On Behalf Of A Leyton Orient Fan....

[Freesolo]

I wasn't wrong though, their obsession with the stadium is clearly sour grapes on their part. Anyone denying that is deluded.

too many clubs in london?

[PAULCFC]

Signed.

[PAULCFC]

From those pic's it would suit Fulham,Darlington,Grimsby or Newcastle down to the ground.

[tom27111]

Just received this email response:

 

West Ham United has a concession at the Stadium and their contributions reflect that status. The contract, awarded after an open public competition, has been widely scrutinised and tested in court.

 

 

Following the completion of its transformation programme the Stadium will be - unlike so many previous Olympic Stadiums - a world-class multi-use arena with a long-term future, and one that won’t require continuous support from the taxpayer. The stadium remains in public ownership (E20 Stadium LLP – a joint venture between the London Legacy Development Corporation and Newham Council) and the profits from its multiple uses will flow to the taxpayer. 

As a long-term concessionaire West Ham United will only access the full stadium facilities for and shortly ahead of home matches, anticipated to be an average of 25 games a year. The stadium’s other anchor concession-holder, British Athletics, has a concession for one month a year. The stadium will be available for commercial and other uses at all times outside of these existing commitments. 

The Stadium is a multi-use venue, which has already hosted a major athletics meet this year, the Sainsbury’s Anniversary Games, and will host a range of other events in 2015 including five matches during the Rugby World Cup this autumn, a Rugby League international between England and New Zealand and the Race of Champions motorsport event. In addition the Stadium will host elite athletics including the IAAF and IPC Athletics World Championships in 2017. 

A world class stadium operator has been appointed and it is part of the operator agreement that the Stadium will host concerts and other events. 

None of these events will financially benefit West Ham United. All revenues from these events will be shared by the operator and the Stadium owners. The stadium operator has a proven international track record of success in managing and maximising revenue from multi-use stadia and is contractually incentivised to generate maximum income. 

The agreement with West Ham United, including their contribution to transformation costs and rent, followed an open competitive process, which was delivered under EU rules, conducted visibly and exposed to significant scrutiny. The outcome has been tested in the courts and upheld. As the winning bid this constituted the best available return for the taxpayer and secures the commercial viability of a national asset for the next 100 years. 

The European Commission (EC) is responsible for assessing whether public investment distorts the competitive market. The EC has considered this issue on more than one occasion and has done so with full sight of the contractual terms, comprehensive detail of the tender exercise and in depth legal opinion on compliance with UK and EU law. It has found no case to answer. Therefore we do not believe that a public inquiry is necessary. 

The detail of the rental agreement between the Stadium owners and West Ham United is commercially sensitive. Disclosing details of the contract would undermine the future negotiating position of the Stadium's operator, Vinci, who are working hard to bring in future events to get the greatest possible return and ensure that the Stadium is a commercial success. 

It is important that the stadium owners and operator are able to negotiate future contracts in a way that derive maximum value and are not constrained by any one agreement. Such arrangements are standard practice and are designed to both protect the previous public expenditure and maximise the return on this investment.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport

[Footballwipe]

 

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.

West Ham’s long and winding road to the Olympic Stadium

 

Read more

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.

Exclusive pictures inside West Ham's new home

 

View gallery

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.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/sep/15/west-ham-details-olympic-stadium-deal

 

Cracking news and I hope if they do appeal it fails.

 

There were some good points above. Yes, West Ham were the only viable option, but this cost £272m of public money to convert to a football stadium, however terrible it was in terms of planning the public absolutely have a right to see the terms of the deal. Everyone knows because West Ham were the only viable option they had the LLDC over a barrel in negotiations, we get to see how much.