tax payer funds premier league club

[onewayup]

Where is the fair play code when premier league club west ham are to be funded by us the tax payers,it's a wrong wrong wrong,why is this being allowed to happen.
They wanted to move to the Olympic stadium they weren't forced into it,why should a wealthy football club benefit from taxpayers ,which give them an advantage over other premier league clubs,answer is they should not,wrong on so many levels.

[JE93]

Excuse my ignorance, but how exactly are West Ham being funded by the tax payer?

[divas]

Because although they are paying a fee - supposedly around £2.5m per year to play at the stadium, the management and upkeep of the stadium is going to be footed by the tax payer. Maintenance, policing costs etc will all be government funded.

No one is exactly sure on the numbers but it's very easy to see that West Ham have got a great deal - whether the outlay on stadium managing is in excess of their annua rent remains to be seen, but at the very best I'd imagine it'll be somewhere near break even.

Typical sensationalist headline though.

[JE93]

I've not paid attention to this whole olympic Stadium hooha thing in a while. Am i correct in thinking the capacity has now been made smaller by removing the top tier of seating, and that the running track is to remain in place to keep the ground as a multi purpose sporting venue as per the olympic 'legacy'?

[divas]

I've not paid attention to this whole olympic Stadium hooha thing in a while. Am i correct in thinking the capacity has now been made smaller by removing the top tier of seating, and that the running track is to remain in place to keep the ground as a multi purpose sporting venue as per the olympic 'legacy'?

Yes. For one month per year the stadium will be used for athletics

[poppyfield]

No matter how good the stadium I would not want to watch football with a athletic track round the pitch

[lo36789]

This is a little bit sensationalist. There is a ground there that ultimately wouldn't get used enough unless West Ham move there. They are paying rent and yes the alterations are tax payer funded, but speculate to accumulate as the saying goes. There is rent coming from that for the foreseeable future now.

I always though that the changes meant that the 'running track' was replaced by removable seating when West Ham are there and that was one of the areas of contention - maybe that has changed. The key being that it could revert to an athletics stadium when required.

I do think that proceeds of the sale of Boleyn should perhaps have made their way to the council or back to the Olympic Legacy fund mind, especially if their rent could cover maintenance and running costs.

[Fatty eats roadkill]

Tory government with Tory chairman of football club with Tory CEO.

What's not to be suspicious about?

[DarloOnTheUp]

Which tax payer? I can't afford it.

[shawry]

This is a little bit sensationalist. There is a ground there that ultimately wouldn't get used enough unless West Ham move there.

Forgetting that Leyton Orient wanted to use the stadium too.

[Fibonacci0112358]

This is a little bit sensationalist. There is a ground there that ultimately wouldn't get used enough unless West Ham move there.

Forgetting that Leyton Orient wanted to use the stadium too.

And I bet for far less than £2.5M!

[DarloOnTheUp]

Before I get outraged, what exactly are the figures? Surely the government wouldn't just give them a stadium and pay them for the privilege. There must be some sort of benefit for the government, like a net profit or something, even if they are paying some of the running costs.

I don't have enough information.

[lo36789]

I don't think anybody does. The government would have been paying the overheads for athletics purposes anyway and West Ham's rent is expected to be £2.5million per year.

The point that is made is that it is expected that overheads for it are expected to come in between 1.3m and 2.5m but nobody knows and there is a rumour that policing will be paid for by government as well - but that isn't confirmed it is reported as if it is simply a guess.

[love it!]

No matter how good the stadium I would not want to watch football with a athletic track round the pitch

Lets hope we don't have to go to Plan B which is to move to Eastbourne Sports Complex

[lo36789]

How do you know that is plan B?

[TDS]

National security, commercial confidentiality and health and safety are reasons given for the secrecy of the deal. Ha.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[My opinion]

Looks like they got a better deal than we have been offered by DRFC.
They got £76 million for finishing 12th and are only paying £2.5 million rent and that includes stewarding and policing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33780720

[JE93]

I wonder what we got for our 2nd place finish and our yearly BM rent in comparison haha

[lo36789]

and that includes stewarding and policing

woh, hold on there...

"Much of the contract between LLDC and West Ham, which has been seen by the BBC, is redacted...the BBC understands other overheads that could also be paid by the LLDC include the cost of stewarding and policing on match days, which amounts to many hundreds of thousands of pounds for other Premier League clubs."

So the BBC hasn't actually seen anything that says it is included. They have heard a rumour that it is - but all they have seen is the redacted report.

"Two separate football business experts told the BBC the value of the services amounts to between £1.4m and £2.5m a year."

That means in the absolute worst case the Olympic legacy will be an athletics stadium at zero ongoing cost to the taxpayer. In the best case there is a £1.1 profit per annum for the Olmypic legacy.

The costs can only be taken in context of the overall expenditure on the Olympics, and also the money subsequently generated by the Olympics. I thought we, well London, did quite well out of it.

[fozzovmurton]

What kind of deal did Man City get when they moved into CoMS after the Commonwealth Games

[JE93]

What kind of deal did Man City get when they moved into CoMS after the Commonwealth Games

According to the BBC article. They pay 4 million a year to Manchester City Council and then on top of that they cover all the overheads.

I think the key to the West Ham deal is the fact that the Olympic 'legacy' maintained that this stadium would remain as an athletics venue. That means in terms of design for football it is already compromised, this was one of the reasons the Spurs bid was rejected as they essentially wanted to knock it down and build it again as a football ground. With Man City the concept of Eastlands (as it was then) was that after the common wealth games it would be converted fully into a football venue. The fact that this was planned for meant that the conversion costs were significantly less.

A someone has said previously the fact that the West Ham will play there and pay 2.5 million a year means that instead of a facility, that cost the tax payer 700 million already, just decay from lack of use and UK Athletics trying to maintain something that is essentially too big for the current pull of the sport, they have tenants who pay rent which makes the stadium sustainable.

[shawry]

The long and short of it is that the Premier League should not have allowed West Ham to move there due to where Leyton Orient is situated, thats before you get into any of the other factors about rent etc

this link gives more info.

https://footballmanagement.wordpress.co ... er-league/

[lo36789]

Well the bolded point is basically saying that you cannot move if it stops somebody else from having their ground in nearby area.

From what I remember Leyton Orient have not been forced to move out of Brisbane Road as a result of this.

Don't let the truth get in the way though...

[shawry]

6.5 would not adversely affect Clubs (or Football League clubs) having their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location

It is saying that you moving shouldn't adversely affect a club that has its registered ground in the vicinity.

By moving to the Olympic Stadium West Ham are adversely affecting Leyton Orient having their registered ground in the vicinity.

But as you say "Don't let the truth get in the way though..."

It doesn't matter, West Ham settled with LO, so I'm assuming they've guessed the amount of lost revenue, but it still doesnt mean that its right.

[lo36789]

No see you've changed the meaning.

"Shouldn't adversely affected a club having its ground in the vicinity."

West Hams move hasn't affected Orient having their ground where it currently lies. It doesn't say that moving will have a adverse affect on Leyton Orient the club because the ground is in the vicinity.

[shawry]

Ok general agreement is that West Ham being there will cost LO money, you agree?

So LO are adversely affected by having its registered ground in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location.

At this point I'll leave it there, as its clear we differ in how we read the rule.

[lo36789]

No I don't to be honest. If Newcastle built a new ground in Darlington I wouldn't class that as costing us money.

You think Leyton Orient fans are now going to become West Ham fans because the ground is a what a whopping 1 mile closer to their ground than the current stadium - what is that in London speak 1/2 tube stops.

[My opinion]

No I don't to be honest. If Newcastle built a new ground in Darlington I wouldn't class that as costing us money.

You think Leyton Orient fans are now going to become West Ham fans because the ground is a what a whopping 1 mile closer to their ground than the current stadium - what is that in London speak 1/2 tube stops.

Of course it would cost us money..If anyone who comes to live in Darlington and wants to follow a local team. Or an occasional supporter (who we seem to have quite a few judging by our attendances) has an opportunity to watch either Darlington in Evo or Newcastle in Premiere would more than likely follow the bigger team.
Thats why we have a bigger following than the RA...It would be all about taking over the catchment area.
I am sure that West Hams attendance would pick up with LO attendance falling as a result...It was one of the things that LO did complain about

[Fatty eats roadkill]

Lo is a banker. If the skunks or mackems pitched up and played at Darlo of course we'd suffer. Just like orient will but they ain't premier league or having their CEO with Cameron's tongue up her arse.

[TDS]

No I don't to be honest. If Newcastle built a new ground in Darlington I wouldn't class that as costing us money.

Regardless of Lo's occupation, let's be honest, any young impressionable person will follow Newcastle and not Darlington, and this is Leyton Orient's issue. Maybe a few of the smaller London based clubs need to go under for these all mighty powerful sky funded clubs to prevail? Any favour given to a commercial entity needs to be backed up ten fold, not hidden and brushed under the carpet, the same principle apples to all local councils and I'm amazed this deal has been allowed to happen.