• 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

The dildo bros are going to make a mint arent they?
When do people predict they will sell up?
Or actually what exactly will they sell?:eek:
 
Presumably there are numbers for savings by not paying for things at their East Ham stadium, also sale thereof ?.
 
That is nothing much wrong with deal for the taxpayer except the price. fudging £2.5m per year!

Typical public sector. As long as no one is accountable, everyone is happy.

I wonder if the price is ever reviewed and if there are limits on any increases?
 
Just a had a look through, here's some interesting stuff about sharing the stadium:

---

20.5 Other than a Neutral Match or an International Match, if any Other Concessionaire uses the Stadium as its home ground for the playing of Football (a Discounted Concession):
  1. (a) the Exclusivity Discount shall be applied to the Usage Fee, the Performance Payment and the League Position Payments for each Event Year during which a Discounted Concession occurs;

  2. (b) the Grantor shall reimburse to the Concessionaire an amount equal to 50% of the One-Off Usage Fee if a Discounted Concession occurs during the tlrst 10 Event Years after the Commencement Date: and

  3. (c) the Grantor shall reimburse to the Concessionaire an amount equal to 25% of the One-Off Usage Fee if a Discounted Concession occurs during the IIth to 20th Event Years (inclusive) after the Commencement Date.
----

So, if seems West Ham don't have a veto against another football club using the stadium. BUT, they would get cheaper rent *and* a refund of 50% of their One-off Usage fee if they have to share within 10 years. i.e. 50% of the £15million costs towards conversion -- so a refund of £7.5 million.

Could make it an expensive option for us...
 
JPBB said:
That is nothing much wrong with deal for the taxpayer except the price. fudgeing £2.5m per year!
Typical public sector. As long as no one is accountable, everyone is happy.
I wonder if the price is ever reviewed and if there are limits on any increases?
Click to expand...

I'm no expert, but section 21 seems to imply ALL costs / thresholds etc increase each year with RPI.

During the past decade this has been between -1% to 5%.

So...if it went up 5% a year, then in 10 years this would be £4m.
if it went up 2% a year, then in 10 years this would be £3m.

Either-way, seems like too low an increase IMO.
 
I would have thought the over-riding question is whether this is state aid to a private company. West Ham will not have to fund their own stadium construction project, and can immediately swim with the big boys in the transfer market without debts to worry them. Is that unfair to other teams in the UK/Europe? You bet it is.
 
scaramanga said:
West Ham will never be able to break the lease.

In order to do so they'd need to buy the land for a stadium and then build one too - absolutely impossible for a team of West Ham's means.
Click to expand...
Exactly.... that's what I meant by 'effectively unbreakable'. Having sold their current home the only way that West Ham could leave Stratford in future is if:

a) Charlton go bankrupt and West Ham take over their ground.
b) They beg us/Arsenal/Chelsea/Milwall/Leyton Orient/Colchester/Southend/Leyton Wingate/Canning Town Rovers/etc to let them ground share
c) They move to an out of town industrial estate in the ar5e end of Essex such as Tibury.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I am not an expert either but in my limited experience of commercial tenancies, in addition to RPI increases, there are normally rent reviews every few years to adjust the rent to the current or “open market” rent.

I have skimmed through the document (typical lawyers to make it non searchable) and I can't see anything in it that alludes to this pretty standard clause.
 
inkpenspur said:
I would have thought the over-riding question is whether this is state aid to a private company. West Ham will not have to fund their own stadium construction project, and can immediately swim with the big boys in the transfer market without debts to worry them. Is that unfair to other teams in the UK/Europe? You bet it is.
Click to expand...
I don't think it constitutes state aid. West Ham are merely leaseholders on the stadium and the stadium is also available to other leaseholders.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I don't think it constitutes state aid. West Ham are merely leaseholders on the stadium and the stadium is also available to other leaseholders.
Click to expand...
I had a feeling I had read somewhere that the conversion cost could be deemed to be state aid... from the Guardian this time last year:

London Assembly members, European state aid experts and lawyers have questioned why the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, and the London Legacy Development Corporation did not obtain “prior approval” from the European Commission before signing the deal with West Ham.

One London Assembly member claimed the LLDC was “in denial” while several state aid experts consulted by the Guardian said it would have been “prudent” to gain approval to avoid problems down the line.
By not getting the agreement signed off before concluding the deal with West Ham, the LLDC has left itself open to a 10-year window for challenges from anyone who feels disadvantaged by West Ham’s deal, understood to be worth £2.5m a year plus a slice of catering revenues.
That could include rival clubs at home and abroad and, if the EC eventually found the LLDC had broken state aid rules, West Ham could be liable for millions. Theoretically, if found in breach the total bill could equate to the £138.9m it is costing the public purse to convert the stadium for football use plus the difference between the £2.5m and whatever the EC decided the market rate was.
The controversial saga that led West Ham to be awarded a 99-year licence agreement last year was marked by legal challenges, espionage allegations and furious rows over the legacy and cost. In October it emerged the total cost of the stadium had risen to £619m, including the post-Games conversion to install retractable seats and a full roof after the construction of the cantilevered canopy had turned out to be more expensive than expected.
As well as paying a fee understood to be in the region of £2.5m for their licence agreement, West Ham also agreed to pay £15m towards the £193.9m conversion costs and argues that its presence will help raise more from naming rights. The rest of the cost of building the stadium and converting it into a “multi-use” arena has been met from public funds.
Information obtained by the Charlton Supporters Trust under the Freedom of Information Act and seen by the Guardian shows West Ham’s £15m contribution does not have to be paid until the club receive the proceeds from the sale of Upton Park.
 
inkpenspur said:
I had a feeling I had read somewhere that the conversion cost could be deemed to be state aid... from the Guardian this time last year:

London Assembly members, European state aid experts and lawyers have questioned why the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, and the London Legacy Development Corporation did not obtain “prior approval” from the European Commission before signing the deal with West Ham.

One London Assembly member claimed the LLDC was “in denial” while several state aid experts consulted by the Guardian said it would have been “prudent” to gain approval to avoid problems down the line.
By not getting the agreement signed off before concluding the deal with West Ham, the LLDC has left itself open to a 10-year window for challenges from anyone who feels disadvantaged by West Ham’s deal, understood to be worth £2.5m a year plus a slice of catering revenues.
That could include rival clubs at home and abroad and, if the EC eventually found the LLDC had broken state aid rules, West Ham could be liable for millions. Theoretically, if found in breach the total bill could equate to the £138.9m it is costing the public purse to convert the stadium for football use plus the difference between the £2.5m and whatever the EC decided the market rate was.
The controversial saga that led West Ham to be awarded a 99-year licence agreement last year was marked by legal challenges, espionage allegations and furious rows over the legacy and cost. In October it emerged the total cost of the stadium had risen to £619m, including the post-Games conversion to install retractable seats and a full roof after the construction of the cantilevered canopy had turned out to be more expensive than expected.
As well as paying a fee understood to be in the region of £2.5m for their licence agreement, West Ham also agreed to pay £15m towards the £193.9m conversion costs and argues that its presence will help raise more from naming rights. The rest of the cost of building the stadium and converting it into a “multi-use” arena has been met from public funds.
Information obtained by the Charlton Supporters Trust under the Freedom of Information Act and seen by the Guardian shows West Ham’s £15m contribution does not have to be paid until the club receive the proceeds from the sale of Upton Park.
Click to expand...
I think that article just discusses the fact that they could be challenged, I don't think it suggests that state aid has actually occurred.
 
JPBB said:
I have skimmed through the document (typical lawyers to make it non searchable) and I can't see anything in it that alludes to this pretty standard clause.
Click to expand...

It is searchable? I was searching on a few key words yesterday. Maybe it depends on your version of Adobe?
When back in front of a PC I'll look that up.
 
JPBB said:
Yes, I am not an expert either but in my limited experience of commercial tenancies, in addition to RPI increases, there are normally rent reviews every few years to adjust the rent to the current or “open market” rent.

I have skimmed through the document (typical lawyers to make it non searchable) and I can't see anything in it that alludes to this pretty standard clause.
Click to expand...
This is what I've read, which is absolutely criminal on the part of the stadium if true. No inflation of a rent for a century....
 
Finney Is Back said:
I think that article just discusses the fact that they could be challenged, I don't think it suggests that state aid has actually occurred.
Click to expand...
That is a fair comment. It is not stating it has occurred, but the EU may decide to investigate on the grounds that it might have occurred...
 
Finney Is Back said:
I don't think it constitutes state aid. West Ham are merely leaseholders on the stadium and the stadium is also available to other leaseholders.
Click to expand...

I think this the bottom line, my football club rent a pitch for one game a week from the London Fire phalanx for £50, that's not really any different from what West Ham are doing

its the things they are getting for free along with the lease that questions should be asked over, why are West Ham not responsible for the cost of policing and stewarding at their events for example and most importantly, why are West Ham making such a tiny contribution to stadium changes that are only relevant to them and required by the PL

it's a hell of a deal for West Ham albeit one that will leave them with nothing when the deal ends, not that anyone is thinking that far ahead
 
inkpenspur said:
That is a fair comment. It is not stating it has occurred, but the EU may decide to investigate on the grounds that it might have occurred...
Click to expand...
I am sure I read somewhere, probably on here, that the EU would only investigate if a claim was made by another club (I have tried to search/look back but can't find anything) - ie. rather than a speculative claim by individuals or a supporters group etc. I might have that wrong but I'm pretty sure I read that. I find it hard to imagine any club would actually go to those lengths. The costs involved would be quite prohibitive and there are probably all sorts of political considerations in terms of PL/FA relationships and influences to take into account.
 
stadiumseedingstarts_726_1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back