the pink palermo wrote:With regard the statement from Newham Council
Sir Robin Wales -was he incompetent ? Or was it something worse ?
Given the amount of public money wasted by the Council of which he was Mayor I'm amazed there isn't a detailed forensic examination of decisions made and the justifications thereof.
the pink palermo wrote:It's clear the club want control of a stadium they paid precious little towards conversion of and an inadequate amount towards the on-going running costs. They shouldn't be granted it.
Wow. Just wow. :shock:
The polar opposite is true. So much of the shambolic matchday experience is due to the utter incompetence of the current stadium operators, hired at huge expense to the Taxpayer. West Ham taking on these responsibilities would save that massive additional Taxpayer cost.
Giving control to the Anchor Tenant would also solve so many of these easily solvable issues – not least hiring some MatchDay Stewards who actually know something about football! Sorting out the security checks, queueing systems, the embarrassing faded green carpet around the pitch. Not having to go through yet another tax-payer funded bureaucratic process just to provide some effing shelves to rest beer glasses on!
At the moment all West Ham have the power to do is “ask kindly” for the Operators to sort out these issues. Having control means they can actually do something about it.
It would also save the trivial waste tax payer’s money on things like Goal-Posts and Corner Flags, etc that would then become West Ham’s responsibility.
I’m truly mortified that based on what’s happened so far that anyone would want our incompetent Landlords to continue to run the show. Wow.
You’ve been the clubs cheerleader from day one on this disastrous move, and nailed you colours to that mast in the toxic OS forum that was sadly overrun with people backing the club and not accepting the problems outlined by the few of us willing to not follow the clubs awful idea to relocate and shouted down helping the free run the club had, if I was one of those posters who helped put down debate on the future running difficulties of the athletic stadium I’d be feeling as much part of the problem as , every party involved is, including the owners who took us there in such a haphazard way thinking they could spin a deal and gain at the detriment of us the fans our team , the stadium itself and the taxpayer
Those owners of ours should be the very last people given the keys to the gaff to run it and if I was the person selling or giving the stadium away I would be looking at businesses and corporations showing a track record of successfully running multi use stadia and maybe even joint venturing with them to keep the athletic legacy as is the sole purpose from day one of it, not a pair of chancers who’s sole business remit is I’m alright jack and everyone else is a pawn in their money making adventures, giving them the stadium would be the worst decision ever made regarding this dump of a venue, and that says a lot about both the stadium and our owners
the legacy is paramount and has to stay, that’s more important than a multi million pound earning football club who chose to sign a piss poor agreement, and relinquishing too much match day control,
"After signing a 99 year lease West Ham say they have nothing to hide, believe it is a "great deal" for the club and the taxpayer, and say the stadium offers a true legacy. The club added: "Someone renting the stadium for 25 days a year cannot be responsible for the 365 days' running costs"
If we take control 365 days a year then our rent will then be 15 times more ..... we ****ed up with the 'deal of the century' can't now blame the landlords, we're just a 25 day a year pop-up shop to them .....
Anchor Tenant paying just 2.5m a year? you're having a laugh .... the LLD and VINCI Stadium made more money from The Rolling Stones, Beyonce and the Foo Fighters than we will ever pay them ... far from being the Anchor Tenant we're one giant pain in the arse .... if they could kick us out they'd do it in a millisecond ....
Last edited by Up the Junction on Tue Jul 24, 2018 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:Large quote edited.
sicknote wrote:You’ve been the clubs cheerleader from day one
Simply not true. Quite the opposite in fact at the beginning.
sicknote wrote: overrun with people backing the club
- I’ll respectfully disagree, I felt like I was mostly drowned out. Perceptions eh? Anyway I’ll move on…
What’s done is done. As I believe TPP saind himself, the time to protest the move has passed. The situation now is a choice between:
• operators who now have a mutual vested interest in the Supporter’s Matchday experience (because they want/need the move to be ‘perceived’ a success), and will save tax-payer costs (as mentioned previously)
OR
• operators who, frankly, won’t give cr@p about WHU Supporter’s Matchday experience, because their objective is to fulfil the contractual obligations to the Stadium Owners in the most profitable manner possible (and continue to incur tax-payer funded fees)
sicknote wrote: I would be looking at businesses and corporations showing a track record of successfully running multi use stadia and maybe even joint venturing with them to keep the athletic legacy as is the sole purpose from day one of it
Again I'm stunned! Given the incredible ongoing tax payer cost of the annual Athletics conversion, the embarrassing and ever-dwindling great swathes of empty seats at last weekend’s Anniversary Games and now the 50k Athletics stadium being built in Birmingham for the 2022 Commonwealth Games keeping the Athletics legacy at the London Stadium is nothing but a Lord Coe vanity loss-making project costing the Tax Payer £millions, year in, year out.
The national Athletics legacy will be more than adequately addressed in Birmingham in 2022.
IronworksDave wrote:
If we take control 365 days a year then our rent will then be 15 times more ..... we ****ed up with the 'deal of the century' can't now blame the landlords, we're just a 25 day a year pop-up shop to them .....
The proposal I’m referring to is NOT to have use of the stadium 365 days a year. It is simply to act as the Stadium Operator – something that private foreign companies such as Vinci has been paid eye-wateringly huge (tax-payer funded) sums to do. West Ham could, and should, do (for free).
WestHamIFC wrote:The proposal I’m referring to is NOT to have use of the stadium 365 days a year. It is simply to act as the Stadium Operator – something that private foreign companies such as Vinci has been paid eye-wateringly huge (tax-payer funded) sums to do. West Ham could, and should, do (for free).
We're a football club not a professional stadium operator ... what the feck do we know about running pop-concerts, athletics, rugby league, etc ....
Vinci Concessions run airports, railways, stadiums, toll roads all over the world .... whereas GSB are pretty crap at running the local football club at the LS 25 days a year .... why the feck would anyone employ GSB over a worldwide stadium management expert? that makes zero sense ....
It's like employing Bert the 'man with a van' to do all Tesco's deliveries ... we wouldn't have a clue what we were doing ...
what we've got here is a really useless stadium operator v a really useless board. Take your pick. The pitch invasions v Burnley should have been controlled by stewards. People running on to the pitch in football matches is nothing new, the stewards normally stop it, instead of leaving players totally exposed. The protest was peaceful, but the players on the pitch have no idea whether the protesters are harmless or violent nutters. In the board's defence they were only stopped from owning the ground outright by a vindictive court case, and the resulting rental agreement suits no one. The legacy is bull****. The legacy from the Olympics is the rejuvenation of an industrial wasteland into parkland and modern housing. The sooner athletics ***** off to their shiny new stadium in Brum the better. Rant over
WestHamIFC wrote:The proposal I’m referring to is NOT to have use of the stadium 365 days a year. It is simply to act as the Stadium Operator – something that private foreign companies such as Vinci has been paid eye-wateringly huge (tax-payer funded) sums to do. West Ham could, and should, do (for free).
So what you're saying is that West Ham manage the Stadium, but that the tax payer still pays for all the stewards, police, maintenance. Remember that for the all-inclusive rent we pay for using the stadium is less than it cost us to run The Boleyn ground. That's why it is such a one-sided deal that is costing the tax payer so much - the rent doesn't cover the costs.
They should do something like we manage and pay for all the operational matchday costs, but give us complete control and revenue over catering including licensing vendors on the island and the main thoroughfares in the park on matchdays.
IronworksDave wrote:
We're a football club not a professional stadium operator ... what the feck do we know about running pop-concerts, athletics, rugby league, etc ....
Vinci Concessions run airports, railways, stadiums, toll roads all over the world .... whereas GSB are pretty crap at running the local football club at the LS 25 days a year .... why the feck would anyone employ GSB over a worldwide stadium management expert? that makes zero sense ....
It's like employing Bert the 'man with a van' to do all Tesco's deliveries ... we wouldn't have a clue what we were doing ...
For balance on this, the Moore Stephens report described Vinci thus:
LS185 has yet to prove itself as a commercially astute organisation capable of identifying and exploiting income generating opportunities. They have not delivered any additional income streams to date, beyond their core opportunities
LS185’s net commercial revenues do not exceed the operator’s fixed costs which, under the E20 contract means that E20 makes a net payment to LS185 each year. This two bob outfit are directly costing the taxpayer money by failing to come close to the projections in their business plan, but there has been a notable lack of focus on them. Ironic considering they are the ones responsible for the 'match day/concert experience' that thousands of people have a quite legitimate grievance against.
By all means slag off our owners but Vinci are a complete shitshow themselves.
IronworksDave wrote:
We're a football club not a professional stadium operator ... what the feck do we know about running pop-concerts, athletics, rugby league, etc ....
A fair point ID, but on the flip-side Vinci have well & truly proved beyond all doubt they are a complete car crash at running club football events. It would surely not be beyond the wit of man for a WHU Stadium Operator deal to include Landlord's ability to reserve the right in such a contract to hire Concert-hosting specialists for the 1-2 summer months per year that it’s relevant, leaving West Ham to run the venue while it’s in ‘football mode’ during the other 10 months?
So instead of paying Vinci obscene amounts of public money to make a pig’s ear of football of 10 months out of the 12 they are hired, this gets limited to a few weeks and to events they are actually capable of organising?
WestHamIFC wrote:
Giving control to the Anchor Tenant would also solve so many of these easily solvable issues – not least hiring some MatchDay Stewards who actually know something about football! Sorting out the security checks, queueing systems, the embarrassing faded green carpet around the pitch. Not having to go through yet another tax-payer funded bureaucratic process just to provide some effing shelves to rest beer glasses on!
.
What bit of 'Turkeys [GSB] not wanting to vote for Christmas' do you not understand?
Claret&Blue,Thru& wrote:What bit of 'Turkeys [GSB] not wanting to vote for Christmas' do you not understand?
Oh dear. Please try reading this again, I hope it helps:
WestHamIFC wrote:
• operators who now have a mutual vested interest in the Supporter’s Matchday experience (because they want/need the move to be ‘perceived’ a success), and will save tax-payer costs (as mentioned previously)
OR
• operators who, frankly, won’t give cr@p about WHU Supporter’s Matchday experience, because their objective is to fulfil the contractual obligations to the Stadium Owners in the most profitable manner possible (and continue to incur tax-payer funded fees)
GSB are the ‘kids’ voting for Christmas, not the Turkeys. They have clearly said they want to be able to control hiring their own Stewards. They have clearly said they want to be able to control replacing the Green Carpet. Etc, etc.
Whatever’s happened in the recent past, for their own reasons GSB and the Supporter’s both now want a vastly improved MatchDay experience. Whereas the current Stadium Operators frankly couldn’t a give a ****, ‘cos it simply ain’t their problem.
WestHamIFC wrote:At the moment all West Ham have the power to do is “ask kindly” for the Operators to sort out these issues. It was 100% the free, unforced choice of our owners to put themselves in the position where all they could do was "ask kindly". Not that they seem to "ask kindly" - hence all the ill feeling and court cases.
Having control means they can actually do something about it. Our owners had full "control" over Upton Park. Because of that they could "actually do something about it". They chose to sell it to be levelled but made a few more pence in the meantime by having Hollywood blow part of it up.
So they, freely and unforced, chose to give up that control. You'll have to ask them why. Whether they tell you it was all about the money honey is another matter.
I’m truly mortified that based on what’s happened so far that anyone would want our incompetent Landlords to continue to run the show. Wow. Our owners chose to be at the behest of these "incompetent landlords".
Try renting a house of a useless, incompetent **** and see if he'll give it to you just simply because he's incompetent. Try suing him again and again and again and see if that makes him feel more like co-operating with you and helping you out.