Petition to hold a public inquiry into West Ham & LLDC deal for rental of Olympic Stadium

Status
Not open for further replies.


gards2 said:
Because that land will be sold to the government, which will be allocated to something...for lots of money to the bastard government.

I'll give you an example. Brighton's old ground was sold to commercial projects and guess what! There's a retail park there now.

The Brighton fans petitioned the government for years to get a new ground. Eventually they did, but not before the government got it's money.
Click to expand...

Dont bother yerself any more on threads you obviously know nowt about marra.

Boz33 said:
So west ham, pay a small lump sum towards conversion costs
They then pay a peppercorn rent per year
They will have state of the art facilities and a huge crowd increase effectively for the price of fletcher and rent in the region of his wages per year and a 99 yr lease

They also have upton park to dispose of and pocket all the proceeds from whatever happens to that.

Perhaps they should put all of the money that is generated from the sale and development of upton park to the conversion costs? Because to rebuild upton/ redevelop it would cost an absolute fortune and tbh whoever has the new ground I don't see why the country as a whole should pay for it

On top of this I'd bet my last quid there'll be concerts and all sorts going on at the new stadium which in turn is more money in west hams pocket.

Anyone who wouldn't want a full enquiry and a fair price paid for the stadium wants their head read.... Bearing in mind it cost something like 850million to build the damn thing
Click to expand...


Then youd be skint. WHU rent it for buttons to use on match days. Its not their stadium. The owners who are the council and olympics people iirc will be organising other events ie concerts, rugby, athletics etc to help minimise their own contributions.
 
Last edited:
riffraff said:
Dont bother yerself any more on threads you obviously know nowt about marra.




Then youd be skint. WHU rent it for buttons to use on match days. Its not their stadium. The owners who are the council and olympics people iirc will be organising other events ie concerts, rugby, athletics etc to help minimise their own contributions.
Click to expand...

Therefore WHU will no longer have their own ground, just one they hire on a weekend, right? Cause you seem to know, smartarse....

You a WHU fan? Do you know any? I do.
 
gards2 said:
Therefore WHU will no longer have their own ground, just one they hire on a weekend, right? Cause you seem to know, smartarse....

You a WHU fan? Do you know any? I do.
Click to expand...

Theyll be fucked for midweek games then wont they smartarse.

I know loads of WHU fans. WTF has that got to do with anything?
Knowing WHU fans certainly hasnt helped you grasp the issues of the thread or post a coherent reply. You stated the land will be sold to the govt. It wasnt. It was sold for development into 700ish flats/houses to a private developer ie Galliard Homes.
 
riffraff said:
Theyll be fucked for midweek games then wont they smartarse.

I know loads of WHU fans. WTF has that got to do with anything?
Knowing WHU fans certainly hasnt helped you grasp the issues of the thread or post a coherent reply. You stated the land will be sold to the govt. It wasnt. It was sold for development into 700ish flats/houses to a private developer ie Galliard Homes.
Click to expand...
:lol::lol:

tit for tat
 
No point blaming West Ham, they held all the aces when it came to bargaining a deal. Blame the idiots who designed it purely as an athletics stadium rather than one that could be easily converted like Man City's. Politically, it can't be demolished, so that's Spurs out, not that it's their area anyway. Orient wasn't a realistic option, Hearn just wanted to pocket the money for selling their ground that he privately owns and they get about 4,000 supporters. So it's West Ham or no one, or it becomes a white elephant. Not surprisingly they negotiated a decent deal, same as anyone would. Signing petitions is a bit pointless really.
 
Having read through this thread off and on all day I have a few questions that you might be able to answer

1. The Olympic Stadium originally cost £486 million to build?
2. The cost of converting the stadium for multi sport use (Football) £272 million?
3. The total cost of the original build and the conversion for football (West Ham) comes to £758 million?
4. West Ham have a 99 year lease on use of the stadium?
5. West Ham will pay £2.5 million a year for use of the stadium?
6.West Ham are paying £15 million towards the conversion of the stadium?

If you do the sums on the above (providing they are correct) comes to £262.5 million over the full 99 year lease that West Ham are paying against £758 million the Tax payer has paid for the stadium

My main question is how can the Porn brothers keep saying that what West Ham will pay over that time cover the building costs of the stadium as (and I am no accountant) the figures above (again providing they are correct) don't come anywhere near the total cost of building and converting the stadium and that is without the extras they have had thrown in like ticketing, Police, Stewards etc.... which is part of the rental deal. In addition to that over a 99 year period I am assuming the stadium will need modernising, repaired etc..... Who is going to pay for this as West Ham are tenants so I will presume (maybe wrongly but as tenants they will expect it as you or I would if we were tenants) that anything extra over this time will again be paid for by the Tax payer

I might be completely wrong here but that is one hell of a deal and shouldn't be allowed and I don't know how anyone can say it is a fair deal however you look at it
 
West Ham will only have use of the stadium for 20 odd days a year. The rest of the time, it will be used for many other events, which will raise further funds. Events that wouldn't be possible without there being a major tenant to keep the stadium viable. Plus them being there will attract naming rights, which won't go to West Ham.
 
Harvey16 said:
Having read through this thread off and on all day I have a few questions that you might be able to answer

1. The Olympic Stadium originally cost £486 million to build?
2. The cost of converting the stadium for multi sport use (Football) £272 million?
3. The total cost of the original build and the conversion for football (West Ham) comes to £758 million?
4. West Ham have a 99 year lease on use of the stadium?
5. West Ham will pay £2.5 million a year for use of the stadium?
6.West Ham are paying £15 million towards the conversion of the stadium?

If you do the sums on the above (providing they are correct) comes to £262.5 million over the full 99 year lease that West Ham are paying against £758 million the Tax payer has paid for the stadium

My main question is how can the Porn brothers keep saying that what West Ham will pay over that time cover the building costs of the stadium as (and I am no accountant) the figures above (again providing they are correct) don't come anywhere near the total cost of building and converting the stadium and that is without the extras they have had thrown in like ticketing, Police, Stewards etc.... which is part of the rental deal. In addition to that over a 99 year period I am assuming the stadium will need modernising, repaired etc..... Who is going to pay for this as West Ham are tenants so I will presume (maybe wrongly but as tenants they will expect it as you or I would if we were tenants) that anything extra over this time will again be paid for by the Tax payer

I might be completely wrong here but that is one hell of a deal and shouldn't be allowed and I don't know how anyone can say it is a fair deal however you look at it
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with your post marra. Could the porn brothers not mean that by paying rent for like 350 years they will have payed it off. Its not like they gonna up sticks after 99 years.
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with your post marra. Could the porn brothers not mean that by paying rent for like 350 years they will have payed it off. Its not like they gonna up sticks after 99 years.
Click to expand...

In principle possibly but that is their default statement whenever anything is mentioned about the cost and we don't know what they will do after this initial 99 year lease runs out all we have at the moment is the figures for the 99 years and they just don't add up to what they keep saying as the official line, but in reality I don't know of many stadiums that are that old they usually have a shelf life of around 100 years then its time to move on
 
Harvey16 said:
My understanding of that (correct me if I am wrong) is Crystal Palace Park is on the boundary of 3 councils and its hard to get anything done there in a realistic timeframe and to add to that the local residents don't want anything that is going to bring 1000s of people there on a regular basis so keep voting against any fresh plans for re-development, when I saw the Spurs plan I knew it was dead in the water because of this but didn't think part of their plan was to move Palace next door I thought that was just the Palace owners trying to move to the park
Click to expand...
You're right about being on the boundary which is why it's a nightmare to get anything agreed. The park is mainly situated on the Bromley Council side and that's where the problem lies. If it was Croydon then the council would be more sympathetic to the club.

You are also correct re the lay out of the park. It's been a while since we were looking at moving and my memory's not quite what it was so I had a quick look again.

I believe that we were almost reliant on the OS staying as the designated national athletics stadium and then Crystal Palace athletics stadium would be demolished.

Our board gave up very quickly as years of wrangling and cost would be a ball ache. The design was impressive though, looked really good!
 
Harvey16 said:
In principle possibly but that is their default statement whenever anything is mentioned about the cost and we don't know what they will do after this initial 99 year lease runs out all we have at the moment is the figures for the 99 years and they just don't add up to what they keep saying as the official line, but in reality I don't know of many stadiums that are that old they usually have a shelf life of around 100 years then its time to move on
Click to expand...

Fair do's
 
By 'security costs' does that mean just the stewarding or the policing too? If it's just the former then I think it would be only fair if all the other premier league clubs contributed to the 'ammers' rozzer bills.
 
Harvey16 said:
Having read through this thread off and on all day I have a few questions that you might be able to answer

1. The Olympic Stadium originally cost £486 million to build?
2. The cost of converting the stadium for multi sport use (Football) £272 million?
3. The total cost of the original build and the conversion for football (West Ham) comes to £758 million?
4. West Ham have a 99 year lease on use of the stadium?
5. West Ham will pay £2.5 million a year for use of the stadium?
6.West Ham are paying £15 million towards the conversion of the stadium?

If you do the sums on the above (providing they are correct) comes to £262.5 million over the full 99 year lease that West Ham are paying against £758 million the Tax payer has paid for the stadium

My main question is how can the Porn brothers keep saying that what West Ham will pay over that time cover the building costs of the stadium as (and I am no accountant) the figures above (again providing they are correct) don't come anywhere near the total cost of building and converting the stadium and that is without the extras they have had thrown in like ticketing, Police, Stewards etc.... which is part of the rental deal. In addition to that over a 99 year period I am assuming the stadium will need modernising, repaired etc..... Who is going to pay for this as West Ham are tenants so I will presume (maybe wrongly but as tenants they will expect it as you or I would if we were tenants) that anything extra over this time will again be paid for by the Tax payer

I might be completely wrong here but that is one hell of a deal and shouldn't be allowed and I don't know how anyone can say it is a fair deal however you look at it
Click to expand...
Add in to this that spurs offered to pay for the refurb of the Crystal Palace Athletics club which is going to be / has been knocked down.

I think its a disgrace. West ham should of had to pay the 272 mil to get it turned in to a football stadium or the majority of it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top