Olympic Stadium; our day in court
Comments
-
I finished reading the Inquiry review. The finances are an absolute horror show, far worse than we had understood from the whistleblown 2016 documents we have. Some choice points
* Every game West Ham plays there, costs the taxpayer money. The LLDC itself, in April 2017 estimated that West Ham need to pay £4.75m p.a., not £2.5m
* However, Moore Stephens, being proper accountants beg to differ. They have uncovered that among other things, and as surmised here, West Ham are paying sod all in business rates. Overall MS believe that to cover a fair share of all relevant costs, West Ham should pay £11.5m
* Haven't put this bit out yet, but I am fairly sure that £11m pa was what Wembley are asking Spurs. We are checking that, but it shows that MS conclusion should be no surprise
* The cost of the 'retractable" seating is a platinum grade fiasco. This is what is causing most of the losses
* We had forecast, in our submission to Bacon and Caroline Pidgeon, that the operating loss to 2026 will be £43.5m, if neither naming rights nor the seating issue are resolved. In fact, the losses will be over £200m!!
* MS make a number of informed comments about Naming rights, which I had not previously considered. They say that there relatively few successful deals, and they are often for a short period. Then it can be difficult for a new sponsor to take over, because everyone calls it by the previous name if the marketing people did their job. e.g. how long before the Gooners stop saying "the Emirates" and replace it with "the Ryanair"? ....
There's more, a lot more. You need a couple of hours, but well worth it. They have done a very good job. It's everything we wanted, when we opened that petition for a full public Inquiry.
Never say, "it looks shit, but there's nothing you can do."..40 -
Case in point at Stoke, where the ground was called the Britannia Stadium for years after Britannia had been merged into the Co-op. When I looked at it before, no one - not even Arsenal - made much money from ground naming rightsPragueAddick said:* MS make a number of informed comments about Naming rights, which I had not previously considered. They say that there relatively few successful deals, and they are often for a short period. Then it can be difficult for a new sponsor to take over, because everyone calls it by the previous name if the marketing people did their job. e.g. how long before the Gooners stop saying "the Emirates" and replace it with "the Ryanair"? ....
Well done on the work so far.3 -
Excellent work Prague.6
-
@PragueAddick - from what I know, Spurs are paying somewhere in the region of £14.5-15m a season for Wembley.3
-
So even if Wet Spam paid the rumoured Wembley figure quoted to Spurs of £11m per annum there would still be an annual operating loss ?0
-
Thanks John Boy. Your own excellent Trust colleagues are too busy today with "fixture change TV schedule maelstrom" to dig that out for me :-)JohnBoyUK said:@PragueAddick - from what I know, Spurs are paying somewhere in the region of £14.5-15m a season for Wembley.
@Starinnaddick
No, basically MS are saying £11.5m per annum would do it. £2.5m patently doesn't. As we have always argued.
0 -
Thanks. I imagine they are looking at ways and means of renegotiating the contract although West Ham have said it is water tight.PragueAddick said:
Thanks John Boy. Your own excellent Trust colleagues are too busy today with "fixture change TV schedule maelstrom" to dig that out for me :-)JohnBoyUK said:@PragueAddick - from what I know, Spurs are paying somewhere in the region of £14.5-15m a season for Wembley.
@Starinnaddick
No, basically MS are saying £11.5m per annum would do it. £2.5m patently doesn't. As we have always argued.1 -
0
- Sponsored links:
-
However, Sullivan admits he is not entirely happy with the 57,000-capacity London Stadium, revealing the club is pushing for it to look and feel more like West Ham’s home. “We’re about £10m a year better off,” he says. “It’s not going to change our lives.”
No ingratitude there, then ....
7 -
I haven't forgotten btw @PragueAddick0
-
So by that logic, if being £10m a year better off isn't going to change their lives, then paying that £10m a year to use the stadium won't have any effect on them either.GlassHalfFull said:
However, Sullivan admits he is not entirely happy with the 57,000-capacity London Stadium, revealing the club is pushing for it to look and feel more like West Ham’s home. “We’re about £10m a year better off,” he says. “It’s not going to change our lives.”
No ingratitude there, then ....22 -
£10m may not change West Ham's lives but it sure would change the lives of a lot of other people that rely on government moneyrandy andy said:
So by that logic, if being £10m a year better off isn't going to change their lives, then paying that £10m a year to use the stadium won't have any effect on them either.GlassHalfFull said:
However, Sullivan admits he is not entirely happy with the 57,000-capacity London Stadium, revealing the club is pushing for it to look and feel more like West Ham’s home. “We’re about £10m a year better off,” he says. “It’s not going to change our lives.”
No ingratitude there, then ....11 -
Ooohhhh friend!!!PragueAddick said:10 -
I think he left this bit out.GlassHalfFull said:
However, Sullivan admits he is not entirely happy with the 57,000-capacity London Stadium, revealing the club is pushing for it to look and feel more like West Ham’s home. “We’re about £10m a year better off,” (Thanks to the Taxpayer) he says. “It’s not going to change our lives.”
No ingratitude there, then ....
8 -
Just read this bbc report
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42329101
Interesting that West Ham were willing to pay £250,000 for revamping the touch line area but only in Claret. E20 only wanted it in navy blue which West Ham rejected.0 -
Surely it's 'Coooo' friendcantersaddick said:
Ooohhhh friend!!!PragueAddick said:1 -
Brady chatting shit about the Moore Stephens report in the evening standard tonight.
Basically. We wanted to buy it and take on the costs but they wouldn't let us. We only use it for 25 days a year so our rent is fair. It's not our fault that the E20 can't run the stadium on budget.5 -
Article here. Sorry for the bad photos I was on a moving (shock horror) Southeastern train.
@PragueAddick5 - Sponsored links:
-
Good call. Here it is in all its mendacity. There are two things of notecantersaddick said:Brady chatting shit about the Moore Stephens report in the evening standard tonight.
Basically. We wanted to but it and take in the costs but they wouldn't let us. We only use it for 25 days a year so our rent is fair. It's not our fault that the E20 can't run the stadium on budget.
1. For the first time she claims that West Ham's paltry £15m contribution to the build costs were specifically earmarked to help pay "£20M" for a retractable seat system similar to that apparently used in the Stade de France. Nothing in the contract refers to this specific use of the £15m, although the amount is there.
2. She is obviously worried about this retractable seat issue; in that case it was perhaps unwise of her to remind us that they had a previous plan to buy the stadium outright, with Newham. It was a much more modest proposal which did not require retractable seats. In addition it did not require the extension of the roof to cover those retractable seats, that alone caused a cost overrun of I think £35m. One might suppose that they were so insistent on retractables and the most ambitious stadium roof in the world to cover them, because she knew you and I, and not her bosses' business, would be coughing up. This is all obvious to anyone who reads the Moore Stephens report.
She whines that West Ham continue to attract criticism over the finances of the stadium. She does not know how to show grace or humility, only how to call the lawyers at the slightest hint of a resolution which costs her bosses' business a bit more money. She could divert the criticism tomorrow by offering to shoulder the financial burden of the retractable seats (or to concede they are unnecessary), but it is clear that hell will freeze over first.
11 -
I normally wouldn't even wipe my arse with the Evening Standard. Read some of that article over someone's shoulder on the train and it only confirmed what a worthless rag it is. George Osborne looking after his little tory mates5
-
Retractable seating is unnecessary. Just build permanent ones around where they are during the football season and we'll be fairly - but not perfectly - happy.PragueAddick said:She could divert the criticism tomorrow by offering to shoulder the financial burden of the retractable seats (or to concede they are unnecessary), but it is clear that hell will freeze over first.
0 -
I will have a look to see if I have any spare cash after Christmas... anyone else wanna chip in for them chirpy cockernees?gavros said:
Retractable seating is unnecessary. Just build permanent ones around where they are during the football season and we'll be fairly - but not perfectly - happy.PragueAddick said:She could divert the criticism tomorrow by offering to shoulder the financial burden of the retractable seats (or to concede they are unnecessary), but it is clear that hell will freeze over first.
4 -
gavros said:
Retractable seating is unnecessary. Just build permanent ones around where they are during the football season and we'll be fairly - but not perfectly - happy.PragueAddick said:She could divert the criticism tomorrow by offering to shoulder the financial burden of the retractable seats (or to concede they are unnecessary), but it is clear that hell will freeze over first.
This may well happen but the whole point of having retractable seating was to make it a multi puropse stadium, which is what E20 and West Ham agreed on.
Puting in permanent seating would remove the abililty to hold Athletics events which is still signed up to take place next summer. Who pays for this, the tax payers, including yourself?
4 -
Brady indicates West Ham are willing to help reduce costs and mentioned "The stadium operator, LS185, record a £4.9m gross profit in their published accounts".
She seems to blames E20 & LLDC for the big losses incurred annually and not very forcoming about paying specific extra costs, to prevent E20 from going backrupt.
I assume like everyone else knows shes waiting for that to happen.1 -
West Ham are prepared to pay a bit more for more...a little bit to increase capacity to 70k and the club would be prepared to make an offer to take the stadium naming rights.1
-
How can West Ham fans ever be happy again now they have been deceived and maneuvered out of Upton Park?gavros said:
Retractable seating is unnecessary. Just build permanent ones around where they are during the football season and we'll be fairly - but not perfectly - happy.PragueAddick said:She could divert the criticism tomorrow by offering to shoulder the financial burden of the retractable seats (or to concede they are unnecessary), but it is clear that hell will freeze over first.
You don't have your own ground any longer and are run by self serving Tories, is that a good thing?
West Ham United used to be a great club with a distinct identity, now it is an extended shopping centre which has become the footballing equivalent of a cold MacDonald's burger.16 -
Is that so, @gavros? Really? How terribly collaborative and reasonable of them. Who could possibly doubt you?gavros said:West Ham are prepared to pay a bit more for more...a little bit to increase capacity to 70k and the club would be prepared to make an offer to take the stadium naming rights.
Meanwhile in the real world, seating that can take the capacity up to 66,000 is already in place but there are costs around bringing them into use and then the overheads associated with this increased capacity.
Since the Concession Agreement only commits to a capacity of 53,500 in Football Mode, you would think that West Ham would already be lending a financial hand to get that up to 66,000, given your comments, no?
In reality, as the world learnt last week, West Ham believe that the taxpayer should pay all the costs associated with that increase in capacity, while revenue would all go to West Ham. They are so convinced about this that they are taking the LLDC to court, hearing rostered for November 2018.
The LLDC's legal costs will be paid by us taxpayers of course.
Still, keep checking back, gavros old son, to Charlton Life for more information about your own club and its behaviour than you seem to have from your own fan outlets. You're welcome.
11 -
I've just taken @gavros off my Xmas card list.3
