tall paul wrote:Don't rule out the f1 bid, stadium being tied up for 1 weekend would fiit in with any athletics legacy, got to be less costs for conversion and brings a weekend of happy clappys rather than football and associated costs of policing etc, ecclestone will be up for bunging in a few bob towards it as well
Ecclestone seems far more interested in a London street race:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formul ... -race.html
27 June 2012
Bernie Ecclestone will tonight unveil plans for a multi-million pound grand prix around the streets of London.
Proposals for the race, for which Formula One supremo Ecclestone is reported to have bid £35million, will be presented at a star-studded bash at the Royal Automobile Club, hosted by McLaren drivers Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button.
The route will take in some of the capital’s most famous and iconic landmarks, including Buckingham Palace and Trafalgar Square.
Ecclestone believes the race would be even more impressive than the Monaco Grand Prix, currently the most famous and glamorous of motor racing’s street circuits.
The event could become the richest race in the road with around 120,000 fans filling the grandstands around the capital's most famous landmarks along a 3.2 mile route with a potential global TV audience of a billion.
Ecclestone said: ‘With the way things are, maybe we would front it and put the money up for it. If we got the okay and everything was fine, I think we could do that.
'Think what it would do for tourism. It would be fantastic — good for London, good for England — a lot better than the Olympics.’
Ecclestone, though, is yet to throw his full weight behind the project, claiming ITS Ltd are a firm "bidding for use of the stadium, not to own it" adding that "they came up with a scheme whereby Formula One would race around the stadium, inside it, outside it. They wanted to make sure I would be interested."
Denbighammer wrote:I don't even see how the Daves are gonna make much on the deal. O/Stadium renovations will cost us a lot of money and I don't see how, by the time the roofs gone on, bogs gone in, retractable seating installed etc has been completed there will be much left from the money they make on the sale of the Boleyn?
Who has said we are paying for it? When the original process collapsed and the new one was announced it was said that the conversion costs would effectively be paid for by the taxpayer, indeed Newham confirmed a few days ago that their £40 million will go into the conversion pot.
Hammer110 wrote:Who has said we are paying for it? When the original process collapsed and the new one was announced it was said that the conversion costs would effectively be paid for by the taxpayer, indeed Newham confirmed a few days ago that their £40 million will go into the conversion pot.
And you think those with a vested interest against us, Levy, Hearn et al are going to let that slide are they?
£40m of state aid to a private firm run by two blokes who made their money in pornography who are going to pass it on to young blokes to spend on Bentley's and £50,000 watches. The press will have a field day.
Hammer110 wrote:Who has said we are paying for it? When the original process collapsed and the new one was announced it was said that the conversion costs would effectively be paid for by the taxpayer, indeed Newham confirmed a few days ago that their £40 million will go into the conversion pot.
Denbighammer wrote:And you think those with a vested interest against us, Levy, Hearn et al are going to let that slide are they?
£40m of state aid to a private firm run by two blokes who made their money in pornography who are going to pass it on to young blokes to spend on Bentley's and £50,000 watches. The press will have a field day.
The press didn't make much of fuss when it was first announced and they hardly covered Newham's announcement. As long as we are paying an appropriate rent it's irrelevant what the stadium "owners" spend on preparing it to be suitable for the it's tenants. I have a tenant that is going to rent one of my units, she wanted some changes made to it, so she will be paying a higher rent than the other tenants, she will also be tied into a longer tenancy than most.
The fact is there will be a bigger fuss in the press if they dont get a tenant like us in. White Elephant Stadium will be the headlines!
The fact is there will be a bigger fuss in the press if they dont get a tenant like us in. White Elephant Stadium will be the headlines!
Athletics getting the 2017 World Championships changed everything. It will only be a White Elephant after 2017. Before then it is a potential White Elephant. Politicians and media don't get that excited about things that might happen, they will mostly forget about it for five years, happy not to be throwing good money after bad now. So the authorities won't feel under the same pressure to pay for conversion costs pre-2017. It will be just fine for Athletics as it is. The negotiating position is not that good.
Denbighammer wrote:And you think those with a vested interest against us, Levy, Hearn et al are going to let that slide are they?
Hammer110 wrote:
The press didn't make much of fuss when it was first announced and they hardly covered Newham's announcement. As long as we are paying an appropriate rent it's irrelevant what the stadium "owners" spend on preparing it to be suitable for the it's tenants. I have a tenant that is going to rent one of my units, she wanted some changes made to it, so she will be paying a higher rent than the other tenants, she will also be tied into a longer tenancy than most.
The fact is there will be a bigger fuss in the press if they dont get a tenant like us in. White Elephant Stadium will be the headlines!
Ok, maybe the press won't jump on it (rather depends what else is happening at the time I guess) but what about Levy and Hearn and any other football club chairman who wants to move to a new ground and asks for a handout from their local council? Hearn in particular isn't going to let this go unless he gets a payoff, moves in with us ( ) or stops us going to Stratford.
Money is there for the conversion - its been there since day 1. £40 million from Newham and £35 from the legacy funds, all to convert the stadium to a permanent one instead of being temporary. Now, IF the LDCC insist that we pay for the retractable seating and IF Hearn's plans to 'share' are based on retractable seating being put in, then he's basically saying "you pay for the seating, and we'll use it for free". In which case we can tell them in no uncertain terms to do one.
Denbighammer wrote:
Ok, maybe the press won't jump on it (rather depends what else is happening at the time I guess) but what about Levy and Hearn and any other football club chairman who wants to move to a new ground and asks for a handout from their local council? Hearn in particular isn't going to let this go unless he gets a payoff, moves in with us ( ) or stops us going to Stratford.
If we are paying the market rent for the property then that argument falls flat on it's face, I didn't see everyone running round asking for handouts after City moved from Maine Road into the publicly funded City Of Manchester Stadium and were paying a rent based on bums on seats and not the true value of the stadium (yes I know they paid half of the fitting out for football costs themselves but they were getting sole use of the stadium).
Hammer110 wrote:
If we are paying the market rent for the property then that argument falls flat on it's face).
Out of interest, what do you reckon the market rent should be for a stadium that cost the public 500m to build with another 100m conversion costs and with sole use for 9 months?
If you are using the City of Manchester Stadium as a comparator, it's worth noting it cost 112m to build with another 22m to convert and Citeh paying 20m on top - in other words about a quarter of the cost of the O.S. They presently pay 3m a year rent.
Good question Doc and the answer is the same as "selling" anything, it's worth what someone will pay for it, the cost of the building is irrelevant, it's its value that counts and value is dictated by demand not cost.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if we weren't in for a bums on seats rent like the original city deal which was xx percent of all sales over 32,000 (Maine Road capacity).
As an aside on top of the rent City paid Manchester council £2 million pa starting in 2011 for the naming rights and then promptly signed a £400 million ten year deal for shirts, stadium and training ground!
Hammer110 wrote:
As an aside on top of the rent City paid Manchester council £2 million pa starting in 2011 for the naming rights and then promptly signed a £400 million ten year deal for shirts, stadium and training ground!
Ah, but it was the owner's own company that signed the deal with himself. As John Henry famously said, 'what did the next guy bid?' I can't see us signing a 400m deal with the Daily Sport or winning the league anytime soon.
Anyway, I agree with you that the price of the rent is the crucial question in all of this. So does Levy.
Hammer110 wrote:Good question Doc and the answer is the same as "selling" anything, it's worth what someone will pay for it, the cost of the building is irrelevant, it's its value that counts and value is dictated by demand not cost.
In the property game that simply isn't true .
Ask yourself why so many shops remain empty , warehouses - whole estates lie empty .
Market rates for rent in property are driven by the previous deal .
the pink palermo wrote:
In the property game that simply isn't true .
Ask yourself why so many shops remain empty , warehouses - whole estates lie empty .
Market rates for rent in property are driven by the previous deal .
Simply because there are no tenants regardless of the price, people are just not willing risk money or havent got the money to start up at the moment, we have had to drop our rents by about 20%, for short term lets I would go even lower. A "rival of" ours who is building a new park of 20 small industrial units is offering 6 months rent free.
RETAIL WEEK wrote:Retail rents continued to fall last year as landlords struggled to keep their properties occupied.
Rents fell or remained static in 350 out of 418 town centres in the year to June, according to property agent Colliers International.
Colliers head of valuation Russell Francis said although town centre rents actually grew 0.9% last year, the figure was distorted by the outperformance of London.
Rents in Greater London jumped by an average of 6.7% according to the property firm, rising to 9% in central London.
Out of the 68 locations which recorded a rental increase, 40 were in London.
Neath in South Wales was the worst performing retail location after rents fell by over 30% over the year.
The amount of vacant space edged up from 9.7% to 10.4%.
MEN wrote:High streets experiencing the sharpest fall in rents included Rochdale (down 13pc), Altrincham (12.5pc) Wigan (down 11pc), Stockport (seven per cent) and Macclesfield (6.3 per cent).
The bright spots included Manchester city centre, where rents remained stable at around £250 a sq ft, and Chester, where they rose by more than two per cent.
Greg Styles, head of retail development at Colliers International, said: “Retail rents in the north west have continued to fall in line with the national trend, but have again done so at a greater rate of decline.
“Rents in the larger centres and regional hubs have on the whole, remained robust but, of these centres, only Chester enjoyed marked rental growth.
“The most significant levels of rental decline have been in peripheral secondary towns in the north west. The worst-performing of these towns have been Birkenhead and Whitehaven, which have seen falls of 20 and 25 per cent respectively.
Capital Economics wrote:We expect all-industrial rental values to decline by 9% this year and by a further 13% in 2010. However, the experience of the early 1990s suggests that the worst performing regions could see annual falls in rental values that are around five percentage points bigger than the all-industrial average. The latest data from King Sturge suggest that the West Midlands, the North and Yorkshire & Humberside are the three regions most likely to see such above-average falls.
Although the average falls have been less dramatic of late only 2 or 3 % this year.
Hammer110 wrote:
Simply because there are no tenants regardless of the price, people are just not willing risk money or havent got the money to start up at the moment, we have had to drop our rents by about 20%, for short term lets I would go even lower. A "rival of" ours who is building a new park of 20 small industrial units is offering 6 months rent free.
It's going to be very difficult to calculate what is a fair rent for a such a unique type of property but a number of factors must be considered. Location, for example in my area Shoreditch, Central London, there a que of people waiting for available shops and this is the case for most of Central London in fact it is mostly outside the M25 where rents have come down, the rent on my A2 retail unit is currently worth more than double what I paid in 2005. So if rents are higher and commercial proeprties more desirable in the south east than should the rent be higher than the Etihad for example? Surely comparables of rents achieved on other stadiums must be taken into account, and so perhaps the Etihad deal may be considered as a comparable, whilst also taking into account other tenants sharing. Perhaps possible projected income from gate receipts might be a factor.
When taking everything into account I think it may be very difficult to evaluate what is a 'market rate' just based on the uniqueness of the property. A court case is looming in my opinion.
I wouldn't argue with much of that Paul. I was merely illustrating that demand amongstvother factors can dictate commercial rents. What we have to remember is the market for a property like the O/S is limited hence only two bidders who want to use the actual stadium on a more than ocassional basis.
From a legal perspective though, I think the courts will take a different approach. It is not so much the market rate as 'did a private business benefit from State Aid?'
For example, if the Highlands and Islands funding authority built a brand spanking new stadium for Inverness, they couldn't turn around and say we leased it for £25k a year because there's nobody else interested near Inverness and so that's the best we could get. The calculation will be public expense - shared use - rent recouped = private profit?
In our case we have a malignant neighbour in exactly the same business that will compare their private outlay on a new stadium with our public outlay. As Paul said it's bound for the European Court.
On what basis could Hearn/Orient go to court ? This has gone through enough bidding processes already. It's not like Orient can expect or force the LLDC to award the occupancy of the OS to Orient or even groundshare with West Ham.
It's their decision. Even if Orient were allowed to groundshare, how much rent would they be able to pay anyway ?
And it's totally ludicrous to expect a handout to Orient so they can build a new ground somewhere else. How would Orient argue they need a new ground ? Their ground has been modernised in recent years and still on average it's only half full. I don't see how Orient can expect any money only because another team got the OS (for rent) and not them.
As for benefitting from state aid, West Ham would only be a tenant and they would pay the rent they will be asked to pay.
We would not own the place (that was a decision West Ham had to accept after being given the impression we could buy the OS outright). Orient can sue all they like, it won't get them anywhere, but their lawyers will he a happy bunch I guess.
Orient should concentrate on playing good football, maybe get promoted, that would go a long way towards filling Brisbane Road to the rafters for their home games and might even increase their fan base long term...
the pink palermo wrote:
In the property game that simply isn't true .
Ask yourself why so many shops remain empty , warehouses - whole estates lie empty .
Market rates for rent in property are driven by the previous deal .
No, you're thinking of rent passing - the properties are empty because the rents agreed are above market . Market rent is struck when the deal is made.
) or stops us going to Stratford.
