The Times- West Ham open to sharing Olympic Stadium

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
31,262
#41
athletics virtually never fills a 60k stadium , maybe once a decade it does.

So no atmosphere. Most of the time 15l is enough, 25k assuming expansion of interest ? That's why Athletics (but not Seb Coe) would be very happy with a smaller stadium.
They have financial advisors that will tell them they could get a fortune for their lease. I doubt they'd just give it up.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
16,674
#42
They have financial advisors that will tell them they could get a fortune for their lease. I doubt they'd just give it up.
True, so I guess they will have to be bought out of their contract possibly by West Ham which will effect the sale price of the stadium. Sorry Lilbaz I just don't have your faith in governments honouring a 99 year leases and by selling the lease with the stadium to West Ham it becomes their problem or put another way, their opportunity.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
5,698
#44
At least now we can see why both parties didn't want details released to the public...who are actually paying for it...
Hopefully the likes of the Mail will dedicate as much time to this as the Cameron story last week.
I trust a petition for it to be debated in parliament isn't too far off the 100k...
 

philip

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
1,047
#45
I understand a fair amount of the deal. If West ham are only tenants, they can't be expected to pay for all the extras. If West ham only rent it for 25 days a year, 2.5m makes some sort of sense (not really, but let's go with this).

What doesn't make sense at all then is the amount of West ham branding and earning potential (naming rights) from the stadium. Surely the stadium shouldn't have West ham coloured seats, west ham logo seats, west ham exterior wraps, permanent west ham sign above the stadium, and get half of any naming rights over £4m.

They should be allowed to brand the stadium temporarily on those 25 days (they can be kept up if the stadium isn't used between games too) and get 7% of naming rights etc (25 days out of 365).

It also doesn't make sense that they should get any rebate on their fees if another club use it.outside those 25 days, the stadium simply isn't theirs!
 

Dillspur

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
1,685
#46
I understand a fair amount of the deal. If West ham are only tenants, they can't be expected to pay for all the extras. If West ham only rent it for 25 days a year, 2.5m makes some sort of sense (not really, but let's go with this).

What doesn't make sense at all then is the amount of West ham branding and earning potential (naming rights) from the stadium. Surely the stadium shouldn't have West ham coloured seats, west ham logo seats, west ham exterior wraps, permanent west ham sign above the stadium, and get half of any naming rights over £4m.

They should be allowed to brand the stadium temporarily on those 25 days (they can be kept up if the stadium isn't used between games too) and get 7% of naming rights etc (25 days out of 365).

It also doesn't make sense that they should get any rebate on their fees if another club use it.outside those 25 days, the stadium simply isn't theirs!
The approx cost for policing football matches is $1m per year that they don't have to pay, if you add all the extra's that are being paid by the lddc I bet it comes to more than the $2.5m. The spammers are essentially getting the place rent free
 

philip

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
1,047
#47
The approx cost for policing football matches is $1m per year that they don't have to pay, if you add all the extra's that are being paid by the lddc I bet it comes to more than the $2.5m. The spammers are essentially getting the place rent free
I wrote that even if the £2.5m rent makes sense (which it doesn't).
 

Bruts

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
1,196
#48
Is the rent £2.5 million set for 100 years or will it increase after say 5 years by a set percentage? If fixed I wonder if my landlord will fix mine for 100 years.... I doubt it
 

Dillspur

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
1,685
#49
One of the dildo boys was on talk sport last night trying to defend it, said that the rent goes up every year, I just can't remember what he said the rate was
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
31,262
#50
Is the rent £2.5 million set for 100 years or will it increase after say 5 years by a set percentage? If fixed I wonder if my landlord will fix mine for 100 years.... I doubt it
Inflation linked i think. Which is bollocks. Local rents will go up far quicker.
 

whitesocks

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
2,312
#51
If we want to use the stadium I don't think they would be able to refuse due to the term below:

"Priority Use means that use by the Grantor or any other person can only occur if either the Concessionaire has given permission (not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed). or: (a) the Grantor or a Grantor Party. requires access to perform its obligations under the Concession Documents (including for operations, maintenance or repairs); or (b) to allow access to professional sports teams. sportsmen. sportswomen and their staff and coaches in connection with events at the Stadium at which professional sports will be played; and (c) access required for the Stadium tour operations,

So they would have to be asked for permission as Brady has said but considering everything else they would need to have a very good reason for us to not use the stadium.
I read that as access for professional sports teams in connection with events in the stadium do not need the Concessionaire's permission.
 

Lighty64

Glory Glory
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
4,476
#52
I usually read all previous post but at the moment the anger on this deal, I just got to post.

every tax payer in London or whoever has to pay towards this shouldn't pay their council tax it's a joke. within 2-3 games Wet Spam will of covered the £2m rent. after that all they will have to cover is players wages. Wet Spam should have to cover all cost towards that stadium, not the tax payer
 

Lighty64

Glory Glory
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
4,476
#53
And apparently they won't have to contribute to any running costs, even goalposts, bloody ridiculous, heads should roll for this, whether or not we think we should have got the place, form a public accounts point of view our offer was clearly a better option and this deal is financial negligence.
I actually think this deal is so bad one day a government will decide to sell it on to West Ham and they'll demolish and rebuild you mark my words.
and the amount of profit they will make until that time will pay for the new stadium

lets not forget that they are selling the Boleyn and it's not as if the council will be getting a %. no wonder why they are selling season tickets so cheap
 

shelfmonkey

It's all codswallop
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
4,735
#56
I wonder, if Brady wasn't a 'Lady' would Wet Spam have got such a ridiculously stinking good deal?!!!!

The whole deal reeks!!!
 
Top