West Ham at the London Stadium | Nearly £450k of taxpayers money used to try and find a sponsor

Adisa said:
Can't be bothered to do they math but can anyone here calculate how long it will take to brake even? The stadium build and conversion cost close to £700m.
Click to expand...

This is where the real scandal lies. The cost to convert the Olympic Stadium into a Premiership football ground was over £270 of which West Ham were forced to pay only £15m whilst the tax payer paid the rest.

I have no problem with West Ham renting the stadium as what else are they going to do with it, however they should have paid the £270m conversion cost.
 
SirHenryPercy said:
This is where the real scandal lies. The cost to convert the Olympic Stadium into a Premiership football ground was over £270 of which West Ham were forced to pay only £15m whilst the tax payer paid the rest.

I have no problem with West Ham renting the stadium as what else are they going to do with it, however they should have paid the £270m conversion cost.
Click to expand...

Because?
And so if after the lease period another club rents it due to having a better proposal what does that mean?
Its down to the owner to make the property fit for renting, not the renters.
 
Cassidy said:
Because?
And so if after the lease period another club rents it due to having a better proposal what does that mean?
Its down to the owner to make the property fit for renting, not the renters.
Click to expand...

Seeing as the lease is for 99 years I very much doubt the cost of this refurbishment will still be relevant.

They should have paid it because essentially it's their business running out of there. Do you think Stratford shopping centre next door fit out the shops when they lease them, or that they fired out Asoers? If I lease a nightclub and want to redevelop it for my purpose I'm either sure as hell going to pay for it or end up paying proportionally more rent due to the refit, this clearly can't be argued in West Ham's case as the refit alone won't be covered by the 99 years of rent.

Furthermore the tax payer will continue to be burdened with additional running costs of the stadium to support West Ham as the anchor tenant, as an example all clubs pay for their stewarding, well now all except one who's stewarding will be paid by the tax man.

It's evidentially not a good deal for anybody except West Ham, as I said before I see no problem at all in them leasing the stadium but honestly the agreement is a bit of a joke.
 
Cassidy said:
Because?
And so if after the lease period another club rents it due to having a better proposal what does that mean?
Its down to the owner to make the property fit for renting, not the renters.
Click to expand...
I think what the poster is trying to say is the rent over a realistic period should cover the conversion cost. As it stands it will take over 50 years even before that is covered.
 
You can see why Tottenham were very angry about this deal. It looks bent.
 
Adisa said:
You can see why Tottenham were very angry about this deal. It looks bent.
Click to expand...

I'm glad we didn't get it as we simply had to stay in Tottenham. But for the taxpayer the Spurs proposal wouldn't have cost anything and would have included the building of a brand new national athletics stadium.

That said it's West Ham area along with Leyton Orient, IMHO it's right that they got it but it should have been a ground share at realistic commercial rates and been a benefit to the community and taxpayer.
 
Adisa said:
I think what the poster is trying to say is the rent over a realistic period should cover the conversion cost. As it stands it will take over 50 years even before that is covered.
Click to expand...

The entire 99 years rent payments won't cover the cost of the refurbishment, you don't need to be a hardened negotiator to see this is a bit of a joke.

West Ham are already reaping massive financial rewards from this deal as evidenced by only last month Payet signing a new deal there at £125k a week.

I think people better get use to West Ham being in and around the top 4 as they are going to have some serious financial clout.
 
@Invictus


Thanks for the share bro.

Hahaha as we thought. Excellent deal for the Hammers. Even at a 5-6% return per annum, their rent on the Olympic stadium should be well covered, without touching the capital!
 
brady_2688023b.jpg
 
"Ooo, you're so masterful. I'm all flustered!"
"BTW babes, that's not a tie *winks*"
 
do.ob said:
Doesn't catering make up a sizeable amount of the match day revenue? Depending on who got the rights to that the deal might actually be a lot worse/better (depending on your side) than it actually looks.
Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking as well.

Bums in seats are one thing... but who gets a piece of the match day revenue from the ground is very curious. Depending on how many pies / tea / pepsi / budweisers / hot dogs / crisps the hammers fans stuff themselves with (not to mention the cash cow that is the luxury box catering and hospitality services) and we are talking tens of millions of pounds a year... the deal could look even better, or infinitely worse.
 
Balu said:
It's a lot more than 2.5m if they have to share income generated through the stadium though? Like the part with the naming rights for example, which is mentioned in the op.
Click to expand...
You mean they get paid money for naming rights on a stadium they don't own.
 
Snow said:
You mean they get paid money for naming rights on a stadium they don't own.
Click to expand...
Don't they have to give a part of that money back though? Obviously they get a share of the naming rights. West Ham playing in it is a big reason why you can make money with naming rights in the first place. I'm not saying it's a fair deal or anything like that, I don't know enough about it. But there seems to be a lot more money going back than just the rent. And West Ham will make a lot less money with the stadium compared to a club owning their own.
 
Balu said:
Don't they have to give a part of that money back though? Obviously they get a share of the naming rights. West Ham playing in it is a big reason why you can make money with naming rights in the first place. I'm not saying it's a fair deal or anything like that, I don't know enough about it. But there seems to be a lot more money going back than just the rent. And West Ham will make a lot less money with the stadium compared to a club owning their own.
Click to expand...

If it was a fair and realistic deal then the LLDC and West Ham wouldn't have fought tooth and nail against having the agreement published. The reality is that it's an insulting deal to the taxpayer and the Olympic legacy.

That said I think that the LLDC looked at Athens and Barcelona and panicked which in some ways may be understandable, however they have allowed West Ham and their political buddies to well and truly pull their pants down and those of the taxpayer.

Simple questions have to be answered for example:

Why is the rent so pitiful when the turnstile income alone could reach £60m over the 25 games which they are allowed?

Will the rent even cover the cost of policing, stewarding, stadium maintenance, pitch maintenance, medical facilities, energy bills etc? (Obviously no chance)

Why do they receive any income from catering when they contribute nothing towards the cost of it?

Why were they asked to pay only £15m of the £270m refit costs, a refit that they requested in a stadium which was already suitable for football but not to their liking (running track)?

Why are they allowed to keep all of the gate receipts, with such a ridiculous rent, why wasn't a rent plus percentage of gate receipts deal put in place?

To be honest it's an absolute shocker, a child could have negotiated a better deal for the taxpayer than this is, and to say it's a good deal for the taxpayer is just insulting to everybody who pays their dues.

And just to highlight the final point I would say that they are highly unlikely to make less money than a club who owns their stadium, by the time you factor in all of the maintenance and staffing costs they are laughing.
 
What the actual feck. Absolute peanuts for a Premier League club. How much do/did City pay for their council house?

That's also a real kick in the teeth for Arsenal who have just done the hard yards for their stadium and Spurs who are about to enter that phase and face huge costs over the next decade or so.

Is there any way the tax payer (as a collective) can litigate against this? I'm sure Daniel Levy will certainly try!
 
NinjaFletch said:
In absolute fairness to West Ham, were there better offers on the table that would have clawed the tax payer back more money that did not involve tearing down the whole thing?
Click to expand...
This is the problem, isn't it? It was this or forget legacy altogether.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Not sure they could as that completely pisses on the legacy aspect of the stadium, which was pretty much the entire reason it was constructed in the first place and one of the driving arguments behind the games.
Click to expand...

So it is better to piss on your tax payers by making them pay £272m to upgrade a £537m stadium then give it away for £247.5m over a 99 year contract. Or the fact that we are paying for policing the stadium for repairs including the upkeep of the pitch lights and dressing rooms.
 
Sassy Colin said:
Apparently, there are a whole load of addons, £2.5M is just the basic rent. Can't remember what they all are.
Click to expand...

Like an extra £100k rent for any games over 25 in a year, a game for which the gate receipts could be over £2m?

Or perhaps the £1m they will have to pay to the LLDC for winning the CL?
 
Cassidy said:
Because?
And so if after the lease period another club rents it due to having a better proposal what does that mean?
Its down to the owner to make the property fit for renting, not the renters.
Click to expand...
In 99 years time? You make it sound like a 6 month lease that you would take out on a house.
 
Balu said:
Don't they have to give a part of that money back though? Obviously they get a share of the naming rights. West Ham playing in it is a big reason why you can make money with naming rights in the first place. I'm not saying it's a fair deal or anything like that, I don't know enough about it. But there seems to be a lot more money going back than just the rent. And West Ham will make a lot less money with the stadium compared to a club owning their own.
Click to expand...
They get a new stadium and money for it without having to invest any themselves. Only thing they have to pay is one game's worth of income for the whole year. Second club in recent times that have been given this deal on a silver platter. Meanwhile a small club like Bournemouth make due with the 11k stadium.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
It isn't at all. PSG books only balance because they are cooked under bogus in house sponsorship deals. Previously under FFP they would have had to prove that those deals represent real market value.
Click to expand...

In economic terms, the FFP is a barrier to entry - nothing to do with concepts of ethics or fair competition.

The idea is to protect the interests of an historical oligopoly of clubs that don't want new insiders in the football landscape. Monaco, ManCity, PSG are viewed as potential fierce enemies in the long-term.

FFP is an excellent false pretext to say "We have to stop the rapid development of these clubs owned by exotic investors".
 
Downcast said:
In economic terms, the FFP is a barrier to entry - nothing to do with concepts of ethics or fair competition.

The idea is to protect the interests of an historical oligopoly of clubs that don't want new insiders in the football landscape. Monaco, ManCity, PSG are viewed as potential fierce enemies in the long-term.

FFP is an excellent false pretext to say "We have to stop the rapid development of these clubs owned by exotic investors".
Click to expand...

It was implemented because the English League was dominating European football and the Premier League was attracting new billionaire owners every season. Funny how once a French side got a billionaire owner the French (and totally proven as corrupt and now disgraced) president of UEFA (whose son is earning a six figure salary from said billionaire owner of French club) suddenly decided how random billionaire owners were suddenly a good thing.

'Financial doping' suddenly became a way of attaining equality for the downtrodden little guys.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
It was implemented because the English League was dominating European football and the Premier League was attracting new billionaire owners every season. Funny how once a French side got a billionaire owner the French (and totally proven as corrupt and now disgraced) president of UEFA (whose son is earning a six figure salary from said billionaire owner of French club) suddenly decided how random billionaire owners were suddenly a good thing.

'Financial doping' suddenly became a way of attaining equality for the downtrodden little guys.
Click to expand...

You're right to say that the EPL attracts a lot of billionaire owners like the French league with Monaco & PSG, the Russian league...

Sure, FIFA and UEFA are corrupt organizations and I also dislike Platini for many reasons. Corruption is everywhere, including in the UK.

In any case, I consider the FFP as a barrier to entry the circle of clubs likely to win the ECL.
 
Downcast said:
You're right to say that the EPL attracts a lot of billionaire owners like the French league with Monaco & PSG, the Russian league...

Sure, FIFA and UEFA are corrupt organizations and I also dislike Platini for many reasons. Corruption is everywhere, including in the UK.

In any case, I consider the FFP as a barrier to entry the circle of clubs likely to win the ECL.
Click to expand...

I think it was designed more as a barrier to clubs gaining entry to the CL at the expense of the elite.
 
Disgrace to be honest. I don't care about West Ham but knowing the tax payers money is being used while they only paid £15m for a brand new stadium is bonkers. The cnuts are sitting back and letting everyone else pay for their stuff
 
Castia said:
Disgrace to be honest. I don't care about West Ham but knowing the tax payers money is being used while they only paid £15m for a brand new stadium is bonkers.
Click to expand...

Apparently the 'hard-working families/taxpayers' can get to f*ck when it comes to doling out gifts to fellow Tories. Who'd have thought it?
 
Downcast said:
You're right to say that the EPL attracts a lot of billionaire owners like the French league with Monaco & PSG, the Russian league...

Sure, FIFA and UEFA are corrupt organizations and I also dislike Platini for many reasons. Corruption is everywhere, including in the UK.

In any case, I consider the FFP as a barrier to entry the circle of clubs likely to win the ECL.
Click to expand...

Back in the days when the EPL was dominating European football English clubs were being sold to foreign owners every season, it was not common Europe wide then. When the Sheikh bought City UEFA got really worried. Platini waged a war on 'financials doping' through FFP. It was his intention to stop billionaire owners from spending crazy money under the guise that it would bankrupt the clubs if the owners left (which is what would happen to PSG and City if their owners left now). That is why one of the key rules was that all sponsorship deals had to represent fair market value as the rich owners (PSG & City did this) could come up with ridiculous sponsorship deals from their own companies.

Platini then magically completely changed his mind on the whole thing and us more than happy for clubs to ramp up overheads that would cripple them if the owners left.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Back in the days when the EPL was dominating European football English clubs were being sold to foreign owners every season, it was not common Europe wide then. When the Sheikh bought City UEFA got really worried. Platini waged a war on 'financials doping' through FFP. It was his intention to stop billionaire owners from spending crazy money under the guise that it would bankrupt the clubs if the owners left (which is what would happen to PSG and City if their owners left now). That is why one of the key rules was that all sponsorship deals had to represent fair market value as the rich owners (PSG & City did this) could come up with ridiculous sponsorship deals from their own companies.

Platini then magically completely changed his mind on the whole thing and us more than happy for clubs to ramp up overheads that would cripple them if the owners left.
Click to expand...

I agree. Ridiculous reversal of the situation.
2013 & 2014: PSG was authorized to recruit only one expensive player per summer
Summer 2015: no problem, you are free to recruit many players at any price
 
Sassy Colin said:
The stadium apparently cost £537M to build, according to Google. A relatively modest 3% return on that equates to a rent of £16M/year, although £20M would be more like it.

It's a fecking scandal, to rent it for £2.5M/year, it's not like a PL team doesn't have the money to pay proper rent, it's peanuts really. Imagine how much it would have cost them in interest payments to rebuild their existing stadium.
Click to expand...
To be fair West Ham dont get use of it year round, so the Government or whoever still get a "return" by having use of it on non match days etc.

But yeah its still an absolute steal.
 
Sassy Colin said:
The stadium apparently cost £537M to build, according to Google. A relatively modest 3% return on that equates to a rent of £16M/year, although £20M would be more like it.

It's a fecking scandal, to rent it for £2.5M/year, it's not like a PL team doesn't have the money to pay proper rent, it's peanuts really. Imagine how much it would have cost them in interest payments to rebuild their existing stadium.
Click to expand...

Whilst I think the deal isn't great. West ham do not use the stadium all year round and it will be rented out for other events when not in use. Also they will make money off the naming rights as well. From the point of view of the LLDC it will probably make a good return over all as well as attract more investment in the area
 
You must log in or register to reply here.