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

[Noggin]

Pissing in the wind, it's done. It's fair.

 

[AlpineExile]

Isn't that in America?

Nope:

https://petition.parliament.uk/

 

[Wayne The Punk]

The response so far

Blah fuckng Blah

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

Click this link to view the response online:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106355?reveal_response=yes

The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate.

The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee

Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliamen

 

[SurreyMackem]

I have no problem with West Ham using the stadium but there has been a huge waste of money in converting it from an athletics stadium.

 

[Wayne The Punk]

I have no problem with West Ham using the stadium but there has been a huge waste of money in converting it from an athletics stadium.

Same here, If West Ham wanted to pay to convert it fair enough, but its the tax payers paying for it

 

[BNM]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106355

West Ham has only contributed £15m towards the £272m conversion costs of the Olympic Stadium, with the taxpayer footing the rest of the bill. Considering the cost to the taxpayer, and the effect of this taxpayer subsidy on competition between clubs, a full public inquiry into the deal is needed.

Currently at 5000 signatures.
Send it viral.

Signed.
Now at 24,157.

 

[Wayne The Punk]

Signed.
Now at 24,157.

Good lad

 

[cbwhu]

only part you need to read is -

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.

 

[General Zod]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106355

West Ham has only contributed £15m towards the £272m conversion costs of the Olympic Stadium, with the taxpayer footing the rest of the bill. Considering the cost to the taxpayer, and the effect of this taxpayer subsidy on competition between clubs, a full public inquiry into the deal is needed.

Currently at 5000 signatures.
Send it viral.

Response I got from my MP: -


I appreciate your concern over this issue. Of course it is right that the costs of the Stadium construction and transformation, as with other elements of the 2012 Games' legacy, are scrutinised and discussed. However, unfortunately the detail of the rental agreement between the Stadium owners and West Ham United is commercially sensitive and disclosing the market rate would undermine the future negotiating position of the Stadium's operator.


I think it should also be noted that it is a matter of public record that West Ham have contributed £15m to the costs of the Stadium transformation. In addition they pay a fair market rate for their use of the Stadium (around 25 match days a year). It is worth remembering that in the Stadium, we have a world-class multi-use arena with a long-term future secured and without requiring continuous support from the taxpayer. It provides a long-term home for elite athletics and one of this country's most famous football clubs.


Importantly, West Ham are not moving to a new, purpose-built football stadium which is exclusively theirs. The Stadium is a multi-use venue, which will host a range of events including five matches during the Rugby World Cup and elite athletics including para-athletics this year, and the IAAF and IPC Athletics World Championships in 2017. It is also part of the operator agreement that the Stadium will host concerts and other events, none of which will financially benefit West Ham.


I am also aware that the agreement with West Ham, including their contribution to transformation costs and rent, followed an open competitive process; as the winning bid this constituted the best available return for the taxpayer.

 

[Horace Cope]

God knows how much it cost to build let alone the 272 million for converting it that West Ham aren't footing the bill for. They should be forced to give the money they made from selling Upton Park towards the costs for converting it.

They sold Upton Park for 70 million
They bought West Ham for 105 million.
The new TV deal is bankrolling their spending spree

So now they have a London Premier League team in a world class stadium and it has cost them 40 million quid. The club will probably now be valued at closer to 300 million. Scandalous really

 

[safcforever]

God knows how much it cost to build let alone the 272 million for converting it that West Ham aren't footing the bill for. They should be forced to give the money they made from selling Upton Park towards the costs for converting it.

They sold Upton Park for 70 million
They bought West Ham for 105 million.
The new TV deal is bankrolling their spending spree

So now they have a London Premier League team in a world class stadium and it has cost them 40 million quid. The club will probably now be valued at closer to 300 million. Scandalous really

It is money for nothing. The owners have played an absolute blinder at the tax payers expense

 

[viccarlton]

Pissing in the wind, it's done. It's fair.

It may be done and might also be pissing in the wind, it certainly isn't fair.

 

[Noggin]

It may be done and might also be pissing in the wind, it certainly isn't fair.

Life isn't.

 

[Villan]

I haven't paid attention to this at all, but the reasonable way to do this would be to hold West Ham United as security for a £ 200 million loan. Want a new stadium, fine. Then you pay for it. Bet they wouldn't normally get such a big loan anyway so a good deal for them.

 

[viccarlton]

Life isn't.

You're not wrong there bonny lad.

 

[kick in the quinn]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106355

West Ham has only contributed £15m towards the £272m conversion costs of the Olympic Stadium, with the taxpayer footing the rest of the bill. Considering the cost to the taxpayer, and the effect of this taxpayer subsidy on competition between clubs, a full public inquiry into the deal is needed.

Currently at 5000 signatures.
Send it viral.

Anyone who can raise an arsecheek to fart has enough gumption to do the research that show this isn't the screwball deal being presented by the organising petitioners, who, I assume are all Spurs driven. Anyone else who signs just makes themselves look stupid.

 

[FanchesterCity]

West Ham aren't the villians here.

There are two ways to look at it:

1) The general public are funding West Ham's new stadium (this is at best, misleading)
2) The government is doing a poor job of trying to recoup some of it's cost of the Olympic Stadium (arguably the more accurate way to look at it).

Regardless of football, that stadium was always going to be built. The government wanted the Olympics and created a stadium with that specific goal in mind. People are free to argue the merits of hosting the Olympics in a different thread.

So, when the Olympics ended, regardless of all the bravado and prior talk of it being used for Athletics, the whole world recognised that the stadium would become a white elephant. There are a limited number of options available so such a stadium. Knocking it down may actually have been an option, but the resulting PR from that would be nightmare - so they had to find a use for it.
There's a finite number of rugby or football clubs remotely capable of using that stadium, and in this case, it ended up being West Ham.

In some people's eyes, recovering even a very modest amount of money for the stadium is better than nothing, and that's true.
In other people's eyes, recovering the most amount of money is even better, and that's also true.

When Manchester City had the opportunity to move to the Commonwealth Stadium, there was some trepidation. The stadium wasn't initially built for football, and it wasn't at a capacity suitable for City. City were also being asked to give up a reasonably iconic (although run down) stadium - Maine Rd, which had long hosted FA Cup Semi Finals and held the highest attendance for a league match in the history of English football. Not owning your own stadium was huge deal back then, and not something City took lightly. In the end though, they came to their senses, and opted to take up the new stadium.
As part of 'the deal' - they gave up all of Maine Rd which was subsequently sold to developers, but this was part payment for the new stadium. City didn't profit in any way from losing their old ground.
In return, they paid for the stadium capacity to be increased, a fixed yearly rental AND a percentage of the gate when the gate exceeded 30k (or thereabouts). That deal has now been renegotiated and City only pay a fixed fee per annum. They have also paid for the stadium to be expanded to 54K (with a view to hitting 60K in the next couple of years).

City got a fantastic deal, make no mistake, but they contributed to the deal pretty much all they could. In retrospect, it turned out to be one of the best deals City and the Council ever conducted (for both parties).

West Ham on the other hand are not forfeiting The Boleyn Ground (Upton Park). They will receive monies from the sale, in stark contrast to the City deal.
West Ham are also contributing very little to the stadium conversion.
West Ham also are inheriting one of the largest and finest stadiums in Britain.

You can't blame West Ham for being lucky enough to have this opportunity, but you can blame the government for getting coming out a clear second best in the deal.

The British public were never going to get all their money back. They could have got a fair bit more in return though. The Olympic games are the route cause of this issue though, not West Ham.

Oops, should have said 'root cause'.

Anyway, the petition's a little bit strange as the money's already been spent. It's worded to sound as though the public spending is happening as a result of this deal, and it's not. The money's long gone. This is a salvage operation to get back anything possible for a white elephant.
Even though other clubs (Spurs?) were interested, this was never going to be a bidding war about who could pay the most for this stadium, it was always going to be about who could offer the least and still secure it. Clubs know that there are no other buyers out there. It's a 'take it or leave it' offer from West Ham.

In my opinion, I think the politic need to keep the stadium and put it to credible use has utterly compromised the business need to hold out for a better deal (get far more in return from West Ham, or potentially Spurs).

 

[Unashamedly Handsome]

surely there must be more than 100,000 bitter self important haters on the internet that wish to sign this??? i mean if they can organise mass protests over a bloody lion being poached surely this will be a done deal already!

How many nurses could you employ for £270 million? This is a crazy use of taxpayer's hard earned in a time of Austerity.

West Ham aren't the villians here.

There are two ways to look at it:

1) The general public are funding West Ham's new stadium (this is at best, misleading)
2) The government is doing a poor job of trying to recoup some of it's cost of the Olympic Stadium (arguably the more accurate way to look at it).

Regardless of football, that stadium was always going to be built. The government wanted the Olympics and created a stadium with that specific goal in mind. People are free to argue the merits of hosting the Olympics in a different thread.

So, when the Olympics ended, regardless of all the bravado and prior talk of it being used for Athletics, the whole world recognised that the stadium would become a white elephant. There are a limited number of options available so such a stadium. Knocking it down may actually have been an option, but the resulting PR from that would be nightmare - so they had to find a use for it.
There's a finite number of rugby or football clubs remotely capable of using that stadium, and in this case, it ended up being West Ham.

In some people's eyes, recovering even a very modest amount of money for the stadium is better than nothing, and that's true.
In other people's eyes, recovering the most amount of money is even better, and that's also true.

When Manchester City had the opportunity to move to the Commonwealth Stadium, there was some trepidation. The stadium wasn't initially built for football, and it wasn't at a capacity suitable for City. City were also being asked to give up a reasonably iconic (although run down) stadium - Maine Rd, which had long hosted FA Cup Semi Finals and held the highest attendance for a league match in the history of English football. Not owning your own stadium was huge deal back then, and not something City took lightly. In the end though, they came to their senses, and opted to take up the new stadium.
As part of 'the deal' - they gave up all of Maine Rd which was subsequently sold to developers, but this was part payment for the new stadium. City didn't profit in any way from losing their old ground.
In return, they paid for the stadium capacity to be increased, a fixed yearly rental AND a percentage of the gate when the gate exceeded 30k (or thereabouts). That deal has now been renegotiated and City only pay a fixed fee per annum. They have also paid for the stadium to be expanded to 54K (with a view to hitting 60K in the next couple of years).

City got a fantastic deal, make no mistake, but they contributed to the deal pretty much all they could. In retrospect, it turned out to be one of the best deals City and the Council ever conducted (for both parties).

West Ham on the other hand are not forfeiting The Boleyn Ground (Upton Park). They will receive monies from the sale, in stark contrast to the City deal.
West Ham are also contributing very little to the stadium conversion.
West Ham also are inheriting one of the largest and finest stadiums in Britain.

You can't blame West Ham for being lucky enough to have this opportunity, but you can blame the government for getting coming out a clear second best in the deal.

The British public were never going to get all their money back. They could have got a fair bit more in return though. The Olympic games are the route cause of this issue though, not West Ham.

Oops, should have said 'root cause'.

Anyway, the petition's a little bit strange as the money's already been spent. It's worded to sound as though the public spending is happening as a result of this deal, and it's not. The money's long gone. This is a salvage operation to get back anything possible for a white elephant.
Even though other clubs (Spurs?) were interested, this was never going to be a bidding war about who could pay the most for this stadium, it was always going to be about who could offer the least and still secure it. Clubs know that there are no other buyers out there. It's a 'take it or leave it' offer from West Ham.

In my opinion, I think the politic need to keep the stadium and put it to credible use has utterly compromised the business need to hold out for a better deal (get far more in return from West Ham, or potentially Spurs).

Nothing to mislead anyone but a lawyer, mate. Tax payers money is being squandered. End of.

Anyone who can raise an arsecheek to fart has enough gumption to do the research that show this isn't the screwball deal being presented by the organising petitioners, who, I assume are all Spurs driven. Anyone else who signs just makes themselves look stupid.

Anyone who doesn't sign, doesn't want to see £270 million being better used.

 

[Doctor Diesel]

Would it have happened up here? No.

 

[Hull_Mackem]

I know it's on a different scale, but didn't we (and other clubs such as Bolton, Derby) get lottery money (so public money that could otherwise have gone to charity) to build the SOL.

After the Hillsborough report public money incentivised and helped clubs to get stadia up to scratch.