West Ham at the London Stadium | Nearly £450k of taxpayers money used to try and find a sponsor
- Thread starter Hammerfell
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
A stupid deal for the tax payer.
Isn't this old news?
And yeah, that is only a good deal for the pricks that own West Ham.
And yeah, that is only a good deal for the pricks that own West Ham.
This surely deserves an anti-corruption investigation.
That's very old news, indeed. But very smart management tbf. In that matter they'll have a big advantage over other teams in the next decades.
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.
No, this has been known for a long time mate. There is a thread somewhere on here about it all.
It might just have been officially revealed though I guess, but it's certainly common knowledge.
"Extra payments West Ham won't have to make"
Fixed that.
Fixed that.
I thought the official amount was worth posting and didn't see the point in bumping an old thread.
How the feck is it a great deal for the taxpayer? cnuts.
This is an incredible deal for West Ham. Essentially they're getting an excellent stadium for 48k p/w. There's also a clause that rent will be halved if West Ham are relegated from the Premier League which sounds absolutely bonkers.
Tory peer Lord Coe looking after Tory peer Karren Brady.
Yes it does. Baroness Karen Brady who is vice chairman of West Ham is also an honourary Peer of the Conservative party, they are in power in the UK at moment.
That said, would PSG want an anti corruption investigation after FFP was changed by the corrupt Platini to benefit your club? It also worth noting that Platini's son is employed by your owners on a six figure salary.
PSG didn't benefit from FFP changes, in fact one could look at corruption in the making of FFP to benefit the likes of MUFC, Bayern, Real, Barca, Chelsea and Arsenal.
The rules were later loosened to benefit the struggling Milan clubs while PSG and City were already getting off the hook.
Still cheaper than an Arsenal season ticket.........I'll get me coat!
They should sell us Carroll, that will finance the rent for the next 25 years.
Why 2.5? Surely they could've got 20-30 easily.
£1m if they win the Champions League
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.
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.
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?
PSG benefited from the last changes that Platini made absolutely. You are now free to spend whatever you want!
They could have torn it down and sold the land for housing development, much better return for the taxpayer and much needed affordable housing for Londoners. They will probably end up selling it to them for tuppence in 10 years time, like they did with the Emptyhad.
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.
They didn't, it's just that the accounts are now balanced but they still have to be kept in check according to FFP regulations.
Even Ligue 1 clubs pay 3 to 4 times that amount for renting their stadiums. The terms of the contract are a joke.
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.
Yes, I agree. But, the problems are, as far as I'm aware, there was no other club offering a remotely more attractive package. Spurs wanted to tear the whole thing down (and as far as I'm aware much preferred the idea of developing around WHL anyway), Leyton Orient could never fill it and would probably have been able to pay no more, Essex CCC wanted it with someone else to play a few T20 games at.
It just seems that West Ham got such a good deal because their was no one else seriously interested in a the stadium.
I suspect that a free lifetime porn to all the members of the Stadium appointment committee (and their relatives) was the tickler.
It's just shite, imagine if Arsenal were just handed their new stadium back in the 2000's (we know West Ham are going to buy it at a knock-down price after renting it for a decade or so at rock-bottom rates) it would have fecked the league.
That matters less though, the amount of tax-payers' money being caught up in it is absolutely unreal, while West Ham are putting in feck-all. With frontline services being really fecked in my hospital (same across the country really) and our community support (there to stop people from flooding the place) basically gone, it's unjustifiable.
Yeah, with the new tv deals matchday income doesn't matter as much as it once did so sporting-wise it's less unfair than it would have been, but I still can't see how it's right to spend so much public money for private enterprise, they won't be breaking even for 60 or so years on this. Torys be Torys.
That matters less though, the amount of tax-payers' money being caught up in it is absolutely unreal, while West Ham are putting in feck-all. With frontline services being really fecked in my hospital (same across the country really) and our community support (there to stop people from flooding the place) basically gone, it's unjustifiable.
Yeah, with the new tv deals matchday income doesn't matter as much as it once did so sporting-wise it's less unfair than it would have been, but I still can't see how it's right to spend so much public money for private enterprise, they won't be breaking even for 60 or so years on this. Torys be Torys.
Utter disgrace, the government has fecked the taxpayers here. Footballers get paid a lot more than this ffs
Yeah, great deal for WHU, shit deal for the taxpayers.
edit: what's WHU doing with their current stadium?
I assume they could easily sell it off, invest the proceeds and use their returns to cover their rent and another couple of Payets what a one-sided deal this is.
edit: what's WHU doing with their current stadium?
I assume they could easily sell it off, invest the proceeds and use their returns to cover their rent and another couple of Payets
what a one-sided deal this is.I think people are missing the fact that they don't have sole usage of the stadium. They really only have it for home games throughout the season.
The stadium will make income elsewhere id have thought.
Edit: Just seen how much it cost to convert, that is a piss take within that context
The stadium will make income elsewhere id have thought.
Edit: Just seen how much it cost to convert, that is a piss take within that context
How can this be 'fair' to other clubs on any level? Take Arsenal as an example: by building their new stadium with their own sourced money, they sacrificed competing for the league for the best part of 10 years.
I'm struggling to see how the Premier League approved this. I don't understand why other us allowed it?
What is Man City's arrangement with the ex commonwealth stadium?
I'm struggling to see how the Premier League approved this. I don't understand why other us allowed it?
What is Man City's arrangement with the ex commonwealth stadium?
it's already sold for less than 70m (Upton Park)
Arsenal own the stadium and thus can generate revenue, especially from hiring it out for concerts and international friendlies, as well as other events.
West Ham simply rent the stadium for home games which means they do not own it and thus cannot use it as a revenue generating tool apart from ticket sales.
The world athletics championships are there next summer, it was also a venue for the rugby World Cup.
Not sure it's a great venue for your average football fan as there are no pubs around the stadium at all.
Also the shopping centre which is just yards away is going to be overrun with football fans on a Saturday afternoon, and let's face it visiting football fans aren't usually as well behaved as your average rugby or athletics supporter.
http://www.whufc.com/Club/History/Former-Homes/Boleyn-Ground
http://www.whufc.com/articles/20140210/west-ham-united-statement_2236884_3662485
Dunno about the exact purchase price, but it's supposed to be close to the £60 million mark. Great deal - they can pay the Olympic Stadium fee for the next quarter century with that money, without even including the interest on investment.
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.
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.