-
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
The London Taxpayers' Stadium Shambles
- Thread starter ArcspacE
- Start date
Superhudd
Simon Davies
You're a man obsessed
When it comes to Tottenham.. possibly.
rxl
Øyvind Leonhardsen
Anyone think the shambles at WHUFC might be playing the long game?
20 years down the road the OS, which has been patched into a football stadium with very temporary looking structures, might not be fit for any purpose? WHUFC then buy the land and bulldoze the lot (whose going to remember a legacy from 30 years ago right?) and build a shiny new stadium with the money they've been trousering from the Tax Payer over the next 20 years...
20 years down the road the OS, which has been patched into a football stadium with very temporary looking structures, might not be fit for any purpose? WHUFC then buy the land and bulldoze the lot (whose going to remember a legacy from 30 years ago right?) and build a shiny new stadium with the money they've been trousering from the Tax Payer over the next 20 years...
parklane1
Tony Galvin
Got this from the Gov.
The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Hold public inquiry into West Ham & LLDC deal for rental of Olympic Stadium”.
Government responded:
West Ham United has a concession at the Stadium and their contributions reflect that status. The contract, awarded after an open public competition, has been widely scrutinised and tested in court.
Following the completion of its transformation programme the Stadium will be - unlike so many previous Olympic Stadiums - a world-class multi-use arena with a long-term future, and one that won’t require continuous support from the taxpayer. The stadium remains in public ownership (E20 Stadium LLP – a joint venture between the London Legacy Development Corporation and Newham Council) and the profits from its multiple uses will flow to the taxpayer.
As a long-term concessionaire West Ham United will only access the full stadium facilities for and shortly ahead of home matches, anticipated to be an average of 25 games a year. The stadium’s other anchor concession-holder, British Athletics, has a concession for one month a year. The stadium will be available for commercial and other uses at all times outside of these existing commitments.
The Stadium is a multi-use venue, which has already hosted a major athletics meet this year, the Sainsbury’s Anniversary Games, and will host a range of other events in 2015 including five matches during the Rugby World Cup this autumn, a Rugby League international between England and New Zealand and the Race of Champions motorsport event. In addition the Stadium will host elite athletics including the IAAF and IPC Athletics World Championships in 2017.
A world class stadium operator has been appointed and it is part of the operator agreement that the Stadium will host concerts and other events.
None of these events will financially benefit West Ham United. All revenues from these events will be shared by the operator and the Stadium owners. The stadium operator has a proven international track record of success in managing and maximising revenue from multi-use stadia and is contractually incentivised to generate maximum income.
The agreement with West Ham United, including their contribution to transformation costs and rent, followed an open competitive process, which was delivered under EU rules, conducted visibly and exposed to significant scrutiny. The outcome has been tested in the courts and upheld. As the winning bid this constituted the best available return for the taxpayer and secures the commercial viability of a national asset for the next 100 years.
The European Commission (EC) is responsible for assessing whether public investment distorts the competitive market. The EC has considered this issue on more than one occasion and has done so with full sight of the contractual terms, comprehensive detail of the tender exercise and in depth legal opinion on compliance with UK and EU law. It has found no case to answer. Therefore we do not believe that a public inquiry is necessary.
The detail of the rental agreement between the Stadium owners and West Ham United is commercially sensitive. Disclosing details of the contract would undermine the future negotiating position of the Stadium's operator, Vinci, who are working hard to bring in future events to get the greatest possible return and ensure that the Stadium is a commercial success.
It is important that the stadium owners and operator are able to negotiate future contracts in a way that derive maximum value and are not constrained by any one agreement. Such arrangements are standard practice and are designed to both protect the previous public expenditure and maximise the return on this investment.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Click this link to view the response online:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106355?reveal_response=yes
The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate.
The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee
Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament
The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Hold public inquiry into West Ham & LLDC deal for rental of Olympic Stadium”.
Government responded:
West Ham United has a concession at the Stadium and their contributions reflect that status. The contract, awarded after an open public competition, has been widely scrutinised and tested in court.
Following the completion of its transformation programme the Stadium will be - unlike so many previous Olympic Stadiums - a world-class multi-use arena with a long-term future, and one that won’t require continuous support from the taxpayer. The stadium remains in public ownership (E20 Stadium LLP – a joint venture between the London Legacy Development Corporation and Newham Council) and the profits from its multiple uses will flow to the taxpayer.
As a long-term concessionaire West Ham United will only access the full stadium facilities for and shortly ahead of home matches, anticipated to be an average of 25 games a year. The stadium’s other anchor concession-holder, British Athletics, has a concession for one month a year. The stadium will be available for commercial and other uses at all times outside of these existing commitments.
The Stadium is a multi-use venue, which has already hosted a major athletics meet this year, the Sainsbury’s Anniversary Games, and will host a range of other events in 2015 including five matches during the Rugby World Cup this autumn, a Rugby League international between England and New Zealand and the Race of Champions motorsport event. In addition the Stadium will host elite athletics including the IAAF and IPC Athletics World Championships in 2017.
A world class stadium operator has been appointed and it is part of the operator agreement that the Stadium will host concerts and other events.
None of these events will financially benefit West Ham United. All revenues from these events will be shared by the operator and the Stadium owners. The stadium operator has a proven international track record of success in managing and maximising revenue from multi-use stadia and is contractually incentivised to generate maximum income.
The agreement with West Ham United, including their contribution to transformation costs and rent, followed an open competitive process, which was delivered under EU rules, conducted visibly and exposed to significant scrutiny. The outcome has been tested in the courts and upheld. As the winning bid this constituted the best available return for the taxpayer and secures the commercial viability of a national asset for the next 100 years.
The European Commission (EC) is responsible for assessing whether public investment distorts the competitive market. The EC has considered this issue on more than one occasion and has done so with full sight of the contractual terms, comprehensive detail of the tender exercise and in depth legal opinion on compliance with UK and EU law. It has found no case to answer. Therefore we do not believe that a public inquiry is necessary.
The detail of the rental agreement between the Stadium owners and West Ham United is commercially sensitive. Disclosing details of the contract would undermine the future negotiating position of the Stadium's operator, Vinci, who are working hard to bring in future events to get the greatest possible return and ensure that the Stadium is a commercial success.
It is important that the stadium owners and operator are able to negotiate future contracts in a way that derive maximum value and are not constrained by any one agreement. Such arrangements are standard practice and are designed to both protect the previous public expenditure and maximise the return on this investment.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Click this link to view the response online:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106355?reveal_response=yes
The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate.
The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee
Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament
ringo
Tim Sherwood
Something wrong here surely.
PS They had better make sure we are still close to the pitch in the new stadium. I'm sure they pointed that out as a feature early on in the planning, but it doesn't seem to have featured as much post NFL revelations.
spurs' magna carter
Ronnie Rosenthal
I think it's just the austerity, look at Greece's post Olympic state, yes their finances are a shambles but even before the Credit Crunch their venues were collectively losing £1m per month. The UK government wanted to avoid this in anyway possible and rightly so imo, especially seeing as we're in debt by roughly 85% of GDP.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Yes. It is a temporary structure.
SpurMeUp
Gary Stevens
West Ham Olympic Stadium deal: Fans inquiry call thrown out
Image copyrightWest Ham
Image captionWest Ham will play at the Olympic Stadium from the 2016-17 season
The government has rejected a request from a group of football supporters to investigate the rental of the Olympic Stadium to West Ham United.
The supporters claimed the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) would subsidise rent, which it denied.
The group made up of trusts from clubs including Arsenal said it was "disappointed" by the decision but had expected it.
The government said the deal had been "scrutinised" and "upheld".
A Freedom of Information request previously revealed West Ham contributed £15m to the £272m conversion of the stadium and will pay up to £2.5m a year in rent.
The LLDC, which owns the stadium, will pay for "facilities and services" such as pitch maintenance and for stewarding on match days, which can cost £2.5m annually.
In comparison, Emirates Marketing Project, who moved into the former Commonwealth Games venue, pay overheads on top of £4m rent.
Image copyrightGetty Images
Image captionThe Olympic Stadium will host other sporting and entertainment events
The coalition of supporters, made up of trusts from clubs including Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur, started an online petition which had gained more than 24,000 signatures in favour of an inquiry.
Mat Roper said the group remained concerned they were expected to see it as a "fabulous deal for the taxpayer" when they had not seen any figures backing that up and one document they requested had been "completely redacted".
He said: "We're no nearer the truth of what we think is in the rental agreement....until we know that then we're going to continue.
"Whether it happens to be continuing with that petition, a new petition or... a new FOI request, it's certainly not dead in the water."
The group said they remained concerned the deal would give the Hammers a competitive advantage.
But the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said: "West Ham United has a concession at the stadium and their contributions reflect that status.
"The contract, awarded after an open public competition, has been widely scrutinised and tested in court.
"The stadium remains in public ownership and the profits from its multiple uses will flow to the taxpayer."
While West Ham will host all of their home matches at the stadium, British Athletics will take control of the arena for one month every summer.
Image captionWest Ham will play at the Olympic Stadium from the 2016-17 season
The government has rejected a request from a group of football supporters to investigate the rental of the Olympic Stadium to West Ham United.
The supporters claimed the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) would subsidise rent, which it denied.
The group made up of trusts from clubs including Arsenal said it was "disappointed" by the decision but had expected it.
The government said the deal had been "scrutinised" and "upheld".
A Freedom of Information request previously revealed West Ham contributed £15m to the £272m conversion of the stadium and will pay up to £2.5m a year in rent.
The LLDC, which owns the stadium, will pay for "facilities and services" such as pitch maintenance and for stewarding on match days, which can cost £2.5m annually.
In comparison, Emirates Marketing Project, who moved into the former Commonwealth Games venue, pay overheads on top of £4m rent.
Image captionThe Olympic Stadium will host other sporting and entertainment events
The coalition of supporters, made up of trusts from clubs including Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur, started an online petition which had gained more than 24,000 signatures in favour of an inquiry.
Mat Roper said the group remained concerned they were expected to see it as a "fabulous deal for the taxpayer" when they had not seen any figures backing that up and one document they requested had been "completely redacted".
He said: "We're no nearer the truth of what we think is in the rental agreement....until we know that then we're going to continue.
"Whether it happens to be continuing with that petition, a new petition or... a new FOI request, it's certainly not dead in the water."
The group said they remained concerned the deal would give the Hammers a competitive advantage.
But the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said: "West Ham United has a concession at the stadium and their contributions reflect that status.
"The contract, awarded after an open public competition, has been widely scrutinised and tested in court.
"The stadium remains in public ownership and the profits from its multiple uses will flow to the taxpayer."
While West Ham will host all of their home matches at the stadium, British Athletics will take control of the arena for one month every summer.
Gazzasrightboot
Pascal Chimbonda
I have to say I am in two minds about this. On the one hand, it does appear that West Ham are getting a steal i.e. the use of a new stadium for a very small amount of money. Indeed, it seems like a low amount of money compared to how much we are being asked to pay for the rental of Wembley.
On the other hand, they are just a tenant. Do tenants have to pay for the conversion of a property to make it fit for purpose to them? They won't get any revenue from the stadium for any other events apart from their football games. It could be because it is late, that I just can't quite make up my mind.
The response suggests that the contract has been tested in court, and that the European Commission has already considered this case and found no issue. I find this quite remarkable, as I thought from the Panorama program, they said that it could only be heard by the European Commission if a company made a complaint.
I can see this one dragging, but I can't see it affecting the decision. Either way, it's hardly going to be a great experience for the supporter with some of those views, despite the retractable seating.
On the other hand, they are just a tenant. Do tenants have to pay for the conversion of a property to make it fit for purpose to them? They won't get any revenue from the stadium for any other events apart from their football games. It could be because it is late, that I just can't quite make up my mind.
The response suggests that the contract has been tested in court, and that the European Commission has already considered this case and found no issue. I find this quite remarkable, as I thought from the Panorama program, they said that it could only be heard by the European Commission if a company made a complaint.
I can see this one dragging, but I can't see it affecting the decision. Either way, it's hardly going to be a great experience for the supporter with some of those views, despite the retractable seating.
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
Apparently it takes a crew of 100 labourers 7 days to put the retractable seats in place which equates (at £20 per hour) to about £336k each time they need to change the layout!
Mind the gap...
Er.....all that exposed scaffolding makes it look more temporary than before! That is atrocious.
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
metalgear
Luka Modric
how much can they gain from selling now a club without a stadium i wonder.