LondonTaxpayer wrote: or even other more radical ideas like reducing the stadium even further and creating community sports facilities
I'd love you to explain to all of us how this plan would re-coup the £437m the Tax Payer had already spent on the Stadium it's original 2012 conception.
Red Kens Slave wrote:long term, the losses to the public purse from this is potentially massive. what intrigues me is that i've not seen any clamour for the details regarding Athletics UK using the stadium or the Rugby WC organisers. the arguments from the LLDC would be the same in terms of why they wouldn't want to disclose the information so this assertion that somehow WHU are complicit with some sort of cover up seems disingenuous at best.
There has not actually been any clamour for the disclosure of West Hams agreement from the General Public, only a clamour from within the Football supporters community sparked or fueled by sections of the investigative media and Richard Hunt ! Or Jelousy as it's commonly known !
LondonTaxpayer wrote:So what legacy does £250M get for the taxpayer?
It gets more than their money back over a period of 99 years. Financial projections measure that it will be double.
If you know of an alternative way to recoup the money, do let us know. I'm intrigued. Seriously.
It also regenerates the area, creates new businesses serving the stadium or expands existing business - i.e. local pubs, facilities, etc, thus creating new jobs - not least the extra staff West Ham will need to serve 54k people. As a public transport stadium = more cash and so staff for to TFL, etc, etc.
In turn that means more tax payers, and less people on benefits.
LondonTaxpayer wrote:My fear is that the only real athletics legacy will be the community track next to the stadium. That is the scandal here
No. There is no scandal here. Only your pure speculation.
Rasp wrote:Apparently full disclosure could lead to a renegotiation of the contract.
I doubt there will be any renegotiation of contracts with West Ham.
What the LLDC will be left with though is a £250m bill for renovation on top of the £430m original bill + damages and costs that will be owed to Galliard Homes via West Ham Utd once the Boleyn ground sale contract has to be cancelled.
All this on top of a stadium that will sit underused for the majority of the year !
Part of me now thinks sod it, let the press and the supporters groups have their way, reveal that the government shafted tax payers to give West Ham a great deal, we then pull out, stay at the Boleyn and the government is left with the original build cost, renovation costs and any compensation owed to the developer who was going to redevelop the Boleyn.
I know it makes no sense and will costs me more in tax etc, but ever since it was announced that we won the tender, everyone has taken every opportunity to dig us out and try and run our club through the mud because of it. I'm in a really 'f*ck em all' mood today.
Boris Johnson: I have nothing to hide over West Ham Olympic Stadium deal
Owen Gibson @owen_g
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.”
That bloke arguing with Boris couldn't believe that we were getting to keep all the money from ticket sales ? Why wouldn't we ?? I can possibly get why people would complain about the match day policing etc but why the hell would we not get to keep all the ticket money ? you get the impression that people don't think we are entitled to make any extra revenue from the move !!!
Yeah, I don't really buy that as every financial or economic projection is confident for about six months at best. I should know, I've been doing them my whole career.
What may be more damaging is some sort of revelation that west ham expect to squeeze match day revenues by slowly jacking up ticket prices. They're still after all well off of the other London clubs.
There are also clauses where the club pay more for every incremental success. SRW noted in a meeting at the GLA that E20 gets a bonus if West Ham win the Champions League, which when revealed would be gleefully set upon by the media trying to hound this deal (principally the Guardian and BBC) as
Evidence that west ham are getting state aid (which it doesn't prove but fools are easily convinced).
Why is it state aid if West Ham pay more money back to the taxpayer if they win the Champions League or hit other performance targets ? Surely that is good to the taxpayer and detrimental to West Ham, so the opposite of state aid.
Or is the government now able to rig Premier League and Champions League results in order to increase the earnings they make from West Ham in the OS ?
Thanks Gavros for trying to educate the Charlton Life people, I wonder how long your patience will last...
"West Ham ......... also concerned that full transparency around the terms had “the very real potential to damage the perception of WHUFC in relation to the stadium”.
Damage the perception of whom and why? I don't like the sound of this.
DaveWHU1964 wrote:"West Ham ......... also concerned that full transparency around the terms had “the very real potential to damage the perception of WHUFC in relation to the stadium”.
Damage the perception of whom and why? I don't like the sound of this.
I reckon the Daves have taken on and absorbed just about every clause suggested during negotiations. As they're probably going to sell up soon, I just think that they are keen to keep the info from us rather than anyone else - they're long term plans will become a lot clearer.
I might be wrong but I reckon we are losing out on a hell of a lot more income than already suggested. They're not looking long term. They're looking at selling us in an iconic stadium.
New owners would IMO renegotiate and eventually buy the stadium thus putting all of this to bed. If we buy it and allow athletics free use every summer, everyone will be happy.....
(We'll then knock it down, rent Wembley and build the stadium Levy wanted to build !!!) :lol:
HamburgHammer wrote:Sounds like a good plan Believer...
And one that is very unlikely and will never happen. Where's the income benefit if you already have 54k (or more seats) available?
Wouldn't surprise me if the terms are not as great as expected in the long-term. The key was always to sell the Boleyn to improve the balance sheet, not secure the long-term future of the club. Not that it really matters. The TV money is far more crucial than any income from the stadium anyway, particularly with "affordable football" and thousands of seats being given away for free every season.
hadleigh, 99 years is a long time. There could be a scenario where we have new wealthy owners who might be interested to make some drastic changes to the stadium. At the same time the government might be prepared to listen to an offer to buy if they need some serious money fast and they would be happy to get the OS off their hands.
Not saying this will definitely happen, but it is a possibility.
