• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Canning Town Bingo Club

Sheer incompetence !!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45439883

West Ham's rent at their London Stadium "does not even cover cost of staging matches", the ground's owners say.

Lyn Garner, London Legacy Development Corporation chief executive, also said "high operating costs" and "a lack of commercialisation" meant they were facing "losses for the next 97 years".

West Ham have paid an annual rent of £2.5m since moving in in August 2016.

The stadium, built for the London Olympics in 2012, has been dogged by controversy over its finances.

In July, it was revealed £450,000 of taxpayers' money had been spent on unsuccessfully searching for a sponsor for the venue, which cost £323m to convert into a football ground after an original estimate of £190m.

It was planned that any sponsorship would offset some of the £140m losses expected over the next 10 years.

"To be honest, what is really driving the problems here are the low rents paid by the concessionaires, particularly West Ham," Garner told a London Assembly meeting.

"The elephant in the room is the fee that they pay us in a usage cost does not cover the event-day costs, and that's before we go anywhere near a commercial advantage. It simply does not cover the costs of running the events on a day-to-day basis.

"The stadium is a centrepiece of the legacy of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. It's really important that we tackle the public subsidy issue over the next few years. There is much to do and many reasons for it."


The verdict on West Ham’s stadium move
'300k is a drop in the ocean'
Garner also said the group had decided to reject West Ham's offer to pay £300,000 to change the colour of the running track around the ground, from green to claret.

She said it was rejected for a variety of reasons, including the fact "it could affect potential naming rights" deals, adding that they were in discussions over charging an annual commercial fee of "around £300,000" instead.

"The usage fee is extremely low," she added. "We could take the £300k. It's a drop in the ocean for the size of the losses we are dealing with and will be dealing with for the next 97 years of this contract.

"But it's not unreasonable to ask the club to pay something extra for something they are getting back which is extra."

Meanwhile LLDC chairman Sir Peter Hendy told assembly members that it was wrong to suggest the stadium was not suitable for football - one of the reasons that has been put forward by some looking to explain the club's recent on-pitch struggles as they sit bottom of the Premier League.

He cited recent quotes from manager Manuel Pellegrini in which he said: "The pitch has the same measurements. The grass is in very good shape. The atmosphere with 55,000 people is great. The stadium is not an excuse."
 
markysimmo said:
Sheer incompetence !!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45439883

West Ham's rent at their London Stadium "does not even cover cost of staging matches", the ground's owners say.

Lyn Garner, London Legacy Development Corporation chief executive, also said "high operating costs" and "a lack of commercialisation" meant they were facing "losses for the next 97 years".

West Ham have paid an annual rent of £2.5m since moving in in August 2016.

The stadium, built for the London Olympics in 2012, has been dogged by controversy over its finances.

In July, it was revealed £450,000 of taxpayers' money had been spent on unsuccessfully searching for a sponsor for the venue, which cost £323m to convert into a football ground after an original estimate of £190m.

It was planned that any sponsorship would offset some of the £140m losses expected over the next 10 years.

"To be honest, what is really driving the problems here are the low rents paid by the concessionaires, particularly West Ham," Garner told a London Assembly meeting.

"The elephant in the room is the fee that they pay us in a usage cost does not cover the event-day costs, and that's before we go anywhere near a commercial advantage. It simply does not cover the costs of running the events on a day-to-day basis.

"The stadium is a centrepiece of the legacy of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. It's really important that we tackle the public subsidy issue over the next few years. There is much to do and many reasons for it."


The verdict on West Ham’s stadium move
'300k is a drop in the ocean'
Garner also said the group had decided to reject West Ham's offer to pay £300,000 to change the colour of the running track around the ground, from green to claret.

She said it was rejected for a variety of reasons, including the fact "it could affect potential naming rights" deals, adding that they were in discussions over charging an annual commercial fee of "around £300,000" instead.

"The usage fee is extremely low," she added. "We could take the £300k. It's a drop in the ocean for the size of the losses we are dealing with and will be dealing with for the next 97 years of this contract.

"But it's not unreasonable to ask the club to pay something extra for something they are getting back which is extra."

Meanwhile LLDC chairman Sir Peter Hendy told assembly members that it was wrong to suggest the stadium was not suitable for football - one of the reasons that has been put forward by some looking to explain the club's recent on-pitch struggles as they sit bottom of the Premier League.

He cited recent quotes from manager Manuel Pellegrini in which he said: "The pitch has the same measurements. The grass is in very good shape. The atmosphere with 55,000 people is great. The stadium is not an excuse."
Click to expand...
Sir Peter Hendy doesn't strike me as someone who sits in the cheap seats watching football.
With all the money in the game, and the money they got for Upton Park, plus the fact they got given that stadium, how the flying fudge are they not paying their way?
 
It’s all gearing up to selling the stadium. Paint the current situation as a bad deal for the taxpayer and eventually people will be happy to get rid of the burden.
 
LemonadeMoney said:
Sir Peter Hendy doesn't strike me as someone who sits in the cheap seats watching football.
With all the money in the game, and the money they got for Upton Park, plus the fact they got given that stadium, how the flying fudge are they not paying their way?
Click to expand...
This is all Boris, many fudge ups to get to that point but managed to be convinced that they were hiring it for 20 odd (match days only days rather than the 9 months. That and the agreement to carry the costs of conversion and belive that one company could do it at a fraction of the cost everyone else quoted.
 
markysimmo said:
Sheer incompetence !!
Click to expand...

Make note, because I doubt you'll ever see me say it again - but on the WHAM side of things, someone was VERY competent.

Laughing all the way to the bank, from their POV its a stupendous deal, quite incredible.

What the other side were thinking? Well its so incompetent the only think that makes sense is pay offs. Which also seems like a WHAM thing to do as well.

Glenda's Legs said:
It’s all gearing up to selling the stadium. Paint the current situation as a bad deal for the taxpayer and eventually people will be happy to get rid of the burden.
Click to expand...

Given the rental agreement they have, why would West Ham buy the stadium?
 
Given that it costs them peanuts to have now, would it?

They would take on the burden of a mortgage and all the running costs. Yes, they could make better commercial income (I assume) but would it be worth it?

I dont know the answer, but I suspect it might now be as obvious as it seems.

The Porn dwarves have got away with daylight robbery, and are currently laughing all the way to the bank.

Buying that stadium brings with it a whole lot of expense, and problems, they might not have the appetite for.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Not doing to well at it though are they?

Not that Levy would be interested, of course. Though I think he would be interested in a bid as Scara says, to push the price up.
Click to expand...
They are going to court every other week won't put up their boards, not letting them use the claret carpet without paying 300k a year. Doing all they can now, the West ham board have tinkled them off
 
[QUOTE="nayimfromthehalfwayline, post: 1093172, member: 104"


Given the rental agreement they have, why would West Ham buy the stadium?[/QUOTE]

Assuming they want out at some point, owning their stadium might make it easier to find a buyer I guess.
Although it will always be a rubbish venue for football.
 
Bullet said:
Who said anything about keeping it is a stadium? It was always a temporary structure.

Levy would demolish it and turn it into shops, houses, restaurants, or one giant Mr Byrite.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine the land alone is worth more than the caravan dwellers are likely to pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back