fulham guy who is also a local councillor, says more of them are thinking of following...
The Chairman of LLDC, David Edmunds, has resigned. Dan Crawford, our Fulham guy who is also a local councillor, says more of them are thinking of following...
Whilst this is a terrible deal for everyone and the way the taxpayer is being fleeced is certainly disgraceful. This issue has nothing on the way we are still being fleeced for all those private finance initiatives Blairs labour used to fund new schools and hospitals.
Those deals were more like us paying a developer £150-200 million over the next 50-70 years for a hospital worth 30-40 million. And of course they would need significant updating work long before we'd have finished paying the initial bill. And there are literally hundreds of them across the country. Crippling the public finances..
Whilst this is a terrible deal for everyone and the way the taxpayer is being fleeced is certainly disgraceful. This issue has nothing on the way we are still being fleeced for all those private finance initiatives Blairs labour used to fund new schools and hospitals.
Those deals were more like us paying a developer £150-200 million over the next 50-70 years for a hospital worth 30-40 million. And of course they would need significant updating work long before we'd have finished paying the initial bill. And there are literally hundreds of them across the country. Crippling the public finances..
Without meaning to derail the thread, when Lewisham A&E was due to be closed - wasn't it due to a PFI financed hospital elsewhere in the Trust? The Queen Elizabeth IIRC? If so, there was a bit on the BBC Breakfast News this morning about The QE - with patients having to wear incontinence pads, and some going for 2 months without a hair wash, due to staff shortages. I did question then - "..and how much is the PFI scheme fleecing from The Trust?".
I hadn't considered the parallel before, but it just shows how the taxpayer is little more than giant payday for many companies.
The Chairman of LLDC, David Edmunds, has resigned. Dan Crawford, our Fulham guy who is also a local councillor, says more of them are thinking of following...
It's autumn 89, all over again :-)))))))))
Heard this on 5 LIve whilst eating breakfast & nearly choked on my granola !
Whilst this is a terrible deal for everyone and the way the taxpayer is being fleeced is certainly disgraceful. This issue has nothing on the way we are still being fleeced for all those private finance initiatives Blairs labour used to fund new schools and hospitals.
Those deals were more like us paying a developer £150-200 million over the next 50-70 years for a hospital worth 30-40 million. And of course they would need significant updating work long before we'd have finished paying the initial bill. And there are literally hundreds of them across the country. Crippling the public finances..
Without meaning to derail the thread, when Lewisham A&E was due to be closed - wasn't it due to a PFI financed hospital elsewhere in the Trust? The Queen Elizabeth IIRC? If so, there was a bit on the BBC Breakfast News this morning about The QE - with patients having to wear incontinence pads, and some going for 2 months without a hair wash, due to staff shortages. I did question then - "..and how much is the PFI scheme fleecing from The Trust?".
I hadn't considered the parallel before, but it just shows how the taxpayer is little more than giant payday for many companies.
Yeah 100% agree. Many companies see a public organisation and think how can we get more out of them.
I read recently that a hospital trust got a full revamp of its computers and systems. What they got was a few versions old technology (not necessarily a bad thing) but the price they were paying off bulk buy this was more than if you'd have walked into PC world and brought the lot individually. Joke.
On PFI I personally think the man responsible for brokering the deals and who signed off on 95% of them should be done for crimes against this country rather than being considered a candidate for the labour leadership last time round.
Whilst this is a terrible deal for everyone and the way the taxpayer is being fleeced is certainly disgraceful. This issue has nothing on the way we are still being fleeced for all those private finance initiatives Blairs labour used to fund new schools and hospitals.
Those deals were more like us paying a developer £150-200 million over the next 50-70 years for a hospital worth 30-40 million. And of course they would need significant updating work long before we'd have finished paying the initial bill. And there are literally hundreds of them across the country. Crippling the public finances..
Without meaning to derail the thread, when Lewisham A&E was due to be closed - wasn't it due to a PFI financed hospital elsewhere in the Trust? The Queen Elizabeth IIRC? If so, there was a bit on the BBC Breakfast News this morning about The QE - with patients having to wear incontinence pads, and some going for 2 months without a hair wash, due to staff shortages. I did question then - "..and how much is the PFI scheme fleecing from The Trust?".
I hadn't considered the parallel before, but it just shows how the taxpayer is little more than giant payday for many companies.
Yeah 100% agree. Many companies see a public organisation and think how can we get more out of them.
I read recently that a hospital trust got a full revamp of its computers and systems. What they got was a few versions old technology (not necessarily a bad thing) but the price they were paying off bulk buy this was more than if you'd have walked into PC world and brought the lot individually. Joke.
On PFI I personally think the man responsible for brokering the deals and who signed off on 95% of them should be done for crimes against this country rather than being considered a candidate for the labour leadership last time round.
PFI/PPP is an absolute shocker, but all parties in government since their introduction (IIRC under Major), including in the devolved administrations, are culpable.
It's all about keeping costs off the balance sheet today, with no concern for the long term consequences.
They are the clearest, and most depressing, example of the short-termism that infests government and prevents the taxpayer getting value for money.
This is why there shouldn't be party politics in the house of lords. The house of lords exists to balance the shortermism of the house of commons (only from now to the next election matters), but with party peers they just follow party lines and cease to provide the necessary balance.
How anyone can look at this deal and not think "corruption" is beyond me. The cost of doing the seats alone is over 3x what WHU pay in rent every year.
Has anyone worked out exactly how much everything costs that needs to be paid for every season? Stewarding, security and policing, water bills, electricity bills, pitch and stadium maintenance, cleaning etc etc. And do we know if there is any contribution to these outlays by WHU at all?
I think a classroom of toddlers could have thought through this venture better! I had assumed the £8m (shocking as that is) was a one off cost for moving the seats but every summer? Disgraceful. The whole sorry story should ensure that the negotiators of the contracts never hold office again.
I heard they had been retasked to agree the Brexit trade deals.
How anyone can look at this deal and not think "corruption" is beyond me. The cost of doing the seats alone is over 3x what WHU pay in rent every year.
Has anyone worked out exactly how much everything costs that needs to be paid for every season? Stewarding, security and policing, water bills, electricity bills, pitch and stadium maintenance, cleaning etc etc. And do we know if there is any contribution to these outlays by WHU at all?
The big reason why corruption has got to have taken place was that there was a bid that not only was cost neutral (Spurs) but provided the nation with a state of the art athletics stadium. How can anybody decide a bid that was going to cost the tax payer hundreds of millions be better. Of course it has all been about looking after your mates. The beneficieries give money to the Conservative party/Boris and they benefit from a decision that looked crazy from the moment it was made! If it looks like a turd and smells like a turd, my advice is not to eat it!
How anyone can look at this deal and not think "corruption" is beyond me. The cost of doing the seats alone is over 3x what WHU pay in rent every year.
Has anyone worked out exactly how much everything costs that needs to be paid for every season? Stewarding, security and policing, water bills, electricity bills, pitch and stadium maintenance, cleaning etc etc. And do we know if there is any contribution to these outlays by WHU at all?
The big reason why corruption has got to have taken place was that there was a bid that not only was cost neutral (Spurs) but provided the nation with a state of the art athletics stadium. How can anybody decide a bid that was going to cost the tax payer hundreds of millions be better. Of course it has all been about looking after your mates. The beneficieries give money to the Conservative party/Boris and they benefit from a decision that looked crazy from the moment it was made! If it looks like a turd and smells like a turd, my advice is not to eat it!
Ah but you see Muttley the Gullivans had the 14inch double doers with your choice of colour ribbed for your pleasure. We know that politicians are all raging perverts...
Comments
Do I detect a hint of tongue in cheek there?
They have a Pineapple Polonium 210 cocktail on Ice, with his name on.
Waiting to be imbibed.
Also I thought that the track was to be protected from the rigours of sitting tons of WHU fans on it. Is this no longer the case?
Destroying the seats seems like better value for the taxpayer.
I'm also quite sure they never thought it could be this bad as a football stadium though.
Barry Hearn was right when he said he wouldn't trust the LLDC to run a newsagents.
I'm happy to audition for the short person role although I hear there may be competition....
We had a chat this afternoon. The Coalition had no inkling of the seating story and at first I thought Owen has to have that wrong, it must be a one off £8M; not £8m every year. But a journalist of his calibre checks his facts, and he is sure. This is quite gobsmacking. We know the Amsterdam Arena has a hydraulic retractable system. Given what we know about the overall costs, it seems the entire system cost less than that, and we taxpayers are going to pay this every year???
Together with the loss of the naming rights, this means the stadium will make an operating loss for the foreseeable future, unless of course West Ham are prevailed upon to pay their fair share.
All of a sudden, it all becomes very simple...
I had assumed the £8m (shocking as that is) was a one off cost for moving the seats but every summer? Disgraceful. The whole sorry story should ensure that the negotiators of the contracts never hold office again.
independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/seb-coe-boris-johnson-west-ham-scandalous-waste-752m-olympic-london-stadium-a7394186.html
The Chairman of LLDC, David Edmunds, has resigned. Dan Crawford, our Fulham guy who is also a local councillor, says more of them are thinking of following...
It's autumn 89, all over again :-)))))))))
Just a link to what Prague is talking about above
Those deals were more like us paying a developer £150-200 million over the next 50-70 years for a hospital worth 30-40 million. And of course they would need significant updating work long before we'd have finished paying the initial bill. And there are literally hundreds of them across the country. Crippling the public finances..
I hadn't considered the parallel before, but it just shows how the taxpayer is little more than giant payday for many companies.
The can of worms has been well & truly opened ...
I read recently that a hospital trust got a full revamp of its computers and systems. What they got was a few versions old technology (not necessarily a bad thing) but the price they were paying off bulk buy this was more than if you'd have walked into PC world and brought the lot individually. Joke.
On PFI I personally think the man responsible for brokering the deals and who signed off on 95% of them should be done for crimes against this country rather than being considered a candidate for the labour leadership last time round.
It's all about keeping costs off the balance sheet today, with no concern for the long term consequences.
They are the clearest, and most depressing, example of the short-termism that infests government and prevents the taxpayer getting value for money.
Has anyone worked out exactly how much everything costs that needs to be paid for every season? Stewarding, security and policing, water bills, electricity bills, pitch and stadium maintenance, cleaning etc etc. And do we know if there is any contribution to these outlays by WHU at all?
Wind shear that, apparently, Charles Darwin had spotted, but came as a surprise to those handling the award of the contract.