"But leading sponsorship adviser Tim Crow, who has been involved in numerous stadium rights deals, said more non-football events needed to be staged at the venue."
Can't happen for 9 months of the year though, that's the issue.
If West Ham paid an extra £5M a year as "naming sponsor", they could call it the "New Boleyn" or something.
Most people would be happy they were paying a reasonable 'rent' and let them paint the place Claret and Blue and make it their "home".
Everything would settle down a bit and - who knows - it might be possible to find a way to attract more events and sponsors and make a profit out of the f*ing place!
Research by global valuation advisor Duff & Phelps has suggested naming rights for the venue could fetch at least £4.8m annually.
What's West Ham's cut again?
Why should they be getting a cut?
I'm not saying they should, but they do.
Under the terms of their agreement with the LLDC, West Ham are entitled to 50 per cent of any stadium naming rights revenue after the first £4m-a-year.'
Research by global valuation advisor Duff & Phelps has suggested naming rights for the venue could fetch at least £4.8m annually.
What's West Ham's cut again?
From memory, 20% but only for amounts above £4m, which simply is not going to appear.
@stevexreeve suggestion above is actually a pragmatic solution which will probably be part of an eventual re-negotiated deal.
But the bigger loss making issue is the retractable seats. West Ham have to give up on their insistence on them. they never insisted on them in the first incarnation of the stadium where they were to own 50% with Newham. It only became terribly, terribly important when they knew we the taxpayer would pay.
If West Ham paid an extra £5M a year as "naming sponsor", they could call it the "New Boleyn" or something.
Most people would be happy they were paying a reasonable 'rent' and let them paint the place Claret and Blue and make it their "home".
Everything would settle down a bit and - who knows - it might be possible to find a way to attract more events and sponsors and make a profit out of the f*ing place!
Paid my first visit, for the Foo Fighters gig, recently. It already is claret and blue and it certainly looks very West Ham...although to be fair they didn't bring the fake cladding with them from the Boleyn.
They're essentially paying a net nil per annum at the moment. An extra £5m a year, plus any additional costs (to those already being paid) should be the minimum requirement.
Paying £90m+ for players this transfer window and whatever enormous amount they are paying for Pellegrini, shows the spending power they now have, aided by this deal. They're a different beast now, at everyone else's expense.
Lack of transparency and accountability down to the Council arguing commercial sensitivity.
The same specious argument they deployed to try and prevent @PragueAddick getting access to the information. In laying down the case against commercial sensitivity @PragueAddick clearly made the case why the Council had bought a pup, had no commercial value to protect and release of the documents was in the public interests on grounds of accountability to tax payers.
All of this could so easily have been swept under the carpet away from public view had our CL hero not been sniffing around for a fight on his bloody high horse, just like he does on here.
If West Ham paid an extra £5M a year as "naming sponsor", they could call it the "New Boleyn" or something.
Most people would be happy they were paying a reasonable 'rent' and let them paint the place Claret and Blue and make it their "home".
Everything would settle down a bit and - who knows - it might be possible to find a way to attract more events and sponsors and make a profit out of the f*ing place!
Paid my first visit, for the Foo Fighters gig, recently. It already is claret and blue and it certainly looks very West Ham...although to be fair they didn't bring the fake cladding with them from the Boleyn.
They're essentially paying a net nil per annum at the moment. An extra £5m a year, plus any additional costs (to those already being paid) should be the minimum requirement.
Paying £90m+ for players this transfer window and whatever enormous amount they are paying for Pellegrini, shows the spending power they now have, aided by this deal. They're a different beast now, at everyone else's expense.
And that corrupt oaf Boris Johnson tries to shift the blame.
2012 Legacy events have generated over £130 million.
UK Sport says more than £130m has been generated in London by National Lottery and taxpayer-funded events following the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Last July's IAAF World Athletics Championships at the London Stadium led the way, bringing in £79m.
2012 Legacy events have generated over £130 million.
UK Sport says more than £130m has been generated in London by National Lottery and taxpayer-funded events following the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Last July's IAAF World Athletics Championships at the London Stadium led the way, bringing in £79m.
It's not £79m profit and certainly not monies going into the admin of the stadium.
The BBC are getting that figure from an "event impact study" which said that the championships contributed £79.01m to the London economy, total economic impact ranging between £109.03m and £159.60m and a total contribution to GDP of between £45.36m and £66.39m.
Can't see Pellegrini letting things slip . In the 15 days between the 01st and 15th of July he has bought in Ryan Fredericks, Jack Wilshere, Andriy Yarmolenko, Fabian Balbuena and Felipe Anderson for a total cost of around £61,000,000.
Just goes to show what can be done with the weight of the taxpayer behind you ... how can this be legal?
Can't see Pellegrini letting things slip . In the 15 days between the 01st and 15th of July he has bought in Ryan Fredericks, Jack Wilshere, Andriy Yarmolenko, Fabian Balbuena and Felipe Anderson for a total cost of around £61,000,000.
Just goes to show what can be done with the weight of the taxpayer behind you ... how can this be legal?
Their combined wages will probably add another £20 million to the club’s annual outgoings. Let’s hope they’ve got long contracts
Can't see Pellegrini letting things slip . In the 15 days between the 01st and 15th of July he has bought in Ryan Fredericks, Jack Wilshere, Andriy Yarmolenko, Fabian Balbuena and Felipe Anderson for a total cost of around £61,000,000.
Just goes to show what can be done with the weight of the taxpayer behind you ... how can this be legal?
Is there a Justgiving page for them, or shall i just use the HMRC site?
Can't see Pellegrini letting things slip . In the 15 days between the 01st and 15th of July he has bought in Ryan Fredericks, Jack Wilshere, Andriy Yarmolenko, Fabian Balbuena and Felipe Anderson for a total cost of around £61,000,000.
Just goes to show what can be done with the weight of the taxpayer behind you ... how can this be legal?
Is there a Justgiving page for them, or shall i just use the HMRC site?
EIther will do, or just add your card details in the gofuckme.com link
Report in Mail today that West Ham will train at the London Stadium on Friday ahead of Cherries game . It goes on to say that while LLDC claimed the club must seek permission to use the pitch it is understood that West Ham's deal allows them to access it a day either side of a game. Can this be right ? If so it makes a mockery of the number of days West Ham claimed they would be using the stadium for .
Report in Mail today that West Ham will train at the London Stadium on Friday ahead of Cherries game . It goes on to say that while LLDC claimed the club must seek permission to use the pitch it is understood that West Ham's deal allows them to access it a day either side of a game. Can this be right ? If so it makes a mockery of the number of days West Ham claimed they would be using the stadium for .
Can't someone, say a local athletics club, hold another event there that day as well, say Javelin practice?
Report in Mail today that West Ham will train at the London Stadium on Friday ahead of Cherries game . It goes on to say that while LLDC claimed the club must seek permission to use the pitch it is understood that West Ham's deal allows them to access it a day either side of a game. Can this be right ? If so it makes a mockery of the number of days West Ham claimed they would be using the stadium for .
Can't someone, say a local athletics club, hold another event there that day as well, say Javelin practice?
Report in Mail today that West Ham will train at the London Stadium on Friday ahead of Cherries game . It goes on to say that while LLDC claimed the club must seek permission to use the pitch it is understood that West Ham's deal allows them to access it a day either side of a game. Can this be right ? If so it makes a mockery of the number of days West Ham claimed they would be using the stadium for .
West Ham are technically right. The CA specifiies that the Stadium is reserved for set up and take down of WHU garbage 24 hours either side of a game. We pointed out way back during the Information Tribunal that this means the Stadium is blocked for over 110 days - because at the beginning of the season they don't know if some games might be moved. And then of course there are possible Cup games which must be planned for. That's why there is hardly any other usage during the season, E20 hardly have any spare windows. the old "25 days a year " trope which Gullivan still bandy around, is a complete distortion of the truth.
As for training, I guess West Ham are just cynically utilising the agreement that the day is reserved for them, even though it was reserved for an entirely different purpose. Great that you alerted me to this though.
There will be more OSC news soon, probably after the holiday...
Report in Mail today that West Ham will train at the London Stadium on Friday ahead of Cherries game . It goes on to say that while LLDC claimed the club must seek permission to use the pitch it is understood that West Ham's deal allows them to access it a day either side of a game. Can this be right ? If so it makes a mockery of the number of days West Ham claimed they would be using the stadium for .
West Ham are technically right. The CA specifiies that the Stadium is reserved for set up and take down of WHU garbage 24 hours either side of a game. We pointed out way back during the Information Tribunal that this means the Stadium is blocked for over 110 days - because at the beginning of the season they don't know if some games might be moved. And then of course there are possible Cup games which must be planned for. That's why there is hardly any other usage during the season, E20 hardly have any spare windows. the old "25 days a year " trope which Gullivan still bandy around, is a complete distortion of the truth.
As for training, I guess West Ham are just cynically utilising the agreement that the day is reserved for them, even though it was reserved for an entirely different purpose. Great that you alerted me to this though.
There will be more OSC news soon, probably after the holiday...
What West Ham garbage do they set up? All their stuff seem to be up all the time.
Report in Mail today that West Ham will train at the London Stadium on Friday ahead of Cherries game . It goes on to say that while LLDC claimed the club must seek permission to use the pitch it is understood that West Ham's deal allows them to access it a day either side of a game. Can this be right ? If so it makes a mockery of the number of days West Ham claimed they would be using the stadium for .
West Ham are technically right. The CA specifiies that the Stadium is reserved for set up and take down of WHU garbage 24 hours either side of a game. We pointed out way back during the Information Tribunal that this means the Stadium is blocked for over 110 days - because at the beginning of the season they don't know if some games might be moved. And then of course there are possible Cup games which must be planned for. That's why there is hardly any other usage during the season, E20 hardly have any spare windows. the old "25 days a year " trope which Gullivan still bandy around, is a complete distortion of the truth.
As for training, I guess West Ham are just cynically utilising the agreement that the day is reserved for them, even though it was reserved for an entirely different purpose. Great that you alerted me to this though.
There will be more OSC news soon, probably after the holiday...
What West Ham garbage do they set up? All their stuff seem to be up all the time.
Good question. Officially it would be matchday stuff like goalposts and corner flags, but you start to wonder - if there is little other usage between games, do they even bother now? It is of course the stadium operator and not West Ham who do the work.
Comments
I'd call it "The self-serving corrupt Boris cunt in bed with the Dildo brothers shafted taxpayers bowl"
Or something
Can't happen for 9 months of the year though, that's the issue.
Most people would be happy they were paying a reasonable 'rent' and let them paint the place Claret and Blue and make it their "home".
Everything would settle down a bit and - who knows - it might be possible to find a way to attract more events and sponsors and make a profit out of the f*ing place!
What's West Ham's cut again?
Under the terms of their agreement with the LLDC, West Ham are entitled to 50 per cent of any stadium naming rights revenue after the first £4m-a-year.'
@stevexreeve suggestion above is actually a pragmatic solution which will probably be part of an eventual re-negotiated deal.
But the bigger loss making issue is the retractable seats. West Ham have to give up on their insistence on them. they never insisted on them in the first incarnation of the stadium where they were to own 50% with Newham. It only became terribly, terribly important when they knew we the taxpayer would pay.
They're essentially paying a net nil per annum at the moment. An extra £5m a year, plus any additional costs (to those already being paid) should be the minimum requirement.
Paying £90m+ for players this transfer window and whatever enormous amount they are paying for Pellegrini, shows the spending power they now have, aided by this deal. They're a different beast now, at everyone else's expense.
https://www.newham.gov.uk/Pages/News/Newham-Council-publishes-independent-QC-report-on-flawed-decisions-made-by-previous-administration-regarding-40-million-.aspx
The same specious argument they deployed to try and prevent @PragueAddick getting access to the information. In laying down the case against commercial sensitivity @PragueAddick clearly made the case why the Council had bought a pup, had no commercial value to protect and release of the documents was in the public interests on grounds of accountability to tax payers.
All of this could so easily have been swept under the carpet away from public view had our CL hero not been sniffing around for a fight on his bloody high horse, just like he does on here.
UK Sport says more than £130m has been generated in London by National Lottery and taxpayer-funded events following the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Last July's IAAF World Athletics Championships at the London Stadium led the way, bringing in £79m.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/44966586
The BBC are getting that figure from an "event impact study" which said that the championships contributed £79.01m to the London economy, total economic impact ranging between £109.03m and £159.60m and a total contribution to GDP of between £45.36m and £66.39m.
Just goes to show what can be done with the weight of the taxpayer behind you ... how can this be legal?
It goes on to say that while LLDC claimed the club must seek permission to use the pitch it is understood that West Ham's deal allows them to access it a day either side of a game.
Can this be right ? If so it makes a mockery of the number of days West Ham claimed they would be using the stadium for .
As for training, I guess West Ham are just cynically utilising the agreement that the day is reserved for them, even though it was reserved for an entirely different purpose. Great that you alerted me to this though.
There will be more OSC news soon, probably after the holiday...