Putting club rivalries aside I think this is absolutely criminal:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44848750
To sum the article up while the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) will take the first £4m per year West Ham will keep anything over that.
So having already hugely taken the mickey with the deal that is in place West Ham are, as far as I can tell, not paying a penny towards the cost of finding a sponsor that they are likely to benefit financially from.
I know we bid for the stadium and I genuinely am not bitter that West Ham got it and not us. But as a taxpayer the way this whole deal has been handled has been appaling from the start.
I will have to go a bit BBC606 and delete comments that are off topic, or if the thread somehow turns into a Tottenham v Liverpool arguement!
£450k to find West Ham a stadium sponsor
posted on 18/7/18
comment by Sanity is overrated (U21166)
posted 7 hours, 36 minutes ago
which part? it's rather clear.
West Ham pay £100,000 per game. That is £2.5m up front for a maximum 25 games per season, each additional game being at an individual £100,000 each.
That is a more than reasonable rental rate, it's the the fault of the LLDC that they were unable to install real retractable seats, which effectively means only West Ham can use the ground 9 months a year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your earlier comment says £100,000 per day. Which works out at £36,500,000 per year
posted on 18/7/18
Brother
Your earlier comment says £100,000 per day. Which works out at £36,500,000 per year
------
no it doesn't, you are under the misapprehension West Ham rent the stadium and can make use of it all year round. They don't and can't.
West Ham took out a 99 year deal that for £2.5m (index linked) they have use of the stadium for 25 football matches per season. That is £100,000 per match or per day, however you prefer to state it. Any additional matches/days are at an additional £100,000 per pop.
The LLDC can rent out the stadium for anything else they wish (apart from to other football teams where West Ham have a veto) at any time they wish as long as the stadium is available for West Ham games.
The problem is the LLDC didn't put in proper retractable seating so effectively they have to leave the stadium in "football mode" for nine months of the year. That doesn't change the fact though that the ground is only West Hams to use for 25 days out of those 9 months. It's not the responsibility of West Ham to solve the LLDC's problem of not being able to find other tenants or one off renters. The £2.5m rent is very fair for 25 uses being as I state £100,000 per day/match.
posted on 18/7/18
The long term situation is interesting.
WHU continuing to stick with the terms of their lease is morally fine. Whether they shoudl contribute more to the 'community' which they are part of is a different question.
But in the long term, if the OS business is really on the rocks, losing public money hand over fist, they may have to sell. And who will be the buyer at the front of the queue?
It is not in WHUs long term interest to offer another penny more than they are contracted to do, no matter how bad the PR is. Their fans don't care.
WHU pay £2.5 per year over a 100 year lease. The present value of that income is about £60m.
Buying the stadium for this would represent more financial sense than continuing with the current lease, all other things being equal.
Anything below £100m for that stadium would be absolute peanuts for WHU.
posted on 18/7/18
Devonshirespur (U6316)
I agree that's what I think will happen, West Ham will end up buying the stadium.
Sadiq Kahn has a look at the details of the agreement and it looks like West Hams position is watertight, the club can't be forced to pay more and would be a sitting tenant keeping the same deal if the stadium was sold to a third party.
At the moment I think it's seen as more politically damaging to sell to West Ham than keep paying the increasing debts, but I expect that to change within four years maximum.
posted on 18/7/18
comment by Sanity is overrated (U21166)
posted 5 hours, 18 minutes ago
Brother
Your earlier comment says £100,000 per day. Which works out at £36,500,000 per year
------
no it doesn't, you are under the misapprehension West Ham rent the stadium and can make use of it all year round. They don't and can't.
West Ham took out a 99 year deal that for £2.5m (index linked) they have use of the stadium for 25 football matches per season. That is £100,000 per match or per day, however you prefer to state it. Any additional matches/days are at an additional £100,000 per pop.
The LLDC can rent out the stadium for anything else they wish (apart from to other football teams where West Ham have a veto) at any time they wish as long as the stadium is available for West Ham games.
The problem is the LLDC didn't put in proper retractable seating so effectively they have to leave the stadium in "football mode" for nine months of the year. That doesn't change the fact though that the ground is only West Hams to use for 25 days out of those 9 months. It's not the responsibility of West Ham to solve the LLDC's problem of not being able to find other tenants or one off renters. The £2.5m rent is very fair for 25 uses being as I state £100,000 per day/match.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You argued your point well there. I still feel £2.5m is too cheap but if that's all West Ham are being charged I agree they would be mad to pay any extra. The policing thing grates a bit. It's not like the police aren't horribly overstretched as it is. And it's entirely down to West Ham that up to 60,000 people are in the area to watch a match. But I'm thinking LLDC are more at fault than West Ham for how the whole thing has been handled.
posted on 18/7/18
How did the Spurs Wembley rental work, was it a flat fee to the F.A for everything or did Spurs pay separately for Police, stewards and so on?
Interesting to find out if the West Ham deal is normal for the way these things work or not.
posted on 18/7/18
comment by Sanity is overrated (U21166)
posted 2 hours, 19 minutes ago
How did the Spurs Wembley rental work, was it a flat fee to the F.A for everything or did Spurs pay separately for Police, stewards and so on?
Interesting to find out if the West Ham deal is normal for the way these things work or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know I'm afraid, does anyone else on here thread know?
I never really looked at the ins and outs of the Wembley deal.
The West Ham deal just seems too cheap. £2.5m a year, they could make that revenue in a couple of matches with good gate reciepts.
posted on 19/7/18
The FA are responsible for security in and around Wembley.
We paid £11m per season to use the facility, which is nearly 4.5 times what West Ham are paying for the OS.
posted on 20/7/18
Hi Greaves
So what you said would indicate that a stadium owner paying for security is normal practice.
I'd put the difference in amount paid down to a couple of things.
Firstly West Ham buying in bulk, 99 of anything will always be less per unit than 1 of similar. Secondly it's all about who has the greatest need in any negotiation, Spurs had to find a temporary ground, while the LLDC had to find a tenant. It looks like the details of the deal are not unusual, it's just that when it came to the price the Hammers had the LLDC over a barrel.
posted on 20/7/18
comment by GeniusGreaves (U1302)
posted 19 hours, 29 minutes ago
The FA are responsible for security in and around Wembley.
We paid £11m per season to use the facility, which is nearly 4.5 times what West Ham are paying for the OS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Greaves, I never actually knew how much we paid to rent Wembley for a year.