• 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

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45485751

West Ham have refused to retract claims that the public is being "misled" by London Stadium's owners over the venue's financial struggles.

London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) said it was running at a loss because of "low rents" paid by the Hammers, a claim the club dispute.

LLDC asked for a retraction of the club's claim it had misled the public.

In response, West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady says the owners "have not managed costs competently".

In a letter, to London Assembly chairman Tony Arbour, seen by the BBC, Brady said: "We are staggered that the operating costs at the London Stadium exceed revenue."

Brady says LLDC chief executive Lyn Garner "omitted a number of key facts" at a London Assembly meeting last Friday.

Garner had said: "The elephant in the room is that the fee [West Ham] pay us for usage costs does not cover the event-day costs."

The Premier League club responded by saying it was "concerned" that "the public and, more importantly, taxpayers" were being "deliberately misled" over the long-running financial struggles of a stadium that was built for the London Olympics in 2012.

The Hammers say they contribute a total of £10m a year in revenue, including rent.

A letter sent by LLDC chairman Sir Peter Hendy on Monday in response to West Ham's statement read: "This is an extremely serious and damaging statement to make against public officials appearing before elected assembly members and we will be asking West Ham to retract the claim."

The letter adds: "Their claim that we enjoy £10m from our association with West Ham is simply wrong and the money we generate from West Ham does not cover the cost of putting on the match days."

In her letter, the latest response from the club, Brady says: "In our view, the actual elephant in the room is the E20's [LLDC's] failure to manage the operating costs competently.

"I would like to make clear to you that at no time did West Ham state that LLDC officials had lied. We said the statement Ms Garner had made was misleading the public because it did not present all the facts. We stand by that statement."

Home of the 2012 Olympics has become a battleground - analysis
Simon Stone, BBC Sport football reporter

Karren Brady's letter is the latest in a tit-for-tat exchange between West Ham and their landlords.

As has been apparent for some considerable time, London Stadium needs to generate more revenue if it is not going to end up landing the taxpayer with a very large bill.

West Ham have what they believe to be a watertight lease that runs for 99 years. The London Legacy Development Corporation currently receives £3m annually from the club but feels there are areas that would allow them to make a bit more.

So, arguments are taking place over the colouring of the carpet behind both goals, which badly needs replacing. West Ham are prepared to pay the one-off £380,000 cost, if they can change the colour to claret. LLDC wants an annual fee and to have it left a neutral green because claret might put off potential stadium naming rights sponsors - even though it hasn't found any yet and none is in the pipeline.

West Ham argue they are providing £10m in revenue, £6m of which comes through catering facilities used by their fans. But that figure doesn't take into account the costs involved in creating the catering itself, so the actual figure is less, although the Hammers privately feel the LLDC should be ending up with far more than the £30,000 per game they say is made from catering.

With the London Mayor's office also involved, the home of the 2012 Olympics has become a battleground.

As Brady correctly points out, the deal for West Ham to play at London Stadium was done to prevent it turning into a white elephant.

Yet, for all the magnificent athletics, rugby, baseball and pop concerts that take place there, without a positive relationship with its core tenant, one of Britain's most iconic sporting venues will never fulfil its legacy.
 
markysimmo said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45485751

West Ham have refused to retract claims that the public is being "misled" by London Stadium's owners over the venue's financial struggles.

London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) said it was running at a loss because of "low rents" paid by the Hammers, a claim the club dispute.

LLDC asked for a retraction of the club's claim it had misled the public.

In response, West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady says the owners "have not managed costs competently".

In a letter, to London Assembly chairman Tony Arbour, seen by the BBC, Brady said: "We are staggered that the operating costs at the London Stadium exceed revenue."

Brady says LLDC chief executive Lyn Garner "omitted a number of key facts" at a London Assembly meeting last Friday.

Garner had said: "The elephant in the room is that the fee [West Ham] pay us for usage costs does not cover the event-day costs."

The Premier League club responded by saying it was "concerned" that "the public and, more importantly, taxpayers" were being "deliberately misled" over the long-running financial struggles of a stadium that was built for the London Olympics in 2012.

The Hammers say they contribute a total of £10m a year in revenue, including rent.

A letter sent by LLDC chairman Sir Peter Hendy on Monday in response to West Ham's statement read: "This is an extremely serious and damaging statement to make against public officials appearing before elected assembly members and we will be asking West Ham to retract the claim."

The letter adds: "Their claim that we enjoy £10m from our association with West Ham is simply wrong and the money we generate from West Ham does not cover the cost of putting on the match days."

In her letter, the latest response from the club, Brady says: "In our view, the actual elephant in the room is the E20's [LLDC's] failure to manage the operating costs competently.

"I would like to make clear to you that at no time did West Ham state that LLDC officials had lied. We said the statement Ms Garner had made was misleading the public because it did not present all the facts. We stand by that statement."

Home of the 2012 Olympics has become a battleground - analysis
Simon Stone, BBC Sport football reporter

Karren Brady's letter is the latest in a tit-for-tat exchange between West Ham and their landlords.

As has been apparent for some considerable time, London Stadium needs to generate more revenue if it is not going to end up landing the taxpayer with a very large bill.

West Ham have what they believe to be a watertight lease that runs for 99 years. The London Legacy Development Corporation currently receives £3m annually from the club but feels there are areas that would allow them to make a bit more.

So, arguments are taking place over the colouring of the carpet behind both goals, which badly needs replacing. West Ham are prepared to pay the one-off £380,000 cost, if they can change the colour to claret. LLDC wants an annual fee and to have it left a neutral green because claret might put off potential stadium naming rights sponsors - even though it hasn't found any yet and none is in the pipeline.

West Ham argue they are providing £10m in revenue, £6m of which comes through catering facilities used by their fans. But that figure doesn't take into account the costs involved in creating the catering itself, so the actual figure is less, although the Hammers privately feel the LLDC should be ending up with far more than the £30,000 per game they say is made from catering.

With the London Mayor's office also involved, the home of the 2012 Olympics has become a battleground.

As Brady correctly points out, the deal for West Ham to play at London Stadium was done to prevent it turning into a white elephant.

Yet, for all the magnificent athletics, rugby, baseball and pop concerts that take place there, without a positive relationship with its core tenant, one of Britain's most iconic sporting venues will never fulfil its legacy.
Click to expand...
It would cost less to the tax payer if it was a white elephant.
 
Rorschach said:
It would cost less to the tax payer if it was a white elephant.
Click to expand...
this is before all the costly maintenance work that will be needed just to keep it alive. The majority of it was a temporary structure and was never meant to have a long life, they then put on a dodgy roof that I imagine was rushed as it was never meant to have a roof in its current size. It will be falling apart within 15 years and if the Italians (municipal ) stadiums are anything to go by they will not want to invest to keep it up to scratch.

Once we committed to Athletics only stadium to win the Olympics we should have kept to this, in reality they should have planned for dual use at the start and put this to tender (glad they didn't as we probably would have won). What we have now is a Temporary Athletics stadium with a Premiership tenant paying for 21 days use when in reality they prevent other usage for 9 months of the year. Everyone is losing (tax payers / their fans) except their owners who got a lump sum for the old ground (would like to know why the company they sold it to were able to sell a few weeks later for a bigger profit-- cough kickbacks---) while paying a pittance for a ground until they sell up.
 
r-u-s-x said:
this is before all the costly maintenance work that will be needed just to keep it alive. The majority of it was a temporary structure and was never meant to have a long life, they then put on a dodgy roof that I imagine was rushed as it was never meant to have a roof in its current size. It will be falling apart within 15 years and if the Italians (municipal ) stadiums are anything to go by they will not want to invest to keep it up to scratch.

Once we committed to Athletics only stadium to win the Olympics we should have kept to this, in reality they should have planned for dual use at the start and put this to tender (glad they didn't as we probably would have won). What we have now is a Temporary Athletics stadium with a Premiership tenant paying for 21 days use when in reality they prevent other usage for 9 months of the year. Everyone is losing (tax payers / their fans) except their owners who got a lump sum for the old ground (would like to know why the company they sold it to were able to sell a few weeks later for a bigger profit-- cough kickbacks---) while paying a pittance for a ground until they sell up.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing they can't just shut the thing down and throw WH out.
 
Rorschach said:
I'm guessing they can't just shut the thing down and throw WH out.
Click to expand...

If they are any good they can do this (go into administration) but then you have the "legacy" issue and the fact they have wasted £1bn+ - this was the argument that prevented them converting to the 25K that they said they would.
 
Manuel Pellegrini’s frustration at West Ham’s 60 leaked teams

Manuel Pellegrini is growing increasingly frustrated that news of his team selections at West Ham United is routinely being leaked before he has announced it to his players.

The manager is aware that a Twitter account with the handle @ExWHUemployee has revealed the team for more than 60 matches in succession, including the four Premier League defeats over which he has presided this season, leading him to make inquiries as to the likely source.

Pellegrini’s pre-match routine since joining West Ham this summer has been to hold a meeting with the players four hours before kick-off, at which he names his side, but elements of noteworthy team news have been appearing on match days before this point.

Pellegrini works with his players on team shape throughout the week but the only people who are given the team before the pre-match meeting are the club’s owners, David Sullivan and David Gold.

None of the club’s backroom staff or analysts is told of the starting XI before match day other than Pellegrini’s five assistant coaches and the director of football Mario Husillos, who have worked closely with him throughout his career.
Click to expand...

West Ham team leaks sum up disarray at London Stadium

It is indicative of the dysfunction that seems inherent at West Ham United that Manuel Pellegrini has spent some of his time since being appointed as manager in the summer trying to ascertain who at the club — inadvertently or otherwise — is leaking his team. A Twitter account with the handle @ExWHUemployee has correctly revealed West Ham’s starting XI before it has been published for more than 60 successive matches, with changes to the previous line-up made public before the players have officially been told.

The Chilean has quickly realised that despite paying him a salary which compares favourably with most of those on offer elsewhere in the Premier League West Ham are a club unlike the previous 13 for which he has worked. Pellegrini sought improvements to facilities at the club’s Rush Green training ground when he arrived in the summer and has already successfully lobbied for improvements to be made to the gym.

He has learnt that managing his relationship with the co-owners David Sullivan and David Gold is just as important as dealing with his players. Despite appearing to take a back seat in the transfer market, Sullivan and Gold remain very hands on and, much to Pellegrini’s amusement, are the first people to learn the team from him — before any of the players.
Click to expand...
 
jts1882 said:
Seems it was a lucky break for West Ham.
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/sep/17/jack-Wheelchair-six-weeks-west-ham-ankle-surgery

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Couldn't happen to a finer chap. Plenty of time for ciggies and trying to fcuk his cousins.
 
surely the deal needs to be renegotiated.
the london mayor's office could learn a thing or two from this guy:
screen-shot-2017-10-21-at-11.27.39.png

https://www.rappler.com/world/regio...mahathir-renegotiate-mega-projects-with-china
 
Stadium owners spend £4m on legal fees against West Ham

Owners of the London Stadium have spent £4m of taxpayers' money in legal fees over the past three years against tenants West Ham, it has been revealed.

The London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) has been in dispute with the Hammers over several aspects of its 100-year lease.

Gerry Murphy, LLDC deputy chief executive, confirmed the costs at a London Assembly meeting.

Assembly member Caroline Pidgeon said the situation was "extraordinary".

The stadium, built for the London Olympics in 2012, has been dogged by controversy over its finances. Converting it into a football ground cost £323m when the original estimate was £190m.

Although West Ham pay an index-linked annual rent of £2.5m as tenants, the venue is still set to lose £140m over the next 10 years.

Murphy, speaking at a meeting of the assembly's budget and performance committee, said: "Over the last three years our legal costs in relation to West Ham, by the end of this year, will be about £4m."

West Ham and the corporation have been in dispute over a number of areas, including the club's bid to increase capacity from 57,000 to 66,000. The issue is due to be heard by the High Court later this year.

They also disagreed over who should pay to make the stadium more supporter friendly, and a mutually agreed legal expert ruled in West Ham's favour.

This meant the LLDC must pay for:

  • Work to replace the material around the pitch perimeter
  • The installation of pumps to allow the sale of draught beer at all bars
  • Hospitality staff who work in the corporate boxes at the stadium
  • Ensuring all televisions at the ground are allowed to show live sport - West Ham paid for the licence but the London Stadium had adverts on some screens
LLDC chief executive Lyn Garner said the contract - which was drawn up with West Ham before she took over - was "ambiguous in places and unclear".

Liberal Democrat Pidgeon said: "It's extraordinary that there are 97 years left (on the contract) and there are constantly issues."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back