Have to love the logic: Spurs will have their own custom-built stadium that will see the club play in the exact same location with various additional revenue streams filling the club's coffers, but some Goon thinks we're jealous because we're not playing in a half-empty white elephant with no atmosphere. There's only one response big enough for that... please log in to view this image
Looks like the West Ham petition has ground to a halt at a little under 22,000 signatures. Needs new life if it is to look at 100,000 signatures, the threshold for it to be discussed in Parliament.
It does. The problem is that not enough people know or care about it. The whole 'burden on the taxpayer' thing isn't the biggest issue as the total amount spread across the electorate over x number of years is barely noticeable. The real crime is the fact that they're essentially receiving a new stadium for free - a fact that is unlikely to rankle anyone who doesn't follow football, and even then - it would only irk clubs who are in similar situations or could be negatively affected by the situation....which is basically us and Leyton Orient. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if all the signatories on that petition are Spurs and Orient fans. What surprises me is how little Arsenal fans appear to care. Having been through 5-6 years of minimal investment due to stadium costs, I would have thought this would draw their fury. As (iirc) the most supported club in London, without Arsenal support this petition will grid to a halt.
I think that all clubs other than the mega-rich would be affected by this. Perhaps our respected mods could contact their counterparts at other clubs to enlist their help. This gift fron the taxpayer to West Ham could prevent the Stoke, Southampton and Swansea level clubs getting European places
Personally, I couldn't give a toss! Having a ground that they cannot possibly fill is only going to make the Spanners look all the more stupid when, inevitably, they get relegated again. Teams are to going to hate going there to play, not least of all the Spanner players, and they've got to play there all ****ing season!
True about the atmosphere and not being able to fill it. However there squad looks pretty decent to me and they've strengthened significantly. I don't think they're getting relegated any time in the next few years.
I heard that the rugby game played at the OS last weekend had some "teething problems". I don't think it's going to do well during the upcoming world cup where they will be retaining the track and a lot of the seating is going to be very very far from the action. Apparently the sprinklers also came on in the middle of the match! However I understand that the seating is going to be converted for the football, so that a lot of it will be nearer the pitch (although the banking will mean that a lot of it is still far away). It just really really really really riles me how little of the conversion costs, or indeed almost any other cost, is going to be paid for by the tenants.
After seeing the BBC documentary the other month, the one thing you have to commend the Dildo bros for is their correct speculation that the OS would be a public purse white elephant, and the LLDC would be desperate for any vague offer to save face. But their laundry bill must have been massive for a few days after Spurs were invited into the bid process.
Government responded: West Ham United has a concession at the Stadium and their contributions reflect that status. The contract, awarded after an open public competition, has been widely scrutinised and tested in court. Following the completion of its transformation programme the Stadium will be - unlike so many previous Olympic Stadiums - a world-class multi-use arena with a long-term future, and one that won’t require continuous support from the taxpayer. The stadium remains in public ownership (E20 Stadium LLP – a joint venture between the London Legacy Development Corporation and Newham Council) and the profits from its multiple uses will flow to the taxpayer. As a long-term concessionaire West Ham United will only access the full stadium facilities for and shortly ahead of home matches, anticipated to be an average of 25 games a year. The stadium’s other anchor concession-holder, British Athletics, has a concession for one month a year. The stadium will be available for commercial and other uses at all times outside of these existing commitments. The Stadium is a multi-use venue, which has already hosted a major athletics meet this year, the Sainsbury’s Anniversary Games, and will host a range of other events in 2015 including five matches during the Rugby World Cup this autumn, a Rugby League international between England and New Zealand and the Race of Champions motorsport event. In addition the Stadium will host elite athletics including the IAAF and IPC Athletics World Championships in 2017. A world class stadium operator has been appointed and it is part of the operator agreement that the Stadium will host concerts and other events. None of these events will financially benefit West Ham United. All revenues from these events will be shared by the operator and the Stadium owners. The stadium operator has a proven international track record of success in managing and maximising revenue from multi-use stadia and is contractually incentivised to generate maximum income. The agreement with West Ham United, including their contribution to transformation costs and rent, followed an open competitive process, which was delivered under EU rules, conducted visibly and exposed to significant scrutiny. The outcome has been tested in the courts and upheld. As the winning bid this constituted the best available return for the taxpayer and secures the commercial viability of a national asset for the next 100 years. The European Commission (EC) is responsible for assessing whether public investment distorts the competitive market. The EC has considered this issue on more than one occasion and has done so with full sight of the contractual terms, comprehensive detail of the tender exercise and in depth legal opinion on compliance with UK and EU law. It has found no case to answer. Therefore we do not believe that a public inquiry is necessary. The detail of the rental agreement between the Stadium owners and West Ham United is commercially sensitive. Disclosing details of the contract would undermine the future negotiating position of the Stadium's operator, Vinci, who are working hard to bring in future events to get the greatest possible return and ensure that the Stadium is a commercial success. It is important that the stadium owners and operator are able to negotiate future contracts in a way that derive maximum value and are not constrained by any one agreement. Such arrangements are standard practice and are designed to both protect the previous public expenditure and maximise the return on this investment. Department for Culture, Media and Sport
So to sum up, nope, we're going to keep parroting the easily-disproven sack of bullshit we always have, because history has proven if you repeat a lie often enough people will be dumb enough to accept it as truth.
Whatever it took to stop the mud sticking to Saint Coe of Toryland so he got the IAAF job, the shameless government did it, and they will never admit it. That is why a public enquiry is essential.
Isn't there some requirement in the Premier League for clubs to be the primary tenant at their ground? This agreement would appear to breach it, though I'm sure they've been sensible enough to check up on things like that.
The information commissioner has ordered the LLDC to reveal the tenancy agreement with West Ham after a freedom of information request. How will Boris and Coe get out of that?
If West Ham play in Hackney,will they change their name to Hackney Ham United?Anyway,Tottenham play in Tottenham!
