Olympic Stadium - Please sign the NEW PETITION

PragueAddick said:

IA said:

Prague, I think the strongest argument she makes is that they were willing to buy the ground and take on associated costs (mention of £200m) but the LLDC reneged on that deal. I'm not sure what the background is to that, but it seems to go along with the West Ham fans' argument that if they have got a good deal, then Daniel Levy and Barry Hearn are to blame.

The other point she makes, and I don't think this will play out as strong in the media as it probably should, is that they are losing out on commercial revenues on non-match days. I think it's possible or even likely that they get a slice of the profit somehow.

They might also get some traction out of the suggestion that if their deal was made public, it would harm the LLDC in future negotiations on use of the ground. I think that's a crap argument, but it might still work. It would then allow both the LLDC and WHU to say they're only keeping it confidential to protect the other's business interests.

It's really disappointing to see the underlying "weak woman" pleading from a leading woman in business.


I didn't realise they were still going ahead with the claret and blue seats (who pays? let me guess...) and I see she's getting the case in early for expanding the capacity of the OS (again, I wonder who would pay).

Thanks everybody, your comments are very helpful.

Re the above, thanks IA. Her first point is an odd one. She knows perfectly well that the EC told the LLDC that such a deal would break State Aid rules because it would have clearly and directly supported West Ham's balance sheet. The LLDC did not 'renege' yet she seeks to disingenuously blame them now. Cracks in their coalition?

The second point we can and will slaughter. They keep 100% of the corporate and the capacity for that is massive. The sale of burgers is nothing compared with that. Anyway they do get a share, and none of the risk or management hassle of providing it.

Third point appears plausible to some, we need to work hard on a form of words to show that again its a bogus argument.

Razil and oohaah's comments contribute to a rebuttal of the final point I think

consider this as well, how can west ham save the tax payer money?

by publishing the contracts, avoiding a costly public enquiry and showing good faith

then the deal can stand or fall, on its own two feet

PragueAddick said:

Samuel is indeed a Hammer. Thanks, @rikofold!

Ben Shepherd is a Hammer but I can't find where he has talked about the new stadium .

Yes, Samuels is a West Ham fan but also a bloody good journo. As for rattling the cages there have been several other journos recently who have done just that (fair enough) to give fodder to your campaign/petition, so I see nothing wrong with getting the other angle of the story into the media as well.
The BBC piece left out a number of relevant information, so that one wasn't really that balanced either, but it did a good job of cage rattling.
Also, has the BBC journo rattled the cages of Hearn and Levy asking them if they are happy that they kept West Ham from buying the stadium which would have resulted in West Ham paying a lot more money upfront and also for stewarding, policing etc. ? They have unwittingly helped to create this situation.
The best way for people to get a decent idea of the picture is to read or listen to several sources and then building their own opinion. In that respect Samuel's article was a useful bit of information.
Unfortunately this whole sorry saga has become too emotional now with supporters of different club sitting in different tranches and therefore having a vastly different view on what a balanced article is and what is just propaganda or biased journalism.

Hex said:

Rothko said:

I bet AEG, Wembley, Twickenham, Spurs, Royal Parks, and anyone who has major events space in London would love to see the contract, and then massively undercut LLDC on any deal for events.

The WHU deal is in no way comparible to 'single' events (which Vinci, not LLDC, have to source).

Not only that, but such a 'competition' would be inevitable anyway, just as in any quoting process

As a customer you would likely shop around.

Rothko said:

I bet AEG, Wembley, Twickenham, Spurs, Royal Parks, and anyone who has major events space in London would love to see the contract, and then massively undercut LLDC on any deal for events.

Massively undercut the deal offered by the LLDC? If the deal negotiated with the Hammers is anything to go by that would mean paying the hirer for the privilege of renting out their facilities to them.

As others have said, you are not comparing apples with apples though as the published figure of £11m a year offered by Chelsea to rent Wembley for 3 years shows. By your logic the going rate should have started at around the £2.5m per annum West Ham are playing plus a premium for the shorter term nature of the deal.

Wembley has 36,000 extra seats, of which 19,000 are in Club Wembley and Chelsea would be able to sell at a massive mark up. Wembley infrastructure is also significantly bigger then the Olympic Stadium.

Rothko said:

Wembley has 36,000 extra seats, of which 19,000 are in Club Wembley and Chelsea would be able to sell at a massive mark up. Wembley infrastructure is also significantly bigger then the Olympic Stadium.

Not sure I'd agree about the "significantly bigger" infrastructure comment over the Olympic Stadium. Even more so with regard to transport when considering where WHam draw their fan base from, given Stratford is far better served in this respect that Wembley.

As for general infrastructure, you'd expect more from Wembley given the size difference, but are you aware of the additional facilities being put into the OS as part of the WHam fit-out?

rikofold said:

GermanEastEnder said:

Yes, Samuels is a West Ham fan but also a bloody good journo. As for rattling the cages there have been several other journos recently who have done just that (fair enough) to give fodder to your campaign/petition, so I see nothing wrong with getting the other angle of the story into the media as well.
The BBC piece left out a number of relevant information, so that one wasn't really that balanced either, but it did a good job of cage rattling.
Also, has the BBC journo rattled the cages of Hearn and Levy asking them if they are happy that they kept West Ham from buying the stadium which would have resulted in West Ham paying a lot more money upfront and also for stewarding, policing etc. ? They have unwittingly helped to create this situation.
The best way for people to get a decent idea of the picture is to read or listen to several sources and then building their own opinion. In that respect Samuel's article was a useful bit of information.
Unfortunately this whole sorry saga has become too emotional now with supporters of different club sitting in different tranches and therefore having a vastly different view on what a balanced article is and what is just propaganda or biased journalism.

Well if Hearn and Levy had stopped West Ham from buying the stadium rather than European competition law, then you might have a point.

The only trench is the obscured contract detail, not one made by non-westham fans, we can't take an informed view in Westhams favour with that in the way

GermanEastEnder said:

Hearn and Levy were instrumental in stopping the deal where West Ham would buy the OS.
What did the BBV leave out ? Well basically everything relating to income created by West Ham being in the OS, namely sharing of naming rights and catering.
There might still be naming rights income without West Ham of course, but obviously a Premier League club in there will allow the LLDC to pocket between 5 and 10 million a year.
That figure alone will make sure the taxpayer will be making a profit over West Ham's 99 year lease.
99 years, that is some committment from a football club selling its beloved and traditional home ground they own in the process.
I also see that you don't speak for all Charlton fans with regard to that petition, there have been some pretty hefty exchanges of posts on that other Charlton forum who don't support that petition much.
What's the current count by the way ? Already close to your 100.000 ?

Gold and Sullivan love the old ground? Come on, you can't be serious.

GermanEastEnder said:

Hearn and Levy were instrumental in stopping the deal where West Ham would buy the OS.
What did the BBV leave out ? Well basically everything relating to income created by West Ham being in the OS, namely sharing of naming rights and catering.
There might still be naming rights income without West Ham of course, but obviously a Premier League club in there will allow the LLDC to pocket between 5 and 10 million a year.
That figure alone will make sure the taxpayer will be making a profit over West Ham's 99 year lease.
99 years, that is some committment from a football club selling its beloved and traditional home ground they own in the process.
I also see that you don't speak for all Charlton fans with regard to that petition, there have been some pretty hefty exchanges of posts on that other Charlton forum who don't support that petition much.
What's the current count by the way ? Already close to your 100.000 ?

WHU will not be in the PL for 99 years - what then ?

GermanEastEnder said:

Hearn and Levy were instrumental in stopping the deal where West Ham would buy the OS.
What did the BBV leave out ? Well basically everything relating to income created by West Ham being in the OS, namely sharing of naming rights and catering.
There might still be naming rights income without West Ham of course, but obviously a Premier League club in there will allow the LLDC to pocket between 5 and 10 million a year.
That figure alone will make sure the taxpayer will be making a profit over West Ham's 99 year lease.
99 years, that is some committment from a football club selling its beloved and traditional home ground they own in the process.
I also see that you don't speak for all Charlton fans with regard to that petition, there have been some pretty hefty exchanges of posts on that other Charlton forum who don't support that petition much.
What's the current count by the way ? Already close to your 100.000 ?

Not sure anyone said the target was 100,000 - the petition seems, to me, to be more a means to an end. That end looks far more likely than it did before the petition therefore the petition has served its purpose.

Is the Daily Mail standing to attention for East London's favourite porn kings the same Daily Mail that once started a campaign of outrage against Bill Oddie for calling a stag beetle horny?

The Daily Mail - taking journalism beyond parody.

"around 25 days per year"

It's a flexible figure now.