And don't forget one of the porn masters was on the TV yesterday bragging about bidding for a 20 odd million pound player - nee wonder if we are paying for the running costs of his club.
bids of £20m for Walcott & £25m for Benteke apparently. no doubt affordable (at least a contribution to wages) as a result of reduced running costs compared to everyone else. no sanctions or punishment for fielding ineligible players like tevez and mascherano. maybe that had something to do with a certain trevor brooking holding strings at the FA? maybe this does too? i dunno i'm just hypothesising but something stinks. don't think there's anything to be done about it tho. I signed a petition last year about revealing details of this stadium deal and that got rejected despite having tens of thousands of signatures. we're always led to believe that our vote counts, that our voice can be heard but the powers that be always have a caveat that allows them to brush controversy under the rug. i hate all so-called authority, especially the ****s in charge of this country and our national sport.
FFFUUUCCCKKK!!!!! West Ham will pay £2.5m a year to rent the 60,000-seater Olympic Stadium, it has been revealed after the deal was made public following a legal battle. The ground's owners, the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), fought a ruling that the contract should be published, but the appeal was rejected this week. West Ham will pay the sum per year over the 99-year lease, the 207-page document has revealed. The Hammers move in this summer. The first £4m of any naming rights deal will go to the LLDC and Newham borough, with anything above that between the two bodies and West Ham, although the amount is capped. The rent will be halved to £1.25m if West Ham are relegated. The LLDC, which had spent thousands of pounds fighting the ruling, said the decision could cost the organisation "millions of pounds". But it has decided not to appeal against the tribunal's ruling. Extra payments West Ham could have to make annually £1m if they win the Champions League £100,000 if they win the FA Cup or Europa League, or qualify for it £250,000 if they qualify for the Champions League group stages (All payments linked to inflation) £375,000 if they finish in the top five in the Premier League, with smaller payments for other lower positions in the top 10 The club were awarded tenancy of the London 2012 stadium in 2013, and at least £272m has been spent to convert the site for use as a Premier League ground. West Ham have contributed £15m towards those costs. Last year a BBC documentary revealed the club was having many of the running costs of the stadium paid for it by the taxpayer under the terms of the tenancy agreement. The Hammers will not have to pay for a range of things including policing, stewarding, goalposts, corner flags, cleaners and turnstile operators. Heating and lighting costs will also be covered by the stadium managers. However, stadium bosses point out that this is normal for a rental agreement, using the analogy that you would not expect to hire a badminton court and not have nets supplied. A coalition of 14 supporters' trusts from around the country submitted a Freedom of Information request to obtain that tenancy agreement and believe the deal gives West Ham, who have played at Upton Park since 1904, a competitive advantage. West Ham say they have nothing to hide, believe it is a "great deal" for the club and the taxpayer, and say the stadium offers a true legacy. The club added: "Someone renting the stadium for 25 days a year cannot be responsible for 365 days' running costs." A coalition of 14 supporters' groups and trusts of several different clubs campaigned for the information to be released. In a statement it said: "This is the right decision for the taxpayer, and the right decision for football." Pressure group the Taxpayers' Alliance called the deal "ludicrously generous" and said questions remain for "those responsible for offering a deal for which most clubs would have sold their star striker". Analysis BBC Sport's Frank Keogh: "After a long-running legal row, campaigners have finally succeeded in getting all the details of the Olympic Stadium deal made public. "That is unlikely to completely end the story, with critics saying West Ham have got a new stadium on the cheap. "The Hammers are keeping their distance, although insist by becoming a high-profile anchor tenant, the club is helping to ensure the venue does not become a 'white elephant'. As a tenant, it also misses out on benefits of added income which a venue owner enjoys. "Focus may now turn to the stadium rights arrangement, and quite how much the Hammers might benefit from that."
You lot would have bid to take the stadium if you were playing in a ****-tip of a ground which wasn't big enough for you and you were in the area. No point getting worked up over another load of money down the drain, our country specialise in throwing money away. Have they sorted out that stupid running track? If not, it'll be a joke of a stadium anyway, the atmosphere will be piss poor.
Its an absolute scandal for the Hammers to be subsidised by the taxpayer, and such a blatantly transparent way too.
I don't think anyone is blaming west ham for taking advantage of a ludirously good deal. But the advantage they are getting essentially being paid by the tax payer is unbeleivably unfair comparing to teams they are competing against. Everton need a new stadium for example how is it fair that west ham get a stadium on the cheap while everton will need to pay through the nose for one?
nope. "at least £272m has been spent to convert the site for use as a Premier League ground." this much to remove the running track?
Why do things have to be 'fair'? I agree, they've been given a good deal, but so would Everton if the Olympic stadium was built on the rubbish tip that is Merseyside instead of in the capital. The Olympics were held in London though, mainly, so it would have been a bit odd to put the main site for the games in Doncaster. West Ham have just been the benefactor of a stadium that is of little to no use now, they'll pay more than what's documented, I'm sure of that, such as advertising, naming rights etc. If you look at the bigger picture, the Olympic stadium probably ended up paying for itself with the Olympic games and what it brought along with it. The land will only go up in value as well. It's chicken feed that you lot are getting upset over.
Does that mean the running track has gone though? From what I gather, it will remain part of the stadium.
i thought west ham were insistent it was gotten rid of to maintain some semblance of atmosphere. spurs said in their bid they would have kept it. maybe they had to compromise as it's primarily supposed to be used for athletics. after-all gold or sullivan said they wouldn't expect to pay all the costs of running a stadium they'll use only 25 days of the year. surely it has to be used for track and field the rest of the time?
You'd imagine so, it's still fit for purpose. Concerts and stuff possibly as well, I doubt West Ham would be due a fee from any other things it's used for.
LLDC gets the first £4m and everything over that is split between them. is this just match-day gates receipts/takings? one would think so but wouldn't be surprised if they'd jewed their way into that cash cow too
West Ham are undoubtedly getting a very good deal out of all this but to suggest they getting this advantage 'because they are a London club' is absolutely ridiculous. If the Olympics had been held in another city, a club there could conceivably be getting this advantage The reason that they are getting this is because without a viable use in the long term, the Olympic Stadium will be an embarrassment for the LOCOG, London itself, and the nation as a whole. A Premiership football club is the only thing that's going to get sustainable crowds of a suitable size and they are the only Premiership football club in that part of London. It is unfair but what's the point of getting upset about it? They're still going to have that daft bubbles song, no stadium can make up for that embarrassment...
true dat. they can stick their ****ing bubbles up their arse but the olympics weren't held in another city. as usual London got the promotion and backing for a **** ton of public money to be spent like it wasn't already the most desirable place in the world to live (i haven't made that up nor do i believe that myself) and wouldn't have been better spent on getting the country out of a ****ing recession. the purpose of the LLDC is ensuring longevity of infrastructure and preventing a herd of ridiculously expensive white elephants so i get why it had to be done. my issue is: - in addition to it being daylight robbery of the taxpayer and an unfair advantage over most other clubs (like another London-based club needs anything more) - if the stadium wasn't a viable non-football venue after the olympics why not use stadia that existed at the time or - at least restrict spending £534m on it if football was part of the plan all along instead of having to spend a further £272m on renovations. or - plan ahead and design in the retractable seating before you start building.
Football is unfair enough as it is mate with all of the money involved at some clubs leaving the rest to feed off of scraps. I don't disagree with west ham having the stadium but they should have to pay conversion costs running costs and rent that would be comparable to other clubs who have had to move stadiums. They certainly shouldnt have it as cheap as they have and who ever negotiated it on behalf of the taxpayer wants shooting. I'm not sure about the stadium paying for itself either mate, i was under the impression the country didn't make that much from the olympics in te end
Essentially you want them to pay their fair share for a stadium, but they didn't design it, they never built it and it's not theirs. Tax payers also pay for high speed rail links, billions of pounds, I'll probably use the train once every 5 years, I hate the ****ing train, that's not fair, so what... get over it.
I get what you mean about them getting an advantage at the tax payer's expense but other than that I'm of the opinion that its better that the stadium is used and available for other events- I believe it is still to be used for some athletics events- than it is knocked down and the money is completely wasted. There were no other athletics viable venues for the Olympics so a new stadium had to be built- Wembley, Twickenham don't have space for the running track and the Crystal Palace athletics stadium is too small. Redevelopment of Crystal Palace would still have led to similar issues. I agree the whole thing is a cock-up and more careful planning should have been carried out beforehand but I can't see any other alternative now. On the whole, the Olympics were good for the country. And I believe that London had already been awarded the Olympics when the recession took hold.
