OS to cost West Ham millions in EU penalties

An archive of news, events and discussion leading up to and post West Ham United's historic move from Upton Park to Stratford in 2016.

Moderators: Gnome, Rio, bristolhammerfc, the pink palermo, chalks

Locked
User avatar
ShortRound
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:08 pm
Location: Are you the Farmer?

Re: OS to cost West Ham millions in EU penalties

Post by ShortRound »

So where was all the complaints about Man City's move to the City of Manchester Stadium? ALL of the conversion costs for that was paid for by the local council. At least we are making a contribution.... I think this someone somewhere who is very scared of seeing West Ham in such a big venue and the force that we could become in the future because of it......
User avatar
Dwight1970
Posts: 1605
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:25 am
Location: Sidcup, Kent
Has liked: 19 likes
Total likes: 44 likes

Re: OS to cost West Ham millions in EU penalties

Post by Dwight1970 »

Any financial advantage we enjoy over the next few years will be thanks to the TV broadcasters and what raise through matchday revenue will only increase if we are successful becasuse of it, the only argument for those saying the Olympic Stadium gives us an unfair advantage is it allows us to sustain it which being at the Boleyn Ground would have prevented, and that argument is a long way off so at this point is purely hypothetical leaving little grounds for the authorities to take any action for the foreseeable future.
User avatar
Rocketron
Posts: 12908
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 7:45 pm
Location: Kumb on feel the noize We've got David Moyes
Has liked: 6 likes
Total likes: 50 likes

Re: OS to cost West Ham millions in EU penalties

Post by Rocketron »

ShortRound wrote:So where was all the complaints about Man City's move to the City of Manchester Stadium? ALL of the conversion costs for that was paid for by the local council. At least we are making a contribution.... I think this someone somewhere who is very scared of seeing West Ham in such a big venue and the force that we could become in the future because of it......
There are more than one.
DanT93
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:11 pm

Re: OS to cost West Ham millions in EU penalties

Post by DanT93 »

I have full trust and faith in DG and DS, you have to remember they are fans, do you really think they would do something soo stupid that could end up putting the club in a worse position than when they bought it?
User avatar
sicknote
Plumbing the depths
Posts: 30684
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 9:34 pm
Has liked: 99 likes
Total likes: 154 likes
Contact:

Re: OS to cost West Ham millions in EU penalties

Post by sicknote »

ShortRound wrote:So where was all the complaints about Man City's move to the City of Manchester Stadium? ALL of the conversion costs for that was paid for by the local council. At least we are making a contribution.... I think this someone somewhere who is very scared of seeing West Ham in such a big venue and the force that we could become in the future because of it......
At the time they moved there the eu law on competition from state aid didnt exist, therefore the man city comparoson is not and never has been a comparison

The reason it was brought about was as I previously said, about Barcelona and real madrids suspicious land deals and that instigated this, we are the guinea pigs for this law, and its been common knowledge since day 1 before we were even involved in the stadium
User avatar
Dwight1970
Posts: 1605
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:25 am
Location: Sidcup, Kent
Has liked: 19 likes
Total likes: 44 likes

Re: OS to cost West Ham millions in EU penalties

Post by Dwight1970 »

If it has been common knowledge since day 1 then I am confident we have little to worry about whereas if it had only just raised it's head it might be a different story.

Without stating the obvious but can't the fact that our agreement is for a number of events rather than for the occupancy of the venue is significant in all these arguments?

Most of the arguments seem to assume we are getting control of the stadium every day of the week rather than just 25 days a year, if the operators can generate a similar amount from the other days it is available they will be earning more than £20m a year which suggests our contribution is more than reasonable.

The way I see it is the terms we are moving with have carefully negated the arguments that could have been made and critics can only speculate what might happen years down the line to keep making them now which is little basis for the authorities to act on.
User avatar
spyinthesky
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:37 pm
Location: Enfield
Contact:

Re: OS to cost West Ham millions in EU penalties

Post by spyinthesky »

I think we need to get all this into perspective. When you read an article like that (the paper spin) and then listen to its author its amazing how different the emphasis is.

1) The author of the report said that the fines being talked of is only a remote possibility and didnt think it would would ever come to that.

2) The fines would in fact be the responsibility of the LDDC and only should that organisation have been disbanded would West Ham potentially be responsible.

3) The ManchesterCity deal would have been equally (probably more so) subjected to any such investigation had the 10 year rule not applied. (You can argue its no longer relevant, but on a moral standpoint it clearly is when you are being criticised as if you have done something exclusively).

4) The EC rules are not new as some have argued, they simply have not been applied to sports stadia/developments until recently BECAUSE so many continental (especially Spanish) sporting bodies have been arguably benefiting unfairly for a long, long time. It has indeed been a long tradition in Spain and elsewhere so the idea that they would be condemning West Ham from some moral high ground is a ridiculous contention Real Madrid being the worst 'offender' as things stand.

5) He was inconclusive, evasive even (clearly didn't know) as to whether selling the site to Spurs knocking down the stadium and building a new exclusive football stadium would have precluded a similar investigation.

Lets be clear:
1) No previous example in respect of Olympic legacy has occurred re these EC 'rules' so it would have been impossible for all the 't crossing' or 'i dotting' to have absolutely precluded such an interest from the EC despite what some might claim. Yes the LDDC could have asked for a prior ruling but people need to understand that was no easy option and in itself might have resulted in all the ramifications that people are now talking of and with the inevitable delays, a strong possibility everything would have simply fallen apart. It was not the great 'save all' that some would like to suggest but you can understand why the anti move supporters of every colour would want to paint it as such knowing it played into their hands and now using as a stick to beat the LDDC. Ironically it would have badly effected the earnings potential of the stadium as it would have cost it the RWC and most like the World Athletics Championships, imagine the criticism all that would have generated, there simply is no win, win or easy option in these sort of decisions, its a snake pit whatever you do or don't do.

2) The whole Guardian article is pure speculation of old news, more inspired by politics than any new developments, it is not actually based on anything coming out of the EC and more to do with the timing of WHU announcements re ticket prices (with the implied link) and the General Election stoked by the papers own interests and predictably fuelled by others hysteria, so why play their game.

3) So far those sporting examples the EC have concluded their investigations in, have been found to have passed the test of what a private business would have decided and that they were a positive contribution to the community. Those that are outstanding in particular, are those in Spain the original inspiration for such investigations. In fact these are very different to the OS situation as they are almost exclusively to the benefit of the private entity rather than the community and have few if any of the elements of the OS structured use of the stadium as a multi sport venue.

So overall lets just calm it shall we and cut the 'disaster is just around the corner' attitude of some as if the worst case scenario is already happening. As I said even the author doesn't believe that will happen. However the EC is always unpredictable and potential interpretation will always stir arguments from all sides to support their pre conceived wish list an no decision ruled out as so much of it is political in the wider sense.

As for those who claim Spurs are so much more professionally run, can I suggest that you visit Spurs forums especially re their stadium on Skyscraper where it is all 'only at Spurs' not dissimilar to sentiments on here about our management. Being the mouthpiece/tool of an offshore company with cloudy financial structures, a penchant for sacking managers for the sake of it and being linked indirectly, shall we say to a phone hacking scandal and associated press manipulation for which people went to prison, is hardly my idea of managerial genius, though some no doubt have a grudging admiration for him like they do no doubt, Bond villains.
User avatar
Believer
Posts: 9150
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:35 pm
Has liked: 1389 likes
Total likes: 735 likes

Re: OS to cost West Ham millions in EU penalties

Post by Believer »

"Spyinthesky" - thanks :thup:

Very reassuring stuff.
Mr Mont
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Has liked: 3 likes
Total likes: 1 like

Re: OS to cost West Ham millions in EU penalties

Post by Mr Mont »

Superb piece Spy. Having read the article, it appeared to be nothing more than a rehash of old news. I suspect this was due to a slow news week and having to fill column inches. Timed to coincide with our season ticket news no doubt!
gavrosh
Posts: 1275
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:28 pm

Re: OS to cost West Ham millions in EU penalties

Post by gavrosh »

Actually Doc I'm closer to £50 mil a season now that we know better the ticketing and some of that will remain potential based upon the stadium sponsorship deal.

If it were such a great deal spurs would have tried to jump in. Yes, it will raise the value of the club but there was no other option on the table. Retrospectively trying to shift the goalposts and make west ham pay millions more would be something in sure that would be legally incredibly difficult if not impossible
User avatar
HamburgHammer
Posts: 4020
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:06 pm
Location: Too far away from Upton Park, Hamburg, Germany, to be precise
Has liked: 2 likes
Total likes: 7 likes

Re: OS to cost West Ham millions in EU penalties

Post by HamburgHammer »

I still haven't heard anyone (including the Charlton fans) say what a fair price would be for renting the stadium for 25 dates a year. They only mention 2.5 million rent, but that is index linked and we also share catering and naming rights income. We also contribute 15 million upfront which obviously could be a bit more initially, but then West Ham might have negotiated a better share from the mentioned naming rights.

So if the combined rent and naming rights and catering share amounts to ten million a season, would that be deemed fair ? Does it have to be 15 million a year ? Or 20 million ? For the whole 99 years ?
How many times over need West Ham to pay the building costs and conversion of that stadium back without actually buying and owning it ?

Or are we supposed to pay so much that we don't actually have a financial benefit from moving ?
In which case the question remains which club would actually have signed a 99 year lease in the first place...
User avatar
WestHamIFC
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 10:18 pm
Location: Essex
Contact:

Re: OS to cost West Ham millions in EU penalties

Post by WestHamIFC »

WestHamIFC wrote:
Can you even begin to imagine how much that Stadium would cost the Tax Payer if West Ham didn't move in??

West Ham have saved the Tax Payer £millions.

..it would be the biggest White Elephant ever.

Leyton Orient and the approached Rugby Clubs all turned it down without conversion due to the Running Track, lack of Roof, etc, etc.

25k stadium for some gigs and a couple of Athletics meets in the summer. Unfathomable how many Tax Payer millions would have been wasted..

The country should be thanking West Ham for saving this mess.

How NICE to see someone actually speaking some SENSE over this issue!!:

"Brazil debacle proves West Ham getting Olympic Stadium is a good thing"

http://hereisthecity.com/en-gb/2015/05/ ... is-a-good/

:scarfer:
Locked