Boris Johnson will be asked to justify his management of London's Olympic Stadium as part of an in-depth investigation into the "skyrocketing" costs of converting the arena for West Ham United.
The investigation, commissioned by Mr Johnson's successor as London Mayor Sadiq Khan, was launched after Sky News revealed that the bill for transforming the stadium has risen by £50m more than previously announced.
The costs include an estimated £8m every year to move supposedly retractable seats, installed to bring football fans closer to the action, off the track to allow athletics every summer.
The bill for conversion has risen from £272m to £323m, and the total cost of the stadium to £752m.
I hope he gets a proper professional interogation -he is a slimy so and so and he will blame the bid when the detail should hang him.
I'd like to know why the Spurs bid wasn't selected. I think this needs answering as it is where I think corruption took place. A bid that involved them paying for a state of the art British athletics stadium, when we currently don't have one!
Hi Muttley
The trouble with the Spurs bid is that nobody, including the Spurs Trust, is sure that Levy was serious. However there isa much more interesting story which i only learnt recently from Steve Lawrence, the architect who worked on the original scheme.
That scheme had the Park on a slightly different site, (but still Stratford) and the Stadium would have been a BOOT deal whereby McAlpine would have both built and operated it, thus zero cost to the taxpayer. Although it probably needed West Ham and Spurs to share it. Richard Rogers wrote to Tony Blair trying to get his endorsement. Steve doesn't have any record that Blair even replied.
McAlpine in the end were paid handsomely by the State to build the current stadium...
I heard that McAlpine would have also refurbished Crystal Palace athletics stadium as part of the deal, at no extra cost too
I see WHU under 23's played at the OS earlier this week, was that included in the contract or did WHU pay for an extra day? Got a feeling it's tax payer funded.
I see WHU under 23's played at the OS earlier this week, was that included in the contract or did WHU pay for an extra day? Got a feeling it's tax payer funded.
Probably gave Newham 20,000 free tickets for the £45M.
I see WHU under 23's played at the OS earlier this week, was that included in the contract or did WHU pay for an extra day? Got a feeling it's tax payer funded.
20.17 The Concessionaire shall pay the Grantor"s Operating Costs for any: . (a) Friendly Matches; . (b) Youth Matches; and . (c) Pre-Season Tournaments,
I see WHU under 23's played at the OS earlier this week, was that included in the contract or did WHU pay for an extra day? Got a feeling it's tax payer funded.
20.17 The Concessionaire shall pay the Grantor"s Operating Costs for any: . (a) Friendly Matches; . (b) Youth Matches; and . (c) Pre-Season Tournaments,
Plus some wriggle room.
20.18 If there is a dispute in relation to any amount payable, the Concessionaire shall pay the amount not in dispute, and any further amount due (if any) shall be paid within five Business Days of agreement or determination of the amount due in accordance with Clause 50 (Expert Determination)
BBC News London has revealed that the cost of policing West Ham games has more than trebled at the London Stadium.
Quoting a freedom of information response from the Met Police the BBC say the cost of policing the Boleyn Ground between August-October 2015 was £108,387. In contrast the same period August-October 2016 in the London Stadium has soared to £381,741.
Focusing just on the month of October the BBC claimed it cost just £25,105 to police at the Boleyn Ground in 2015 but this rose to £238,021 in October 2016 at the London Stadium although they later admitted it wasn’t a fair comparison after saying West Ham played just one game at home in 2015 compared to 3 home games in October last year.
London Assembly member Andrew Dismore told the BBC “It’s this ridiculous sweet heart deal they have got already when no matter how many police officers are called to deal with a West Ham game they simply pay the same. If you think about the last West Ham v Chelsea game, they had 520 police officers on duty, that’s equivalent of an entire London borough both on and off duty. That can’t be right!”
London Assembly member Andrew Dismore told the BBC “It’s this ridiculous sweet heart deal they have got already when no matter how many police officers are called to deal with a West Ham game they simply pay the same. If you think about the last West Ham v Chelsea game, they had 520 police officers on duty, that’s equivalent of an entire London borough both on and off duty. That can’t be right!”
Under its lease to use London Stadium, the club is entitled to 40pc of E20 Stadium’s naming rights revenue over £4m per year. If West Ham are relegated from the Premier League its share will drop to 35pc
Under its lease to use London Stadium, the club is entitled to 40pc of E20 Stadium’s naming rights revenue over £4m per year. If West Ham are relegated from the Premier League its share will drop to 35pc
I would be a bit wary of that Telegraph report. All other outlets have reported £20m over 6 years, and I don't think that West Ham get as much as 40%, but I will check that when I get the chance.
If it is £20m for 6 years, there is a serious problem as they have 4.5m pa written into their budget, wherea sthis would average only £3.3m. And then there is the unresolved matter of the £8m per year to take out and put back the seats. Who will make up the shortfall? Altogether now:"Y....
The latest on the campaign is that we are pushing for a personal meeting with the company charged by the Mayor with the investigation, which was recently announced as Moore Stephens. They are a sober decent 2nd division accountancy outfit, a division cheaper than Deloittes, PwC etc, whom you pay for on behalf of the LLDC. If they talk to us we will save them a lot of fee hours by leading them straight to the key financial issues.
Under its lease to use London Stadium, the club is entitled to 40pc of E20 Stadium’s naming rights revenue over £4m per year. If West Ham are relegated from the Premier League its share will drop to 35pc
I would be a bit wary of that Telegraph report. All other outlets have reported £20m over 6 years, and I don't think that West Ham get as much as 40%, but I will check that when I get the chance.
If it is £20m for 6 years, there is a serious problem as they have 4.5m pa written into their budget, wherea sthis would average only £3.3m. And then there is the unresolved matter of the £8m per year to take out and put back the seats. Who will make up the shortfall? Altogether now:"Y....
The latest on the campaign is that we are pushing for a personal meeting with the company charged by the Mayor with the investigation, which was recently announced as Moore Stephens. They are a sober decent 2nd division accountancy outfit, a division cheaper than Deloittes, PwC etc, whom you pay for on behalf of the LLDC. If they talk to us we will save them a lot of fee hours by leading them straight to the key financial issues.
Under its lease to use London Stadium, the club is entitled to 40pc of E20 Stadium’s naming rights revenue over £4m per year. If West Ham are relegated from the Premier League its share will drop to 35pc
Both Vodafone and West Ham have confirmed the decision is in no way connected with the HMRC investigation into some of the club’s transfer dealings. It is understood that Vodafone’s decision was based solely on “commercial reasons”.
Ha ha, the old 'commercial reasons' bluff. How often to businesses make decisions that aren't for 'commercial reasons'? The big question is, what commercial reasons? Is it because they expect the ongoing investigations to blow up in their faces rendering any naming rights deal unprofitable or is it because the deal makes West Ham such a toxic brand in the eyes of the public that even arch tax dodgers like Vodaphone choose not to be associated with them?
West Ham are actually costing tax payers money as we and everybody is are discovering they are full of hooligans and corrupt tax dodgers. Maybe we can kick them out! Have they knocked Upton Park down yet?
West Ham are actually costing tax payers money as we and everybody is are discovering they are full of hooligans and corrupt tax dodgers. Maybe we can kick them out! Have they knocked Upton Park down yet?
West Ham are actually costing tax payers money as we and everybody is are discovering they are full of hooligans and corrupt tax dodgers. Maybe we can kick them out! Have they knocked Upton Park down yet?
The quicker they build the new west exit from Stratford station the better it will be. It will mean access will be via Carpenters Road and not through the shopping centre.
The quicker they build the new west exit from Stratford station the better it will be. It will mean access will be via Carpenters Road and not through the shopping centre.
West Ham are actually costing tax payers money as we and everybody is are discovering they are full of hooligans and corrupt tax dodgers. Maybe we can kick them out! Have they knocked Upton Park down yet?
No going back now.
Despite what you think of West Ham (& I don't think a lot) it's heartbreaking to see a traditional, famous old ground like that.
Both Vodafone and West Ham have confirmed the decision is in no way connected with the HMRC investigation into some of the club’s transfer dealings. It is understood that Vodafone’s decision was based solely on “commercial reasons”.
Ha ha, the old 'commercial reasons' bluff. How often to businesses make decisions that aren't for 'commercial reasons'? The big question is, what commercial reasons? Is it because they expect the ongoing investigations to blow up in their faces rendering any naming rights deal unprofitable or is it because the deal makes West Ham such a toxic brand in the eyes of the public that even arch tax dodgers like Vodaphone choose not to be associated with them?
Exactly.
Vodafone are no mugs when it comes to marketing. They only completed this deal a few months ago. Before completion they will have meticulously surveyed the PR landscape, presumably been reassured that the crowd trouble issue had been resolved, and spent a lot of time planning to leverage the positive aspects they could discern. A lot of smart senior people will have worked to argue that case internally, and then spent a lot of time negotiating the actual deal. And then within 3-4 months they pull out. The reason has to be something new that these bright sparks didn't foresee when they did all that work, otherwise they are not so bright, are they? So what's new? Oh.....
West Ham are actually costing tax payers money as we and everybody is are discovering they are full of hooligans and corrupt tax dodgers. Maybe we can kick them out! Have they knocked Upton Park down yet?
No going back now.
Despite what you think of West Ham (& I don't think a lot) it's heartbreaking to see a traditional, famous old ground like that.
Especially as it's one of our former grounds, albeit very different when we were there
Comments
. (a) Friendly Matches;
. (b) Youth Matches; and
. (c) Pre-Season Tournaments,
20.18 If there is a dispute in relation to any amount payable, the Concessionaire shall pay the amount not in dispute, and any further amount due (if any) shall be paid within five Business Days of agreement or determination of the amount due in accordance with Clause 50 (Expert Determination)
Quoting a freedom of information response from the Met Police the BBC say the cost of policing the Boleyn Ground between August-October 2015 was £108,387. In contrast the same period August-October 2016 in the London Stadium has soared to £381,741.
Focusing just on the month of October the BBC claimed it cost just £25,105 to police at the Boleyn Ground in 2015 but this rose to £238,021 in October 2016 at the London Stadium although they later admitted it wasn’t a fair comparison after saying West Ham played just one game at home in 2015 compared to 3 home games in October last year.
London Assembly member Andrew Dismore told the BBC “It’s this ridiculous sweet heart deal they have got already when no matter how many police officers are called to deal with a West Ham game they simply pay the same. If you think about the last West Ham v Chelsea game, they had 520 police officers on duty, that’s equivalent of an entire London borough both on and off duty. That can’t be right!”
Chim chimney chim chimney....
Under its lease to use London Stadium, the club is entitled to 40pc of E20 Stadium’s naming rights revenue over £4m per year. If West Ham are relegated from the Premier League its share will drop to 35pc
If it is £20m for 6 years, there is a serious problem as they have 4.5m pa written into their budget, wherea sthis would average only £3.3m. And then there is the unresolved matter of the £8m per year to take out and put back the seats. Who will make up the shortfall? Altogether now:"Y....
The latest on the campaign is that we are pushing for a personal meeting with the company charged by the Mayor with the investigation, which was recently announced as Moore Stephens. They are a sober decent 2nd division accountancy outfit, a division cheaper than Deloittes, PwC etc, whom you pay for on behalf of the LLDC. If they talk to us we will save them a lot of fee hours by leading them straight to the key financial issues.
Ha ha, the old 'commercial reasons' bluff. How often to businesses make decisions that aren't for 'commercial reasons'? The big question is, what commercial reasons? Is it because they expect the ongoing investigations to blow up in their faces rendering any naming rights deal unprofitable or is it because the deal makes West Ham such a toxic brand in the eyes of the public that even arch tax dodgers like Vodaphone choose not to be associated with them?
Vodafone are no mugs when it comes to marketing. They only completed this deal a few months ago. Before completion they will have meticulously surveyed the PR landscape, presumably been reassured that the crowd trouble issue had been resolved, and spent a lot of time planning to leverage the positive aspects they could discern. A lot of smart senior people will have worked to argue that case internally, and then spent a lot of time negotiating the actual deal. And then within 3-4 months they pull out. The reason has to be something new that these bright sparks didn't foresee when they did all that work, otherwise they are not so bright, are they? So what's new? Oh.....