Voll Blau Posted 20 August 2015 Posted 20 August 2015 Signed. Great to see supporters of different clubs uniting over this!
Gary Eatfood Posted 20 August 2015 Posted 20 August 2015 Signed. I also signed the sack Jeremy Hunt petition while I was there.
21st Century Fox Posted 20 August 2015 Posted 20 August 2015 Signed. Bit rich of Tottenham fans having any quibbles over it though considering how much they've strong armed out of the local council after threatening to leave the area, while Joe Lewis sits on £3billion in a tax haven. They could've used a fraction of the money they pissed up the wall after selling Bale rather than take public handouts.
Fuch Me Moore Posted 20 August 2015 Posted 20 August 2015 Signed, absolute joke this is allowed to happen
davieG Posted 20 August 2015 Posted 20 August 2015 West Ham Olympic Stadium deal: Fans group calls for inquiry 1 hour ago From the sectionLondon West Ham will play at the Olympic Stadium from the 2016-17 season A group of London football supporters have called for a public inquiry into the rental of the Olympic Stadium by West Ham United. The group claims the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) will in effect subsidise the rent, which the LLDC denies. The group added there were "serious questions" about the amount taxpayers would be relied upon. West Ham said it had won the deal though a fair and "robust process". The coalition of supporters, made up of trusts from clubs including Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur, has started an online petition which has so far gained more than 5,800 signatures in favour of an inquiry. The supporters also said they had concerns the deal would give the Hammers a competitive advantage. The Olympic Stadium will host other sporting and entertainment events A Freedom of Information (FOI) request previously revealed West Ham contributed £15m to the £272m conversion of the stadium. The LLDC, which owns the stadium, will pay for "facilities and services" such as pitch maintenance and for stewarding on match days, which can cost £2.5m annually. 'Beyond football tribalism' It is understood West Ham, which earned £76m in Premier League payments last season, will pay up to £2.5m a year in rent. In comparison, Manchester City, who moved into the former Commonwealth Games venue, pay overheads on top of £4m rent, while Chelsea and Tottenham are expected to pay between £11m and £15m a year to play at Wembley on a temporary basis. The coalition said: "The fact that so many supporter groups have come together to call for this inquiry shows that the issues raised go beyond football tribalism. "As football fans and as taxpayers... this shady deal is not in the interests of the game of football and does little to promote public confidence in the way our money is being spent." West Ham said: "Our presence underwrites the multi-use legacy of the stadium and our contribution alone will pay back more than the cost of building and converting the stadium." The LLDC said in a statement: "The stadium is a publicly-owned multi-use venue that will host 25 West Ham United home matches and many other sporting and entertainment events every year. This contract will ensure commercial success. "West Ham United secured their anchor tenancy after winning a competitive tender process that was heavily publicised and open to any organisation in the world." West Ham is due to move from Upton Park in August 2016.
Wymsey Posted 20 August 2015 Posted 20 August 2015 It's a good idea, but what will this do - if they have a very large amount of support against it? They can't exactly 'overturn' the decision, can they?
purpleronnie Posted 20 August 2015 Posted 20 August 2015 Let's get tough. The time for talking is over.Call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard and hit it fast with a major and I mean major leaflet campaign,and while it's reeling from that, we'd follow up with a whist drive, a car boot sale, some street theatre and possibly even some benefit concerts. OK?
stripeyfox Posted 21 August 2015 Posted 21 August 2015 This just strikes me as bitterness by the other London clubs. The only reason we are in this situation is because the London Legacy Organisation lead themselves up a one way street allowing West Ham to strike a good deal for themselves. Originally the stadium was to be sold to a bidder post games. Spurs and West Ham tabled bids, and West Ham’s won because Tottenham’s plan was to remove the running track. Part of the legacy stipulation was that the Athletics track be retained. As I understand it (and I’m not an expert), that bidding process was scrapped over concerns about state aid (I presume it could be construed as a private company like West Ham or Spurs gaining an asset that had been paid for by the state?) So the process was re run to find an anchor tenant for the stadium – who would rent it, not own it. West Ham’s was the only bid. Leyton Orient could have bid, but did not. The reconstruction costs including replacing the original, temporary roof and installing the retractable seating (to preserve the running track) have cost a lot of money to you and I but this is all to accommodate everybody in a not-very-perfect solution. There’s little doubt that West Ham have got a good deal but as the only bidder (thanks to the desire to preserve an Athletics legacy), it was the best option. Unless you want an Olympic Stadium white elephant sitting there and only used once in a blue moon, costing the taxpayer even more. With hindsight, it may have been better to secure a buyer when the stadium was originally designed – who could have contributed to the cost of building it and perhaps a more straightforward conversion post games.
Nigel Diamond Posted 21 August 2015 Posted 21 August 2015 This just strikes me as bitterness by the other London clubs. The only reason we are in this situation is because the London Legacy Organisation lead themselves up a one way street allowing West Ham to strike a good deal for themselves. Originally the stadium was to be sold to a bidder post games. Spurs and West Ham tabled bids, and West Ham’s won because Tottenham’s plan was to remove the running track. Part of the legacy stipulation was that the Athletics track be retained. As I understand it (and I’m not an expert), that bidding process was scrapped over concerns about state aid (I presume it could be construed as a private company like West Ham or Spurs gaining an asset that had been paid for by the state?) So the process was re run to find an anchor tenant for the stadium – who would rent it, not own it. West Ham’s was the only bid. Leyton Orient could have bid, but did not. The reconstruction costs including replacing the original, temporary roof and installing the retractable seating (to preserve the running track) have cost a lot of money to you and I but this is all to accommodate everybody in a not-very-perfect solution. There’s little doubt that West Ham have got a good deal but as the only bidder (thanks to the desire to preserve an Athletics legacy), it was the best option. Unless you want an Olympic Stadium white elephant sitting there and only used once in a blue moon, costing the taxpayer even more. With hindsight, it may have been better to secure a buyer when the stadium was originally designed – who could have contributed to the cost of building it and perhaps a more straightforward conversion post games. I can't disagree with your comments because they are true. (except the bitterness ) Our argument is that the tax payer is funding a private enterprise, and in the rush to rid themselves of the stadium the LLDC have gifted WHUFC a deal that gives them a huge and unfair financial advantage over all other clubs in the premier league and down. As well as contributing just £15m to a £272m rennovation fee, they have agreed a rent of £2.5m per anum dropping to £1.5m if they get relegated. But the tax payer will, year on year fund the facilities, policing, stewarding, ticketing as well as provide goal posts, nets and the corner flags! All of this has been independantly valued at approx £2.5m per anum so WHUFC are effectively getting the stadium rent free. Its worth noting WHUFC will shortly begin the sale of their own ground, valued at £78m and not be expected to hand over any of the proceeds of that sale. We feel this is unfair on the tax payer and that's why we seek a public enquiry.
Finnaldo Posted 21 August 2015 Posted 21 August 2015 Signed. Bloody foreign owners, buying our stadium and improving our facilities with their own money. We should have a proper British owner like Dave Sullivan, slagging off other team's players and relying on the taxpayer to fork £250 million for his team's ground. And he doesn't put up a Thai flag outside.
Freesolo Posted 21 August 2015 Posted 21 August 2015 Good, far too many London clubs anyway You have a stupid nonsensical reply for every person who points out how wrong you are about things
purpleronnie Posted 24 August 2015 Posted 24 August 2015 Well the stadium is really taking shape and apparantly there are plans to expand due to demand. West Ham have been so buoyed by the sale of season tickets at the new Olympic Stadium that the club are already discussing increasing capacity to 66,000. The expansion would make West Ham’s new ground the biggest of any club in London, eclipsing Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium and Tottenham’s new facility next to White Hart Lane. Despite erratic form at the start of their final season at Upton Park, West Ham’s owners are greatly encouraged by the take-up of tickets at the Olympic venue. They will move in at the start of next season, 2016-17. And with the current capacity at 54,000, there is the potential to fill in space around the top of the arena with another 12,000 seats. Karren Brady, West Ham vice-chair, said this is something the club are already considering. ‘We always knew this was a possibility and it would certainly seem the interest is there,’ she said. ‘We have to look at the logistics of it because these would be the seats furthest from the pitch, so we have to make sure they are worth having. There is no point sticking someone in a corner with a poor view. But if the sight lines are still good, we could fit in 66,000. It’s a very exciting prospect.’
Footballwipe Posted 24 August 2015 Posted 24 August 2015 What's another 12k seats when you don't have to pay for them (They had the committee by the balls so much they probably got them to promise they'd pay for any stadium expansion too)
The Horse's Mouth Posted 24 August 2015 Posted 24 August 2015 You have a stupid nonsensical reply for every person who points out how wrong you are about things I wasn't wrong though, their obsession with the stadium is clearly sour grapes on their part. Anyone denying that is deluded.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.