If they say no, kick them out and make it a permanent athletics arena, and convince the Jacksonville Jaguars to move here permanently, with the London Stadium as their home
And this is the point. The NFL has the power, will, and money to use this stadium as the home for a London NFL franchise.
Converting it back to a running track? No problem, as the NFL season finishes in February...
I think the new WHL is destined to host the first London NFL franchise.
If they say no, kick them out and make it a permanent athletics arena, and convince the Jacksonville Jaguars to move here permanently, with the London Stadium as their home
And this is the point. The NFL has the power, will, and money to use this stadium as the home for a London NFL franchise.
Converting it back to a running track? No problem, as the NFL season finishes in February...
I think the new WHL is destined to host the first London NFL franchise.
The London Bagels...or similar.
The NFL have helped fund the new WHL so when a team moves over that is going to be their home.
I suppose the next question is what actually happens if the stadium goes into administration and is sold to another company?
Do the new owners have to honour the contract with West Ham? If the stadium were kept permanently in "athletics" configuration and used for athletics, concerts etc. it would probably be able to make a small operating profit.
Without an unpopular sitting tenant, it might even attract a modest fee for naming rights!
This seems the best solution for the tax payer but I have no idea if it is legally possible?
I posted a while ago pointing out there are no provisions in the contract that affect West Ham's rights to continue using the stadium if E20 become insolvent. It simply says the contract becomes unenforceable - it means the rights to collect rent from West Ham cease to be transferable to anyone. It means West Ham don't have any obligations to pay rent to anyone. It means West Ham become squatters. No-one has any authority to evict West Ham unless there is a Court Order, and who can claim any enforceable rights to evict if no breach of contract has occurred and who stands to make any financial gain by going to the Courts to acquire a poison chalice.
The stadium has the same value as a house with a sitting tenant with a 100 year tenancy agreement. Usually a sitting tenant pays a rent that covers the cost of maintaining the house so the property has a value based on the discounted value of the rental stream above costs. If the house costs £5,000 a year to maintain and the rent is £500 a year the landlord would pay the sitting tenant to take on the property's title . Ownership of the poison chalice would be offloaded by whoever inherits the insolvent landlord's obligations, to the only party for whom it has value - the sitting tenant.
Problem solved, end game concluded as the Brady anticipated all along - West Ham get a stadium they never had to pay for and the tax payer stops paying West Ham to play football.
By having a termination clause of such vagueness, which would bring a law firm into disrepute if it were not intended to have the effect it delivers, it must have been agreed by both parties. It serves the interests of both West Ham and the taxpayer and gets the politicians all off the hook. You could even say it was a brilliant piece of planning to make it all look like an accident, where no one is injured and only the skeletons are buried.
No wonder they didn't want the contract ever released in the public domain.
If they say no, kick them out and make it a permanent athletics arena, and convince the Jacksonville Jaguars to move here permanently, with the London Stadium as their home
And this is the point. The NFL has the power, will, and money to use this stadium as the home for a London NFL franchise.
Converting it back to a running track? No problem, as the NFL season finishes in February...
Erm...would that be the same NFL that are pumping something like the tune of £100-150m into the new WHL?
I suppose the next question is what actually happens if the stadium goes into administration and is sold to another company?
Do the new owners have to honour the contract with West Ham? If the stadium were kept permanently in "athletics" configuration and used for athletics, concerts etc. it would probably be able to make a small operating profit.
Without an unpopular sitting tenant, it might even attract a modest fee for naming rights!
This seems the best solution for the tax payer but I have no idea if it is legally possible?
I posted a while ago pointing out there are no provisions in the contract that affect West Ham's rights to continue using the stadium if E20 become insolvent. It simply says the contract becomes unenforceable - it means the rights to collect rent from West Ham cease to be transferable to anyone. It means West Ham don't have any obligations to pay rent to anyone. It means West Ham become squatters. No-one has any authority to evict West Ham unless there is a Court Order, and who can claim any enforceable rights to evict if no breach of contract has occurred and who stands to make any financial gain by going to the Courts to acquire a poison chalice.
The stadium has the same value as a house with a sitting tenant with a 100 year tenancy agreement. Usually a sitting tenant pays a rent that covers the cost of maintaining the house so the property has a value based on the discounted value of the rental stream above costs. If the house costs £5,000 a year to maintain and the rent is £500 a year the landlord would pay the sitting tenant to take on the property's title . Ownership of the poison chalice would be offloaded by whoever inherits the insolvent landlord's obligations, to the only party for whom it has value - the sitting tenant.
Problem solved, end game concluded as the Brady anticipated all along - West Ham get a stadium they never had to pay for and the tax payer stops paying West Ham to play football.
By having a termination clause of such vagueness, which would bring a law firm into disrepute if it were not intended to have the effect it delivers, it must have been agreed by both parties. It serves the interests of both West Ham and the taxpayer and gets the politicians all off the hook. You could even say it was a brilliant piece of planning to make it all look like an accident, where no one is injured and only the skeletons are buried.
No wonder they didn't want the contract ever released in the public domain.
What about policing? If the company goes bust the police won't get paid or let games go ahead without a police presence, can west ham, whilst technically squatting, just pick up the police bill?
I honestly have no idea how that works, is it a contract with the police or game by game invoicing for the costs?
Working with law firms for the last 25 years, I would suggest that whoever acted for LLDC - from memory, Allen & Overy LLP I think - should be reviewing their work and looking very closely at their Professional Indemnity Insurance.
If they have not covered the possibility of the landlord ceasing to exist and how that should be dealt with, then they have failed a duty of care to their client.
I suppose the next question is what actually happens if the stadium goes into administration and is sold to another company?
Do the new owners have to honour the contract with West Ham? If the stadium were kept permanently in "athletics" configuration and used for athletics, concerts etc. it would probably be able to make a small operating profit.
Without an unpopular sitting tenant, it might even attract a modest fee for naming rights!
This seems the best solution for the tax payer but I have no idea if it is legally possible?
I posted a while ago pointing out there are no provisions in the contract that affect West Ham's rights to continue using the stadium if E20 become insolvent. It simply says the contract becomes unenforceable - it means the rights to collect rent from West Ham cease to be transferable to anyone. It means West Ham don't have any obligations to pay rent to anyone. It means West Ham become squatters. No-one has any authority to evict West Ham unless there is a Court Order, and who can claim any enforceable rights to evict if no breach of contract has occurred and who stands to make any financial gain by going to the Courts to acquire a poison chalice.
The stadium has the same value as a house with a sitting tenant with a 100 year tenancy agreement. Usually a sitting tenant pays a rent that covers the cost of maintaining the house so the property has a value based on the discounted value of the rental stream above costs. If the house costs £5,000 a year to maintain and the rent is £500 a year the landlord would pay the sitting tenant to take on the property's title . Ownership of the poison chalice would be offloaded by whoever inherits the insolvent landlord's obligations, to the only party for whom it has value - the sitting tenant.
Problem solved, end game concluded as the Brady anticipated all along - West Ham get a stadium they never had to pay for and the tax payer stops paying West Ham to play football.
By having a termination clause of such vagueness, which would bring a law firm into disrepute if it were not intended to have the effect it delivers, it must have been agreed by both parties. It serves the interests of both West Ham and the taxpayer and gets the politicians all off the hook. You could even say it was a brilliant piece of planning to make it all look like an accident, where no one is injured and only the skeletons are buried.
No wonder they didn't want the contract ever released in the public domain.
What about policing? If the company goes bust the police won't get paid or let games go ahead without a police presence, can west ham, whilst technically squatting, just pick up the police bill?
I honestly have no idea how that works, is it a contract with the police or game by game invoicing for the costs?
They won't be able to play there, as the grass won't be cut.
I suppose the next question is what actually happens if the stadium goes into administration and is sold to another company?
Do the new owners have to honour the contract with West Ham? If the stadium were kept permanently in "athletics" configuration and used for athletics, concerts etc. it would probably be able to make a small operating profit.
Without an unpopular sitting tenant, it might even attract a modest fee for naming rights!
This seems the best solution for the tax payer but I have no idea if it is legally possible?
I posted a while ago pointing out there are no provisions in the contract that affect West Ham's rights to continue using the stadium if E20 become insolvent. It simply says the contract becomes unenforceable - it means the rights to collect rent from West Ham cease to be transferable to anyone. It means West Ham don't have any obligations to pay rent to anyone. It means West Ham become squatters. No-one has any authority to evict West Ham unless there is a Court Order, and who can claim any enforceable rights to evict if no breach of contract has occurred and who stands to make any financial gain by going to the Courts to acquire a poison chalice.
The stadium has the same value as a house with a sitting tenant with a 100 year tenancy agreement. Usually a sitting tenant pays a rent that covers the cost of maintaining the house so the property has a value based on the discounted value of the rental stream above costs. If the house costs £5,000 a year to maintain and the rent is £500 a year the landlord would pay the sitting tenant to take on the property's title . Ownership of the poison chalice would be offloaded by whoever inherits the insolvent landlord's obligations, to the only party for whom it has value - the sitting tenant.
Problem solved, end game concluded as the Brady anticipated all along - West Ham get a stadium they never had to pay for and the tax payer stops paying West Ham to play football.
By having a termination clause of such vagueness, which would bring a law firm into disrepute if it were not intended to have the effect it delivers, it must have been agreed by both parties. It serves the interests of both West Ham and the taxpayer and gets the politicians all off the hook. You could even say it was a brilliant piece of planning to make it all look like an accident, where no one is injured and only the skeletons are buried.
No wonder they didn't want the contract ever released in the public domain.
What about policing? If the company goes bust the police won't get paid or let games go ahead without a police presence, can west ham, whilst technically squatting, just pick up the police bill?
I honestly have no idea how that works, is it a contract with the police or game by game invoicing for the costs?
They won't be able to play there, as the grass won't be cut.
Nor the turnstiles manned!
Nor the corner flags put out!
if it does happen, maybe it should be next summer when it is still in athletics configuration. It would cost Wham £8m to put it back in football mode!
I suppose the next question is what actually happens if the stadium goes into administration and is sold to another company?
Do the new owners have to honour the contract with West Ham? If the stadium were kept permanently in "athletics" configuration and used for athletics, concerts etc. it would probably be able to make a small operating profit.
Without an unpopular sitting tenant, it might even attract a modest fee for naming rights!
This seems the best solution for the tax payer but I have no idea if it is legally possible?
I posted a while ago pointing out there are no provisions in the contract that affect West Ham's rights to continue using the stadium if E20 become insolvent. It simply says the contract becomes unenforceable - it means the rights to collect rent from West Ham cease to be transferable to anyone. It means West Ham don't have any obligations to pay rent to anyone. It means West Ham become squatters. No-one has any authority to evict West Ham unless there is a Court Order, and who can claim any enforceable rights to evict if no breach of contract has occurred and who stands to make any financial gain by going to the Courts to acquire a poison chalice.
The stadium has the same value as a house with a sitting tenant with a 100 year tenancy agreement. Usually a sitting tenant pays a rent that covers the cost of maintaining the house so the property has a value based on the discounted value of the rental stream above costs. If the house costs £5,000 a year to maintain and the rent is £500 a year the landlord would pay the sitting tenant to take on the property's title . Ownership of the poison chalice would be offloaded by whoever inherits the insolvent landlord's obligations, to the only party for whom it has value - the sitting tenant.
Problem solved, end game concluded as the Brady anticipated all along - West Ham get a stadium they never had to pay for and the tax payer stops paying West Ham to play football.
By having a termination clause of such vagueness, which would bring a law firm into disrepute if it were not intended to have the effect it delivers, it must have been agreed by both parties. It serves the interests of both West Ham and the taxpayer and gets the politicians all off the hook. You could even say it was a brilliant piece of planning to make it all look like an accident, where no one is injured and only the skeletons are buried.
No wonder they didn't want the contract ever released in the public domain.
What about policing? If the company goes bust the police won't get paid or let games go ahead without a police presence, can west ham, whilst technically squatting, just pick up the police bill?
I honestly have no idea how that works, is it a contract with the police or game by game invoicing for the costs?
the approach to re-charging of police costs around games has changed dramatically in the last few years after two clubs challenged their policing bills in court. It now means that the police have to pay costs of policing at games from their own existing budgets unless clubs specifically ask them to police on land the clubs own. The clubs have instead opted to use private stewards.
In the case of West Ham the contract does say that the Stadium operator (Vinci) picks up the costs of policing on the Island Park, but I think there too they have been replaced by private stewards. I would need to check my facts on this, but overall there is very little policing cost West Ham would need to pick up if they were stadium owners.
From tonight's Standard...last 3 paragraphs highlight the joke that the LLDC are and the shambles they have caused. Best of luck at renegotiating that £2.5m annual rent with WHam!!
More pop concerts and major sports events are being lined up to be staged at the Olympic stadium in a bid to fend off its cash crisis.
Legacy chiefs are trying to replace Wembley Stadium as the capital’s premier outdoor music location in a series of initiatives to avoid further public money being used as a bail-out.
The London Legacy Development Corporation, the City Hall-run quango, has set aside £200 million in terms of potential future losses at the stadium if no action is taken.
Today, it was reported that E20 Stadium LLP, the joint venture set up by the LLDC and Newham council to be the stadium landlords, was at risk of going into administration. Stadium sources told the Standard that this was “premature” and an over-dramatic interpretation of the challenges and insisted they were doing everything possible to avoid requiring more taxpayer cash.
The venue, now called the London Stadium and home to West Ham football club, has already hosted AC/DC and Robbie Williams, with Foo Fighters announced for next summer.
A source said: “We are looking at how we can improve the commercial performance of the stadium by bringing in other events, in particular, events that make more profit.
“The stadium itself runs incredibly well and the World Athletics Championships this summer sold out. The issue is how do we drive the costs down and grow our revenue.”
A report commissioned by Mayor Sadiq Khan into why it cost £323 million to convert it for use as a football ground is due out next month, two months behind schedule.
Mr Khan has discussed the “blue sky thinking” idea of hosting baseball at the stadium, similar to how Wembley hosts American football.
The LLDC is also seeking to sell the naming rights for the stadium, which cost £429 million to build. A possible deal with Vodafone collapsed, but other “very significant brands” have made contact.
Action is also being taken to slash the £8 million annual cost of moving the seats every summer to enable the stadium to be used for athletics.
In addition, the LLDC is seeking to renegotiate the £2.5 million-a-year, 99-year lease with West Ham.
LLDC chief executive David Goldstone told a London Assembly investigation into the stadium’s finances: “If we don’t fix it, then long term we will be looking at very significant accumulated losses.
I believe he also lives on my other cyber indulgance skyscrapercity.com (unless its another gavros with claret n blue tendancies).
I take an irrational and pointless pleasure of correcting mentions in his posts about "the London Stadium" with "the Taxpayers Stadium". Silly i know but hey, small minds best pleased etc...
I suppose the next question is what actually happens if the stadium goes into administration and is sold to another company?
Do the new owners have to honour the contract with West Ham? If the stadium were kept permanently in "athletics" configuration and used for athletics, concerts etc. it would probably be able to make a small operating profit.
Without an unpopular sitting tenant, it might even attract a modest fee for naming rights!
This seems the best solution for the tax payer but I have no idea if it is legally possible?
I posted a while ago pointing out there are no provisions in the contract that affect West Ham's rights to continue using the stadium if E20 become insolvent. It simply says the contract becomes unenforceable - it means the rights to collect rent from West Ham cease to be transferable to anyone. It means West Ham don't have any obligations to pay rent to anyone. It means West Ham become squatters. No-one has any authority to evict West Ham unless there is a Court Order, and who can claim any enforceable rights to evict if no breach of contract has occurred and who stands to make any financial gain by going to the Courts to acquire a poison chalice.
The stadium has the same value as a house with a sitting tenant with a 100 year tenancy agreement. Usually a sitting tenant pays a rent that covers the cost of maintaining the house so the property has a value based on the discounted value of the rental stream above costs. If the house costs £5,000 a year to maintain and the rent is £500 a year the landlord would pay the sitting tenant to take on the property's title . Ownership of the poison chalice would be offloaded by whoever inherits the insolvent landlord's obligations, to the only party for whom it has value - the sitting tenant.
Problem solved, end game concluded as the Brady anticipated all along - West Ham get a stadium they never had to pay for and the tax payer stops paying West Ham to play football.
By having a termination clause of such vagueness, which would bring a law firm into disrepute if it were not intended to have the effect it delivers, it must have been agreed by both parties. It serves the interests of both West Ham and the taxpayer and gets the politicians all off the hook. You could even say it was a brilliant piece of planning to make it all look like an accident, where no one is injured and only the skeletons are buried.
No wonder they didn't want the contract ever released in the public domain.
What about policing? If the company goes bust the police won't get paid or let games go ahead without a police presence, can west ham, whilst technically squatting, just pick up the police bill?
I honestly have no idea how that works, is it a contract with the police or game by game invoicing for the costs?
They won't be able to play there, as the grass won't be cut.
Nor the turnstiles manned!
Nor the corner flags put out!
if it does happen, maybe it should be next summer when it is still in athletics configuration. It would cost Wham £8m to put it back in football mode!
Well this article is highly suspicious. The chances of coincidence that this appears 48 hours after our detailed email to -only - GLA members Bacon and Pidgeon, is about as high as that of those shysters winning the FAPL this season. There is no way that article was written without a detailed knowledge of what we have written (although he probably didn't get the full thing, as he doesn't mention our specific figures)
Why exactly it should be leaked, by whom, and with what motivation, is less clear, and we are urgently trying to find out. After all, if this appeared as a result of our own press briefing, I guess we would not be disappointed with it, other than that we get no credit for the info.
What do you all think about it as an article in the context of our cause? And if, as I currently suspect, it was leaked by Bacon, a notable Johnson acolyte, what is his goal in doing so?
Thoughts welcome...
I wouldn't underestimate the instance of coincidence Prague. Who would of thought that yourself, one of the major protaganists against WH and LDDC, would find key documents on an adjacent seat of the Heathrow Express, on one of only 30 days you spend in the UK. Good work though!
I had a look at KUMB last night, after seeing that Gavros had re-surfaced. Some of them are actually quite chipper about an article that suggests E20 is heading for administration. That is because in their own Hamster-like way, a few of them have realised what @Dippenhall posts so concisely further up this page. They think they are going to get the Stadium for free to 'save taxpayers' money'. And I am starting to think that politicians like Gareth Bacon may be actively working towards this.
I had a look at KUMB last night, after seeing that Gavros had re-surfaced. Some of them are actually quite chipper about an article that suggests E20 is heading for administration. That is because in their own Hamster-like way, a few of them have realised what @Dippenhall posts so concisely further up this page. They think they are going to get the Stadium for free to 'save taxpayers' money'. And I am starting to think that politicians like Gareth Bacon may be actively working towards this.
Some people, one day, have to be publicly exposed for this travesty.
I had a look at KUMB last night, after seeing that Gavros had re-surfaced. Some of them are actually quite chipper about an article that suggests E20 is heading for administration. That is because in their own Hamster-like way, a few of them have realised what @Dippenhall posts so concisely further up this page. They think they are going to get the Stadium for free to 'save taxpayers' money'. And I am starting to think that politicians like Gareth Bacon may be actively working towards this.
That stadium could be West Ham’s Trojan Horse if it was ‘gifted’ to them and they have to start putting their hands in their pockets to pay for the running and upkeep. As long as they are not given title to the land on which it stands I’d happily let them have it. I’d still want to see a full public enquiry into how we got to this stage though. If there was wrongdoing then people need to be brought to account. If it was just a cock up then lessons need to be learned so they are not repeated.
Prague you obviously know the contract inside out. Are the LDDC obliged to return the retractable seats at their cost or can they refuse to do so unless WH pay to do so?
Comments
The London Bagels...or similar.
The stadium has the same value as a house with a sitting tenant with a 100 year tenancy agreement. Usually a sitting tenant pays a rent that covers the cost of maintaining the house so the property has a value based on the discounted value of the rental stream above costs. If the house costs £5,000 a year to maintain and the rent is £500 a year the landlord would pay the sitting tenant to take on the property's title . Ownership of the poison chalice would be offloaded by whoever inherits the insolvent landlord's obligations, to the only party for whom it has value - the sitting tenant.
Problem solved, end game concluded as the Brady anticipated all along - West Ham get a stadium they never had to pay for and the tax payer stops paying West Ham to play football.
By having a termination clause of such vagueness, which would bring a law firm into disrepute if it were not intended to have the effect it delivers, it must have been agreed by both parties. It serves the interests of both West Ham and the taxpayer and gets the politicians all off the hook. You could even say it was a brilliant piece of planning to make it all look like an accident, where no one is injured and only the skeletons are buried.
No wonder they didn't want the contract ever released in the public domain.
Erm...would that be the same NFL that are pumping something like the tune of £100-150m into the new WHL?
Oh...
http://new-stadium.tottenhamhotspur.com/nfl/
I honestly have no idea how that works, is it a contract with the police or game by game invoicing for the costs?
Working with law firms for the last 25 years, I would suggest that whoever acted for LLDC - from memory, Allen & Overy LLP I think - should be reviewing their work and looking very closely at their Professional Indemnity Insurance.
If they have not covered the possibility of the landlord ceasing to exist and how that should be dealt with, then they have failed a duty of care to their client.
Keep going at 'em @PragueAddick, you've gotta get a result eventually.
Nor the corner flags put out!
if it does happen, maybe it should be next summer when it is still in athletics configuration. It would cost Wham £8m to put it back in football mode!
In the case of West Ham the contract does say that the Stadium operator (Vinci) picks up the costs of policing on the Island Park, but I think there too they have been replaced by private stewards. I would need to check my facts on this, but overall there is very little policing cost West Ham would need to pick up if they were stadium owners.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/olympic-stadium-will-compete-with-wembley-for-gigs-to-beat-cash-crisis-a3668596.html
More pop concerts and major sports events are being lined up to be staged at the Olympic stadium in a bid to fend off its cash crisis.
Legacy chiefs are trying to replace Wembley Stadium as the capital’s premier outdoor music location in a series of initiatives to avoid further public money being used as a bail-out.
The London Legacy Development Corporation, the City Hall-run quango, has set aside £200 million in terms of potential future losses at the stadium if no action is taken.
Today, it was reported that E20 Stadium LLP, the joint venture set up by the LLDC and Newham council to be the stadium landlords, was at risk of going into administration. Stadium sources told the Standard that this was “premature” and an over-dramatic interpretation of the challenges and insisted they were doing everything possible to avoid requiring more taxpayer cash.
The venue, now called the London Stadium and home to West Ham football club, has already hosted AC/DC and Robbie Williams, with Foo Fighters announced for next summer.
A source said: “We are looking at how we can improve the commercial performance of the stadium by bringing in other events, in particular, events that make more profit.
“The stadium itself runs incredibly well and the World Athletics Championships this summer sold out. The issue is how do we drive the costs down and grow our revenue.”
A report commissioned by Mayor Sadiq Khan into why it cost £323 million to convert it for use as a football ground is due out next month, two months behind schedule.
Mr Khan has discussed the “blue sky thinking” idea of hosting baseball at the stadium, similar to how Wembley hosts American football.
The LLDC is also seeking to sell the naming rights for the stadium, which cost £429 million to build. A possible deal with Vodafone collapsed, but other “very significant brands” have made contact.
Action is also being taken to slash the £8 million annual cost of moving the seats every summer to enable the stadium to be used for athletics.
In addition, the LLDC is seeking to renegotiate the £2.5 million-a-year, 99-year lease with West Ham.
LLDC chief executive David Goldstone told a London Assembly investigation into the stadium’s finances: “If we don’t fix it, then long term we will be looking at very significant accumulated losses.
We are now clear that the Sun report was organised by Bacon, who will be fried.
I take an irrational and pointless pleasure of correcting mentions in his posts about "the London Stadium" with "the Taxpayers Stadium". Silly i know but hey, small minds best pleased etc...
Well this article is highly suspicious. The chances of coincidence that this appears 48 hours after our detailed email to -only - GLA members Bacon and Pidgeon, is about as high as that of those shysters winning the FAPL this season. There is no way that article was written without a detailed knowledge of what we have written (although he probably didn't get the full thing, as he doesn't mention our specific figures)
Why exactly it should be leaked, by whom, and with what motivation, is less clear, and we are urgently trying to find out. After all, if this appeared as a result of our own press briefing, I guess we would not be disappointed with it, other than that we get no credit for the info.
What do you all think about it as an article in the context of our cause? And if, as I currently suspect, it was leaked by Bacon, a notable Johnson acolyte, what is his goal in doing so?
Thoughts welcome...
I wouldn't underestimate the instance of coincidence Prague. Who would of thought that yourself, one of the major protaganists against WH and LDDC, would find key documents on an adjacent seat of the Heathrow Express, on one of only 30 days you spend in the UK. Good work though!
Can you tell us a little about the new naming sponsor that's brought in millions, like you told us would happen.
Keep up the good work.
As for buying the stadium, sure. How much is the government going to pay us to take on the liability?