|
Post by slpmarc on Oct 10, 2015 7:43:44 GMT
Did we enjoy having the Olympics in the UK? If so, the stadium could only be maintained for future athletics use if a long term client was found. The only viable client were West Ham. When you are the only viable client you can strike the best deal possible. This sort of deal was inevitable from the moment the Olympic bid was successful. That is unfortunately the nub of it. It has nothing to do with the FA or the Gvt apart from the impact on Leyton Orient which is a different issue to the finances of the stadium. The truth is they didn't sort out the stadium legacy issue in advance or learn the lessons from Sydney and other places. Boris ignored those lessons and West Ham were left in a buyers market and could strike a really good deal for themselves. If you don't think tit should have been allowed you need to say how you would sort out the Olympic legacy issue given where things were at once the games had finished and the undertakings given. Not easy. You can't be surprised at WHU taking advantage of the strength of their negotiating hand. I agree at no point is this West Hams wrong doing, it's all down to our incompetent government once again taking advantage of tax payers to create a dream of London hosting the Olympics and neglecting to see how in the future the tax payer would get back the money they invested in making their dream happen. Now it's come that the government don't want themselves to look like idiots to the world have had to find a use for the stadium and made it a market that only 1 club could realistically use on a regular basis and Karen Brady is one of the best in the business at getting what she wants
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Oct 10, 2015 7:50:54 GMT
Did we enjoy having the Olympics in the UK? If so, the stadium could only be maintained for future athletics use if a long term client was found. The only viable client were West Ham. When you are the only viable client you can strike the best deal possible. This sort of deal was inevitable from the moment the Olympic bid was successful. I enjoyed the 2012 Olympics. That they were held in London was, as someone once said about goals, irrelevant. I'm pretty sure it would have been easier and cheaper for me to experience the games live if they had been held in almost any other city in Europe. The stadium problems have been a result of the incompetence of Sebastian Coe (decent runner awful adminstrator, politition and human being) and his tory friends. That West Ham are the most viable client is not in dispute. The fact that they are making massive profit by moving to a new, bigger, better ground is however a disgrace at a time when schools and local authorites are having to close, or sell, sports facilities because they can not afford to run them. WHU would be getting a good deal on this stadium even if their contribution to the redevelopment had been £50M and the rent had been set at £5M. How anyone can claim that Boris, Seb and the rest of this Govt. have the necessary financial acumen to run the country's economy is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Oct 10, 2015 7:58:09 GMT
West Ham rent public building shock!! Our tenancy both creates and keeps all the people who will work the Stadium in a job!! The way things are going it'll be run by interns & volunteers
|
|
|
Post by clarkeda on Oct 10, 2015 7:59:46 GMT
Absolute farce
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Oct 10, 2015 9:13:43 GMT
This will run and run
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Oct 10, 2015 9:39:26 GMT
Did we enjoy having the Olympics in the UK? If so, the stadium could only be maintained for future athletics use if a long term client was found. The only viable client were West Ham. When you are the only viable client you can strike the best deal possible. This sort of deal was inevitable from the moment the Olympic bid was successful. That is unfortunately the nub of it. It has nothing to do with the FA or the Gvt apart from the impact on Leyton Orient which is a different issue to the finances of the stadium. The truth is they didn't sort out the stadium legacy issue in advance or learn the lessons from Sydney and other places. Boris ignored those lessons and West Ham were left in a buyers market and could strike a really good deal for themselves. If you don't think tit should have been allowed you need to say how you would sort out the Olympic legacy issue given where things were at once the games had finished and the undertakings given. Not easy. You can't be surprised at WHU taking advantage of the strength of their negotiating hand. On need to call the lad a tit Malcom.
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Oct 10, 2015 14:13:06 GMT
Every so often you see an article of the old Olympic stadiums in a state of disrepair. The £800M we spent building the stadium was irrelevant the day the Olympics ended. At that point there were 3 options;
A) Keep it for future athletic events, once every X years and have it empty the rest of the time B) knock it down and build houses or whatever C) let it out and given size and location it would only be to a football club.
West Ham got a great deal as government didn't want to do a or b, but actually it isn't that suitable for football and that's why they got a big discount
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Oct 10, 2015 14:35:50 GMT
Did we enjoy having the Olympics in the UK? If so, the stadium could only be maintained for future athletics use if a long term client was found. The only viable client were West Ham. When you are the only viable client you can strike the best deal possible. This sort of deal was inevitable from the moment the Olympic bid was successful. That is unfortunately the nub of it. It has nothing to do with the FA or the Gvt apart from the impact on Leyton Orient which is a different issue to the finances of the stadium. The truth is they didn't sort out the stadium legacy issue in advance or learn the lessons from Sydney and other places. Boris ignored those lessons and West Ham were left in a buyers market and could strike a really good deal for themselves. If you don't think tit should have been allowed you need to say how you would sort out the Olympic legacy issue given where things were at once the games had finished and the undertakings given. Not easy. You can't be surprised at WHU taking advantage of the strength of their negotiating hand. Pretty much all the time. But I think that was just a lucky guess.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 10, 2015 14:58:56 GMT
Every so often you see an article of the old Olympic stadiums in a state of disrepair. The £800M we spent building the stadium was irrelevant the day the Olympics ended. At that point there were 3 options; A) Keep it for future athletic events, once every X years and have it empty the rest of the time B) knock it down and build houses or whatever C) let it out and given size and location it would only be to a football club. West Ham got a great deal as government didn't want to do a or b, but actually it isn't that suitable for football and that's why they got a big discount There was another option, a variation of (A) which was, as I understand it, in fact the one chosen by the Olympic Development Authority based on their visit to Sydney, namely to build a low cost stadium with no catering etc in it (which they did), and after the games dismantle the top section leaving a far smaller but viable athletics stadium. But Boris and co. decided they didn't want to do that and but rather spend a lot of public money and leave a far larger stadium (I was wrong above to say that the Gvt. had no involvement - they do, financially). So, they devise a strategy, and then ignore it, at great cost to the public purse, but once they had done this,as you say under (C) the number of potential tenants is very limited - perhaps only one, hence WHU being able to "negotiate" ( I use the word advisedly) a very good deal for the club.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 10, 2015 15:05:05 GMT
That is unfortunately the nub of it. It has nothing to do with the FA or the Gvt apart from the impact on Leyton Orient which is a different issue to the finances of the stadium. The truth is they didn't sort out the stadium legacy issue in advance or learn the lessons from Sydney and other places. Boris ignored those lessons and West Ham were left in a buyers market and could strike a really good deal for themselves. If you don't think tit should have been allowed you need to say how you would sort out the Olympic legacy issue given where things were at once the games had finished and the undertakings given. Not easy. You can't be surprised at WHU taking advantage of the strength of their negotiating hand. Thank you Lord B, March and Malcolm. Delivering the legacy became more important than what it cost in the end. That WHU are taking advantage suggests the mess Government. and Olympics bods found themselves in. True ( see my post above) but nevertheless WHU should have conducted a proper informed and objective consultation with their fans, which they didn't. That should happen whenever a club proposes to move ground, regardless of where. I don't what result you think that would have produced hammered but I know WHU fans who were ( and still are) opposed to the move, despite the good deal financially.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 10, 2015 15:05:49 GMT
That is unfortunately the nub of it. It has nothing to do with the FA or the Gvt apart from the impact on Leyton Orient which is a different issue to the finances of the stadium. The truth is they didn't sort out the stadium legacy issue in advance or learn the lessons from Sydney and other places. Boris ignored those lessons and West Ham were left in a buyers market and could strike a really good deal for themselves. If you don't think tit should have been allowed you need to say how you would sort out the Olympic legacy issue given where things were at once the games had finished and the undertakings given. Not easy. You can't be surprised at WHU taking advantage of the strength of their negotiating hand. Pretty much all the time. But I think that was just a lucky guess.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 10, 2015 15:09:45 GMT
If we were in the same position,and rented our stadium when it was built then the tax payers of Stoke on Trent would feel ripped off.O we did but never paid any rent,the only part of the stadium we owned were the offices,so don't us start moaning about other clubs getting the best deal for themselves,I say good luck and looking forward going there. You should read up on it, its no where near the same, also its pretty strange they won't be fully open to what the deal is. There should be full transparency about a deal involving so much public money
|
|
|
Post by hammered on Oct 10, 2015 20:54:00 GMT
Malcolm it was fait accompli the moment the Olympics was put in Stratford IMO. It was always going to be West Ham's after the games which you'd think a reasonable conclusion before they designed and built it.
Whether the supporters wanted it or not - was again largely irrelevant viewed against the upgrade of venue. Consultation was always only going to be loaded on the terms of getting the deal done and most now accept it's happening and moved on.
I grew up in the place and am sad to leave - but realistic to realise football sold it's soul a long time ago for the sanitised theatre most of the PL is now - where brand, money and more money is the place clubs want to be; so, along with muddy pitches, being squashed, cash on the turnstile, north bank, proper singing, proper beer, proper cold, real football played by men - David Cross, Billy Bonds, Sir Trev, Devonshire, Cottee, DiCanio, Tevez, etc.. and all the other long gone nostalgia.... what club would turn it down?
If they'd reduced it as Coe intended to 25,000 athletics only - the limitations of the place would have made it a dust bowl with the couple of opportunities a year it could make money. With all the other rejuvenation in the area I don't suppose they had a choice to make it fit for purpose for the only sustainable use for regularly attended big stadia!!
I've said many times before I wish they'd built it elsewhere. I wonder if it'd been built in (3 miles as the crow flies) Charlton whether anyone would have given a s--t?
The move is happening and as much as I understand the focus on the deal with West Ham - maybe the focus should be on why rather than the detail which is only going to reveal how weak a position their planning and negotiation left them and why WHU couldn't fail in bailing them out?
|
|
|
Post by staffsvilla on Oct 10, 2015 21:02:48 GMT
Malcolm it was fait accompli the moment the Olympics was put in Stratford IMO. It was always going to be West Ham's after the games which you'd think a reasonable conclusion before they designed and built it. Whether the supporters wanted it or not - was again largely irrelevant viewed against the upgrade of venue. Consultation was always only going to be loaded on the terms of getting the deal done and most now accept it's happening and moved on. I grew up in the place and am sad to leave - but realistic to realise football sold it's soul a long time ago for the sanitised theatre most of the PL is now - where brand, money and more money is the place clubs want to be; so, along with muddy pitches, being squashed, cash on the turnstile, north bank, proper singing, proper beer, proper cold, real football played by men - David Cross, Billy Bonds, Sir Trev, Devonshire, Cottee, DiCanio, Tevez, etc.. and all the other long gone nostalgia.... what club would turn it down? If they'd reduced it as Coe intended to 25,000 athletics only - the limitations of the place would have made it a dust bowl with the couple of opportunities a year it could make money. With all the other rejuvenation in the area I don't suppose they had a choice to make it fit for purpose for the only sustainable use for regularly attended big stadia!! I've said many times before I wish they'd built it elsewhere. I wonder if it'd been built in (3 miles as the crow flies) Charlton whether anyone would have given a s--t? The move is happening and as much as I understand the focus on the deal with West Ham - maybe the focus should be on why rather than the detail which is only going to reveal how weak a position their planning and negotiation left them and why WHU couldn't fail in bailing them out? So why is Brady so against full disclosure then ?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 10, 2015 21:11:29 GMT
Malcolm it was fait accompli the moment the Olympics was put in Stratford IMO. It was always going to be West Ham's after the games which you'd think a reasonable conclusion before they designed and built it. Whether the supporters wanted it or not - was again largely irrelevant viewed against the upgrade of venue. Consultation was always only going to be loaded on the terms of getting the deal done and most now accept it's happening and moved on. I grew up in the place and am sad to leave - but realistic to realise football sold it's soul a long time ago for the sanitised theatre most of the PL is now - where brand, money and more money is the place clubs want to be; so, along with muddy pitches, being squashed, cash on the turnstile, north bank, proper singing, proper beer, proper cold, real football played by men - David Cross, Billy Bonds, Sir Trev, Devonshire, Cottee, DiCanio, Tevez, etc.. and all the other long gone nostalgia.... what club would turn it down? If they'd reduced it as Coe intended to 25,000 athletics only - the limitations of the place would have made it a dust bowl with the couple of opportunities a year it could make money. With all the other rejuvenation in the area I don't suppose they had a choice to make it fit for purpose for the only sustainable use for regularly attended big stadia!! I've said many times before I wish they'd built it elsewhere. I wonder if it'd been built in (3 miles as the crow flies) Charlton whether anyone would have given a s--t? The move is happening and as much as I understand the focus on the deal with West Ham - maybe the focus should be on why rather than the detail which is only going to reveal how weak a position their planning and negotiation left them and why WHU couldn't fail in bailing them out? A fair and considered response. But consultation with fans should always be open and objective. I agree with your first para. - if it was always inevitable then that should have been clear and transparent and planned for right from the start.
|
|
|
Post by innocentbystander on Oct 10, 2015 22:04:53 GMT
West Ham rent public building shock!! Our tenancy both creates and keeps all the people who will work the Stadium in a job!! Well aren't you a generous bunch..! Im sure thats just what fuckpig and the dildo bros had in mind.... You are the victims - 400 meters from the pitch, and you're getting NFL inflicted on you - that's the real crime, the persistent insistence that we get NFL rammed down our throats in a bid to get us to buy yet more crass plastic American product.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Oct 11, 2015 0:10:00 GMT
Malcolm it was fait accompli the moment the Olympics was put in Stratford IMO. It was always going to be West Ham's after the games which you'd think a reasonable conclusion before they designed and built it. Whether the supporters wanted it or not - was again largely irrelevant viewed against the upgrade of venue. Consultation was always only going to be loaded on the terms of getting the deal done and most now accept it's happening and moved on. I grew up in the place and am sad to leave - but realistic to realise football sold it's soul a long time ago for the sanitised theatre most of the PL is now - where brand, money and more money is the place clubs want to be; so, along with muddy pitches, being squashed, cash on the turnstile, north bank, proper singing, proper beer, proper cold, real football played by men - David Cross, Billy Bonds, Sir Trev, Devonshire, Cottee, DiCanio, Tevez, etc.. and all the other long gone nostalgia.... what club would turn it down? If they'd reduced it as Coe intended to 25,000 athletics only - the limitations of the place would have made it a dust bowl with the couple of opportunities a year it could make money. With all the other rejuvenation in the area I don't suppose they had a choice to make it fit for purpose for the only sustainable use for regularly attended big stadia!! I've said many times before I wish they'd built it elsewhere. I wonder if it'd been built in (3 miles as the crow flies) Charlton whether anyone would have given a s--t? The move is happening and as much as I understand the focus on the deal with West Ham - maybe the focus should be on why rather than the detail which is only going to reveal how weak a position their planning and negotiation left them and why WHU couldn't fail in bailing them out? Why blame WHU? They've got a great deal, but if there's only one person in the world who wants to rent your house, you're probably going to get a shit deal as a landlord aren't you? The whole problem goes back to the Labour Government. When you spend over half a billion pounds on a building you'd think you'd have a plan that extends for more than a couple of months wouldn't you? They needed to accept at the requirements stage that there was only ever going to be football as the long term viable option for the Olympic stadium, and built that into the original design.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Oct 11, 2015 1:06:07 GMT
You can't blame West Ham management for doing their job and getting the best deal possible for the owners and shareholders. CBusiness deals are usually negotiated by lawyers who can only represent one side. To do anything else would be considered malpractice - a variation of this, which is highly illegal, is where the negotiators structure a deal from which they personally benefit (a conflict of interest, e.g. Blatter, et al.). The stadium is a very good example of why Government should stay out of business because they not usually qualified and will get taken to the cleaners by people who do this for a living(which is what appears to have happened here). In addition to being inexperienced negotiators, the London Council was also in a spot you never want to be when trying to make a deal a willingness to walk away. Presumably, West Ham had options, such as renovating Upton Park or building a new stadium. London hade nowhere to run since it appears they had no other buyers. WHU had them by the short and curlies.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2015 13:32:54 GMT
Two words ... Trevor. Brooking. What about him? What involvement has he had in all of this? None,surely. He's an FA bum boy and everyone knows it. Stop trying to be smart arsehole.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Oct 11, 2015 17:25:38 GMT
What about him? What involvement has he had in all of this? None,surely. He's an FA bum boy and everyone knows it. Stop trying to be smart arsehole. Did the FA have much input in the deal?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 11, 2015 17:39:54 GMT
He's an FA bum boy and everyone knows it. Stop trying to be smart arsehole. Did the FA have much input in the deal? As far as I know, the FA had no involvement at all. Incidentally, Trevor Brooking has retired from the FA.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 11, 2015 18:15:12 GMT
Where has the money from the sale of Boleyn gone. You can weasel around it as much as you want but who are the prime beneficiaries of this sale as the taxpayer blows in the wind and the owners of West Ham massively prosper?
Are they one and the same?
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Oct 11, 2015 20:39:34 GMT
What about him? What involvement has he had in all of this? None,surely. He's an FA bum boy and everyone knows it. Stop trying to be smart arsehole. Yes he is an FA bum boy,I agree. What has that got to do with any of this? Not trying to be smart but how has Brooking or the FA been involved?
|
|
|
Post by hammered on Oct 11, 2015 21:34:28 GMT
Dissing Sir Trev - come on - that bloke is Mr football!!
Money for Boleyn - cleared toxic debt
Let's see where everything is in 12 months?
|
|
|
Post by flinteastwood on Oct 11, 2015 22:03:21 GMT
to me it seems a shit deal for the west ham fans, the stadium will be a soulless bowl whored out to the nfl and all sorts.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2015 22:07:47 GMT
It seems that Malcolm is levelling a lot of the blame on Boris' more than ample shoulders. Without wishing to be too pedantic, the legacy planning started under Red Ken and War Criminal Blair's watch. In fact, Boris actively encouraged the bid from Tottenham which was based on demolishing the stadium.
It was Seb Coe that neutered that option, both with backing of IOC and senior members of the Houses of Commons & Lords. it would send out a message that athletics in Britain was not being taken seriously, and to be honest I think that was the right call.
I personally believe that West Ham have got a steal of a deal though. The Ricoh Arena has shown that 20 home games a season is not the only way for a ground to pay for itself. far more revenue comes in from corporate events and concerts. With that in mind, the powers that be should have played hard ball with the dildo twins given it was crystal clear that they wanted to cash in on their own ground.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Oct 11, 2015 22:08:03 GMT
Did the FA have much input in the deal? As far as I know, the FA had no involvement at all. Incidentally, Trevor Brooking has retired from the FA. Didn't think they did, thought I'd missed something for second then.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 11, 2015 22:20:29 GMT
Money for Boleyn - cleared toxic debt So you win a loaded shitty Public Money Lottery and don't give up a penny from the associated Capitalist certainty. Lurrvely work if you can get it
|
|
|
Post by hammered on Oct 11, 2015 22:24:44 GMT
It seems that Malcolm is levelling a lot of the blame on Boris' more than ample shoulders. Without wishing to be too pedantic, the legacy planning started under Red Ken and War Criminal Blair's watch. In fact, Boris actively encouraged the bid from Tottenham which was based on demolishing the stadium. It was Seb Coe that neutered that option, both with backing of IOC and senior members of the Houses of Commons & Lords. it would send out a message that athletics in Britain was not being taken seriously, and to be honest I think that was the right call. I personally believe that West Ham have got a steal of a deal though. The Ricoh Arena has shown that 20 home games a season is not the only way for a ground to pay for itself. far more revenue comes in from corporate events and concerts. With that in mind, the powers that be should have played hard ball with the dildo twins given it was crystal clear that they wanted to cash in on their own ground. A nicely condensed summary of the facts: Other than WHU when the Icelandics first took charge (and had money) (lots) tried to cut a deal. Events have gone to the O2- 15 mins away - another White Elephant of Labour brain drain bailed out by corporate nous!!
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 11, 2015 22:25:55 GMT
Dissing Sir Trev - come on - that bloke is Mr football!! Money for Boleyn - cleared toxic debt Let's see where everything is in 12 months? I never liked Brooking from a young age. He's always struck me as a brown nosing cunt.
|
|