West Ham Olympic Bid Collapses

Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
19,155
Thread starter #1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15251893

London 2012: West Ham Olympic Stadium deal collapses

By David Bond BBC sports editor

The deal to award West Ham the Olympic Stadium after the London 2012 Games has collapsed, the BBC has learned.

The board of the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) has ended negotiations amid concerns over delays caused by the ongoing legal dispute with Tottenham.

The OPLC, government and Mayor of London have instead agreed the stadium will remain in public ownership.

A new tender process will be opened for an anchor tenant who will now lease the stadium for an an annual rent.

The winning bidder would rent the stadium rather than purchase it outright and bear the majority of any redevelopment costs.

The new tender process will be launched this week and any interested bidders will have to submit proposals by January.
Strained finances

A fund of £50m has been set aside from public money to convert the 80,000-capacity stadium at Games time to a 60,000-seater venue afterwards.

The post-Games stadium will be capable of hosting major athletics events and Premier League football.

That opens the possibility for Championship football club West Ham and their bid partner Newham Council to submit a new, lower risk proposal which could still see them move in after London 2012.

With West Ham's finances under strain following their relegation from the Premier League last season, the new arrangement could be much more attractive as it would only cost around £2m a year to lease the stadium.
That money will help offset estimated running costs of more than £5m a year.

The OPLC has decided to take drastic action because of the uncertainty being caused by the legal challenges from Tottenham but also Leyton Orient.

Both clubs are contesting the original decision to award the stadium to West Ham because of their reliance on a £40m loan from Newham Council, which they say is effectively state aid.

Spurs are seeking a judicial review of the decision and the next hearing at the High Court was due to be held next Tuesday.

But to complicate matters further, an anonymous complaint was made to the European Commission last week which could have meant even further delays.

And despite London Mayor Boris Johnson's ultimatum to Spurs last week to settle the dispute before next Tuesday and accept a funding package to help redevelop their White Hart Lane ground, the OPLC had lost confidence in a quick resolution.
Public money

The clock is ticking for the OPLC because it has set a deadline of 2014 for the new tenants of the stadium to move in.

For that to happen, planning permission must be submitted by March 2012 to ensure work starts immediately after the Games.

The prospect of a never-ending battle in the courts raised fears that the stadium could lie idle for years after the Olympics had finished.

The other catalyst for the U-turn is London's bid for the 2017 World Athletics Championships.

Last week's visit of the inspection team from the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) was dominated by the continuing uncertainty over the stadium's future and, in particular, the running track.

With London facing a real contest against Doha in November's vote, the government and mayor wanted to send a strong message to the IAAF that they are committed to staging the event in the Olympic Stadium.

But the latest twist to the controversial saga will raise serious questions about how such an important decision could be thrown back into confusion with just 10 months to go to the Games.

There will also be concerns over why another £50m of public money is going to be poured into a stadium which has already cost over £500m.
 

L.A. Yiddo

Not in L.A.
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
5,586
#3
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 

Chimbo!

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
2,234
#4
If you actually read it, the article suggests the only reason why it has collapsed is to push through the West Ham deal in time for after the Olympics. It means West do not have to rely on a £40 million loan from Newham Council because instead of buying the lease they just pay £2 million rent a year instead. In fact this is probably better for West Ham because right now the whole situation has turned to farce.
 
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
19,155
Thread starter #6
If you actually read it, the article suggests the only reason why it has collapsed is to push through the West Ham deal in time for after the Olympics. It means West do not have to rely on a £40 million loan from Newham Council because instead of buying the lease they just pay £2 million rent a year instead. In fact this is probably better for West Ham because right now the whole situation has turned to farce.
It means they will never have ownership though, and will never be able to rip up the track. Job done.
 

Wsussexspur

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
3,736
#10
This does sound like it's going to be a better deal for West Ham. I just hope this ends our legal bid for the stadium & Levy can now concentrate on sorting out the Northumberland park stadium!
 

Andy

Staff
Staff
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
7,831
#11
last week they announced that the track was staying for 125 years minimum and now they ditch west ham! hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahaha
 

L.A. Yiddo

Not in L.A.
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
5,586
#12
It means they will never have ownership though, and will never be able to rip up the track. Job done.
Yep, plus less commercial rights as they will never be able to name the stadium. That track will make it the poxiest place in the UK to watch football... Triffic.

 

Adam456

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
3,696
#13
On BBC now. Woke up 15 mins ago, went to page and went YESsssssss but doesn't stop Spammers from renting it for 2m and still keeping track. Depends what work they would do. I say again we need to look at removable seating but not sure DL is interested

Should probably move to the stadium sticky threads
 

Andy

Staff
Staff
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
7,831
#14
This does sound like it's going to be a better deal for West Ham. I just hope this ends our legal bid for the stadium & Levy can now concentrate on sorting out the Northumberland park stadium!
whether they do apply again or not is up to them but i imagine that they'll have similar issues with Orient and i can't imagine Levy letting this be the end of it, he'll chase them over the original decision and get as much as he possibly can out of it.

i'm betting their fans are going nuts right now though!
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
32,190
#15
They still have to pay for the roof. Also i think the banks might want to have a word about the debt as it won't be backed up by the stadium.
 

DJS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
23,459
#16
Yep, plus less commercial rights as they will never be able to name the stadium. That track will make it the poxiest place in the UK to watch football... Triffic.

Wow, I'd never seen a pic of the actual track before - I didn't think it was that big!

Hope Spurs don't push again for it, want the NLD Project to push on.
 

leffe186

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
5,048
#17
whether they do apply again or not is up to them but i imagine that they'll have similar issues with Orient and i can't imagine Levy letting this be the end of it, he'll chase them over the original decision and get as much as he possibly can out of it.

i'm betting their fans are going nuts right now though!
I'm not so sure about Levy. There has to be a point where we walk away, and if this deal guarantees a running track in perpetuity then this might be that point. The only reasons to keep going are (a) if there is still a chance we can get the stadium and rip up the track (b) to ensure that West Ham do not get that chance.
 

MR_BEN

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
2,793
#19
This is Levy's doing.

Last week he was quoted as saying something along the lines of west ham being handed a publicly funded stadium for £40m. This way - west ham will never own their own stadium if they go ahead with the move.

Btw... This also basically means we won't be going for it. Levy will never contemplate leasing a stadium, let alone leasing a stadium that has a running track.

As a company what would this do to west ham if they were to take it on? They would have next to no capital?
 

EastLondonYid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
5,345
#20
Darren Lewis of the mirror just said its unlikely spurs will get the OS despite this news, the OS commitee will stick with the running track rule.....so THANKFULLY we won't be getting it....unless DL changes his mind and goes for a souless stadium.
 
Top