Imagine if it was handed to Orient at a low rent, to share with Athletics and full flexibility for concerts and events outside of matchdays. Good job we have such excellent politicians preventing that white elephant...
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?
That's an interesting question. I can't pretend to know the thing inside out, it is 200 pages. However nowhere do I recall that the contract stipulates a minimum capacity related to WHU rental. On the other hand neither does it say that WHU must pay for cost of seats which are retracted. When the thing was written by all those bigshots, they all apparently understood that the cost of the retracting seats was about £300,000 a go. If the LLDC said, "actually it is £8m and you lot should pay" the Baroness would be putting in yet another call to their lawyers. She does that a lot. The LLDC are not the bravest at the best of times (apparently Goldstone is leaving at the end of the year) so you could not expect them to take that stance.
Gareth Bacon surprised me. He has ignored our email which presented him with E20s dismal P&L projections. However he was obviously referring to it when he talked about figures "being bandied about". Goldstone basically confirmed them, and now it's all on the record. No naming rights fees, and a horrendous cost ( more than our own model allowed for) of seating removal. If I was being generous to Bacon I would say that was quite a subtle way of satisfying himself that we had not plucked the figures out of thin air. It will be interesting to see if he now replies to us.
I will post more thoughts later, and would be interested to get the takeout of others who view the proceedings.
I only saw the summary on the BBC news at 1.20ish. My impression was they are saying it will make money in the long run (?), they said it costs £8m to move the seats but they are going to halve that (how ?), and there was a claim that it’s been the most successful one (if the Olympics) - didn’t explain what, how on the news summary.
I only saw the summary on the BBC news at 1.20ish. My impression was they are saying it will make money in the long run (?), they said it costs £8m to move the seats but they are going to halve that (how ?), and there was a claim that it’s been the most successful one (if the Olympics) - didn’t explain what, how on the news summary.
Well it appears that they are exploring some way of moving different parts of the seating areas rather than moving the whole lot in every stand, but at the same time they are also looking at ways to reduce the £4m figure even further. It's not abundantly clear from even watching the meeting in progress.
Gareth Bacon surprised me. He has ignored our email which presented him with E20s dismal P&L projections. However he was obviously referring to it when he talked about figures "being bandied about". Goldstone basically confirmed them, and now it's all on the record. No naming rights fees, and a horrendous cost ( more than our own model allowed for) of seating removal. If I was being generous to Bacon I would say that was quite a subtle way of satisfying himself that we had not plucked the figures out of thin air. It will be interesting to see if he now replies to us.
I will post more thoughts later, and would be interested to get the takeout of others who view the proceedings.
To me Gareth Bacon definitely seemed to asking questions to confirm information that he had already received. He didn't seem very surprised with the answers he received and certainly didn't push his points too vigorously.
The puzzling and potentially worrying thing was Goldstone's several references to restructuring of the ownership of the stadium. When pressed on it, he referred to : LLDC and Newham jointly own E20; which hires Vinci to run the stadium; but with whom (E20) West Ham have the contract directly. Whereas Vinci are supposed to seek other customers of the stadium within the constraints of the West Ham contract. Yes, that is messy. However we need to keep a very beady eye on how they propose to make it less so. Any proposal which involves the answer "West Ham" is unacceptable unless the words "pay more" follow.
The other thing Goldstone was vague on was why they have stopped looking for a Naming Rights sponsor. He had in fact two different excuses: One, the Moore Stephens enquiry, and two, the implication that the financial structure (as above) somehow inhibits interest. He contradicted himself on the latter by claiming that the successful athletics had prompted several new enquiries from potential sponsors.
It's typical Goldstone. Superficially plausible if people are not particularly interested, just like his reasons for not releasing the contract. But as with that issue, if you stop and think about it with a cold business eye, you think "hang on, what?" The stadium isn't going anywhere. Neither are West Ham, who have no right to veto any sponsor or what the sponsor does with the stadium, so long as West Ham's own rights to deck the place out are maintained. So what's the issue? The contract would be with E20. Now one answer would be, E20 might be going bust. Well quite. And one of the two main reasons (the other being the seating) is that there is no naming rights revenue!!! Idiots!! If that is really the reason, we will be looking to get that out in the open, asap.
I am not liking that post, although no criticism of the poster intended.
This is another highly suspicious move by Gareth Bacon. The Inquiry is due to publish in a few days, and doubtless will have seen the accounts he is calling for, so what does he hope to gain?. Anyway, the 2016-17 accounts only show what happened last year, whereas the figures we sent him model the situation up to 2026. And he knows the figures are robust, because he obliquely asked Goldstone about them at the last plenary, and received verification. Yet he has not responded to us.
So what's his game. Any thoughts? I have various possibilities in my head, none of them good. But above all I have in mind that he is one of Johnson's faithful lapdogs.
I was very keen to go after Bacon in public over this, but more politically experienced colleagues held me back. We are at the GLA on 8th December meeting at minimum Caroline Pidgeon, so we might learn more by operating under the radar.
"The assembly needs to do its job of scrutinising the issues that matter to London, unhindered.”
A shame that Mr Bacon and his mate Boris weren't so conscientious in their scrutinising of the WHam deal!! That's an issue that really matters to all of us.
The accounts are due to be with Companies House by 1 January, so I would assume that Moore Stephens will have seen them, even if not yet signed off by EY (if they're still auditor), as part of their investigation.
"The assembly needs to do its job of scrutinising the issues that matter to London, unhindered.”
A shame that Mr Bacon and his mate Boris weren't so conscientious in their scrutinising of the WHam deal!! That's an issue that really matters to all of us.
The accounts are due to be with Companies House by 1 January, so I would assume that Moore Stephens will have seen them, even if not yet signed off by EY (if they're still auditor), as part of their investigation.
I'm guessing that they'd like to be seeing more than the minimalist, bare bones statutory accounts that end up with The Registrar of Companies. The full, unexpurgated management accounts in all their glory would seem apposite.
"The assembly needs to do its job of scrutinising the issues that matter to London, unhindered.”
A shame that Mr Bacon and his mate Boris weren't so conscientious in their scrutinising of the WHam deal!! That's an issue that really matters to all of us.
The accounts are due to be with Companies House by 1 January, so I would assume that Moore Stephens will have seen them, even if not yet signed off by EY (if they're still auditor), as part of their investigation.
I'm guessing that they'd like to be seeing more than the minimalist, bare bones statutory accounts that end up with The Registrar of Companies. The full, unexpurgated management accounts in all their glory would seem apposite.
Agreed. And as the LLDC is a mayoral body, I can't see how they don't have them presented to them every month anyway.
"The assembly needs to do its job of scrutinising the issues that matter to London, unhindered.”
A shame that Mr Bacon and his mate Boris weren't so conscientious in their scrutinising of the WHam deal!! That's an issue that really matters to all of us.
The accounts are due to be with Companies House by 1 January, so I would assume that Moore Stephens will have seen them, even if not yet signed off by EY (if they're still auditor), as part of their investigation.
I'm guessing that they'd like to be seeing more than the minimalist, bare bones statutory accounts that end up with The Registrar of Companies. The full, unexpurgated management accounts in all their glory would seem apposite.
Agreed. And as the LLDC is a mayoral body, I can't see how they don't have them presented to them every month anyway.
Exactly. Mayoral body and 65% shareholder in E20.
Kevin Rye thinks Bacon is just trying to look as he is in charge of the scrutiny, but I am afraid it's a bit more than that. We have now written to Andrew Boff, the Tory who has regularly spoken out about the deal and supposedly is not a Boris fanboy. If he doesn't respond then we may conclude that the Tories are more concerned with attacking Khan than with safeguarding taxpayers' money.
Gareth Bacon " represents" Bexleyheath, BTW, on the Assembly..
At first sight looks like, after three years of campaigning, the Olympic Stadium Coalition's key goal, a thorough enquiry into the whole shoddy deal, has been achieved.
A most satisfactory state of affairs, as John Major would say.
So the next step is to rip up the current deal and line up a new contract, one which has Wet Spam paying their way?
Well, you can imagine that "ripping up" a deal signed by Baronness Brady is not for the faint-hearted. However we do have a "workaround", which we will be presenting at City Hall next week...
The report quotes "relocatable seating which now represent the largest annual expense to E20. These costs are in excess of £10m per annum, which is over 300 times greater than the figure budgeted (of £300k). This cost is not just limited to one year, but is an ongoing issue as the movement of seats is required every year, and this level of operating cost is not expected to be reduced without a new solution for seating being implemented, at considerable additional capital expense."
This is obviously one area where money needs to be saved but if you continue to having retractable seating then its still going to cost a bloody fortune.
Along with a cock up in naming rights and as "Moore Stephen says " a result of underestimating the Stadium operating costs whilst occupied by WHU and partly because LLDC over estimated its other income sources, LLDC’s approach to the negotiations led to rent and usage fees below the level required to cover costs.
However, in our opinion, the decision to transform the Stadium and to contract with WHU was made on incorrect financial estimates and an insufficient appreciation of the critical commercial and financial risks. It is our opinion that the financial estimates were incorrect not because they were estimates, but because there were errors in their calculation, compilation and presentation."
West Ham could well solve the retractable seating issue themselves. If they go down then there will be absolutely no need for the additional capacity that the retractable seats provide.
West Ham could well solve the retractable seating issue themselves. If they go down then there will be absolutely no need for the additional capacity that the retractable seats provide.
I know you mean that as a joke, but I've saved that for next week's meet :-)
The stadium was originally built with a 25k permanent seating deck, and 55k of temporary seating above, which was to be removed after the Olympics, leaving a 25k athletics track
Because of this, the lower deck isn't movable seating, and instead we have this fudge where a new seating deck is installed in from of the existing lower deck seating to bring it forward over the running track. This was done for the 2015 Rugby WC, and I distinctly remember at the time that this was a temporary fix, and that a different solution would be used for West Ham a year later...except that by all accounts, a similar solution is being used which is very expensive and takes ages to install.
Well, you can imagine that "ripping up" a deal signed by Baronness Brady is not for the faint-hearted. However we do have a "workaround", which we will be presenting at City Hall next week...
Instead of offering a workaround, surely you mean asking West ham to offer a reacharound?
And State Aid....really? how many times is that one going to tried?
Well, you can imagine that "ripping up" a deal signed by Baronness Brady is not for the faint-hearted. However we do have a "workaround", which we will be presenting at City Hall next week...
Instead of offering a workaround, surely you mean asking West ham to offer a reacharound?
And State Aid....really? how many times is that one going to tried?
Comments
Gareth Bacon surprised me. He has ignored our email which presented him with E20s dismal P&L projections. However he was obviously referring to it when he talked about figures "being bandied about". Goldstone basically confirmed them, and now it's all on the record. No naming rights fees, and a horrendous cost ( more than our own model allowed for) of seating removal. If I was being generous to Bacon I would say that was quite a subtle way of satisfying himself that we had not plucked the figures out of thin air. It will be interesting to see if he now replies to us.
I will post more thoughts later, and would be interested to get the takeout of others who view the proceedings.
The other thing Goldstone was vague on was why they have stopped looking for a Naming Rights sponsor. He had in fact two different excuses: One, the Moore Stephens enquiry, and two, the implication that the financial structure (as above) somehow inhibits interest. He contradicted himself on the latter by claiming that the successful athletics had prompted several new enquiries from potential sponsors.
It's typical Goldstone. Superficially plausible if people are not particularly interested, just like his reasons for not releasing the contract. But as with that issue, if you stop and think about it with a cold business eye, you think "hang on, what?" The stadium isn't going anywhere. Neither are West Ham, who have no right to veto any sponsor or what the sponsor does with the stadium, so long as West Ham's own rights to deck the place out are maintained. So what's the issue? The contract would be with E20. Now one answer would be, E20 might be going bust. Well quite. And one of the two main reasons (the other being the seating) is that there is no naming rights revenue!!! Idiots!! If that is really the reason, we will be looking to get that out in the open, asap.
This is another highly suspicious move by Gareth Bacon. The Inquiry is due to publish in a few days, and doubtless will have seen the accounts he is calling for, so what does he hope to gain?. Anyway, the 2016-17 accounts only show what happened last year, whereas the figures we sent him model the situation up to 2026. And he knows the figures are robust, because he obliquely asked Goldstone about them at the last plenary, and received verification. Yet he has not responded to us.
So what's his game. Any thoughts? I have various possibilities in my head, none of them good. But above all I have in mind that he is one of Johnson's faithful lapdogs.
I was very keen to go after Bacon in public over this, but more politically experienced colleagues held me back. We are at the GLA on 8th December meeting at minimum Caroline Pidgeon, so we might learn more by operating under the radar.
"The assembly needs to do its job of scrutinising the issues that matter to London, unhindered.”
A shame that Mr Bacon and his mate Boris weren't so conscientious in their scrutinising of the WHam deal!! That's an issue that really matters to all of us.
The accounts are due to be with Companies House by 1 January, so I would assume that Moore Stephens will have seen them, even if not yet signed off by EY (if they're still auditor), as part of their investigation.
Kevin Rye thinks Bacon is just trying to look as he is in charge of the scrutiny, but I am afraid it's a bit more than that. We have now written to Andrew Boff, the Tory who has regularly spoken out about the deal and supposedly is not a Boris fanboy. If he doesn't respond then we may conclude that the Tories are more concerned with attacking Khan than with safeguarding taxpayers' money.
Gareth Bacon " represents" Bexleyheath, BTW, on the Assembly..
A most satisfactory state of affairs, as John Major would say.
But this is just the end of the beginning....
This is obviously one area where money needs to be saved but if you continue to having retractable seating then its still going to cost a bloody fortune.
Along with a cock up in naming rights and as "Moore Stephen says " a result of underestimating the Stadium operating costs whilst occupied by WHU and partly because LLDC over estimated its other income sources, LLDC’s approach to the negotiations led to rent and usage fees below the level required to cover costs.
However, in our opinion, the decision to transform the Stadium and to contract with WHU was made on incorrect financial estimates and an insufficient appreciation of the critical commercial and financial risks. It is our opinion that the financial estimates were incorrect not because they were estimates, but because there were errors in their calculation, compilation and presentation."
Boris Johnson has a lot to answer for.
Because of this, the lower deck isn't movable seating, and instead we have this fudge where a new seating deck is installed in from of the existing lower deck seating to bring it forward over the running track. This was done for the 2015 Rugby WC, and I distinctly remember at the time that this was a temporary fix, and that a different solution would be used for West Ham a year later...except that by all accounts, a similar solution is being used which is very expensive and takes ages to install.
And the taxpayer paid for all of this.
And State Aid....really? how many times is that one going to tried?