• 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

this




sounds like complete cobblers to me

could be true also. "premier league meetings" sounds like some sort of annual media event where board members give lip service to whatever the current issue in football is at the time. wouldnt be surprised if ticket pricing was the highest topic on the agenda in such meetings lol. either way, shes chatting crap
 
Emirates Marketing Project also have remarkably cheap season tickets for a so-called big club. I'd like to see their most expensive ones (the seats that never have anyone sitting in them) and how many of those are sold to "businesses" back in Abu Dhabi. Their massive turnover is impossible on the ticket prices they alledgedly charge.

which is why ffp is so bad. restricts the ability of owners to subsidise ticket prices if they want to.
 
which is why ffp is so bad. restricts the ability of owners to subsidise ticket prices if they want to.

That is why FFP is GOOD. It prevents rich individuals from buying titles to a club. More needs to be done regarding hidden subsidising.
 
The generosity of the West Ham ownership knows no bounds, with large proposed cuts for next season ...

cheap_seats_1_893162a.jpg


... no, wait. That must be a misprint, surely.
 
That is why FFP is GOOD. It prevents rich individuals from buying titles to a club. More needs to be done regarding hidden subsidising.

isnt that what football ownership should be about? investing in a club for the benefit of your own fanbase?

the alternative is the type of ownership that you see at arsenal/Saudi Sportswashing Machine
 
isnt that what football ownership should be about? investing in a club for the benefit of your own fanbase?

the alternative is the type of ownership that you see at arsenal/Saudi Sportswashing Machine

It's neither. Until it becomes fan owned you should simply be a custodian. Try to run a good business, but money should not be injected or taken out.

Saudi Sportswashing Machine isn't that bad really. He's just making back the cash he has foolishly put in.
 
Aha, here it is. Those £299 ones are probably just a handful in row z in the corner or something.

A group of disabled Emirates Marketing Project supporters say they are 'disgusted' with the club after they hiked prices of some season tickets by £345 to £975.

The 283 per cent rise, which comes after it emerged City were increasing the cost of some season tickets for able-bodied fans from £870 to £1,700, has been strongly criticised by some of those affected.

They claim the Premier League champions are trying to force migration to other parts of the Etihad Stadium as part of a wide-ranging re-seating plan following a 6,000-seat extension which will see capacity rise to around 55,000.


The disabled bays subject to the huge increase are in the same section of the stadium as the season tickets that have risen from £870 to £1,700 - the prime pitchside second tier.

City say that area has been transformed into a premium location, and that ticket holders will receive a programme, parking and access to executive bars - an offering they did not have this season.

They add that they do not wish to discriminate and have to ensure they give the same offering to all supporters.

But some of the disabled fans say the improved offering is useless to them and point out that they are in wheelchairs, and so will not have the benefit of an upgraded padded seat.

Mark Barber is the secretary of the Emirates Marketing Project Disabled Supporters Association who released a statement saying they were disgusted with club.

He said: 'It affects users in the Colin Bell and East Stands. They pay £345 at the moment and, depending on the level they sit on, have been told to renew it will cost £975.

'That is just for the same wheelchair bay. The club are turning the areas where the affected bays are into premium level seating. They clearly want a certain kind of client there, business men and the like, who they can make money from.'

Mark, 49 and himself a wheelchair user, added that the only option for those who could not afford the giant hikes was to move behind the goal.

'There's no option to sit at the side of the pitch which a lot of people want to do,' he explained. 'They are forcing people into a certain area.

'We would like a halo of disabled bays around the ground as they have at Wembley so you can choose where to go but they won't listen to us. There's 134 of us and we are obviously not important.'

City point out that they have increased the number of disabled bays to 238 and have invested in improving facilities. They are also offering new headsets for blind and partially-sighted supporters and 'super risers' which allow wheelchair users an elevated viewing position.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3052507/Disabled-Manchester-City-fans-voice-disgust-283-cent-increase-season-ticket-prices.html
 
It's neither. Until it becomes fan owned you should simply be a custodian. Try to run a good business, but money should not be injected or taken out.

Saudi Sportswashing Machine isn't that bad really. He's just making back the cash he has foolishly put in.

Whilst I dislike the foreign oligarchs using football clubs as personal playthings, it seems a pity that we'll never see a self-made billionaire use his personal fortune to fulfil their lifelong dream of watching Spurs lift the title; like what Jack Walker did with Blackburn Rovers.
 
It's neither. Until it becomes fan owned you should simply be a custodian. Try to run a good business, but money should not be injected or taken out.

im not sure fan ownership is good/the solution. i think the problems of this model are all too apparent in south american and in spain.

however, whilst i can understand the reasoning behind your belief that owners should just be custodians, neither putting money into, or taking money out of the club, i dont agree with this. i think owners should be allowed to do what they like: whether thats injecting money or withdrawing. but from a idealistic/naive point of view, i think football ownership should be about glory. and one of the ways to attain this is by helping fund the club's sporting/trophy ambitions by investing personal wealth. i know that its become arguably a bit obnoxious (im not sure that this is the exact word im looking for) with the likes of psg and city. but like steveAWOL has mentioned, the ownership style of a jack walker is what i think football ownership should be about.

Saudi Sportswashing Machine isn't that bad really. He's just making back the cash he has foolishly put in.

yh im with you here. i dont think the ownership model at arsenal is that bad either. i dont actually think that the amounts made in profits by these two clubs are that bad (from a fans perspective) given the overal value of the businesses, and the risks that the owners are taking on. ie. had Saudi Sportswashing Machine broken even in the past 2 years instead of making £9.9m in 2013 + £18.7 in 2014, their team wouldnt be that much better anyway. they would literally have £28.6m extra to invest in the squad. if they did invest this amount, they would still be exactly where they are now: a club with a small chance of relegation but also a small chance of getting into the europa league. the same applies to arsenal. and if you really think about it, we're not much different.

and this is why i think football ownership should be about investing one's personal wealth in the team. only utd, chelsea and city have won the league in the past decade. to me this shows that outside wealth was probably needed to break up the title monopoly held by man utd and arsenal. also i think this type of outside investment is probably what is needed for a club like us to dream about regularly qualifying for the ucl.
 
That is why FFP is GOOD. It prevents rich individuals from buying titles to a club. More needs to be done regarding hidden subsidising.

Nope ... lets be extremely clear, the goal of FFP is to protect the status quo of the existing big clubs. Specifically it gives clubs with an existing large income a permanent advantage over mid-tier and lower clubs by outright stopping someone from coming in, doing even a calculated investment to make the next step up.
 
Olympic Stadium cost rises to £701m from initial £280m estimate
• Price of transforming stadium for football and athletics up to £272m
• Revelation likely to reignite row over use of public money

The overall bill for the Olympic Stadium in Stratford, largely met by taxpayers, has soared to more than £700m before West Ham United move in as tenants next year.

In a move likely to reignite the row over the amount of public money used to make the stadium suitable for both football and athletics, the London Legacy Development Corporation has confirmed the total cost of the transformation at £272m.

Originally the Olympic Stadium was priced up at £280m in the London 2012 bid book before the price tag rose to £429m. The latest announcement, following the last of the contracts being signed, takes the total cost of the stadium to £701m.

In April the Guardian revealed that the LLDC had opened itself up to a decade of potential challenges over whether the deal broke European Commission state aid rules by not applying for prenotification.

The final confirmed cost of the transformation, towards which West Ham will make a £15m contribution on top of the £2.5m they will pay annually for a 99-year lease, is significantly higher than the £154m originally announced when the deal with West Ham was agreed.

The LLDC argues that it never announced a final budget for the transformation and that the £154m figure was the cost of its initial contract with the contractor Balfour Beatty.

The final cost takes the 54,000-seat stadium, which will host the Anniversary Games next month and Rugby World Cup matches in September, towards the £780m spent on Wembley.

Without allowing for inflation, the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff cost £121m in 1999 and Arsenal’s similar-sized Emirates Stadium cost £390m in 2006.

However, the LLDC would argue that the Olympic Stadium project was unusually challenging in engineering terms and involved effectively entirely rebuilding the existing structure.

The saga of the stadium’s legacy has been long and tortuous. The initial plan was to remove the upper tiers of the stadium and scale it back to a modest 25,000-seat bowl after the Games.

But the coalition government and Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, urged a rethink in 2010, reasoning that it was folly to in effect knock it down and that only football could provide a sustainable future. Following a bitter battle with Tottenham Hotspur, a deal was eventually agreed with West Ham that later collapsed under legal challenge.

Following another tender process, the club were awarded a 99-year lease to share the stadium with other tenants including UK Athletics. The operator of the Stade de France was recently appointed to handle the running of the stadium and to book concerts and sporting events to supplement income.

Last year the LLDC admitted that the cost had risen to £193.9m as a result of difficulties that Balfour Beatty was experiencing with the world’s largest cantilevered roof.

The LLDC said that the deals it had signed with West Ham, who will in effect be the main tenants during the football season, and British Athletics, which is entitled to use for the whole of July, would ensure that it would not require continuing subsidy from the taxpayer.

“We have invested in transforming a temporary athletics venue into a permanent world-class multiuse arena that has a secure and long-term sustainable future,” said the LLDC’s chief executive, David Goldstone. “This has required a significant amount of work and innovative engineering solutions.

“Alongside the transformation work the deals signed with British Athletics and West Ham United and the appointment of a stadium operator ensures the stadium will pay its way and not require any continuing subsidy from the taxpayer.”

The largest chunk of funding for the transformation comes from a one-off settlement of £148.8m from the exchequer in 2010. On top of that Newham council has provided £40m, West Ham £15m, almost £40m comes from the original £9.3bn budget for the Olympics, a further £25m from the government. UK Athletics has invested £1m and the London Marathon Charitable Trust has provided £3.5m.

In return for investing £40m for a share in the special purpose vehicle that owns the stadium, Newham council has been guaranteed access to the stadium and up to 100,000 tickets a year to West Ham matches.

West Ham are set to move into the stadium, which will have 21,000 moveable seats designed to make it more suitable for football, at the start of the 2016-17 season.

The club’s vice-chair, Karren Brady, who has sold out of some of the executive box offerings, has promised cut-price season tickets in order to fill the ground and make Premier League football more affordable.

Johnson blamed a lack of planning by his predecessors for the cost of transforming the stadium into a 54,000-seat multipurpose arena.

Concerned about the potential for delays and without a definite commitment from a football club, the Olympic board decided in 2007 to press ahead with plans to build the stadium with a demountable top tier that could be removed afterwards to bring the capacity down to 25,000.

“A very bad call was made when those in charge at the time backed a stadium construction plan that would leave the Olympic Park with a much smaller, mouldering and tumbleweed ridden arena following the Games,” Johnson said. “Following that plan would have literally torn the heart out of the park and put at risk the incredible economic regeneration we are now seeing in east London.

“Our remedy offered long-term sustainable investment in order to protect an iconic stadium that Londoners took to their hearts, and which is now set to be home to almost every conceivable sport, concert or community event for decades to come.

“We’ve created a knockout venue that will drive and sustain thousands of jobs, where we’ve ensured that a hefty share of the profits will be paid back into the taxpayers coffers and which provides a genuine Olympic legacy for our city.”

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jun/19/olympic-stadium-cost-rises-west-ham
 
In return for investing £40m for a share in the special purpose vehicle that owns the stadium, Newham council has been guaranteed access to the stadium and up to 100,000 tickets a year to West Ham matches.

How does this work? Have they about 4-5k for each home game? It could be good if they give the tickets to schools and allow deprived kids access to games, although I suspect an opportunity for councillors to profit.
 
Back