West Ham buy £600M Stadium for £15M

And us lottery players. Surely this can't be allowed to happen. Hope Orient get a result in court.

Not the full story now tobermory is it?

100 year lease ain't it?

£2M a year for 99 years ,not even half of Andy Caroll's salary

the cheeky fkrs opening bid was £5M too!

Mar 23, 2013 -- 11:13PM, tobermory wrote:

£2M a year for 99 years ,not even half of Andy Caroll's salary

Still not the full story is it?

what is the full story?

Well the figures are out there but tobermory is drip feeding them

£2M a year for 99 years ,not even half of Andy Caroll's salary
________________

2m a year ?   

thats the same as paying £20 a week rent to live in a 4 bed detached house

Olympic stadium construction cost - forecast in March 2012 at £428m

Conversion cost - £150m+ made up of...
West Ham - £15m
Newham Council - £40m
Government available funds - £25m
Additional £80m - 18.75 per cent from private sources, 81.25 per cent from public money

£2m a year lease

good deal for West Ham, bad deal for the tax payer but if you build a white elephant that's what you get

but then they would have known it would become a white elephant ....thats the price you pay for an olympic stadium  ..

Absolute liberty the way government looks after pikeys at the taxpayers expense .

The possible conversion should have been taken into account before, this is not west hams fault but a nice touch for them.  The figures return are:

£2.5 million per year linked to RPI over the 99 year lease
percentage of profit if west ham is sold within the first 10 years of 99 year lease

Percentage of naming rights and catering, ovevr 99 yrs which is believed to average about £8 million a year
Percentage of concerts etc held there each year est £2 million

That comes in at a little bit more than tobermory's paltry sensationalist £15 million statement.

The problem is that most people have fallen for the "what a great success the Olympics was" propaganda.  The stadium was poorly designed at the outset, with no thought for the famed legacy - the reality is that the stadium was tantamount to useless once the Games were over so options after that were extremely limited.

I have no desire whatsoever to see my team based there so do not see it as a great triumph.  Rather than focus their discontent towards West Ham, however, people should be asking the question of Seb Coe and his chums as to what they were really thinking about at the outset - God forbid it was all about personal vanity?!

Was it ever intended to be sold for the benefit of the taxpayer???

99 year lease ?


it will be ready for pulling down in 30 years time

it's built with new materials and will eventually wear away  , there won't be any naming rights within 20 years

Think Munich's Olympic stadium ,built in 1972

The only way they'd want to sell up in 1st 10 years is if they were in League One in which case there wouldn't be much %

The % of concerts etc depends how big the % the government will get, which i doubt will be anything like the % the taxpayer will pay towards the reconstruction

On Mover's figures , by the time they move in , West Ham will have paid £23M and taxpayers will have paid £130M

Mar 23, 2013 -- 11:52PM, tobermory wrote:

The only way they'd want to sell up in 1st 10 years is if they were in League One in which case there wouldn't be much %The % of concerts etc depends how big the % the government will get, which i doubt will be anything like the % the taxpayer will pay towards the reconstructionOn Mover's figures , by the time they move in , West Ham will have paid £23M and taxpayers will have paid £130M

But that would be recouped within 10 years, hence them saying if they sell the club within 10 years.

They will have more income now with more fans going in so could shell out more dough and they run on a tight shoestring budget since Brady got her paws in there.

Mar 23, 2013 -- 11:42PM, 28dogs wrote:

The problem is that most people have fallen for the "what a great success the Olympics was" propaganda.  The stadium was poorly designed at the outset, with no thought for the famed legacy - the reality is that the stadium was tantamount to useless once the Games were over so options after that were extremely limited.I have no desire whatsoever to see my team based there so do not see it as a great triumph.  Rather than focus their discontent towards West Ham, however, people should be asking the question of Seb Coe and his chums as to what they were really thinking about at the outset - God forbid it was all about personal vanity?!

Spot on, I used to work for the ODA and was onsite from the moment they were washing the soil and demolitioning everything until the end of the olympics.  There was always an issue over this and didnt help that the dozy cow left the LDA

The reality is that athletics is basically a minority support so building a massive stadium and insisting that it remains used for that purpose was, at the very least, misguided.  How successful was the much smaller Crystal Palace?  Why did Sydney, the host of one of the most successful Games of recent times, rip out the athletics track as soon as the Games were finished?

Mar 24, 2013 -- 12:00AM, 28dogs wrote:

The reality is that athletics is basically a minority support so building a massive stadium and insisting that it remains used for that purpose was, at the very least, misguided.

To me it is an astonishingly generous deal for West Ham , without them having to run any serious risks , and not contributing anywhere near the same % of their resources as Arsenal had to for The Emirates.

Arsenal are paying £20M a year for many years to come and had £0.00 of taxpayer money to help them.

Cannot see Naming Rights getting near £8M for West Ham , who may not even be in the Premier League half the time ,Arsenal's deal with Emirates Airlines seems to work out about £10M per year and this is (or was) a Champion's League Club

Maybe it is, but the Govt backed themselves into a corner with the whole thing.  In the absence of any other credible alternative, West Ham were in a strong negotiating position - as I have said earlier, the fault lies with those who failed to plan sensibly beyond the glory of the Games.

Couldn't they have a bidding war going with Spurs ?

Though i guess the insistence on the retractable seating (which Spurs would not have) meant they did indeed paint themselves into a corner.

Mug Politicians..... Gold & Sullivan must have thought it was Xmas dealing with them.

A bidding war with Levy.

actually i think Arsenal have may already paid a lot more for The Emirates than West Ham will pay in 100 years

Spurs were interested though, the alternative will cost them far more , surely these politicians could have kept it going a while

can't argue with what Barry Hearn says...

"West Ham are selling Upton Park but only contributing £15million to the stadium, should they be given a free home like this? I'm just asking a question.

"It does seem unfair that Arsenal and Tottenham are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on their own stadiums because they are stand-alone commercial enterprises and West Ham are being levered at huge discount and you have to ask yourself the question why. What has gone on for them to get that deal?"

Could the Government not at least insisted on taking the proceeds of the Upton Park sale

West Ham would still likely have taken the deal considering what they were getting in return.

What did man city pay for the stadium of theirs after it was built for the world athletics championships or something

I WONDER HOW MUCH THE LAND IS WORTH FOR PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT ?

looking it up, seems City paid £20M towards the conversion and £4M a year rent, so still owned by Manchester Council

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/04/manchester-city-council-stadium-naming-rights?

Any land in London seems to be worth a fortune , maybe WHU will make more from the sale of Upton Park than they pay for the Olympic Stadium

City's stadium cost £112 million, slightly less than the Olympic Stadium

Manchester city council still owns the stadium, on which it spent £22m of council tax payers’ money to have the running track removed and convert it for City to occupy as tenants after the Commonwealth Games.
City handed their former Maine Road home to the council, and spent £20m installing bars, restaurants and corporate entertaining areas.
The terms of the rent were for City to pay the council a proportion of ticket income above Maine Road’s 32,000 capacity, which has produced around £2m for the council annually since 2003 – £16m in total.
The council’s income from the stadium goes into other sports facilities on the site, according to the original agreement with Sport England, which provided £90m in lottery funds to build the stadium.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2045532/Manchester-City-fr...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

City handed their former Maine Road home to the council

so there was a precedent for that ,but Boris Johnson is not asking for a penny of the proceeds of the Upton Park sale

seems 474 houses were built on Maine Road and 600 odd flats at Highbury so Upton Park sale would be huge

YEH BUT WHO WOULD WANNA LIVE ROUND UPTON PARK, 600 FLATS AT £2 EACH AINT GONNA GENERATE MUCH.

Mar 24, 2013 -- 12:33AM, tobermory wrote:

looking it up, seems City paid £20M towards the conversion and £4M a year rent, so still owned by Manchester Councilhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/04/manchester-city-council-stadium-naming-rights?

cheers

Mar 24, 2013 -- 12:36AM, themover wrote:

City's stadium cost £112 million, slightly less than the Olympic Stadium Manchester city council still owns the stadium, on which it spent £22m of council tax payers’ money to have the running track removed and convert it for City to occupy as tenants after the Commonwealth Games. City handed their former Maine Road home to the council, and spent £20m installing bars, restaurants and corporate entertaining areas. The terms of the rent were for City to pay the council a proportion of ticket income above Maine Road’s 32,000 capacity, which has produced around £2m for the council annually since 2003 – £16m in total.The council’s income from the stadium goes into other sports facilities on the site, according to the original agreement with Sport England, which provided £90m in lottery funds to build the stadium.Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2045532/Manchester-City-fr...  Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

cheers

West Ham got lucky but it's in the interest of the tax payer to let them have it. Not sure if their fanbase is big enough to exceed their current capacity but if not there's not much advantage other then having the kudos of a big stadium.

And bigger isn't always better, just ask Juventus

west hams chairman has a deluded idea that ham are gonna make the champions league within a couple of years,also how on  earth are they gonna fill 54,000 seats spurs wouldve of been a far better choice ,ham playing championship soccer within the next few years more likely

West Ham would do 54,000 for Arsenal,Spurs,Chelsea & United.

Liverpool? maybe. City? doubt it

And that would be all, but it won't even be those if they are in The Championship.

Only way they would be selling out regularly would be if they were a Top 4/Title Challenging/Champion's League side themselves .But given the huge advantage this deal has given them over other clubs that have to pay their own way maybe that's not so far fetched.

tobermory 23 Mar 13 22:13 Joined: 01 Mar 08 | Topic/replies: 32,148 | Blogger: tobermory's blog
£2M a year for 99 years ,not even half of Andy Caroll's salary


Lol, talksport radio reading the forum!

£50,000 rent for every home game isn't exactly value. West Ham might struggle to pay it when they drop a division or 2.

at the end of the day its not west hams thought that the Government do not want the stadium sat idle apart form a couple of weekends a year


and to that c**t barry hearn, just have us at home alternate weekends

What stuck in my throat was David Sullivan saying on the radio they wanted the stadium to make it "affordable for all" to go to watch football.
While at Birmingham they tried to create a "members" scheme that was compulsory to buy an away ticket- cost £50.
They also cranked the ticket prices up so high that unless they ran kids for a quid promotions they couldn't fill the ground.

they are both west ham fans which is why i think they have probably put themselves out alot more than before

Sullivan is a Cardiff fan, he was winking at them for years talking of taking over.
I don't believe the Gold's are West Ham fans in any other way than it suits them to say it.
My team Wolves were taken over by a so called lifelong supporter, funny how he only emerged to buy the club when the Prem big bucks appeared.
when we were skint in the 80's he wasn't interested at all.

Laughing my wotsits off this will be the death nell of WHU the thing that makes West Ham West Ham is the small intimidating ground which puts the wind up teams and away fans alike, all that will be needed to highlight the half empty stadium is some tumbleweed !

Campaigners for transparency over West Ham United’s move to the Olympic Stadium have scored a major victory after the information commissioner ruled the terms of the deal should be made public, the Guardian can reveal.

Both the London Legacy Development Corporation and West Ham had long argued that the deal for the largely-taxpayer-funded stadium should remain buried beneath a sea of black ink for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The decision could be embarrassing for the London mayor, Boris Johnson, who was desperate to conclude a deal with a football club to give the stadium a sustainable future, and West Ham, battling to convince the public the terms do not amount to a taxpayers’ subsidy for a rich football club.

It may also reopen the argument over whether the LLDC broke European state-aid rules, after the Guardian revealed earlier this year that it had failed to apply to the European Commission for an exemption.


Following a convoluted freedom of information process started last September by the Charlton Athletic Supporters’ Trust, the information commissioner has ruled that the commercial terms under which the east London club will become the stadium’s anchor tenants next summer must be published.

It is already known that West Ham will pay only £15m of the £272m needed to make the 54,000-capacity stadium suitable for Premier League football, athletics and other events. The annual rental agreement on the 99-year lease is believed to be around £2.5m, although the true figure has never been confirmed.

A host of other details around the proportion of the naming rights, catering, merchandising and hospitality revenues taken by West Ham have remained secret, meanwhile.

The LLDC will also be obliged to reveal which costs it is meeting, on matchdays and elsewhere, and which are being met by West Ham. The exact terms of the lease, including a negotiated discount if West Ham are relegated, will also have to be revealed for the first time. During a long game of legal ping pong with those who sought more transparency, the LLDC would reveal only that West Ham retained all the money from ticket sales and that the annual usage fee covers matchday costs.

Unless it is successful with an appeal, the LLDC will be forced to reveal the terms of the deal in its entirety, giving rise to a new wave of scrutiny over whether the taxpayer is getting value for money.

West Ham had argued in its submission that it was “deeply concerned that the disclosure of the commercially confidential and sensitive information will inevitably have an adverse impact on the stadium partnership”.

It was also concerned that full transparency around the terms had “the very real potential to damage the perception of WHUFC in relation to the stadium”. They said it could affect their ability to sell tickets and prejudice their negotiating position with customers and suppliers.

The LLDC argued that it would have an impact on its search for a naming-rights partner and prejudice future negotiations between the stadium operator, Vinci, and other potential users of the stadium. It also revealed that West Ham had threatened to sue for breach of confidence if confidentiality clauses were broken.

But the commissioner ruled that neither the LLDC nor West Ham had been able to demonstrate how the information could be exploited by competitors or how its release would place them at a commercial disadvantage.

A coalition of 14 club supporters’ trusts, formed to campaign on the issue, will now call on Johnson not to appeal against the decision and to publish the contract immediately. A spokesman for the coalition said: “The information commissioner’s decision could not have been clearer, and it is equally clear to us that publication must follow. This campaign is publicly backed by 25,000 individuals, football supporters’ trusts from around the country, and the public interest in the issue is there for all to see. We call on the mayor not to use the appeal system to delay publication of this document further. If he does it will open him up to the suspicion that he has something to hide.”

The largest chunk of funding for the transformation comes from a one-off settlement of £148.8m from the exchequer in 2010. Newham council has provided £40m, West Ham £15m, almost £40m comes from the original £9.3bn budget for the Olympics, and a further £25m from the government.

The cost of the conversion soared from the original estimate of £160m when the decision was taken to award West Ham a 99-year lease after an earlier process had collapsed amid acrimony and legal challenge.

West Ham and the LLDC have argued that without the upfront costs to convert and kit out the stadium to make it suitable for football, it would be a continuing drain on the public purse. The LLDC board was formerly chaired by Johnson, who quietly resigned from the post shortly before the general election, and is now headed by his long time Olympics adviser, Neale Coleman.

“We are disappointed by the information commissioner’s decision, which we believe will damage our ability to secure the best deal for the taxpayer in future. The stadium will have many users and publishing the contractual details will undermine our ability to deliver the best financial outcome from numerous future negotiations. We always strive to balance transparency while protecting the taxpayers’ financial interest and we are considering the ruling carefully as we decide what action to take.”

It is believed that the LLDC will come to a decision in the next 10 days over whether to appeal. If it decides against, it has 35 days from 3 September, the date the information commission sent the letter, to make the information public.

West Ham had argued in its submission that it was “deeply concerned that the disclosure of the commercially confidential and sensitive information will inevitably have an adverse impact on the stadium partnership”.

It was also concerned that full transparency around the terms had “the very real potential to damage the perception of WHUFC in relation to the stadium”. They said it could affect their ability to sell tickets and prejudice their negotiating position with customers and suppliers.


lol i bet it does

regardless of cost price, the stadium is in reality worth only a fraction of that. Full cost should be ignored, it is an historic figure at this stage and not relevant today. The market value is what someone would be willing to pay for it on the open market and demand is scant. WHU may still be getting looked after financially but anyone would have to be to move there.

Looks to me like it will be a bad move for WHU, another ground fans won't like, half empty most of the time. Probably best for the club that it only takes a lease but not sure the best interests of the club are the reason for the move.

Demand is scant - Spuds and Orient may disagree on that

The Olympic Stadium in Barcelona was occupied by Espanyol for a number of years and the atmosphere in an Athletics stadium was non existent.

West Ham will be no different in the London Olympic Waste of Taxpayers Money Stadium

Tottenham should merge with West Ham and save a fortune on redevelopment/rent costs for their new stadium, it's simply a win/win situation, Tottenham United.

North Ham United sounds better

disgraceful , Boris Johnson mainly to blame seemingly

Even thou i dont agree with west ham getting it so cheaply but really lazy to say they are getting a £600m stadium, it cost £600m to build for a purpose but is virtually worthless or it would had been sold for more. Im sure the venue will still get money in from other events.

Hard to believe a Wolves fan slagging off Hayward who bankrolled the club for years when their 'fans' had deserted them only to re-appear of course when they made the premier.