West Ham Olympic Stadium
- Thread starter HotspurFC1950
- Start date
spursfan77
Well-Known Member
- Aug 13, 2005
- 46,687
- 104,968
With their propesnsity to moan you'd think they'd be all over the injustice of the Olympic stadium and West Ham getting it on the cheap.
Wellspurs
Well-Known Member
- Mar 9, 2006
- 6,379
- 7,734
And for once they would have a case. They are having to pay in the normal way for their new stadium like us.
How does it make the whole think viable? They're going to pay £2m a year and operating costs of maybe £10m a year? + £15m up front.
Over the next say, 20 years lease (until serious work will need to be done, paid for presumably by the tax payer as it's not theirs), that's £255m.
It cost far more than that just to convert it! Keeping it as an athletics stadium would have been free!
Led's Zeppelin
Can't Re Member
- May 28, 2013
- 7,364
- 20,241
I hope you noticed that I said the counter argument was bollocks. that was the point of the post.
In other words, we agree.
Flynn
SC Supporter
- Sep 2, 2004
- 2,538
- 6,722
Lilbaz
Just call me Baz
- Apr 1, 2005
- 41,363
- 74,893
Are there any tax payers in Liverpool?
No. Steven gerrard moved to america and cilla black died.
dave5150
Well-Known Member
- Aug 31, 2011
- 766
- 3,748
The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Hold public inquiry into West Ham & LLDC deal for rental of Olympic Stadium”.
Government responded:
West Ham United has a concession at the Stadium and their contributions reflect that status. The contract, awarded after an open public competition, has been widely scrutinised and tested in court.
Government responded:
West Ham United has a concession at the Stadium and their contributions reflect that status. The contract, awarded after an open public competition, has been widely scrutinised and tested in court.
Following the completion of its transformation programme the Stadium will be - unlike so many previous Olympic Stadiums - a world-class multi-use arena with a long-term future, and one that won’t require continuous support from the taxpayer. The stadium remains in public ownership (E20 Stadium LLP – a joint venture between the London Legacy Development Corporation and Newham Council) and the profits from its multiple uses will flow to the taxpayer.
As a long-term concessionaire West Ham United will only access the full stadium facilities for and shortly ahead of home matches, anticipated to be an average of 25 games a year. The stadium’s other anchor concession-holder, British Athletics, has a concession for one month a year. The stadium will be available for commercial and other uses at all times outside of these existing commitments.
The Stadium is a multi-use venue, which has already hosted a major athletics meet this year, the Sainsbury’s Anniversary Games, and will host a range of other events in 2015 including five matches during the Rugby World Cup this autumn, a Rugby League international between England and New Zealand and the Race of Champions motorsport event. In addition the Stadium will host elite athletics including the IAAF and IPC Athletics World Championships in 2017.
A world class stadium operator has been appointed and it is part of the operator agreement that the Stadium will host concerts and other events.
None of these events will financially benefit West Ham United. All revenues from these events will be shared by the operator and the Stadium owners. The stadium operator has a proven international track record of success in managing and maximising revenue from multi-use stadia and is contractually incentivised to generate maximum income.
The agreement with West Ham United, including their contribution to transformation costs and rent, followed an open competitive process, which was delivered under EU rules, conducted visibly and exposed to significant scrutiny. The outcome has been tested in the courts and upheld. As the winning bid this constituted the best available return for the taxpayer and secures the commercial viability of a national asset for the next 100 years.
The European Commission (EC) is responsible for assessing whether public investment distorts the competitive market. The EC has considered this issue on more than one occasion and has done so with full sight of the contractual terms, comprehensive detail of the tender exercise and in depth legal opinion on compliance with UK and EU law. It has found no case to answer. Therefore we do not believe that a public inquiry is necessary.
The detail of the rental agreement between the Stadium owners and West Ham United is commercially sensitive. Disclosing details of the contract would undermine the future negotiating position of the Stadium's operator, Vinci, who are working hard to bring in future events to get the greatest possible return and ensure that the Stadium is a commercial success.
It is important that the stadium owners and operator are able to negotiate future contracts in a way that derive maximum value and are not constrained by any one agreement. Such arrangements are standard practice and are designed to both protect the previous public expenditure and maximise the return on this investment.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Click this link to view the response online:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106355?reveal_response=yes
The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate.
The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee
Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament
As a long-term concessionaire West Ham United will only access the full stadium facilities for and shortly ahead of home matches, anticipated to be an average of 25 games a year. The stadium’s other anchor concession-holder, British Athletics, has a concession for one month a year. The stadium will be available for commercial and other uses at all times outside of these existing commitments.
The Stadium is a multi-use venue, which has already hosted a major athletics meet this year, the Sainsbury’s Anniversary Games, and will host a range of other events in 2015 including five matches during the Rugby World Cup this autumn, a Rugby League international between England and New Zealand and the Race of Champions motorsport event. In addition the Stadium will host elite athletics including the IAAF and IPC Athletics World Championships in 2017.
A world class stadium operator has been appointed and it is part of the operator agreement that the Stadium will host concerts and other events.
None of these events will financially benefit West Ham United. All revenues from these events will be shared by the operator and the Stadium owners. The stadium operator has a proven international track record of success in managing and maximising revenue from multi-use stadia and is contractually incentivised to generate maximum income.
The agreement with West Ham United, including their contribution to transformation costs and rent, followed an open competitive process, which was delivered under EU rules, conducted visibly and exposed to significant scrutiny. The outcome has been tested in the courts and upheld. As the winning bid this constituted the best available return for the taxpayer and secures the commercial viability of a national asset for the next 100 years.
The European Commission (EC) is responsible for assessing whether public investment distorts the competitive market. The EC has considered this issue on more than one occasion and has done so with full sight of the contractual terms, comprehensive detail of the tender exercise and in depth legal opinion on compliance with UK and EU law. It has found no case to answer. Therefore we do not believe that a public inquiry is necessary.
The detail of the rental agreement between the Stadium owners and West Ham United is commercially sensitive. Disclosing details of the contract would undermine the future negotiating position of the Stadium's operator, Vinci, who are working hard to bring in future events to get the greatest possible return and ensure that the Stadium is a commercial success.
It is important that the stadium owners and operator are able to negotiate future contracts in a way that derive maximum value and are not constrained by any one agreement. Such arrangements are standard practice and are designed to both protect the previous public expenditure and maximise the return on this investment.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Click this link to view the response online:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106355?reveal_response=yes
The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate.
The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee
Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament
michaelden
Knight of the Fat Fanny
- Aug 13, 2004
- 26,456
- 21,818
They didn't answer any of the questions and just basically said FU to everyone. The above just highlights everything we want to know but aren't allowed to.
Leigh Hellier
hellz08
- Jul 22, 2014
- 9
- 17
The simple solution to show how p’d off fan groups are with the government basically funding West Ham to become a competitive club instead of the YoYo outfit they've always been. Is for away support to boycott the ground.
Don’t give their owners the ticket money from you, don’t buy the overpriced refreshments in the concourse, just don’t go there.
Make it into the stale atmosphere half empty place it should be. It’ll be the 30k they normally get and day trippers, zero away support, it’ll be like seeing a preseason friendly on TV.
Sky then won’t want to televise games there, so they lose out on more money. That’s the only way to send them a big F-U, don’t help their owners get the windfall they are likely going to receive.
Its football, though, it won’t happen, but it’s the only way to make a change, boycott the place.
Don’t give their owners the ticket money from you, don’t buy the overpriced refreshments in the concourse, just don’t go there.
Make it into the stale atmosphere half empty place it should be. It’ll be the 30k they normally get and day trippers, zero away support, it’ll be like seeing a preseason friendly on TV.
Sky then won’t want to televise games there, so they lose out on more money. That’s the only way to send them a big F-U, don’t help their owners get the windfall they are likely going to receive.
Its football, though, it won’t happen, but it’s the only way to make a change, boycott the place.
michaelden
Knight of the Fat Fanny
- Aug 13, 2004
- 26,456
- 21,818
Well I'm not going there. Can't stand WHU and would rather stream any game Spurs play against them
rockyhotspur
Well-Known Member
- Jul 20, 2008
- 1,098
- 1,052
"West Ham United will only access the full stadium facilities for and shortly ahead of home matches",
I found this quote interesting and actually hard to believe. If WHU cannot access the stadium until shortly ahead of a home match who will maintain the pitch, the stadium etc?
I found this quote interesting and actually hard to believe. If WHU cannot access the stadium until shortly ahead of a home match who will maintain the pitch, the stadium etc?
michaelden
Knight of the Fat Fanny
- Aug 13, 2004
- 26,456
- 21,818
the tax payer which is why we're all a bit pissed off
robbiedee
Mama said knock you out
- Jul 6, 2012
- 2,722
- 7,534
My biggest issue and a fact they seem to have completely avoided is that the tax payer has contributed the best part of £800m of this stadium cost (both the white elephant and the conversion) to which West Ham have paid something like £15m towards, Newham Council £40m (again tax payer). West Ham will also receive a huge chunk of cash from the sale of Upton Park and will only pay something like £2m a year in rent. Therefore profiting heavily from an expense paid up by us, the tax payer.
*I may have my numbers wrong but they are figures I seem to remember reading on this thread so are there or thereabouts.
Not that I would want to but surely with this being public funded, we should all just be able to go along for free...
Urgh....bloody West Ham! Turds!
*I may have my numbers wrong but they are figures I seem to remember reading on this thread so are there or thereabouts.
Not that I would want to but surely with this being public funded, we should all just be able to go along for free...
Urgh....bloody West Ham! Turds!
rockyhotspur
Well-Known Member
- Jul 20, 2008
- 1,098
- 1,052
They know where to go if they think that I will mow their bloody pitch for them.
muppetman
Well-Known Member
- Jul 29, 2011
- 9,068
- 25,323
Couldn't see this already linked. . .
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/sep/15/west-ham-details-olympic-stadium-deal
West Ham ordered to reveal details of Olympic Stadium deal in full
• Freedom of Information request for full disclosure successful
• Club and LLDC had claimed details covered by ‘commercial confidentiality’
An artist’s impression, released by the London Legacy Development Corporation, depicting the Olympic Stadium following its takeover by West Ham United. Photograph: London Legacy Development Corpor/PA
Owen Gibson
@owen_g
Tuesday 15 September 2015 17.10 BSTLast modified on Tuesday 15 September 201517.23 BST
345
Save for later
Campaigners for transparency over West Ham’s move to the Olympic Stadium have scored a major victory after the Information Commissioner ruled the terms of the deal should be made public, the Guardian can reveal.
Both the London Legacy Development Corporation and West Ham had long argued that the deal for the largely-taxpayer-funded stadium should remain buried beneath a sea of black ink for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The decision could be embarrassing for the London mayor, Boris Johnson, who was desperate to conclude a deal with a football club to give the stadium a sustainable future, and West Ham, battling to convince the public the terms do not amount to a taxpayers’ subsidy for a rich football club.
It may also reopen the argument over whether the LLDC broke European state-aid rules, after the Guardian revealed earlier this year that it had failed to apply to the European Commission for an exemption.
Following a convoluted Freedom of Information process started last September by the Charlton Athletic Supporters’ Trust, the Information Commissioner has ruled that the commercial terms under which the east London club will become the stadium’s anchor tenants next summer must be published.
It is already known that West Ham will pay only £15m of the £272m needed to make the 54,000-capacity stadium suitable for Premier League football, athletics and other events. The annual rental agreement on the 99-year lease is believed to be around £2.5m, although the true figure has never been confirmed.
A host of other details around the proportion of the naming rights, catering, merchandising and hospitality revenues taken by West Ham have remained secret, meanwhile.
The LLDC will also be obliged to reveal which costs it is meeting, on matchdays and elsewhere, and which are being met by West Ham. The exact terms of the lease, including a negotiated discount if West Ham are relegated, will also have to be revealed for the first time. During a long game of legal ping pong with those who sought more transparency, the LLDC would reveal only that West Ham retained all the money from ticket sales and that the annual usage fee covers matchday costs.
Unless it is successful with an appeal the LLDC will be forced to reveal the terms of the deal in its entirety, giving rise to a new wave of scrutiny over whether the taxpayer is getting value for money.
West Ham had argued in its submission that it was “deeply concerned that the disclosure of the commercially confidential and sensitive information will inevitably have an adverse impact on the stadium partnership”.
It was also concerned that full transparency around the terms had “the very real potential to damage the perception of WHUFC in relation to the stadium”. It said it could affect its ability to sell tickets and prejudice its negotiating position with customers and suppliers.
The LLDC argued that it would impact its search for a naming-rights partner and prejudice future negotiations between the stadium operator, Vinci, and other potential users of the stadium. It also revealed that West Ham had threatened to sue for breach of confidence if confidentiality clauses were broken.
But the Commissioner ruled that neither the LLDC nor West Ham had been able to demonstrate how the information could be exploited by competitors or how it would place them at a commercial disadvantage.
A coalition of 14 club supporters’ trusts, formed to campaign on the issue, will now call on Johnson not to appeal the decision and to publish the contract immediately.
“The Information Commissioner’s decision could not have been clearer, and it is equally clear to us that publication must follow. This campaign is publicly backed by 25,000 individuals, football supporters’ trusts from around the country, and the public interest in the issue is there for all to see,” said a spokesman. “We call on the mayor not to use the appeal system to delay publication of this document further. If he does it will open him up to the suspicion that he has something to hide.”
The largest chunk of funding for the transformation comes from a one-off settlement of £148.8m from the exchequer in 2010.
Newham council has provided £40m, West Ham £15m, almost £40m comes from the original £9.3bn budget for the Olympics, and a further £25m from the government.
The cost of the conversion soared from the original estimate of £160m when the decision was taken to award West Ham a 99-year lease after an earlier process had collapsed amid acrimony and legal challenge.
West Ham and the LLDC have argued that without the upfront costs to convert and kit out the stadium to make it suitable for football, it would be an ongoing drain on the public purse.
The LLDC board was formerly chaired by Johnson, who quietly resigned from the post shortly before the general election, and is now headed by his long time Olympics adviser, Neale Coleman.
“We are disappointed by the Information Commissioner’s decision which we believe will damage our ability to secure the best deal for the taxpayer in future. The stadium will have many users and publishing the contractual details will undermine our ability to deliver the best financial outcome from numerous future negotiations. We always strive to balance transparency while protecting the taxpayers’ financial interest and we are considering the ruling carefully as we decide what action to take.”
It is believed that the LLDC will come to a decision in the next 10 days over whether to appeal. If it decides against, it has 35 days from 3 September, the date the Information Commission sent the letter, to make the information public.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/sep/15/west-ham-details-olympic-stadium-deal
West Ham ordered to reveal details of Olympic Stadium deal in full
• Freedom of Information request for full disclosure successful
• Club and LLDC had claimed details covered by ‘commercial confidentiality’
An artist’s impression, released by the London Legacy Development Corporation, depicting the Olympic Stadium following its takeover by West Ham United. Photograph: London Legacy Development Corpor/PA
Owen Gibson
@owen_g
Tuesday 15 September 2015 17.10 BSTLast modified on Tuesday 15 September 201517.23 BST
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share via Email
- Share on Pinterest
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Google+
345
Save for later
Campaigners for transparency over West Ham’s move to the Olympic Stadium have scored a major victory after the Information Commissioner ruled the terms of the deal should be made public, the Guardian can reveal.
Both the London Legacy Development Corporation and West Ham had long argued that the deal for the largely-taxpayer-funded stadium should remain buried beneath a sea of black ink for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The decision could be embarrassing for the London mayor, Boris Johnson, who was desperate to conclude a deal with a football club to give the stadium a sustainable future, and West Ham, battling to convince the public the terms do not amount to a taxpayers’ subsidy for a rich football club.
It may also reopen the argument over whether the LLDC broke European state-aid rules, after the Guardian revealed earlier this year that it had failed to apply to the European Commission for an exemption.
Following a convoluted Freedom of Information process started last September by the Charlton Athletic Supporters’ Trust, the Information Commissioner has ruled that the commercial terms under which the east London club will become the stadium’s anchor tenants next summer must be published.
It is already known that West Ham will pay only £15m of the £272m needed to make the 54,000-capacity stadium suitable for Premier League football, athletics and other events. The annual rental agreement on the 99-year lease is believed to be around £2.5m, although the true figure has never been confirmed.
A host of other details around the proportion of the naming rights, catering, merchandising and hospitality revenues taken by West Ham have remained secret, meanwhile.
The LLDC will also be obliged to reveal which costs it is meeting, on matchdays and elsewhere, and which are being met by West Ham. The exact terms of the lease, including a negotiated discount if West Ham are relegated, will also have to be revealed for the first time. During a long game of legal ping pong with those who sought more transparency, the LLDC would reveal only that West Ham retained all the money from ticket sales and that the annual usage fee covers matchday costs.
Unless it is successful with an appeal the LLDC will be forced to reveal the terms of the deal in its entirety, giving rise to a new wave of scrutiny over whether the taxpayer is getting value for money.
West Ham had argued in its submission that it was “deeply concerned that the disclosure of the commercially confidential and sensitive information will inevitably have an adverse impact on the stadium partnership”.
It was also concerned that full transparency around the terms had “the very real potential to damage the perception of WHUFC in relation to the stadium”. It said it could affect its ability to sell tickets and prejudice its negotiating position with customers and suppliers.
The LLDC argued that it would impact its search for a naming-rights partner and prejudice future negotiations between the stadium operator, Vinci, and other potential users of the stadium. It also revealed that West Ham had threatened to sue for breach of confidence if confidentiality clauses were broken.
But the Commissioner ruled that neither the LLDC nor West Ham had been able to demonstrate how the information could be exploited by competitors or how it would place them at a commercial disadvantage.
A coalition of 14 club supporters’ trusts, formed to campaign on the issue, will now call on Johnson not to appeal the decision and to publish the contract immediately.
“The Information Commissioner’s decision could not have been clearer, and it is equally clear to us that publication must follow. This campaign is publicly backed by 25,000 individuals, football supporters’ trusts from around the country, and the public interest in the issue is there for all to see,” said a spokesman. “We call on the mayor not to use the appeal system to delay publication of this document further. If he does it will open him up to the suspicion that he has something to hide.”
The largest chunk of funding for the transformation comes from a one-off settlement of £148.8m from the exchequer in 2010.
Newham council has provided £40m, West Ham £15m, almost £40m comes from the original £9.3bn budget for the Olympics, and a further £25m from the government.
The cost of the conversion soared from the original estimate of £160m when the decision was taken to award West Ham a 99-year lease after an earlier process had collapsed amid acrimony and legal challenge.
West Ham and the LLDC have argued that without the upfront costs to convert and kit out the stadium to make it suitable for football, it would be an ongoing drain on the public purse.
The LLDC board was formerly chaired by Johnson, who quietly resigned from the post shortly before the general election, and is now headed by his long time Olympics adviser, Neale Coleman.
“We are disappointed by the Information Commissioner’s decision which we believe will damage our ability to secure the best deal for the taxpayer in future. The stadium will have many users and publishing the contractual details will undermine our ability to deliver the best financial outcome from numerous future negotiations. We always strive to balance transparency while protecting the taxpayers’ financial interest and we are considering the ruling carefully as we decide what action to take.”
It is believed that the LLDC will come to a decision in the next 10 days over whether to appeal. If it decides against, it has 35 days from 3 September, the date the Information Commission sent the letter, to make the information public.
Great news. The deal has seemed very shady.
Can someone please remind me. The original plan was to convert it into an athletics stadium with only 25,000 seats. How much would that have cost? If it is a lot less than £250M, surely Brady is upset about the number of schools we could have built "In the Queen's name" (or whatever sick argument she used.
Can someone please remind me. The original plan was to convert it into an athletics stadium with only 25,000 seats. How much would that have cost? If it is a lot less than £250M, surely Brady is upset about the number of schools we could have built "In the Queen's name" (or whatever sick argument she used.
Phischy
The Spursy One
- Feb 29, 2004
- 1,000
- 1,152
The only way that releasing the details of this deal can prejudice future commercial arrangements is if the deal is beneficial to West Ham. If the deal is fair and commensurate and you expect every future deal to be the same, releasing the details only gives future users and partners a clear idea of what the expected fee will be for using the facility. If it is beneficial to West Ham, releasing the details will mean future partners will expect the same terms (hence detrimental overall to the stadium's ability to generate revenue).
It's clear West Ham have gotten state aid and to my mind, if the stadium was designed for athletics and is being modified for a football user, the athletics community and government met their original obligations, the football club (WHUFC) should therefore be stumping up for all modifications related to football or West Ham's use of the stadium. It might be that they won't have exclusive use of the stadium, but was is clear is that it's configuration is being modified to suit them more than any other. If there are changes being made to, for example, accommodate concerts, the cost for that should be met by whomever will financially benefit from the staging of those concerts (either vinci, as the leaseholder/operator, or OPLC/Gov't if they directly benefit). Anything which suits everyone should have the cost shared.
I suspect under that framework, West Ham would be on the hook for more like £100m (or more) of the modification costs. Especially given that all revenue generated for using the stadium will go to them on matchdays (it would all be different if matchday revenue was shared). The massive changes to the roof, for example, is at their request.
Pointing to City of Manchester Stadium, they pay a higher rate for the lease and are stumping up for the capital costs of expansion on a far less iconic stadium.
I really hope we either find that the terms are far more fair than we thought, or that a judicial review will either boot West Ham out or require them to pay substantially more.
It's clear West Ham have gotten state aid and to my mind, if the stadium was designed for athletics and is being modified for a football user, the athletics community and government met their original obligations, the football club (WHUFC) should therefore be stumping up for all modifications related to football or West Ham's use of the stadium. It might be that they won't have exclusive use of the stadium, but was is clear is that it's configuration is being modified to suit them more than any other. If there are changes being made to, for example, accommodate concerts, the cost for that should be met by whomever will financially benefit from the staging of those concerts (either vinci, as the leaseholder/operator, or OPLC/Gov't if they directly benefit). Anything which suits everyone should have the cost shared.
I suspect under that framework, West Ham would be on the hook for more like £100m (or more) of the modification costs. Especially given that all revenue generated for using the stadium will go to them on matchdays (it would all be different if matchday revenue was shared). The massive changes to the roof, for example, is at their request.
Pointing to City of Manchester Stadium, they pay a higher rate for the lease and are stumping up for the capital costs of expansion on a far less iconic stadium.
I really hope we either find that the terms are far more fair than we thought, or that a judicial review will either boot West Ham out or require them to pay substantially more.
Similar threads
