POP POP POP Robson wrote:.................................
Also what is the likelihood of a future potential buyer being allowed to buy the stadium outright? Is it something that will never happen because of the athletics legacy?
Money trumps all agreements.
Heathrow Terminal 4 was built on the condition there would be no Terminal 5. Terminal 5 was built on the condition there would be no third runway.
London City airport got planning permission (or whatever big things like airports get) on the strict condition only turboprops could fly from it. About a month after it opened the application to fly turbojets went in and was approved.
I reckon that the current arrangement will have a life of about 20 - 25 years. By then the athletics legacy will have been satisfied, and the stadium will probably need a massive update and overhaul. At that point it will be in West Ham's interest to buy the site and rebuild (and providing some of the heat has gone from the situation there should be an opportunity, otherwise the obligation to pay for the upgrade could fall on the taxpayer).
Albie Beck wrote:I reckon that the current arrangement will have a life of about 20 - 25 years. By then the athletics legacy will have been satisfied, and the stadium will probably need a massive update and overhaul. At that point it will be in West Ham's interest to buy the site and rebuild (and providing some of the heat has gone from the situation there should be an opportunity, otherwise the obligation to pay for the upgrade could fall on the taxpayer).
As the whole of the OS seats we will be using are temporary, I agree.
There will next summer I am sure be a supplementary planning application to take capacity to 70k in athletics mode for the World Championships. That'll leave just short of 67k available for football, which again I believe will be part of the application. A variation of lease would then be required as part of the contract to allow for the marginal increase in capacity and rent.
I would. It's an increase but significantly less than the original absolute number. Marginal.
The cost to te LLDC of increasing capacity in this manner would be absolutely tiny, and with those seats yielding far less than the average, West Ham would rightly argue their marginal revenue from their use is significantly lower than the increase in the number of seats, so an increase in rent of 10-15% (250k to 375k, £25m - £37.5m PVd over the lease) should more than cover it.