michaelden
Knight of the Fat Fanny
- Aug 13, 2004
- 26,467
- 21,846
The Elton John Stadium? Never heard it called that!
Petition for public inquiry into West Ham Olympic Stadium
- Thread starter kursaal
- Start date
The Elton John Stadium? Never heard it called that!
Lilbaz
Just call me Baz
- Apr 1, 2005
- 41,363
- 74,893
Freddy Mercury ffs.
michaelden
Knight of the Fat Fanny
- Aug 13, 2004
- 26,467
- 21,846
they have 22 days to comply or challenge.
Bensonrecon
Well-Known Member
- Apr 4, 2015
- 392
- 1,377
Wonder if we'll see a second use of the ultra successful "the info was on rented computers and they've now been destroyed" approach.
whitesocks
The past means nothing. This is a message for life
- Jan 16, 2014
- 4,652
- 5,738
I'd love to know how they calculated £2m annual rent as the going rate,
when man city pay £4m, and wembley supposedly want £15m+.
The stadium is going to be falling down in 30 years - the authorities should be looking to get the costs of transforming the stadium in that period. £300m/30yrs = £10m rent.
when man city pay £4m, and wembley supposedly want £15m+.
The stadium is going to be falling down in 30 years - the authorities should be looking to get the costs of transforming the stadium in that period. £300m/30yrs = £10m rent.
- Oct 2, 2004
- 48,330
- 47,582
- Staff
- #87
I think from the way West Ham have been trying to avoid any information on this being released, it's clear that they are going to be making money out of this deal one way or another.
If they were genuinely not receiving any of the sponsorship money etc then I'm not really sure why they'd have gone there.
The whole thing absolutely stinks, and it'll be interesting to see if we actually get to the bottom of it with this latest requirement for them to release information. I predict there are a few hurdles to jump yet.
nailsy
SC Supporter
- Jul 24, 2005
- 30,536
- 46,630
So 22 days to challenge it then. Then how long for the challenge to be reviewed? I guess we aren't going to see anything soon.
Misfit
President of The Niles Crane Fanclub
- May 7, 2006
- 21,312
- 35,138
The more they delay, the more apparent it becomes that shit will hit the fan when the details are released. People losing their political careers mebbe. Football can be as corrupt as it likes on its own dime and so can politicians if not caught. But the public money aspect of this will put any transgressors deep in the plop.
robbiedee
Mama said knock you out
- Jul 6, 2012
- 2,724
- 7,552
read this on KUMB (of all places) - not sure it's been posted on here...Boris has nothing to hide other than the name and address of his stylist...also not related to this article specifically, but I'm amazed at how many spammers think the government are part funding our stadium build....
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/sep/16/boris-johnson-happy-west-ham-olympic-stadium
Boris Johnson: I have nothing to hide over West Ham Olympic Stadium deal
Owen Gibson
The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has insisted he is “perfectly happy” to see the details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium contract published but claimed that the club was seeking to take legal action to block it.
Johnson, who oversees the London Legacy Development Corporation as mayor but is no longer chairman of the board, said he had “nothing to hide” over the deal after the information commissioner ruled that the details of West Ham’s rental agreement should be made public.
“I’m perfectly happy to publish the details of this arrangement,” said Johnson. “I understand the football club concerned is not so keen because they think it will give other clubs an insight into their finances. I think they may be trying to take legal action on that point.”
Johnson clashed over the issue with the Assembly Member Andrew Dismore, who said: “You wanted to cover up the fact West Ham had put one over on you and taken you to the cleaners.”
The Guardian revealed on Wednesday that the information commission had sided with those seeking greater transparency following an appeal by the Charlton Athletic Supporters’ Trust.
The LLDC has 35 days from 3 September to publish the ruling if it decides against appealing. A coalition of 14 football supporters’ trusts have called on Johnson and the LLDC to waive their right to appeal in the name of transparency.
“As far as I’m concerned, get it out there; we have nothing to hide,” said Johnson, despite the fact the LLDC has spent more than a year trying to block freedom of information requests. “We have a very good rental income coming in from West Ham. We will be spending no more public money on this thing. I’m very happy to get the information out there.”
West Ham are paying just £15m towards the £272m conversion costs required to make the stadium suitable for Premier League football, including the world’s biggest cantilevered roof. The total cost of the stadium has soared to £701m.
The club will pay a rental fee believed to be around £2.5m a year but never confirmed but campaigners want to see more transparency over its contribution to matchday costs and the split on catering, hospitality, naming rights and other income.
West Ham and the LLDC argue that the deal is a good one for the taxpayer because it gives the stadium a sustainable future that will not require further bailouts in future.
Johnson said that the LLDC was left with no choice but to undertake the expensive conversion scheme in an attempt to clean up the “mess” left by the previous Labour government.
In 2007 the then Olympic board decided to mothball the decision on the stadium’s future and proceed with a scalable design that could be reduced to 25,000 after the Games. Johnson said that the conversion had been a “fantastic success” and that the stadium, due to host five Rugby World Cup matches, was “doing brilliantly”.
But after the session Dismore, a Labour Assembly Member, said: “As usual he is trying to ride two horses at once. On the one hand he says he wants to transparency, on the other he is not going to do anything about it.
“In the end, transparency will out. The more they try and cover it up the worse it looks. I think there is a real risk that if the European Commission are already looking at State Aid in football clubs, this is a prime candidate,” he told the Guardian.
“If everything is published, this could be the spark that sets it off. Manchester City have been open about their deal for the Etihad, we know what it will cost London clubs if they want to hire Wembley. The fact is that West Ham have taken Boris Johnson to the cleaners, big time.”
The LLDC and West Ham have said they are totally confident the deal was consistent with state aid regulations.
West Ham insiders insist legal action in the courts is unlikely but stress the club will work with the LLDC to decide whether the information commissioner’s verdict should be appealed against before the end of the month.
“The LLDC have stated their disappointment at the information commissioner’s office ruling as they believe it will damage their ability to secure the best deal for the taxpayer in future and we share those sentiments,” said a spokesman.
“The club would like to point out, so that everyone is 100% clear, that it is not party to the Freedom of Information Act, and that the information commissioner’s ruling is not against West Ham United, it is against the LLDC. The club is now working with the LLDC to decide the appropriate next step.”
The club, due to move into the new 54,000-capacity stadium for the start of next season, also defended the deal with the LLDC.
“West Ham United shares the mayor’s view that our presence at the former Olympic Stadium guarantees it a viable and sustainable future. Our 99-year agreement will not only return hundreds of millions of pounds to the taxpayer, it will also ensure that London’s Olympic Stadium will not join the long list of other former Olympic stadiums that are rotting away through lack of use.”
Richard Hunt, the Charlton supporter who brought the original complaint, said: “Our argument has never been with West Ham. It has been with the politicians and the authorities who made a very bad deal for the taxpayer. We simply seek full disclosure, which could lead to a renegotiation of the contract.”
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/sep/16/boris-johnson-happy-west-ham-olympic-stadium
Boris Johnson: I have nothing to hide over West Ham Olympic Stadium deal
Owen Gibson
The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has insisted he is “perfectly happy” to see the details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium contract published but claimed that the club was seeking to take legal action to block it.
Johnson, who oversees the London Legacy Development Corporation as mayor but is no longer chairman of the board, said he had “nothing to hide” over the deal after the information commissioner ruled that the details of West Ham’s rental agreement should be made public.
“I’m perfectly happy to publish the details of this arrangement,” said Johnson. “I understand the football club concerned is not so keen because they think it will give other clubs an insight into their finances. I think they may be trying to take legal action on that point.”
Johnson clashed over the issue with the Assembly Member Andrew Dismore, who said: “You wanted to cover up the fact West Ham had put one over on you and taken you to the cleaners.”
The Guardian revealed on Wednesday that the information commission had sided with those seeking greater transparency following an appeal by the Charlton Athletic Supporters’ Trust.
The LLDC has 35 days from 3 September to publish the ruling if it decides against appealing. A coalition of 14 football supporters’ trusts have called on Johnson and the LLDC to waive their right to appeal in the name of transparency.
“As far as I’m concerned, get it out there; we have nothing to hide,” said Johnson, despite the fact the LLDC has spent more than a year trying to block freedom of information requests. “We have a very good rental income coming in from West Ham. We will be spending no more public money on this thing. I’m very happy to get the information out there.”
West Ham are paying just £15m towards the £272m conversion costs required to make the stadium suitable for Premier League football, including the world’s biggest cantilevered roof. The total cost of the stadium has soared to £701m.
The club will pay a rental fee believed to be around £2.5m a year but never confirmed but campaigners want to see more transparency over its contribution to matchday costs and the split on catering, hospitality, naming rights and other income.
West Ham and the LLDC argue that the deal is a good one for the taxpayer because it gives the stadium a sustainable future that will not require further bailouts in future.
Johnson said that the LLDC was left with no choice but to undertake the expensive conversion scheme in an attempt to clean up the “mess” left by the previous Labour government.
In 2007 the then Olympic board decided to mothball the decision on the stadium’s future and proceed with a scalable design that could be reduced to 25,000 after the Games. Johnson said that the conversion had been a “fantastic success” and that the stadium, due to host five Rugby World Cup matches, was “doing brilliantly”.
But after the session Dismore, a Labour Assembly Member, said: “As usual he is trying to ride two horses at once. On the one hand he says he wants to transparency, on the other he is not going to do anything about it.
“In the end, transparency will out. The more they try and cover it up the worse it looks. I think there is a real risk that if the European Commission are already looking at State Aid in football clubs, this is a prime candidate,” he told the Guardian.
“If everything is published, this could be the spark that sets it off. Manchester City have been open about their deal for the Etihad, we know what it will cost London clubs if they want to hire Wembley. The fact is that West Ham have taken Boris Johnson to the cleaners, big time.”
The LLDC and West Ham have said they are totally confident the deal was consistent with state aid regulations.
West Ham insiders insist legal action in the courts is unlikely but stress the club will work with the LLDC to decide whether the information commissioner’s verdict should be appealed against before the end of the month.
“The LLDC have stated their disappointment at the information commissioner’s office ruling as they believe it will damage their ability to secure the best deal for the taxpayer in future and we share those sentiments,” said a spokesman.
“The club would like to point out, so that everyone is 100% clear, that it is not party to the Freedom of Information Act, and that the information commissioner’s ruling is not against West Ham United, it is against the LLDC. The club is now working with the LLDC to decide the appropriate next step.”
The club, due to move into the new 54,000-capacity stadium for the start of next season, also defended the deal with the LLDC.
“West Ham United shares the mayor’s view that our presence at the former Olympic Stadium guarantees it a viable and sustainable future. Our 99-year agreement will not only return hundreds of millions of pounds to the taxpayer, it will also ensure that London’s Olympic Stadium will not join the long list of other former Olympic stadiums that are rotting away through lack of use.”
Richard Hunt, the Charlton supporter who brought the original complaint, said: “Our argument has never been with West Ham. It has been with the politicians and the authorities who made a very bad deal for the taxpayer. We simply seek full disclosure, which could lead to a renegotiation of the contract.”
Ribble
Well-Known Member
- Apr 13, 2011
- 3,531
- 4,818
Aren't the Porn Barons netting a tidy sum from the sale of the Boleyn ground land?
- Oct 2, 2004
- 48,330
- 47,582
- Staff
- #94
I'm sure they are, but are they putting any of that back into the club?
Also I believe it was 'only' in the 60-70m range that they got for it so I don't know how long that would sustain them if it was money for the club.
Of course if they are just taking the money out then yes you can see why they'd do it.
Ribble
Well-Known Member
- Apr 13, 2011
- 3,531
- 4,818
I believe that's what they're doing. This "big move" is more about them pocketing a nice fat wad of cash than growing the club.
