Was listening to peoples reactions to the announcement of the financials for this today on Talk Sport. Seems that whilst this debacle is not one of WHU making, they have put themselves in an amazing position. Seemingly the free police presence alone on a 50k attendance would have cost them £1 million a year, let alone everything else that goes with their annual £2.5 million rental, ground, surroundings and pitch maintenance, etc, etc, etc!!!! Barry Hearn when interviewed said that it will be cheaper for WHU fans to go there than Leyton Orient fans (who live next door) to go to watch Division 2 football. They wanted to share the stadium but that was not part of the deal apparently. He said he'd be be very surprised if some Premiership clubs do not object under Financial Fair Play rules or something, might have that wrong. Tottenham are spending £450 million on a new stadium, Chelsea £530 million and Aresnals ground cost £550 million to build at todays rates. WHU have contributed £15 million towards the conversion of the stadium leaving them in an enviable financial position in regard of club finances. I think its disgusting personally, if it was £2.5 million needed to manage the stadium annually, I suspect, athletics, concerts and other events would have covered the cost, as it is, what WHU are paying will barely create any profit for the landlord, thats you and me.
Theyve basically been given a £400 million stadium free. Its staggeringly cheap especially by London standards and gives them a masdive advantage
Nauseating to hear the BBC's fawning coverage of the last Cup tie at the Boleyn Ground last night. 'Sir' Trevor Brooking wheeled on at half time to give his usual bland shallow platitudes. Remember when the **** reckoned 15 K was more than enough for the KC capacity? WHU, bit like DQPR, traditionally got more and better coverage on Grandstand/MOTD cos it was nearer Shepherds Bush. I'm glad I was able to see us play at what was one of the better PL grounds in terms of charisma despite the plastic bouncy castle facade there. We always seemed to put in a below par display at that place. I hear they are handling the transfer of fans really well, so groups can migrate together, and therefore friendships and atmosphere will be maintained. However, I think their new place will fill up with tourists and the unique atmosphere will be lost, as selfie sticks replace bubbles.
As they have so far sold 40,000 season tickets and are already talking of increasing the capacity as there is a waiting list for season tickets there won't be too big a percentage of tourists. Though some of the new ones may not be like the regulars who go now.
Many season tickets at the big London PL grounds are bought by agencies or individuals who pimp their passes on a game by game basis.
Financial fair play has to do with losses incurred through spending on players and not stadium costs. I believe Tottenham could have had the site but wanted to demolish the stadium and build a completely new one. The real guilty parties are those involved in the London Olympics for building the stadium in the first place with plans to have it as an athletics stadium as a " legacy".
Though it seems like s ridiculously good deal for West Ham (and it is), they did offer a massive amount ahead of it being built if it was built with football in mind, but the offer was rejected. It gives them a massive advantage and will probably establish them as a top six club, but it's still the best option for the use of the stadium (though I'm surprised they weren't made to contribute more).
Not thought about this but....they don't own it so can't treat it as a balance sheet asset and can't therefore trade against it as security (loans for whatever reason) plus can't earn match day revenue. Presumably a lot of older clubs own their grounds outright and are wealthier as a result. I would need to know just how much cash a club needs at that level to derive operating income beyond the TV deals but is owing a ground a major factor in longer term viability as an ambitious club?
There's plenty of competition for rock/pop venues. Athletics wouldn't fill it for anything but the odd special event. I think British athletics wanted a stadium designed that could be converted into a much smaller stadium once the Olympics were over.
You can almost guarantee that the £15 million they paid is covered in mutliples by the amount they got for their ground for building.
Are they also selling the Boleyn? Ive not heard anything about this but in terms of land in London they must potentially get a massive wedge for that too yet this is not being mentioned in any financials that Ive seen. It's an amazing deal for them and Wenger has a massive right to moan after the playing budget straightjacket a new stadium placed on him, which in my eyes makes it fine..
To some extent but they got £30m for it so only the value of an Andy Carroll. They are well off in terms of liquidity (they have no mortgage) but less so in terms of security and value. It is as if they earn a good wage but do not own their house; a valuer would take a more dim view of that over a home owner with good income and no mortgage but that is where it gets complex - which club is mortgage free in terms of their land? I don't think you can measure West Ham as suddenly wealthy they just have less problem with overheads albeit a smaller balance sheet.
It's basically a public funded subsidy to West Ham that enables them to sell Upton Park and make a small fortune. It will give them an unfair advantage over their London rivals. No blame can be attached to West Ham for negotiating the deal, but the ability of the London Legacy negotiators has proved to be miniscule!
It was sold to the Gaillard Group over two years ago, they're building 700 homes on the site. The price wasn't revealed, but apparently it was significantly less than the £70m they were originally asking.
'Significantly less' could still be half that amount, which amounts to 14 years rent at the new stadium. They really have got an amazing deal.
