Level Playing field

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Blue Prophet

Blue Prophet

Active Member
Jan 27, 2011
1,619
0
36
Cardiff
With the news that West Ham's bid to take over the Olympic Stadium permanently now having foundered this is the new proposal

With West Ham's finances under strain following their relegation from the Premier League last season, the new arrangement could be much more attractive as it would only cost around £2m a year to lease the stadium.

That money will help offset estimated running costs of more than £5m a year.
Click to expand...

So surely this means WHU are being subsidised from the public purse to the tune of over £55K a week ? That's two or three good players at championship level.

Cardiff City had financial assisstance from the council to build our new stadium agreed but we are having to repay the loan at commercial rates, as well as having to repay loans to commercial lenders, we end up with an expensive debt, which the club is having to service to the detriment of investment in playing staff.

When Cardiff were "subsidised" from the public purse i.e. by delaying paying their tax bill (whether by accident, design or just bad management) the club was within 36 hours of being wound up (other clubs have suffered similar and indeed worse fates). yet taxpayers are being asked to stump up £3 million a year so WHU can have a shiny new stadium (not a dig at WHU in particular, just the system any club would do it if they could) Why not say the rent is £5 million a year pay it or don't move in? Spurs have indicated they are willing to sort out a ground sharing deal with Leyton Orient and pay the going rate, so it's not as if the place is going to be empty.

Let's have a level playing field, are the authorities (us taxpayers) going to stump up
£55K plus a week to every other championship club, I don't think so!

Plymouth and Chester could do with a few quid whilst these geniuses are chucking OUR money around <doh>

If West Ham dont go up this season, but go up the season after when there two subsidised strikers have scored 50 goals between them is that fair?


And before anyone jumps in and shouts the odds about CCFC getting a subsidised player with the Craig Bellamy deal.......that was a commercial decision made by Man City who didn't expect the taxpayer to foot the bill, and the loan system is there for all to use.

If the authorities are going to use my taxes to subsidise a football club, can my share go towards CCFC please?

And before anyone says it is being funded by the London ratepayers, well the City of London receives £30 million a year plus in subsidies from central government funds (our money) so why if the authorities can afford to subsidise a football club to the tune of £3million a year are they getting so much in subsidies?

Surely the fair thing to do is for Boris and his mad mob to put in a tenant/tenants who will pay the going rate and only take £27 million out of the pot?

Either all clubs should be subsidised or none.
 
Not that I know much about this stuff, but would ticket sales not help to cover some of the costs? Also then the other sporting events which could be held there might raise some money. This might not cover all the costs, but maybe will go some way to doing so?
 
As far as WHU goes i cant see any point in put giving a club a stadium that they can't afford to run as you say its the public that end up footing the bill. it might seem like its the big boys winning again by giving it to Spurs but they CAN afford to take it on and NOT to OUR expense, might seem harsh but football is as much a buisiness tese days as any commercial enterprise...and buissiness is buissiness....and as i'm not a fan of either side and in saying that i dont wish them any malice i also have no wish to pay a penny of my hard earned on them either, so give it to whoever costs us the least
 
if the stadium is leased by the council to clubs it would be a similar deal the major stadium has here where it is used by football, league, union and also for concerts, that might be the thinking, i have no clue who actually owns the ground
 
Can they even fill it? Even with the deduction in Capacity, they're never going to fill a 50,000 seater ground. At least Spurs have a chance of filling it :)
 
WHU can't afford to run it and certainly won't fill it if they can't get out of the Championship. What a dog's dinner.

It appears very unfair that West Ham should be funded albeit indirectly by the taxpayer. Part of the reason that the first deal has fallen through is down to EEC legislation on the maximum amount of funding a business can directly receive from a public body. The proposed loan by Newham Council far exceeded this limit. I believe that is the basis on which Spurs have continued to fight the arrangement.

That being the case, were West Ham to lease it at less than the true cost looks like a back door means of funding them and I am sure Daniel Levy will be all over that like a rash.

Mind you as a Spurs fan also, I am not in favour of Spurs relocating to Spammers territory. They would lose at lot of local support which would be taken over by plastics. Spurs should stay at WHL or as close as possible as any redevelopment will allow.
 
BluefromBridgend said:
Mind you as a Spurs fan also, I am not in favour of Spurs relocating to Spammers territory. They would lose at lot of local support which would be taken over by plastics. Spurs should stay at WHL or as close as possible as any redevelopment will allow.
Click to expand...

<ok>
 
havnt spurs been 'subsidised' by the council / government by being encouraged to stay in their area to spruce up white hart lane by being offered the chance to not pay the £17m they would have to pay for regeneration in the area were they to build a new stadium?

theres another example of that.

The London mayor, Boris Johnson, has set Tottenham Hotspur a fresh three-week deadline to commit to staying at their north London home and drop their legal action against West Ham's move to the Olympic Stadium.

It is understood that Johnson has written again to the Spurs chairman, Daniel Levy, this time warning him that, if the club does not take up City Hall's offer of a £17m package to help smooth its £250m redevelopment plans for White Hart Lane, it will find other uses for the money.

"We have been working to help deliver the Northumberland Park Project for many months and all avenues have now been explored. The community and the club's fans have been heartfelt in their pleas for Spurs to remain in north London and there is a comprehensive offer on the table to make this happen," said a spokesman for the mayor.

"We will be looking at other ways in which we can use funding to regenerate areas across London that were affected by the riots, so it is vital that we get clarity from Tottenham Hotspur as soon as possible."

The mayor's package includes £5m for infrastructure and public-realm works and £3.5m worth of funding to secure improvements to transport links to and from the area at Tottenham Hale and White Hart Lane stations.

The new deadline takes Spurs to the eve of the judicial review that they won permission to proceed with last month, at which they plan to argue that Newham council's decision to lend West Ham £40m contravened European state-aid rules.

Spurs are determined not to be rushed into a decision, believing that more help should be forthcoming and insisting on a cast-iron guarantee that West Ham will be forced to retain the athletics track in the stadium.

The club's owner, Joe Lewis, who lives in the Bahamas but has moored his boat on the Thames while he considers a takeover of the pub group Mitchells & Butlers, has been involved in the discussions.

The sports minister, Hugh Robertson, had hoped to convince Levy to drop the club's legal challenge and commit to Haringey by the time inspectors from the International Association of Athletics Federations arrive on Monday to examine London's bid for the 2017 World Championships.

Instead Robertson, Johnson, the London 2012 chairman and IAAF vice-president, Seb Coe, the UK Athletics chairman, Ed Warner, and the Olympic Park Legacy Company chair, Margaret Ford, are now expected to address the issue head on when they meet IAAF inspectors on Monday morning.

They will give an unambiguous guarantee that the track will remain in the Olympic Stadium regardless of the outcome of the mayor's negotiations with Spurs, saying that, even if the north London club win their legal challenge, they will simply retender for the stadium on the basis that it must stay.
Click to expand...
 
Swamp

My understanding is that the money Boris is offering is to help fund the cost of improving the area infrastructure - roads, railway stations etc. Therefore, the club do not receive any direct financial inducements for work on the stadium and the improvements to be made are for the area and population as a whole - not just the football club.

I believe the local authority were happy to see the club construct a new ground provided the club paid for all the extras mentioned above so if Spurs copped the cost for that lot it would be a direct reversal of the Spammers position, i.e. the club paying for all the improvements and the local authority putting nothing in. Why should Spurs have to do that - improve the stadium and immediate facilities as Ar5ena1 did at the Emirates but to pay the cost of improvements to railway stations and roads outside the club's ownership should not be the club's responsibility.

Boris has tried to put a compromise on the table but I think Joe Lewis is much more used to playing hardball than Boris - Joe didn't get where he is today by not playing hardball - with thanks to Reggie Perrin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back