An article in the Guardian is claiming West Ham & the LLDC could be in contravention of European Law in reference to state aid being given to a commercial company.
It goes as far as to say that West Ham could be liable to pay compensation up to the £193m it cost to convert the OS into a football stadium.
Whilst both the LLDC & The Mayor of London claim everything is okay, there have apparently been some lapses in due diligence in managing the actual contract.
One area if concern is that West Ham have not had to pay anything up front, the £15m contribution to stadium infrastructure does not have to be paid until The Boleyn is sold off, an arrangement which has been criticised by legal experts.
West Ham's claim they will be giving 100,000 tickets a season away is not quite what it seems either. These tickets go to Newham Council, who have put up £40m of tax payers money.
The key concern is that whilst the tender process was above board, how LLDC have performed the execution of the negotiations is being called into question and this is the grey area.
There is no suggestion the West Ham have behaved improperly, just in how decisions were arrived at and as to whether these decisions have disadvantaged others, such as Orient,Millwall, Charlton etc and in effect amount to State Aid which is illegal under European Law.
Indeed it was the Charlton Supporters club who initially raised concerns.
In all honesty I thought this was over with & everybody was just getting on with things. I await the ongoing investigations with interest.
For those interested if you go into the gossip section of BBC football & click on the link for the Guardian, you can read things in more detail.
Olympic Stadium & State Aid?
posted on 23/8/15
His team conceded 4 at home to Bournemouth and he's wumming Spurs
posted on 23/8/15
maybe this is why bilic got em knocked out of the europa. he knows that if there is any chance of them staying up, they need to be concentrating on the prem
posted on 23/8/15
Still not clicked for the first team that they don't have to save energy for easy euromuck league games
posted on 3/9/15
Government response to the petition for an enquiry.
“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.”
posted on 3/9/15
Simply binned their complaint form
posted on 3/9/15
Half filled and with no European football it will bring my re shame on West sHame
posted on 3/9/15
And people say Mafia can't write coherently.
posted on 4/9/15
In essence West Ham do not have a new stadium, they have a stadium that they can use for around 25 days/games a year. Gaining little revenue streams other than ticketing & corporate hospitality.
In all seriousness though, West Ham obviously know how important retaining PL status is to them. Relegation, either this season or next could be disastrous for them. I think they will certainly be okay this season, they seem to have bought & loaned well.
posted on 4/9/15
"In essence West Ham do not have a new stadium, they have a stadium that they can use for around 25 days/games a year. Gaining little revenue streams other than ticketing & corporate hospitality."
----------
Or looking at it another way, West Ham will have the same revenue streams as any other club with just three exceptions.
1. The majority of Stadium naming rights.
2. The majority of catering rights.
3. Income from other uses of the Stadium.
-
The naming rights could be large, but the Boleyn isn't sponsored at the moment so any income would be an improvement.
I have no clue the amount catering brings in to a Premier League club as a net figure after paying staff (which the Hammers will not be) and other expenses, can anybody enlighten us?
Other uses, well beyond the occasional boxing match the Hammers don't make any from the Boleyn, so little or no lose. Suites at some grounds are used for corporate events and we won't get that potential income. Again not sure what degree of lose that means.
On the plus side, no maintenance costs for the ground infrastructure or even the pitch and no staffing costs including stewarding and policing. That should I think more than cover the areas where we will "miss out".
posted on 4/9/15
Fair points Sane, it is very much a grey area all round. I think that the vital thing for you guys is that you have to stay in the PL, and try to settle into the OS as quickly as possible.