I thought that earlier. SSNews speaking about Wembley (either on the Friday or Saturday, both no), reversing the fixture (no...PL don't want City having 3 away games in a row) or going to Twickenham (who haven't been approached and would need dispensation as a third "home" venue).
Not once was a taxpayer funded & owned stadium, which could do with a cash injection of any sort, mentioned.
I thought that earlier. SSNews speaking about Wembley (either on the Friday or Saturday, both no), reversing the fixture (no...PL don't want City having 3 away games in a row) or going to Twickenham (who haven't been approached and would need dispensation as a third "home" venue).
Not once was a taxpayer funded & owned stadium, which could do with a cash injection of any sort, mentioned.
And heaven knows, we (taxpayers) need the rental money it would bring.
Why would she? When it's been proven again and again that no matter what anyone says about how unfair the deal is on the taxpayer, Wet Sham are basically bulletproof on it. She'll soon be asking us to foot the bill for cutting the fucking grass and marking out the pitch...
Why would she? When it's been proven again and again that no matter what anyone says about how unfair the deal is on the taxpayer, Wet Sham are basically bulletproof on it. She'll soon be asking us to foot the bill for cutting the fucking grass and marking out the pitch...
Why would she? When it's been proven again and again that no matter what anyone says about how unfair the deal is on the taxpayer, Wet Sham are basically bulletproof on it. She'll soon be asking us to foot the bill for cutting the fucking grass and marking out the pitch...
Surely there must have been a conflict of interests as she was working as the government's Small Business Ambassador.
This is funny but unfortunately just means some poor Doris will lose her job whilst bullshit Brady convinces someone in government that we should all pay this fine for them...
Why would she? When it's been proven again and again that no matter what anyone says about how unfair the deal is on the taxpayer, Wet Sham are basically bulletproof on it. She'll soon be asking us to foot the bill for cutting the fucking grass and marking out the pitch...
I may get whooshed here but...we already do. The stadium operator (LS185) does it all, and LS185 is a cost line on the E20 P&L.
Anyway, we will see how bulletproof they are when we release the full horror of all that's in the Inquiry report to the public. That will be just before West Ham take the LLDC to court over the matter of bringing on line an extra 9,000 seats, at our cost. As will be the legal costs for the LLDC to contest the action. Honestly I think London is going to say, ok, enough is enough.
Who gets the money from food sold on the concourses?
West Ham and E20 both. Cannot off hand remember the split.
West Ham keep 100% of revenue in the hospitality areas. Thats what they give a **** about.
E20 are responsible for providing all catering facilities, food, staff services etc. and enter into contracts with suppliers to deliver. E20 keeps the first £500k of revenue (that's not profit). West Ham get 30% of revenue in excess of £500k. West Ham are billed for the costs of the catering at their events.
BUT a West Ham associated business is allowed to be party to a catering contract with E20 which means West Ham is paid by E20 to provide catering for itself!!! You have to hand it to Lady Brady.
Why would she? When it's been proven again and again that no matter what anyone says about how unfair the deal is on the taxpayer, Wet Sham are basically bulletproof on it. She'll soon be asking us to foot the bill for cutting the fucking grass and marking out the pitch...
Surely there must have been a conflict of interests as she was working as the government's Small Business Ambassador.
Is she an ambassador for small business or just a short arse business ambassador?
Why would she? When it's been proven again and again that no matter what anyone says about how unfair the deal is on the taxpayer, Wet Sham are basically bulletproof on it. She'll soon be asking us to foot the bill for cutting the fucking grass and marking out the pitch...
I may get whooshed here but...we already do. The stadium operator (LS185) does it all, and LS185 is a cost line on the E20 P&L.
Anyway, we will see how bulletproof they are when we release the full horror of all that's in the Inquiry report to the public. That will be just before West Ham take the LLDC to court over the matter of bringing on line an extra 9,000 seats, at our cost. As will be the legal costs for the LLDC to contest the action. Honestly I think London is going to say, ok, enough is enough.
Why would she? When it's been proven again and again that no matter what anyone says about how unfair the deal is on the taxpayer, Wet Sham are basically bulletproof on it. She'll soon be asking us to foot the bill for cutting the fucking grass and marking out the pitch...
I may get whooshed here but...we already do. The stadium operator (LS185) does it all, and LS185 is a cost line on the E20 P&L.
Anyway, we will see how bulletproof they are when we release the full horror of all that's in the Inquiry report to the public. That will be just before West Ham take the LLDC to court over the matter of bringing on line an extra 9,000 seats, at our cost. As will be the legal costs for the LLDC to contest the action. Honestly I think London is going to say, ok, enough is enough.
whoosh - hence the ellipsis
Surely, only an ellipsis in curly brackets counts as a proper woosh
l'm sure the Sun is not part of your usual Sunday morning reading but a so-called exclusive claims E20 could go bust next month if the mayor pulls the plug on the company.
Not sure if this is something you are already well aware of but if not worth a look at the article.
l'm sure the Sun is not part of your usual Sunday morning reading but a so-called exclusive claims E20 could go bust next month if the mayor pulls the plug on the company.
Not sure if this is something you are already well aware of but if not worth a look at the article.
now would that leave the way clear for West Ham to make a full take over? or would it mean the lease is null and avoid and would need to be renegotiated?
l'm sure the Sun is not part of your usual Sunday morning reading but a so-called exclusive claims E20 could go bust next month if the mayor pulls the plug on the company.
Not sure if this is something you are already well aware of but if not worth a look at the article.
now would that leave the way clear for West Ham to make a full take over? or would it mean the lease is null and avoid and would need to be renegotiated?
This is a very helpful article. We have been trying to dig into this scenario for a while, one of my CAST colleagues knows some insolvency specialists who are interested in this, but have been a bit slow. If they want a gig from the Mayor on this, they better get a move on.
Here is the interesting thing. As a layman I've read through the bloody thing more times than i care to think about, and there is not a word I can find about what happens if E20 goes bust. There is certainly no provision for West Ham to take it over. The most interesting thing is that they are not even tenants. It's only a concession. If for example, the LLDC sold E20 to, I dunno, a property company owned by Daniel Levy, that company would seem to have no obligation to honour the existing Concession Agreement.
I think the article is right to say that its unlikely (to put it mildly) that SK would pull the plug next month. But the case for pulling the plug soon, if West Ham don't re-negotiate, will become overwhelming, and it may well be that the GLA has all the leverage suddenly. And we have clear recommendations about exactly what could be re-negotiated, all in a report which is now in the hands of former Mayoral candidate Caroline Pidgeon.
This basically uncovers why I have been able to sound very confident recently. Part of me remains amazed that Brady never considered the possibility of E20 bankruptcy before signing the Agreement, but there is nothing I can see there, nor can anyone else so far who has looked at it. All of a sudden West Ham look very vulnerable and it is in fact their greed and bullying over the agreement which has led them to this point.
I know lots of Wet Spam supporters, having worked in East London, and they seem to be under the impression that they will eventually be handed the stadium and merely take over the running costs. Is this a pipe dream or could it really happen ?
In my view the stadium will never be able to meet its overheads from filling in the remaining days with odds and sods events. It is currently burning the loan from central government which means it has to start making a profit soon otherwise Newham Council start filling the hole. The stadium is not owned by LLDC but a commercial consortium vehicle including Newham Council, and it cannot trade if it becomes insolvent.
When it becomes insolvent, not if, it will have no value as an investment with a sitting tenant and a rent not covering upkeep of the property, let alone return on assets. It will then be available for nominal consideration of £1.
I wonder who would want to buy a stadium for £1, let me guess, the sitting tenant?
Newham will have no option but to offload the stadium to avoid the debt falling on local council taxpayers, there is no possible source of any new funding. This was a high risk venture and i cannot believe a risk analysis was not carried out. Perversely, the risks might have looked attractive. Because if you want a reason why West Ham screwed the LLDC and the LLDC were happy to be screwed look no further than needing to get to insolvency as soon as possible. The taxpayer is off the hook and the stadium becomes what it always was destined to be, a London football club ground. And Boris and co shrug their shoulders and say "we did our best".
I could see that happening but only with a significant additional payment to attempt to recover some of the millions already wasted. Otherwise it would be better for the stadium owners just to demolish the bloody thing and sell the site for low cost housing, as I have favoured from the outset. West Ham can fuck off. And Seb Coe as well. And Boris.
Comments
Not once was a taxpayer funded & owned stadium, which could do with a cash injection of any sort, mentioned.
And heaven knows, we (taxpayers) need the rental money it would bring.
So we’re paying for this as well?
Who gets the money from food sold on the concourses?
West Ham keep 100% of revenue in the hospitality areas. Thats what they give a **** about.
I think I dislike her more than the owners.
Anyway, we will see how bulletproof they are when we release the full horror of all that's in the Inquiry report to the public. That will be just before West Ham take the LLDC to court over the matter of bringing on line an extra 9,000 seats, at our cost. As will be the legal costs for the LLDC to contest the action. Honestly I think London is going to say, ok, enough is enough.
BUT a West Ham associated business is allowed to be party to a catering contract with E20 which means West Ham is paid by E20 to provide catering for itself!!! You have to hand it to Lady Brady.
l'm sure the Sun is not part of your usual Sunday morning reading but a so-called exclusive claims E20 could go bust next month if the mayor pulls the plug on the company.
Not sure if this is something you are already well aware of but if not worth a look at the article.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/7102466/west-ham-in-london-stadium-fear-as-company-that-owns-ground-could-go-bust/
This is a very helpful article. We have been trying to dig into this scenario for a while, one of my CAST colleagues knows some insolvency specialists who are interested in this, but have been a bit slow. If they want a gig from the Mayor on this, they better get a move on.
Here is the interesting thing. As a layman I've read through the bloody thing more times than i care to think about, and there is not a word I can find about what happens if E20 goes bust. There is certainly no provision for West Ham to take it over. The most interesting thing is that they are not even tenants. It's only a concession. If for example, the LLDC sold E20 to, I dunno, a property company owned by Daniel Levy, that company would seem to have no obligation to honour the existing Concession Agreement.
I think the article is right to say that its unlikely (to put it mildly) that SK would pull the plug next month. But the case for pulling the plug soon, if West Ham don't re-negotiate, will become overwhelming, and it may well be that the GLA has all the leverage suddenly. And we have clear recommendations about exactly what could be re-negotiated, all in a report which is now in the hands of former Mayoral candidate Caroline Pidgeon.
This basically uncovers why I have been able to sound very confident recently. Part of me remains amazed that Brady never considered the possibility of E20 bankruptcy before signing the Agreement, but there is nothing I can see there, nor can anyone else so far who has looked at it. All of a sudden West Ham look very vulnerable and it is in fact their greed and bullying over the agreement which has led them to this point.