Petition for public inquiry into West Ham Olympic Stadium

[Gbspurs]

Government have 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
​

 

[Ossie'sAardvark]

Signed

 

[michaelden]

Its a cop out response with no substance at all.

 

[Ossie'sAardvark]

Government have responded....

I think they have to mate.

 

[Gbspurs]

I think they have to mate.

Not implying it's anything special, just thought people would be interested in reading the fob off.

 

[SpursOldBoy]

Signed.

 

[longtimespur]

I got this reply from my MP today.

Thought I'd post it on here for all to see.


Thank you for contacting me about the Olympic Stadium and West Ham, and the related petition.



I appreciate your concern over this issue and quite agree that 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 I understand that, 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 pleased that we will continue to see a wide range of activities at the stadium, and that this will help to ensure that continuation of the 2012 Games’ legacy.




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.




Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. I will certainly keep your concerns in mind should this issue be raised in Parliament.




Best wishes,


Matt



Matt Warman MP

Member of Parliament for Boston and Skegness

 

[mightyspur]

I really couldn't care less about this.

 

[riggi]

I really couldn't care less about this.

Ye im feeling the same but im happy to sign it. Anything to ruffle some feathers at that club, is good for me.

 

[longtimespur]

Also got this from the government


The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Hold public inquiry into West Ham & LLDC deal for rental of Olympic Stadium”.

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 Parliament​

 

[Adam456]

I think when this (the public subsidy controversy) all started we were outraged because we had offered a common-sense solution with the funding predominantly from us and they had somehow managed to spin it that they were offering a cut-price conversion that kept the track. Whilst their general tactics were scandalous, Levy had the last laugh by ensuring that the running track would stay and that the stadium wouldn't just be handed over for peanuts like Citeh a few years down the line. The truth is that the public investment in the conversion will provide for a number of different uses and revenue streams over decades, while offering only a 2nd-class football experience.

The only issue now is whether the Spammers are paying an appropriate amount in 'rent'. I think it goes something like this: they keep the gate money, lose the catering and services revenue and have to pay an annual rental. I can understand the idea that they want confidential commercial agreements kept private for purposes of future client negotiations but it literally SCREAMS 'giveaway' if they feel that knowing what the anchor tenant pays would significantly prejudice them

 

[Adam456]

I think when this (the public subsidy controversy) all started we were outraged because we had offered a common-sense solution with the funding predominantly from us and they had somehow managed to spin it that they were offering a cut-price conversion that kept the track. Whilst their general tactics were scandalous, Levy had the last laugh by ensuring that the running track would stay and that the stadium wouldn't just be handed over for peanuts like Citeh a few years down the line. The truth is that the public investment in the conversion will provide for a number of different uses and revenue streams over decades, while offering only a 2nd-class football experience.

The only issue now is whether the Spammers are paying an appropriate amount in 'rent'. I think it goes something like this: they keep the gate money, lose the catering and services revenue and have to pay an annual rental. I can understand the idea that they want confidential commercial agreements kept private for purposes of future client negotiations but it literally SCREAMS 'giveaway' if they feel that knowing what the anchor tenant pays would significantly prejudice them

 

[Lilbaz]

What future negotians can it effect? They and athletics have a 99 year lease. They are the anchor tennants.
Any future negotiations will be for limited events and what west ham are paying will have no reflection on any deals made as they should be market rate.
This screams dodgy and the only way it will be sorted is if the eu investigate under state aid.

If i right to buy my council flat today that will not effect how much someone has to pay for theirs in 5-10 years time.

 

[gregga]

What future negotians can it effect? They and athletics have a 99 year lease. They are the anchor tennants.
Any future negotiations will be for limited events and what west ham are paying will have no reflection on any deals made as they should be market rate.
This screams dodgy and the only way it will be sorted is if the eu investigate under state aid.

If i right to buy my council flat today that will not effect how much someone has to pay for theirs in 5-10 years time.

I agree that the need for confidentiality is a little fishy, but it seems the European Commission has had sight of the terms of the deal and decided not to investigate.

As a lawyer specialising in this type of work myself I don't think there is a case to answer.

The law on this is fairly clear - if West Ham obtained the tenancy pursuant to a fair and open tender process, in which they were selected as having offered the best package for the tax payer, then there is no State aid. The terms of the deal might seem generous to us, but that is likely a reflection of the fact that there were few takers out there for the stadium, one which inadequate forward planning meant was not ideally suited to any particular sport.

We really need to move on. If (as we should be) in 5 years we're sitting in our shiny new stadium we'll be laughing at West Ham in their crappy, soulless rented stadium.

 

[nightgoat]

Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
• Freedom of Information request for full disclosure successful
• Club and LLDC had claimed details covered by ‘commercial confidentiality’

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/sep/15/west-ham-details-olympic-stadium-deal

 

[Mullers]

I hope this is the right place to post this link?

Not just Spurs signing this but other London clubs getting on board to hopefully make West Ham at least pay their way in the stadium and not rely on the public purse

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

Would people here sign the petition if we were in west ham's position or would Levy be hailed as a genius for such a deal?

 

[Lilbaz]

Would people here sign the petition if we were in west ham's position or would Levy be hailed as a genius for such a deal?

It would still be wrong.

 

[Mullers]

It would still be wrong.

So you would sign the petition?

 

[Ionman34]

So you would sign the petition?

Obviously YOU would....

 

[riggi]

Would people here sign the petition if we were in west ham's position or would Levy be hailed as a genius for such a deal?

lol no of course I wouldn't.