Match Day Thread 2016/17 Premier League, Cups & Euro Watch

Not at all. I'd rather it be used for football, but I'd rather the club pay for the stadium and not get it on the cheap. Goes back to the start of building a stadium with a purpose that it only is useful for a month and a bit and then have to fudge a way for it to be useful. Should have been a plan of action as to how to use the stadium after the olympics, Not suddenly then panic and be held to ransom.

I don't live in London so the council getting money from it doesn't help me.

 

But what's 280 years amongst friends?

 

I'd have preferred the Olympics committee to have had a plan for it like they were suppose to have

 

Seems the conversion wasn't only to suit playing football and WestHam contributed to it anyway, along with other interested party's.

Of the £272m total transformation costs, £15m is being provided by West Ham, with £1m coming from UK Athletics. The stadium will have an initial 54,000 capacity and stage other events including rugby union matches and motorsport. Work has included installing a new 45,000 square metre cantilever roof, twice the size of the original, covering all the seats - it will be the largest of its kind in the world.
The local borough of Newham is contributing £40m, and national government £25m, with the remainder coming from a variety of sources, including Olympic Park land sales. Retractable seating for 21,000 spectators is being fitted to allow the athletics track to be used in the summer, and the venue will host the 2017 World Athletics Championships.


And you seem to be in possession of some very sensitive/secret information regarding the rent

It has released a copy of the 207-page document with less redacted sections than previously, but the amount of rent West Ham will be paying annually has not been revealed as this is considered to be commercially sensitive information.

 

You mean like Manchester did with Eastlands

 

No argument from me there. I am just glad it will not be stood empty, instead there will be some money made from it whilst it will still be available for it's original use

 

Money wont be made for a good few hundreds years when take into account construction costs etc.

 

That was the commonwealth games wasn't it? Not sure on the policies etc for that.

Olympic policies say new builds funded using Olympic money should have a long term plan.

Still same though i guess

 

Construction costs have been paid, they will never come back and it's pointless even mentioning them, the time for that was before the stadium was built.
Now they have to look forward and either let it stand as a £480m white elephant until it gets demolished or try to get some use out of it and some money back.

 

Not a phrase you hear every day.....

 

So maybe (in both cases) the long term plan was the stadium would be used full time for football by a local club, yet still be available for future athletic events concerts etc?

 

Tbf Utd were offered Eastlands before City were. Utd turned it down saying Old Trafford was their home. I always thought that odd as Newton Heath (I think) was where Utd started. Fairly certain that would have been an easy sell to the fans ( like us with the blue kit ). So we can blame you lot for Citeh

 

Newton Heath Loco, I live about 1.5 miles from the original ground/field

 

Not in the Olympics case

 

Eastlands/Etihad is practically in Newton Heath anyway isn't it

 

Good wins for Leicester and Citeh tonight then, Spurs opening their account with a loss

 

Just to add to this. The rent includes security costs and umpteen other costs, even the corner flags!

If the poxy rent for the stadium wasn't bad enough, who could possibly justify the fact that they've only paid £15m of the £271m cost of converting the stadium into a football venue?

The whole deal stinks to high heaven.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/15/in-numbers-west-ham-deal-for-olympic-stadium
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36043808
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b5da592e-023f-11e6-99cb-83242733f755.html#axzz4KJfNsDQt - explains public disclosure
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...l-west-ham-stadium-deal---including-25m-annu/ - my personal favourite

''Taxpayers will foot the bill for ticket checkers, medical staff and cleaners at games when West Ham move to the Olympic Stadium, Sky Sport News HQ can reveal.
The club also will not have to pay for turnstile operators, much of the security and steward personnel and catering staff on match days.''

 

It bothers me because it's giving West Ham a huge advantage over my own club that's one reason.

We will have to fund a new stadium in the next few years and the full cost of that will be borne by the club.

West Ham are paying £2.5m a year to rent a stadium that has now cost over £700m. The tax payer has funded £256m of the conversion costs alone.

I'd have had no problem with them taking it, merely that they should be paying a lease that is commensurate with the cost of the facility and it's location.

As for City, the total cost of that stadium was only £110m. City funded the £20m additional cost of making it into a football stadium and the original deal with the council saw them receive half of the gate receipts for any attendance over 32,000. That has since been renegotiated and City pay a flat £3m a year for a stadium that cost roughly 15% of the London Stadium.

 

I totally agree.. in short west ham and the spiv owners CLEARLY bribed and criminally defrauded to get that deal. I think the place should have been burned down rather than handed to that pair of ****s. at minimum 15/20 should be paid a year for it.