milo
Jack L. Jones
How many clubs in the world have been bought out like Emirates Marketing Project? If there was going to be another one, why West Ham?
-
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
How many clubs in the world have been bought out like Emirates Marketing Project? If there was going to be another one, why West Ham?
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Why not? Most large clubs are owned by complex share systems by people that may not sell out to protect the club. The level of investment in the club would be smaller than say us for arguments sake and you still go out and buy a host of players like you would anywhere else. Doesn't matter if your not top 4 you soon will be
milo
Jack L. Jones
My point was that there are only a very few clubs in the world that are financed like City. Why buy West Ham, or even another Premier League club, when the spending needed to crack the top four would be astronomical and three of the four clubs there could increase their spending to match you?
West Ham not owning their ground and being asset poor will make them less attractive to investors because it would make it even harder to bankroll them within FFP.
That said, I think that the current owners will be able to sell at a profit after the move and I think that they will probably look to do this.
Gazza's free kick
Danny Hill
Pretty obvious isn't it milo ? Won't cost much to buy the club, iconic stadium, excellent transport links and it's in London
milo
Jack L. Jones
They got all of of that but the stadium will be crap for football spectators and their revenue streams will be severely restricted.
Is it better than where they are now? Yes.
Will it catapult them into the big time? No.
Gazza's free kick
Danny Hill
Maybe, know people who have been working on the stadium and its not going to be as bad as people think, reckon they will get some serious investors behind the scenes if not bought out initially. Going to be a big threat to us in the next 5 years and they're not that much behind us on the pitch as it is now unfortunately
milo
Jack L. Jones
I think that they will get bought out pretty soon after moving in because I do not think that they are going to increase in value significantly afterwards. For the dildo brothers it will be the optimum time to sell.
Their revenue will increase after the move. It is a big stadium with low overheads. But they will not be able to get anything like the kind of revenue as other clubs with similar sized stadiums. They have to discount tickets to fill their current stadium. They will not get any stadium sponsorship revenue. They do not get any money from non-match day use. They have to pay to hire the stadium if they exceed their allotted number of games.
With regards to the stadium experience. Of course they are going to talk it up, they are trying to entice investors. The events there this summer tell a different story.
I'll judge how far apart we are on the pitch after a few more months when we have something to compare.
jaysea67
Erik Edman
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/sep/15/west-ham-details-olympic-stadium-deal
Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
• Freedom of Information request for full disclosure successful
• Club and LLDC had claimed details covered by ‘commercial confidentiality’
Campaigners for transparency over West Ham’s move to the Olympic Stadium have scored a major victory after the Information Commissioner ruled the terms of the deal should be made public, the Guardian can reveal.
Both the London Legacy Development Corporation and West Ham had long argued that the deal for the largely-taxpayer-funded stadium should remain buried beneath a sea of black ink for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The decision could be embarrassing for the London mayor, Boris Johnson, who was desperate to conclude a deal with a football club to give the stadium a sustainable future, and West Ham, battling to convince the public the terms do not amount to a taxpayers’ subsidy for a rich football club.
It may also reopen the argument over whether the LLDC broke European state-aid rules, after the Guardian revealed earlier this year that it had failed to apply to the European Commission for an exemption.
Following a convoluted Freedom of Information process started last September by the Charlton Athletic Supporters’ Trust, the Information Commissioner has ruled that the commercial terms under which the east London club will become the stadium’s anchor tenants next summer must be published.
It is already known that West Ham will pay only £15m of the £272m needed to make the 54,000-capacity stadium suitable for Premier League football, athletics and other events. The annual rental agreement on the 99-year lease is believed to be around £2.5m, although the true figure has never been confirmed.
A host of other details around the proportion of the naming rights, catering, merchandising and hospitality revenues taken by West Ham have remained secret, meanwhile.
The LLDC will also be obliged to reveal which costs it is meeting, on matchdays and elsewhere, and which are being met by West Ham. The exact terms of the lease, including a negotiated discount if West Ham are relegated, will also have to be revealed for the first time. During a long game of legal ping pong with those who sought more transparency, the LLDC would reveal only that West Ham retained all the money from ticket sales and that the annual usage fee covers matchday costs.
Unless it is successful with an appeal the LLDC will be forced to reveal the terms of the deal in its entirety, giving rise to a new wave of scrutiny over whether the taxpayer is getting value for money.
West Ham had argued in its submission that it was “deeply concerned that the disclosure of the commercially confidential and sensitive information will inevitably have an adverse impact on the stadium partnership”.
It was also concerned that full transparency around the terms had “the very real potential to damage the perception of WHUFC in relation to the stadium”. It said it could affect its ability to sell tickets and prejudice its negotiating position with customers and suppliers.
The LLDC argued that it would impact its search for a naming-rights partner and prejudice future negotiations between the stadium operator, Vinci, and other potential users of the stadium. It also revealed that West Ham had threatened to sue for breach of confidence if confidentiality clauses were broken.
But the Commissioner ruled that neither the LLDC nor West Ham had been able to demonstrate how the information could be exploited by competitors or how it would place them at a commercial disadvantage.
A coalition of 14 club supporters’ trusts, formed to campaign on the issue, will now call on Johnson not to appeal the decision and to publish the contract immediately.
“The Information Commissioner’s decision could not have been clearer, and it is equally clear to us that publication must follow. This campaign is publicly backed by 25,000 individuals, football supporters’ trusts from around the country, and the public interest in the issue is there for all to see,” said a spokesman. “We call on the mayor not to use the appeal system to delay publication of this document further. If he does it will open him up to the suspicion that he has something to hide.”
The largest chunk of funding for the transformation comes from a one-off settlement of £148.8m from the exchequer in 2010.
Newham council has provided £40m, West Ham £15m, almost £40m comes from the original £9.3bn budget for the Olympics, and a further £25m from the government.
The cost of the conversion soared from the original estimate of £160m when the decision was taken to award West Ham a 99-year lease after an earlier process had collapsed amid acrimony and legal challenge.
West Ham and the LLDC have argued that without the upfront costs to convert and kit out the stadium to make it suitable for football, it would be an ongoing drain on the public purse.
The LLDC board was formerly chaired by Johnson, who quietly resigned from the post shortly before the general election, and is now headed by his long time Olympics adviser, Neale Coleman.
“We are disappointed by the Information Commissioner’s decision which we believe will damage our ability to secure the best deal for the taxpayer in future. The stadium will have many users and publishing the contractual details will undermine our ability to deliver the best financial outcome from numerous future negotiations. We always strive to balance transparency while protecting the taxpayers’ financial interest and we are considering the ruling carefully as we decide what action to take.”
It is believed that the LLDC will come to a decision in the next 10 days over whether to appeal. If it decides against, it has 35 days from 3 September, the date the Information Commission sent the letter, to make the information public.
Gazza Dazzla
Chris Perry
I can't imagine west ham have done much wrong in all this, they've just got a good deal for themselves, but I think the LLDC could come out of this looking like even bigger muppets than everyone already thinks they are. After the shambles of begging us to bid with absolutely no intention of giving the decision to us, I hope they get shafted by what comes out.
StephenH
David Ginola
Baroness Brady to give her official title has done a fine job of promoting West Ham to the government as the preferred tenant. Her role as Small Business Ambassador to the UK Government under David Cameron and being a big admirer and 'friend' of her "mentor" George Osborne have all helped
Last edited:
milo
Jack L. Jones
You cannot blame them for trying to get the best deal that they can. If the terms are too favourable though it will be wide open to challenge as state aid to a private company which is illegal under European law. fudge knows where that leaves them if that happened and the challenge was successful.
Robspur12
Nick Barmby
Who would challenge it Milo? Are you a lawyer btw? Could you do it?
Robspur12
Nick Barmby
Hate that woman... Almost as much as the chuckle brothers.
milo
Jack L. Jones
From memory, I think that anyone can refer it. The FOI request that will see the deal released was launched by the Charlton Supporters' Association, maybe they had this is mind when they asked for it to be published. I'm not a lawyer, no.
milo
Jack L. Jones
The LLDC are not appealing the decision so the contract needs to be released within 35 days of the ICO's decision (3rd September).
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/sep/16/boris-johnson-happy-west-ham-olympic-stadium
Gazzasrightboot
Pascal Chimbonda
This will be interesting to watch. I don't know the repercussions if the European Commission decides that there has been "state aid". To be honest, we will know the exact profitability of the olympic stadium for West Ham.
I have to say, their defence is quite weak. They're harping on about the fact that they are securing a great deal for the tax payer. £2.5m x 99 years = £248m. Take away the running costs of them and I fail to see how this is such a good deal for the tax payer. I think the much stronger argument is that they have won a tender process that was open to all, and that way they can just avoid the discussion as to what a good deal this is for the tax payer and let the LLDC tell the lies.
Boris is going to get a lot of flack for this.
milo
Jack L. Jones
The problem is that the conditions of the bidding process were such that there was only one bidder able to meet them. You are never going to get the best deal where there is no competition.
It will be interesting to see what West Ham have to pay for additional games. My understanding is that their tenancy only allows for a certain number of games and a cup run or European involvement beyond August would mean that they would have to rent the stadium at a higher rate. The split on profits on sales within the ground will be worth noting too.
Robspur12
Nick Barmby
What I meant was is their a regulator under whose remit this falls?