West Ham get a Stadium costing hundreds of millions for a mere £2m a year

[Micky]

What is this particular argument then?

 

We were an attractive proposition, which is why the Leibherrs bought us. We didn't become one after they bought us. Glad you agree with me.

 

SMS was a stadium looking for the right occupants and the Leibherrs got it on the cheap. Remarkably similar to what West Ham have done here. Remarkably similar except they are renting not buying.

 

I don't agree with you. It could just as easy have gone the other way.

[CB Fry]

I think we've got the bit about who owns the stadium. So the club are just tennants - how long for...???

 

99 year lease.

[CB Fry]

I don't agree with you. It could just as easy have gone the other way.

 

It didn't, though, so what is your point?

 

And er, you only posted this about five minutes ago:

 

I'm well aware of that - he saw us as an attractive proposition..

 

It could have easily gone "the other way" with the Olympic Stadium which would have been a rotting white elephant without WHU.

[Turkish]

I think we've got the bit about who owns the stadium. So the club are just tennants - how long for...???

 

So why do you keep whining about the money coming out of the public purse then? Council uses council money to pay for council owned stadium. Meanwhile securing £2m a year into the public purse by renting it out to local football club, smart move by the council, yes?

[CB Fry]

So why do you keep whining about the money coming out of the public purse then? Council uses council money to pay for council owned stadium. Meanwhile securing £2m a year into the public purse by renting it out to local football club, smart move by the council, yes?

 

 

 

Micky seems to be under the illusion that the stadium was built specifically for West Ham United.

 

Was he in a cave last August?

[Micky]

So why do you keep whining about the money coming out of the public purse then? Council uses council money to pay for council owned stadium. Meanwhile securing £2m a year into the public purse by renting it out to local football club, smart move by the council, yes?

 

Whose whining? A stadium costing circa £600m returning £2m a year to the owners. The point remains - WHU have received a massive financial boost from the council, the like of which most other clubs will never ever see. The potential to build on what they now have is massive - and they have been given it a very little cost to them in the scheme of things.

 

I don't mind WHU renting the stadium - but I really don't think they are paying anywhere near the going rate.

 

Other people and agencies have been completely overlooked, I'm particularly gutted for Leyton Orient, who wanted to ground share but appear to have been ignored and overrun by the 'big boys'. They may now be forced to move elsewhere.

[Doctoroncall]

All WHU are doing is converting an asset (upton park) to liquidity and then using it to pay off their debt and invest in other ways.

 

A £2m a year rent on a 99 year lease is reasonable. Does anyone know what extras the council will earn on, eg, food and drink?

 

it could also turn into a soulless bowl, with the action a distance away from the stands so WHU are taking a risk here but on the whole I don't see a problem.

 

With Saints, the debt was managed so it may have been £27m in total over the length of the mortgage and bank loan conditions but it was cleared in one go on agreed terms with a £5m bonus last year. A good deal all round.

[Micky]

Micky seems to be under the illusion that the stadium was built specifically for West Ham United.

 

Was he in a cave last August?

 

Quite the opposite, quite the opposite.

[Saint Garrett]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5088457/Southampton-Football-Club-owner-in-crisis-as-shares-suspended.html

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4481187.Swiss_Saints_deal_completed/

 

our debts were £27m in 2008, up from £19m the year before, they paid £13m to buy us and clear them.

 

I don't know...but I thought Markus paid 13m + the 30m debt.

[Turkish]

Whose whining? A stadium costing circa £600m returning £2m a year to the owners. The point remains - WHU have received a massive financial boost from the council, the like of which most other clubs will never ever see. The potential to build on what they now have is massive - and they have been given it a very little cost to them in the scheme of things.

 

I don't mind WHU renting the stadium - but I really don't think they are paying anywhere near the going rate.

 

Other people and agencies have been completely overlooked, I'm particularly gutted for Leyton Orient, who wanted to ground share but appear to have been ignored and overrun by the 'big boys'. They may now be forced to move elsewhere.

 

No they haven't, they are renting council property and paying a reasonable annual fee to do that. If it was that easy to build on renting council property whilst getting a huge financial boost most clubs will never see why are Coventry In L1 and facing admin?

[Turkish]

I don't know...but I thought Markus paid 13m + the 30m debt.

 

Where do you think the £13m went? The club shares were worth nothing so there was no one to buy it off, it was well documented Leon Crouch and Michael Wilde lost their money. The £13m went to the debts that the administrator had restructured.

[Micky]

No they haven't, they are renting council property and paying a reasonable annual fee to do that. If it was that easy to build on renting council property whilst getting a huge financial boost most clubs will never see why are Coventry In L1 and facing admin?

 

So moving into a state of the art stadium with the potential to add nearly 25k more customers is going to be readily available to lots of other clubs as well soon? I guess I'll leave it there. Latest I could find on the situation:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21897902

[CB Fry]

Whose whining? A stadium costing circa £600m returning £2m a year to the owners. The point remains - WHU have received a massive financial boost from the council, the like of which most other clubs will never ever see. The potential to build on what they now have is massive - and they have been given it a very little cost to them in the scheme of things.

 

I don't mind WHU renting the stadium - but I really don't think they are paying anywhere near the going rate.

 

Other people and agencies have been completely overlooked, I'm particularly gutted for Leyton Orient, who wanted to ground share but appear to have been ignored and overrun by the 'big boys'. They may now be forced to move elsewhere.

 

It won't take West Ham long to pay more for their stadium than the Leibherrs paid for ours - just a few seasons in fact. Hardly something "the like of which other clubs would never see".

 

And it sounds like a going rate to me, its just looks low because the stadium massively overran its budget. Which is not WHU's fault and they are bailing LOCOG/Legacy/Whoever out quite frankly.

 

And spare the crocodile tears for Leyton Orient. Total joke club that would never fill a stadium like that. Complete non starter and Hearn just feeding his own ego.

[Turkish]

So moving into a state of the art stadium with the potential to add nearly 25k more customers is going to be readily available to lots of other clubs as well soon? I guess I'll leave it there. Latest I could find on the situation:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21897902

 

Like you this clown seems to think West Ham are being given the stadium, they aren't, they are tenants. The stadium will be used for many other things as well.

[Micky]

It won't take West Ham long to pay more for their stadium than the Leibherrs paid for ours - just a few seasons in fact. Hardly something "the like of which other clubs would never see".

 

And it sounds like a going rate to me, its just looks low because the stadium massively overran its budget. Which is not WHU's fault and they are bailing LOCOG/Legacy/Whoever out quite frankly.

 

And spare the crocodile tears for Leyton Orient. Total joke club that would never fill a stadium like that. Complete non starter and Hearn just feeding his own ego.

 

Why are you comparing the £600m with what was paid for SMS? What has that got to do with anything?

 

I think you've got a little confused with the Leyton Orient thing. They know they would never fill that stadium (it's unlikely that WHU will) - but again - that's not the point.

[Micky]

Like you this clown seems to think West Ham are being given the stadium, they aren't, they are tenants. The stadium will be used for many other things as well.

 

We will have to agree to disagree. As for stadium use - it will be interesting to see exactly what transpires. Lets be honest we'll get the athletics as you said, and the Rugby World Cup, maybe a few rock concerts - but what are the council really going to be able to use the stadium for, other than football.

[Turkish]

We will have to agree to disagree. As for stadium use - it will be interesting to see exactly what transpires. Lets be honest we'll get the athletics as you said, and the Rugby World Cup, maybe a few rock concerts - but what are the council really going to be able to use the stadium for, other than football.

 

What is there to disagree about? They are renting the stadium from the council, not being given it. That's a fact. As is the fact they won't be the only people using it.

 

According to today's London evening standard it'll be used every summer for athletics, as well as concerts, the rugby World Cup, the world athletics championships, and local schools and colleges will have access to its facilities. It seems like its going to be a pretty popular and well used venue. I'm sure the council will benefit from West Hams rent as well as the revenue from the naming rights which will go to the LLDC.

[CB Fry]

Why are you comparing the £600m with what was paid for SMS? What has that got to do with anything?

 

I think you've got a little confused with the Leyton Orient thing. They know they would never fill that stadium (it's unlikely that WHU will) - but again - that's not the point.

 

What is your point about LOFC then? They can't afford to rent it, they can't have it. What's your point?

 

And the comparison with Saints is valid. We now play in a stadium debt free, WHU will be paying £2m a year for ever. So where you get them being the beneficiaries of something "the like of which other clubs would never see" is fairyland stuff.

 

If anything, it applies to us more than them. I'd love to be mortgage free myself.

 

The £600m cost is utterly irrelevent and jack sh it to do with West Ham.

[Micky]

What is there to disagree about? They are renting the stadium from the council, not being given it. That's a fact. As is the fact they won't be the only people using it.

 

According to today's London evening standard it'll be used every summer for athletics, as well as concerts, the rugby World Cup, the world athletics championships, and local schools and colleges will have access to its facilities. It seems like its going to be a pretty popular and well used venue. I'm sure the council will benefit from West Hams rent as well as the revenue from the naming rights which will go to the LLDC.

 

Yep.

[Micky]

What is your point about LOFC then? They can't afford to rent it, they can't have it. What's your point?

 

And the comparison with Saints is valid. We now play in a stadium debt free, WHU will be paying £2m a year for ever. So where you get them being the beneficiaries of something "the like of which other clubs would never see" is fairyland stuff.

 

If anything, it applies to us more than them. I'd love to be mortgage free myself.

 

The £600m cost is utterly irrelevent and jack sh it to do with West Ham.

 

Why worry about LOFC - they are a joke of a club, non starter, too many egos. Far better rent it out to West Ham, proper club, David Gold, David Sullivan and Karen - no egos. All in the spirit of the Olympics of course.

[CB Fry]

Why worry about LOFC - they are a joke of a club, non starter, too many egos. Far better rent it out to West Ham, proper club, David Gold, David Sullivan and Karen - no egos. All in the spirit of the Olympics of course.

 

 

 

Are you saying give it to LOFC? Or at a lower rent than WHU? Just wondering because that would sound awfully like an advantage "the like of which other clubs would never etc etc..."

 

Say what you like about the WHU gang but they are actually coughing up £2m a year.

[Micky]

Are you saying give it to LOFC? Or at a lower rent than WHU? Just wondering because that would sound awfully like an advantage "the like of which other clubs would never etc etc..."

 

Say what you like about the WHU gang but they are actually coughing up £2m a year.

 

No - share it. You know, in the spirit of the Olympics, as LOFC wants. Not drive them out of town. But whatever - joke of a club.

[CB Fry]

No - share it. You know, in the spirit of the Olympics, as LOFC wants. Not drive them out of town. But whatever - joke of a club.

 

 

 

So they could both pay £2m a year? To be fair, that is a good idea.

[Turkish]

No - share it. You know, in the spirit of the Olympics, as LOFC wants. Not drive them out of town. But whatever - joke of a club.

 

Who is driving them out of their own town? They've got a perfectly good 9,000 seater stadium to fit in their 4,000 fans. Why would they want to have them rattling around in a 55,000 stadium and pay £2m a year rent?

[Micky]

So they could both pay £2m a year? To be fair, that is a good idea.

 

I'd let them use if for free - spirit of the Olympics and all that.

[Turkish]

I'd let them use if for free - spirit of the Olympics and all that.

 

To give them a spanking new stadium and an advantage the likes of no other club would ever see you mean?

[CB Fry]

I'd let them use if for free - spirit of the Olympics and all that.

 

 

 

So West Ham have overpaid to the tune of £2m quid a year then.

 

Blimey. That's going to put them at a disadvantage the like of which other clubs have nightmares about.

[Saint Garrett]

Who is driving them out of their own town? They've got a perfectly good 9,000 seater stadium to fit in their 4,000 fans. Why would they want to have them rattling around in a 55,000 stadium and pay £2m a year rent?

 

I think you're missing the point somewhat

[Turkish]

I think you're missing the point somewhat

 

Yeah of course I am.

[Micky]

To give them a spanking new stadium and an advantage the likes of no other club would ever see you mean?

 

You appear to be gnawing the same bone as your mate.

[CB Fry]

I think you're missing the point somewhat

 

 

 

The point being this forum is deranged in its obsession with West Ham.

[Turkish]

You appear to be gnawing the same bone as your mate.

 

That's what they be getting though wouldn't they?

[CB Fry]

You appear to be gnawing the same bone as your mate.

 

this bone...?

 

 

I totally agree - they have. But that doesn't make it right in the scheme of things. They have been given a massive bonus over every other team in England.

 

....

 

 

Not sure why one club deserves a "massive bonus" but another doesn't.

[Micky]

this bone...?

 

 

Not sure why one club deserves a "massive bonus" but another doesn't.

 

No you wouldn't do. Keep gnawing.

[CB Fry]

No you wouldn't do. Keep gnawing.

 

 

Boo hoo. Life's so unfair.

[The Kraken]

Richard Caborn speaking some rare sense.

 

 

Caborn suggested the stadium could have been adapted at a fraction of the cost if it had been built with a post-Games switch to football in mind.

 

"This is the biggest mistake of the Olympics and lessons should be learned from this," he added.

 

"West Ham are basically getting a stadium costing more than £600m for just £15m and a small amount in annual rent.

 

"The mistake was made in 2006-7 when they [Olympic Board] ruled football out of a retro-fit design as was done successfully in Manchester with the Commonwealth Games stadium.

 

"I suggested retractable seating like the Stade de France in Paris but they insisted it should be a 25,000-seat athletics stadium.

 

"Time and again mistakes are made with Olympic Stadiums and the lessons should be learned for any future similar projects."

[St_Tel49]

Richard Caborn speaking some rare sense.

 

 

Caborn suggested the stadium could have been adapted at a fraction of the cost if it had been built with a post-Games switch to football in mind.

 

"This is the biggest mistake of the Olympics and lessons should be learned from this," he added.

 

"West Ham are basically getting a stadium costing more than £600m for just £15m and a small amount in annual rent.

 

"The mistake was made in 2006-7 when they [Olympic Board] ruled football out of a retro-fit design as was done successfully in Manchester with the Commonwealth Games stadium.

 

"I suggested retractable seating like the Stade de France in Paris but they insisted it should be a 25,000-seat athletics stadium.

 

"Time and again mistakes are made with Olympic Stadiums and the lessons should be learned for any future similar projects."

And I rest my case for starting the thread.

[CB Fry]

And I rest my case for starting the thread.

 

 

 

Caborn is having a pop at the Olympics organising committee, in contrast to the divs on here grizzling about West Ham.

[St_Tel49]

Caborn is having a pop at the Olympics organising committee, in contrast to the divs on here grizzling about West Ham.

I am not blaming West Ham but they must be laughing their little socks off!

[Micky]

Caborn is having a pop at the Olympics organising committee, in contrast to the divs on here grizzling about West Ham.

 

There are no divs and nobody is grizzling. There are posters who have a differing view to your own though.

[Matthew Le God]

Image A - The post-conversion Olympic Stadium in athletics mode

 

 

Image B - The post-conversion Olympic Stadium in football mode

 

 

Image C - The post-conversion Olympic Stadium will boast the largest spanning tensile roof in the world

 

 

Image D - Technical drawings showing how the seating in the lower bowl will bring fans closer to the pitch

 

Athletics...

 

 

Football

 

Edited 29 March, 2013 by Matthew Le God

[The Kraken]

Good linking

[Matthew Le God]

Good linking

 

What are you talking about? All the images show for me.

Edited 29 March, 2013 by Matthew Le God

[The Kraken]

What are you talking about?

 

You've linked images from a private forum. Only you can see them.

[Matthew Le God]

You've linked images from a private forum. Only you can see them.

 

Well that doesn't always happen in fact I've never seen that happen before. So hardly my fault.

 

In any case I've edited the original post and all the pictures should now show.

[The Kraken]

Well that doesn't always happen in fact I've never seen that happen before. So hardly my fault.

 

In any case I've edited the original post and all the pictures should now show.

 

You linked images from a forum that requires a user name and password to log in. The images were therefore protected content.

 

In such instances its better to not nick their bandwidth and just rehost the images at somewhere free like www.tinypic.com and link from there. Lots of places have restrictions in place to stop hotlinking.

[Matthew Le God]

Better to not nick their bandwidth and just upload the images to somewhere free like www.tinypic.com and link from there. Lots of places have restrictions in place to stop hotlinking.

 

Read the last line of my last post.

[The Kraken]

Read the last line of my last post.

 

I read it. You also still have the images linked from West Ham's site on there, but they clearly don't have restrictions so they show ok. Just offering you some advice for next time you cut and paste, don't want you getting it wrong again.

[Frank's cousin]

No they haven't, they are renting council property and paying a reasonable annual fee to do that. If it was that easy to build on renting council property whilst getting a huge financial boost most clubs will never see why are Coventry In L1 and facing admin?

 

Thing is the question should be more about whether due to a rather unique opportunity to RENT at a very affordable rate, rather than have to BUY or BUILD as mpost clubs have to if they want to increase capacity and thus revenue, West Ham have beed in effect given an unfair advantage versus other clubs? NO one can doubt getting 2m il a year rent rather than nothing is better for the local council and getting use from the stadia is also good... but for a club that is hideously in debt and thus not able to build a new satdium, getting this advantage is pretty good fortune, and you could make interpret that as an 'unfair' advantage...