New Stadium Details And Discussions
- Thread starter fozzi44
- Start date
This has just broken on the AP wire service: "Bids from Tottenham and West Ham for London's Olympic Stadium could both be rejected, with officials still able to revive the original plan of retaining a 25,000-capacity arena mainly for athletics after the 2012 Games." From their London sports writer, Rob Harris.
michaelden
Knight of the Fat Fanny
- Aug 13, 2004
- 26,458
- 21,824
:lol: and who pays for the £3M pa for the maintanence? UK Athletics? :rofl:
bigturnip
Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
- Oct 8, 2004
- 1,640
- 49
If that were true I don't think this thread would be quite so long.
bigturnip
Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
- Oct 8, 2004
- 1,640
- 49
'Just broken', we've known this all along.
bigturnip
Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
- Oct 8, 2004
- 1,640
- 49
This picture was posted in one of the other threads.
I don't know if this is official or just a photoshop job that someone's done in their bedroom, but either way I personally think it looks the tits!
Shame about the backdrop. :razz:
I haven't seen that figure before, Michaelden. What's your source?
michaelden
Knight of the Fat Fanny
- Aug 13, 2004
- 26,458
- 21,824
it was in a post earlier regarding the owneraship of the stadium and if it was on a royal park
bigturnip
Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
- Oct 8, 2004
- 1,640
- 49
It is the figure that Newham council believe they will have to spend annually on the upkeep of the park, nothing to do with the stadium, the upkeep of which will presumably be the responsibility of the tenants. Newham wanted the park to be made a royal park, presumably, because the £3m annual upkeep of the park is more than they believe they can recoup in rates and taxes from the tenants.
"Newham has calculated that the park would cost up to £3 million a year to manage."
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...gh-wants-to-make-olympic-site-a-royal-park.do
michaelden
Knight of the Fat Fanny
- Aug 13, 2004
- 26,458
- 21,824
Cheers. I take it back, they won't need £3M but they'll still need to pay some maintanence and security
SpurSince57
Well-Known Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 45,213
- 8,229
I imagine that if the OS were athletics only, except for Essex playing 20-20 games there (as already proposed in the Newham-Spammers bid), it would still be a very attractive 'events' venue for AEG or Live Nation.
bigturnip
Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
- Oct 8, 2004
- 1,640
- 49
Another article/interview in favour of West Ham, not that she has any power to do anything any more:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/london_2012/9367733.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/london_2012/9367733.stm
michaelden
Knight of the Fat Fanny
- Aug 13, 2004
- 26,458
- 21,824
Will £35M be enough to turn it into a 60000 seater permanent structure, with full facilities incl, press boxes, corporate hospitality, toilets etc... acceptable for use by all parties, cricket, atheletics, Live Nation/ AEG?
of the 3 above I can see the entertainment 2 getting the most use from it and then the question will be, how has a concert venue provided an elite sporting legacy?
of the 3 above I can see the entertainment 2 getting the most use from it and then the question will be, how has a concert venue provided an elite sporting legacy?
sloth
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2005
- 9,018
- 6,900
Maybe I've forgotten somewhere along the line, but I'm certain the financials were the biggest consideration the OPLC had.
This can't just mean the financials of redeveloping the stadium so that it's fit for a football club, because if that were the case they could just do a deal with UK Athletics and an events company and there wouldn't be a need for an anchor tenant.
So there has to be a significant financial contribution to be made by whoever the eventual tenant is surely? And that's got to be more than a couple of million annually, otherwise, like I say, why look for a football tenant at all?
This can't just mean the financials of redeveloping the stadium so that it's fit for a football club, because if that were the case they could just do a deal with UK Athletics and an events company and there wouldn't be a need for an anchor tenant.
So there has to be a significant financial contribution to be made by whoever the eventual tenant is surely? And that's got to be more than a couple of million annually, otherwise, like I say, why look for a football tenant at all?
chrissivad
Staff
- May 20, 2005
- 51,646
- 58,072
- Staff
- #4,396
Olympic stadium loan to West Ham 'at risk of abuse'
A £40m loan being arranged by a local council to help West Ham United move into the Olympic Stadium has come under fire after a BBC London investigation raised questions over how the decision is being reached.
Newham Council hopes to secure a Treasury loan at favourable rates, allowing the club to finance a move to the stadium after the 2012 Games.
The Olympic Park Legacy Company is due to name either Tottenham Hotspur or West Ham as preferred bidder on or shortly after 28 January. The winner gets £35m of state money for refurbishment.
Councillors at the Labour-run east London borough will vote on the loan at 1930 GMT.
But the BBC has uncovered aspects of the council's approach that led one financial auditor to warn of a "danger of abuse" of the system.
These include:
Crucial documents explaining the bid in detail being withheld from councillors until shortly before the vote.
No explanation as to whether the council would be liable for the debt if relegation-threatened West Ham defaulted.
A "significant number" of councillors holding reservations - but refusing to speak openly because they are allegedly "afraid" of missing out on lucrative positions.
Mayor of Newham Sir Robin Wales declaring dozens of gifts from West Ham, with critics saying his impartiality has been compromised.
All 60 councillors in Newham are Labour Party representatives.
One serving councillor, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: "A significant number of councillors have reservations.
"There are massive doubts over supposed community benefits."
The councillor continued: "Why are we arranging a loan for a private company? West Ham should go to a bank like everybody else.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
Councillors are afraid to speak out. This rings alarm bells.”
Anita Shields
Independent auditor
"The financial football model is hardly blessed by success."
But not one serving politician will go on the record.
The councillor said: "The problem is the mayoral system.
"People are frightened to go against the mayor. They are frightened of a lack of patronage.
"He's had almost the same executive since 2000 - on £40,000 each. People want a bit of the action."
Anita Shields, an auditor who works with other local authorities to ensure financial transparency, said: "Councillors are afraid to speak out. You have people pushing to get something through quickly.
"This rings alarm bells."
The BBC has also learned that the mayor has declared 35 gifts from the club in the last three years.
By contrast, the leader of Islington Council declares an average of three gifts a year from Arsenal.
'Drinks and hospitality'
The leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council - home to Chelsea, QPR and Fulham - declared four such gifts since 2008.
In both 2008 and 2009, almost half of the total gifts Sir Robin declared were from West Ham.
They mostly consisted of "hospitality in the chairman' s suite" and "lunch and drinks".
The mayor is a season ticket-holder at Upton Park.
The BBC understands 13 councillors left the last debate because of declared gifts. Neither they nor Sir Robin are able to vote.
Newham Council says the mayor has been open about hospitality and has nothing to hide.
Ms Shields said: "If you enjoy hospitality, you are not impartial.
"You become familiar. When you have familiarity you have the danger of abuse of the system."
And Mike Law, a former Labour councillor who defected to the Conservatives, said: "Elected members taking gifts from local companies then lending them money is just wrong."
He continued: "No-one speaking out is par for the course.
"These councillors don't understand why they were elected.
"They are frightened because there is always the perk of being a mayor's special adviser on the horizon."
Mayor's special advisers are paid up to £31,000. The council has not commented on the posts.
But Mr Law said: "Local democracy is not working.
"Councillors are supposed to represent the electorate - yet we have the poorest in the country bailing out multi-millionaires.
"The vote is window dressing - it allows them to share blame with elected members if something goes wrong."
Newham councillors usually receive full details of voting issues a week in advance.
But they only received the documents 48 hours in advance.
And 10 "weighty" background papers were withheld.
Councillors were allowed to come into Newham's headquarters to inspect them on Wednesday.
'Suicidal'
But the BBC understands they could not because the person holding the documents was "not at work".
Councillors can view them immediately before the meeting.
They are thought to detail whether Newham Council would have to repay the £40m if West Ham defaulted.
The council has refused to confirm if it will be liable.
Ms Shields said: "You need complete transparency, I cannot stress that enough. Otherwise this does not have the proper agreement of the people.
"To go ahead on this basis is suicidal. Nobody is scrutinising it."
The council says it cannot disclose the information for "commercial reasons".
Press and public will be barred from the vote and were also banned from a previous meeting.
The councillor who spoke to the BBC said: "You couldn't take a £2,000 car loan with the information we were given.
"We are making a £40m decision with no time to scrutinise facts.
"Councillors will have minutes to read complicated documents. They'll be unable to discuss them privately."
'Fully scrutinised'
The councillor added: "I can't say who's liable if West Ham default - the answer is sitting in Newham's office."
Sir Robin declined to be interviewed, but a Newham Council spokesman said: "The fact all gifts are declared and recorded shows the mayor has nothing to hide and is being totally transparent.
"The mayor paid for a season ticket and the offer of hospitality was accepted on that basis.
"West Ham United is a major employer within the borough. It is only right he be involved with them."
He continued: "[The loan] would be based on scrutiny of a full business case on terms that ensures the council makes money that will be invested in the community and secures legacy benefits.
"Any loan would be made to a stadium company not West Ham. It is not funding that the council could use on other services.
"We want an occupant for the stadium that will provide jobs for local people."
The spokesman added: "The reports to council contain information relating to business of the council and West Ham United.
"If this information was public it could prejudice the commercial position.
"A confidentiality agreement has been signed with the Olympic Park Legacy Company. Councillors will have an opportunity to see information before the meeting."
West Ham declined to comment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12227069
A £40m loan being arranged by a local council to help West Ham United move into the Olympic Stadium has come under fire after a BBC London investigation raised questions over how the decision is being reached.
Newham Council hopes to secure a Treasury loan at favourable rates, allowing the club to finance a move to the stadium after the 2012 Games.
The Olympic Park Legacy Company is due to name either Tottenham Hotspur or West Ham as preferred bidder on or shortly after 28 January. The winner gets £35m of state money for refurbishment.
Councillors at the Labour-run east London borough will vote on the loan at 1930 GMT.
But the BBC has uncovered aspects of the council's approach that led one financial auditor to warn of a "danger of abuse" of the system.
These include:
Crucial documents explaining the bid in detail being withheld from councillors until shortly before the vote.
No explanation as to whether the council would be liable for the debt if relegation-threatened West Ham defaulted.
A "significant number" of councillors holding reservations - but refusing to speak openly because they are allegedly "afraid" of missing out on lucrative positions.
Mayor of Newham Sir Robin Wales declaring dozens of gifts from West Ham, with critics saying his impartiality has been compromised.
All 60 councillors in Newham are Labour Party representatives.
One serving councillor, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: "A significant number of councillors have reservations.
"There are massive doubts over supposed community benefits."
The councillor continued: "Why are we arranging a loan for a private company? West Ham should go to a bank like everybody else.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
Councillors are afraid to speak out. This rings alarm bells.”
Anita Shields
Independent auditor
"The financial football model is hardly blessed by success."
But not one serving politician will go on the record.
The councillor said: "The problem is the mayoral system.
"People are frightened to go against the mayor. They are frightened of a lack of patronage.
"He's had almost the same executive since 2000 - on £40,000 each. People want a bit of the action."
Anita Shields, an auditor who works with other local authorities to ensure financial transparency, said: "Councillors are afraid to speak out. You have people pushing to get something through quickly.
"This rings alarm bells."
The BBC has also learned that the mayor has declared 35 gifts from the club in the last three years.
By contrast, the leader of Islington Council declares an average of three gifts a year from Arsenal.
'Drinks and hospitality'
The leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council - home to Chelsea, QPR and Fulham - declared four such gifts since 2008.
In both 2008 and 2009, almost half of the total gifts Sir Robin declared were from West Ham.
They mostly consisted of "hospitality in the chairman' s suite" and "lunch and drinks".
The mayor is a season ticket-holder at Upton Park.
The BBC understands 13 councillors left the last debate because of declared gifts. Neither they nor Sir Robin are able to vote.
Newham Council says the mayor has been open about hospitality and has nothing to hide.
Ms Shields said: "If you enjoy hospitality, you are not impartial.
"You become familiar. When you have familiarity you have the danger of abuse of the system."
And Mike Law, a former Labour councillor who defected to the Conservatives, said: "Elected members taking gifts from local companies then lending them money is just wrong."
He continued: "No-one speaking out is par for the course.
"These councillors don't understand why they were elected.
"They are frightened because there is always the perk of being a mayor's special adviser on the horizon."
Mayor's special advisers are paid up to £31,000. The council has not commented on the posts.
But Mr Law said: "Local democracy is not working.
"Councillors are supposed to represent the electorate - yet we have the poorest in the country bailing out multi-millionaires.
"The vote is window dressing - it allows them to share blame with elected members if something goes wrong."
Newham councillors usually receive full details of voting issues a week in advance.
But they only received the documents 48 hours in advance.
And 10 "weighty" background papers were withheld.
Councillors were allowed to come into Newham's headquarters to inspect them on Wednesday.
'Suicidal'
But the BBC understands they could not because the person holding the documents was "not at work".
Councillors can view them immediately before the meeting.
They are thought to detail whether Newham Council would have to repay the £40m if West Ham defaulted.
The council has refused to confirm if it will be liable.
Ms Shields said: "You need complete transparency, I cannot stress that enough. Otherwise this does not have the proper agreement of the people.
"To go ahead on this basis is suicidal. Nobody is scrutinising it."
The council says it cannot disclose the information for "commercial reasons".
Press and public will be barred from the vote and were also banned from a previous meeting.
The councillor who spoke to the BBC said: "You couldn't take a £2,000 car loan with the information we were given.
"We are making a £40m decision with no time to scrutinise facts.
"Councillors will have minutes to read complicated documents. They'll be unable to discuss them privately."
'Fully scrutinised'
The councillor added: "I can't say who's liable if West Ham default - the answer is sitting in Newham's office."
Sir Robin declined to be interviewed, but a Newham Council spokesman said: "The fact all gifts are declared and recorded shows the mayor has nothing to hide and is being totally transparent.
"The mayor paid for a season ticket and the offer of hospitality was accepted on that basis.
"West Ham United is a major employer within the borough. It is only right he be involved with them."
He continued: "[The loan] would be based on scrutiny of a full business case on terms that ensures the council makes money that will be invested in the community and secures legacy benefits.
"Any loan would be made to a stadium company not West Ham. It is not funding that the council could use on other services.
"We want an occupant for the stadium that will provide jobs for local people."
The spokesman added: "The reports to council contain information relating to business of the council and West Ham United.
"If this information was public it could prejudice the commercial position.
"A confidentiality agreement has been signed with the Olympic Park Legacy Company. Councillors will have an opportunity to see information before the meeting."
West Ham declined to comment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12227069
$hoguN
Well-Known Member
- Jul 25, 2005
- 26,680
- 34,824
Good find chris, i'm glad West Ham are now taking flak over their bid, as alot of the press our bid was getting is unfair. If people like Coe and Jowell had made better decisions about the stadium they were building we would not planning to knock it down in our proposals
SpurSince57
Well-Known Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 45,213
- 8,229
I'm not surprised. I can't remember if I posted it in this thread or one of the others, but if I were a Newham resident I'd be close to going postal. They've had about £75m chopped from their budget, not quite as much as Haringey but still a hell of a lot, and borrowing almost half of that to lend to a football club that's already over £100m in debt and running at a stonking loss seems insane.
sloth
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2005
- 9,018
- 6,900
A very interesting piece, thanks for posting Chris.
May have answered one of BT's questions too. He has rightly been peeved that fans haven't been provided with any details of the financials of the proposed move and so been forced to take on trust what the board say, but as suspected the report Chris posted suggests that the club will have signed an NDA with OPLC,
""A confidentiality agreement has been signed with the Olympic Park Legacy Company. Councillors will have an opportunity to see information before the meeting."
Though why the club couldn't have at least announced that (if it is the case) is beyond me.
May have answered one of BT's questions too. He has rightly been peeved that fans haven't been provided with any details of the financials of the proposed move and so been forced to take on trust what the board say, but as suspected the report Chris posted suggests that the club will have signed an NDA with OPLC,
""A confidentiality agreement has been signed with the Olympic Park Legacy Company. Councillors will have an opportunity to see information before the meeting."
Though why the club couldn't have at least announced that (if it is the case) is beyond me.
