Interesting. So reading between the lines LLDC rejected the proposal on the basis 2 teams would have had to share? If so was that based on general English football attitudes towards sharing or were the clubs interested already getting involved very early doors? The cynic in me says the latter.
I try to stay off here but I just had to laugh out loud at the frankly ludicrous idea of West Ham being forced to pay £30 million a year in rent.....absolutely laughable. IF we are still in the EU should the Commission ever get around to looking into it and IF they conclude it is state sponsorship then on what basis would West Ham be expected to pay £30 million when Man City pay £3 million? And when Real Madrid and Barcelona were ordered to pay £15 million and £4 respectively (one-off payments) for flagrant state aid violations? And IF it ever got to this mental state of affairs then West Ham would as is its right simply terminate the contract, move elsewhere temporarily and build its own ground. In which case you have the stadium losing even more money. Well done.
I try to stay off here but I just had to laugh out loud at the frankly ludicrous idea of West Ham being forced to pay £30 million a year in rent.....absolutely laughable. IF we are still in the EU should the Commission ever get around to looking into it and IF they conclude it is state sponsorship then on what basis would West Ham be expected to pay £30 million when Man City pay £3 million? And when Real Madrid and Barcelona were ordered to pay £15 million and £4 respectively (one-off payments) for flagrant state aid violations? And IF it ever got to this mental state of affairs then West Ham would as is its right simply terminate the contract, move elsewhere temporarily and build its own ground. In which case you have the stadium losing even more money. Well done.
How's that brilliant stadium naming rights deal coming along?
I try to stay off here but I just had to laugh out loud at the frankly ludicrous idea of West Ham being forced to pay £30 million a year in rent.....absolutely laughable. IF we are still in the EU should the Commission ever get around to looking into it and IF they conclude it is state sponsorship then on what basis would West Ham be expected to pay £30 million when Man City pay £3 million? And when Real Madrid and Barcelona were ordered to pay £15 million and £4 respectively (one-off payments) for flagrant state aid violations? And IF it ever got to this mental state of affairs then West Ham would as is its right simply terminate the contract, move elsewhere temporarily and build its own ground. In which case you have the stadium losing even more money. Well done.
The lodger has signed a 100 year agreement, there is nothing in the contact that allows the lodger to tear up the agreement because he is pissed off with a Court order making him repatriate tax payers funds the LLDC allowed him to trouser.
Perhaps the fair price is based on a percentage of the book cost of the OS cost rather than the reasonably priced Etihad stadium.
Carry on laughing, looks like a sense of humour is going to be essential when it all hits the fan.
I try to stay off here but I just had to laugh out loud at the frankly ludicrous idea of West Ham being forced to pay £30 million a year in rent.....absolutely laughable. IF we are still in the EU should the Commission ever get around to looking into it and IF they conclude it is state sponsorship then on what basis would West Ham be expected to pay £30 million when Man City pay £3 million? And when Real Madrid and Barcelona were ordered to pay £15 million and £4 respectively (one-off payments) for flagrant state aid violations? And IF it ever got to this mental state of affairs then West Ham would as is its right simply terminate the contract, move elsewhere temporarily and build its own ground. In which case you have the stadium losing even more money. Well done.
Stick to discussing with West Ham fans what they think the experiential gains and losses are of leaving the Boelyn Ground and moving to the Olympic Stadium.
Universal success is it? Jam tomorrow is it?
Or is it a case of you don't know what you've got 'till it's gone?
West Ham have snaffled shedloads of free money courtesy of the tax payer, revel in that as you cross the vast concourse.
Poor old @gavros. He "tries to stay off here". Yet despite the thread being quiet until a week ago, here he is. Must be a bummer, coming on CL every day just to see if this thread is active:-)
The £30m wasn't my figure, gavros dear. I have no idea what might result. The OSC is not pursuing the State Aid issue, it is above our pay grade. However if I were your dear Baronness, I would stop threatening to sue the ass off the LLDC over every little contractual dispute, and offer up a sensible renegotiation of the key terms. I understand the Commission might look more kindly on West Ham if they would do that.
And can you tell us how it costs £8m per year to take out the retractables and put them back? And how are you enjoying the matchday experience?
Questions , questions, questions, gavros. Best regards to your mates at KUMB, and do mention I am still waiting for my member login to be authorised. That's about 9 months and two reminders now. A bit silly when we allow you and several others to post here quite freely and provide us with your entertaining observations.
Frankly without all the extra costs caused by West ham being there I'm pretty sure we could make similar losses using it as our national athletics stadium (something we don't have therfore worth being subsidised) and filling the gaps with one off events such as music gigs, t20 finals day, NFL or the odd rugby match, that car thing they do in stadiums etc etc.... plenty of potential to pull some money back.
At worst a sport that is under participated in in this country (athletics) get that hair own stadium for a similar loss and without all that hair he hassle.
Interesting. So reading between the lines LLDC rejected the proposal on the basis 2 teams would have had to share? If so was that based on general English football attitudes towards sharing or were the clubs interested already getting involved very early doors? The cynic in me says the latter.
I don't yet know by whom or why the original plan was rejected but it would not have been the LLDC, which did not exist then. Some combo of politicians and whichever public body was charged with assessing the type Olympic bid we would put in. We are talking early 2000's here.
Interesting. So reading between the lines LLDC rejected the proposal on the basis 2 teams would have had to share? If so was that based on general English football attitudes towards sharing or were the clubs interested already getting involved very early doors? The cynic in me says the latter.
I don't yet know by whom or why the original plan was rejected but it would not have been the LLDC, which did not exist then. Some combo of politicians and whichever public body was charged with assessing the type Olympic bid we would put in. We are talking early 2000's here.
Yes of course silly me. Corrected twice in one day, think I must be ill.
Frankly without all the extra costs caused by West ham being there I'm pretty sure we could make similar losses using it as our national athletics stadium (something we don't have therfore worth being subsidised) and filling the gaps with one off events such as music gigs, t20 finals day, NFL or the odd rugby match, that car thing they do in stadiums etc etc.... plenty of potential to pull some money back.
At worst a sport that is under participated in in this country (athletics) get that hair own stadium for a similar loss and without all that hair he hassle.
It's a shame that a couple of London's rugby teams who currently find themselves outside of the capital (London Irish, Wasps) couldn't get a groundshare, with the London Broncos and some kind of Sevens tournament there picking up the slack in the summer as well as athletics? What an absolute farce.
Is there a break clause to the lease? And if so are there any penalties? I assume if there were they'd be reduced over time.
Contract can only be terminated by WH if stadium defaults in providing services. No break clause, it's 99 years. Usage fee is fixed, no reviews, no escalator for inflation, so normal need for a break clause goes away. On the various charges and fees payable by WH it was felt necessary to add the words at the very end "....the Parties agree, that this Clause 20.20 is the result of negotiations and is reasonable and necessary given the effect of this Agreement as a whole...."
Frankly without all the extra costs caused by West ham being there I'm pretty sure we could make similar losses using it as our national athletics stadium (something we don't have therfore worth being subsidised) and filling the gaps with one off events such as music gigs, t20 finals day, NFL or the odd rugby match, that car thing they do in stadiums etc etc.... plenty of potential to pull some money back.
At worst a sport that is under participated in in this country (athletics) get that hair own stadium for a similar loss and without all that hair he hassle.
It's a shame that a couple of London's rugby teams who currently find themselves outside of the capital (London Irish, Wasps) couldn't get a groundshare, with the London Broncos and some kind of Sevens tournament there picking up the slack in the summer as well as athletics? What an absolute farce.
The current size of the stadium makes it far too big for anything other than concerts really, other than once a year athletics meetings
If they had reduced it to 30k as originally planned, it still would have been too large for rugby really, especially as it's the wrong side of London for the main clubs, though maybe one might have gambled on it.
I understand the Commission might look more kindly on West Ham if they would do that.
And can you tell us how it costs £8m per year to take out the retractables and put them back? And how are you enjoying the matchday experience?
Questions , questions, questions, gavros. Best regards to your mates at KUMB, and do mention I am still waiting for my member login to be authorised. That's about 9 months and two reminders now. A bit silly when we allow you and several others to post here quite freely and provide us with your entertaining observations.
You 'understand'. Right-oh. The Commission would have taken years to get around to a full on inquiry and years to make it's mind up on it. Many more than it has available given we're heading out the EU (unless you hadn't seen the news)...
I have no clue as to how they messed up with the seating as they did. As you know the sub-contractor which was going to install the original retractable solution went bust and as a result we've ended up with the breeze block and stanchion mess we have. But that's not West Ham's fault.
As for me, my view now is as good as it was at Upton Park. Granted many others aren't though.
You won't get anywhere with KUMB by the way, they ban West Ham fans for the slightest perceived offence to their officious mods and 'ITKs'. There are other West Ham forums that would let you try to have a go, though.
Frankly without all the extra costs caused by West ham being there I'm pretty sure we could make similar losses using it as our national athletics stadium (something we don't have therfore worth being subsidised) and filling the gaps with one off events such as music gigs, t20 finals day, NFL or the odd rugby match, that car thing they do in stadiums etc etc.... plenty of potential to pull some money back.
At worst a sport that is under participated in in this country (athletics) get that hair own stadium for a similar loss and without all that hair he hassle.
It's a shame that a couple of London's rugby teams who currently find themselves outside of the capital (London Irish, Wasps) couldn't get a groundshare, with the London Broncos and some kind of Sevens tournament there picking up the slack in the summer as well as athletics? What an absolute farce.
Irish are pencilled in for Brentford's new ground.
I understand the Commission might look more kindly on West Ham if they would do that.
And can you tell us how it costs £8m per year to take out the retractables and put them back? And how are you enjoying the matchday experience?
Questions , questions, questions, gavros. Best regards to your mates at KUMB, and do mention I am still waiting for my member login to be authorised. That's about 9 months and two reminders now. A bit silly when we allow you and several others to post here quite freely and provide us with your entertaining observations.
You 'understand'. Right-oh. The Commission would have taken years to get around to a full on inquiry and years to make it's mind up on it. Many more than it has available given we're heading out the EU (unless you hadn't seen the news)...
I have no clue as to how they messed up with the seating as they did. As you know the sub-contractor which was going to install the original retractable solution went bust and as a result we've ended up with the breeze block and stanchion mess we have. But that's not West Ham's fault. As for me, my view now is as good as it was at Upton Park. Granted many others aren't though.
You won't get anywhere with KUMB by the way, they ban West Ham fans for the slightest perceived offence to their officious mods and 'ITKs'. There are other West Ham forums that would let you try to have a go, though.
Thank feck you're all right then. Beats Upton Park all day long huh?
tand the Commission might look more kindly on West Ham if they would do that.
And can you tell us how it costs £8m per year to take out the retractables and put them back? And how are you enjoying the matchday experience?
Questions , questions, questions, gavros. Best regards to your mates at KUMB, and do mention I am still waiting for my member login to be authorised. That's about 9 months and two reminders now. A bit silly when we allow you and several others to post here quite freely and provide us with your entertaining observations.
You 'understand'. Right-oh. The Commission would have taken years to get around to a full on inquiry and years to make it's mind up on it. Many more than it has available given we're heading out the EU (unless you hadn't seen the news)...
I have no clue as to how they messed up with the seating as they did. As you know the sub-contractor which was going to install the original retractable solution went bust and as a result we've ended up with the breeze block and stanchion mess we have. But that's not West Ham's fault.
As for me, my view now is as good as it was at Upton Park. Granted many others aren't though.
You won't get anywhere with KUMB by the way, they ban West Ham fans for the slightest perceived offence to their officious mods and 'ITKs'. There are other West Ham forums that would let you try to have a go, though.
...in case you missed it above Gavin, we'd all be interested in an update on the stadium naming deal you said was imminent and going to provide such a great return for the taxpayer.
Frankly without all the extra costs caused by West ham being there I'm pretty sure we could make similar losses using it as our national athletics stadium (something we don't have therfore worth being subsidised) and filling the gaps with one off events such as music gigs, t20 finals day, NFL or the odd rugby match, that car thing they do in stadiums etc etc.... plenty of potential to pull some money back.
At worst a sport that is under participated in in this country (athletics) get that hair own stadium for a similar loss and without all that hair he hassle.
It's a shame that a couple of London's rugby teams who currently find themselves outside of the capital (London Irish, Wasps) couldn't get a groundshare, with the London Broncos and some kind of Sevens tournament there picking up the slack in the summer as well as athletics? What an absolute farce.
The current size of the stadium makes it far too big for anything other than concerts really, other than once a year athletics meetings
If they had reduced it to 30k as originally planned, it still would have been too large for rugby really, especially as it's the wrong side of London for the main clubs, though maybe one might have gambled on it.
True, I never said it was an ideal situation but better than the farce it currently is (basically sole use by West Ham and covered in West Ham livery at taxpayers' cost, not to mention the total unsuitability for it as a football ground both during the game and before and after given all the issues). Dual use by two rugby clubs, who meet less regularly than football clubs so could be feasible, with use as a concert venue on weekdays and when rugby isn't on, would be great for 3/4 of the year, then use as a sevens pitch and athletics/summer sports stadium during the summer, even possibly London Broncos. The only argument there is for West Ham having it is financial viability but as this thread has proven a dozen times over, it is still haemorrhaging money.
Surely going to the other side of London is better than driving or training out to Coventry or Reading as is the case for two of London's main clubs?
For the 20,000 who couldnt get a ticket before, yeah, I guess it does.
Good enough reason as any for the taxpayers to flatten a section of a major city and built a terrible stadium.
Can't wait to see the Government's plans to give away a free stadium to the dozen or so other teams in the Premier League who want to get more bums on seats.
Good enough reason as any for the taxpayers to flatten a section of a major city and built a terrible stadium.
Except its not the reason, is it? The reason is a long and rather dull list of reasonings that start with those early pre-bid plans, through West Ham's original offer to pay into a proper multipurpose stadium, to the decision to make it a 20k athletics venue, to deciding against that and keeping the whole thing, which then naturally led to West Ham becoming anchor tenants. Its been a total shambles since day one, but it ain't West Ham's fault.
Good enough reason as any for the taxpayers to flatten a section of a major city and built a terrible stadium.
Except its not the reason, is it? The reason is a long and rather dull list of reasonings that start with those early pre-bid plans, through West Ham's original offer to pay into a proper multipurpose stadium, to the decision to make it a 20k athletics venue, to deciding against that and keeping the whole thing, which then naturally led to West Ham becoming anchor tenants. Its been a total shambles since day one, but it ain't West Ham's fault.
I understand the Commission might look more kindly on West Ham if they would do that.
And can you tell us how it costs £8m per year to take out the retractables and put them back? And how are you enjoying the matchday experience?
Questions , questions, questions, gavros. Best regards to your mates at KUMB, and do mention I am still waiting for my member login to be authorised. That's about 9 months and two reminders now. A bit silly when we allow you and several others to post here quite freely and provide us with your entertaining observations.
You 'understand'. Right-oh. The Commission would have taken years to get around to a full on inquiry and years to make it's mind up on it. Many more than it has available given we're heading out the EU (unless you hadn't seen the news)...
You missed an important part of my update post. The Commission have kept open my State Aid complaint case number, despite telling me that they did not propose to take action based on the complaint I submitted. They have taken the Mishcon complaint under the same case number. This proves what the BBC were told - that they are actually very interested, but want to hear from "an affected market participant". They are in a hurry, man. And in case you haven't seen the news, the date of our departure from the EU is somewhat less than certain. I am sure that outstanding State Aid cases will be one of the myriad things that need to be thrashed out before any agreement can be reached.
Still at least you will enjoy the "stability" of the Gullivan regime. They won't be able to sell it for the riches they dream of, with a State Aid threat hanging over it :-)
I'm not really bothered about going on a West Ham forum. I just thought it spoke volumes about the state of you lot as fans- that and the fact you are the only London club who don't have a Supporters Trust, even as your club is changed out of all recognition, and becomes the object of hate and contempt when it used to be widely respected.
Frankly without all the extra costs caused by West ham being there I'm pretty sure we could make similar losses using it as our national athletics stadium (something we don't have therfore worth being subsidised) and filling the gaps with one off events such as music gigs, t20 finals day, NFL or the odd rugby match, that car thing they do in stadiums etc etc.... plenty of potential to pull some money back.
At worst a sport that is under participated in in this country (athletics) get that hair own stadium for a similar loss and without all that hair he hassle.
It's a shame that a couple of London's rugby teams who currently find themselves outside of the capital (London Irish, Wasps) couldn't get a groundshare, with the London Broncos and some kind of Sevens tournament there picking up the slack in the summer as well as athletics? What an absolute farce.
I went to the England v Australia Rugby League international a couple of weeks ago. It's a soul-less place with no atmosphere. The roof is pointing upwards at 45 degrees, so any noise disappears up and out of the stadium. The seats near the front are uncovered and the seats in the upper tier are too far away to have any effect on the game. So not much of a ground to watch Rugby.
West Ham's hardcore support has been completely mugged off by this move and judging by KUMB they know it as well.
I think the argument that the state aid issue will go nowhere because we will be out of the EU before they can do anything gives Gavros away. I mean he could say, there was no state aid so nothing can come of it. But his position admits there was/is from his perspective!
Comments
Perhaps the fair price is based on a percentage of the book cost of the OS cost rather than the reasonably priced Etihad stadium.
Carry on laughing, looks like a sense of humour is going to be essential when it all hits the fan.
Universal success is it?
Jam tomorrow is it?
Or is it a case of you don't know what you've got 'till it's gone?
West Ham have snaffled shedloads of free money courtesy of the tax payer, revel in that as you cross the vast concourse.
The £30m wasn't my figure, gavros dear. I have no idea what might result. The OSC is not pursuing the State Aid issue, it is above our pay grade. However if I were your dear Baronness, I would stop threatening to sue the ass off the LLDC over every little contractual dispute, and offer up a sensible renegotiation of the key terms. I understand the Commission might look more kindly on West Ham if they would do that.
And can you tell us how it costs £8m per year to take out the retractables and put them back? And how are you enjoying the matchday experience?
Questions , questions, questions, gavros. Best regards to your mates at KUMB, and do mention I am still waiting for my member login to be authorised. That's about 9 months and two reminders now. A bit silly when we allow you and several others to post here quite freely and provide us with your entertaining observations.
At worst a sport that is under participated in in this country (athletics) get that hair own stadium for a similar loss and without all that hair he hassle.
I don't yet know by whom or why the original plan was rejected but it would not have been the LLDC, which did not exist then. Some combo of politicians and whichever public body was charged with assessing the type Olympic bid we would put in. We are talking early 2000's here.
Is there a break clause to the lease? And if so are there any penalties? I assume if there were they'd be reduced over time.
If they had reduced it to 30k as originally planned, it still would have been too large for rugby really, especially as it's the wrong side of London for the main clubs, though maybe one might have gambled on it.
I have no clue as to how they messed up with the seating as they did. As you know the sub-contractor which was going to install the original retractable solution went bust and as a result we've ended up with the breeze block and stanchion mess we have. But that's not West Ham's fault.
As for me, my view now is as good as it was at Upton Park. Granted many others aren't though.
You won't get anywhere with KUMB by the way, they ban West Ham fans for the slightest perceived offence to their officious mods and 'ITKs'. There are other West Ham forums that would let you try to have a go, though.
Beats Upton Park all day long huh?
telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/10/27/west-ham-left-counting-cost-of-hooliganism-after-naming-rights-s/
Come on you like to present yourself as ITK and having been banging on about what a generous deal WHU were offering up, surely you have a view?
Surely going to the other side of London is better than driving or training out to Coventry or Reading as is the case for two of London's main clubs?
Can't wait to see the Government's plans to give away a free stadium to the dozen or so other teams in the Premier League who want to get more bums on seats.
LOL
Still at least you will enjoy the "stability" of the Gullivan regime. They won't be able to sell it for the riches they dream of, with a State Aid threat hanging over it :-)
I'm not really bothered about going on a West Ham forum. I just thought it spoke volumes about the state of you lot as fans- that and the fact you are the only London club who don't have a Supporters Trust, even as your club is changed out of all recognition, and becomes the object of hate and contempt when it used to be widely respected.
West Ham's hardcore support has been completely mugged off by this move and judging by KUMB they know it as well.
Getting more like Millwall every day.