What's new

West Ham Olympic Bid Collapses

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Jan 23, 2006
26,891
45,040
This is official confirmation that the original bid process was flawed and that they knew any defence of it was doomed to failure so they have pulled out beforehand and so we should maintain our challenge to get our money back.
This is a sly move by the authorities though, it makes no difference whether there is a buyer in place by the time of the Olympics even though the media will make a big thing of it but what this means is that the awarding of the Stadium to Newham & West Ham will just be delayed until we have built the NDP, they can then have a new process which we won't enter and which will not require a cast iron guarantee that the running track must stay.
The outcome of this is that West Ham will eventually be given the stadium but given carte blanche to do what they want with it.
I predict they will rebuild it without a running track and provide an alternative athletics legacy elsewhere, you mark my words.
 

Adam456

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2005
4,453
3,117
According to westhamonline. West ham approached newham about funding the full 80m. Newham told them to fuck off and the deal collapsed. So after dodgy deals with the gov they came up with this idea.

if that's true then just shows what muppets they are and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it. Sure DL would have had this as one of a number of possible outcomes
 

brasil_spur

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2006
12,669
16,715
Can see a few mps going mental today about the 50m conversion costs. At 2m rent a year that's 25 years before they start getting any of their costs back, unless they sell naming rights.

Actually they'll never make this money back as it apparantly costs £5m a year to maitain the stadium.

So basically the tax payers will loose out on a further £50m up front and £3m per year (possibly a bit of that off-set by any athletics events that are held there?).
 

MattyP

Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes
May 14, 2007
14,041
2,980
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!

Judging by the two West Ham fans I work with they are going nuts - they are absolutely delighted that their deal has collapsed as neither of them wanted to move there in the first place.

They seem more intent on winding me up on the prospect of us moving there than being unhappy that they are not.
 

Stoof

THERE IS A PIGEON IN MY BANK ACCOUNT
Staff
Jun 5, 2004
32,219
64,273
Judging by the two West Ham fans I work with they are going nuts - they are absolutely delighted that their deal has collapsed as neither of them wanted to move there in the first place.

They seem more intent on winding me up on the prospect of us moving there than being unhappy that they are not.

I think, if anything, the "leasing" development has ruled out us ever saying Yes To Stratford.

We want a piece of real estate, we don't want to be hamstrung by a landlord.
 

brasil_spur

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2006
12,669
16,715
The initial thoughts i have on this are:

How long will the lease be for, if it's only a short term lease then surely West Ham can't afford to lease that and keep Boleyn but also they can't sell Boleyn and end up homeless at the end of the OS lease.

How is this leasing option part of the financial viability of the OS, losing £3m a year in running costs after the lease income plus whatever up front costs for converting the stadium are needed just doesn't make any sense and surely wasn't part of the OS legacy comitty (or whatever they're called).

Surely the judicial review will still go ahead, if and when the whole award process is found to have been corrupted then that means that the stadium lease can't be awarded to West Ham (conflict of interest of something of the sort) and they would have to be excluded from the lease tender, if not surely another legal case would started to this effect.
 

MattyP

Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes
May 14, 2007
14,041
2,980
I think, if anything, the "leasing" development has ruled out us ever saying Yes To Stratford.

We want a piece of real estate, we don't want to be hamstrung by a landlord.

Not really - from an accounting perspective it is (or will be in a couple of years when the new accounting standard comes in) pretty much exactly the same in the long term as the old deal was.
 

ethanedwards

Snowflake incarnate.
Nov 24, 2006
3,377
2,498
I'm not sure without ownership that anyone will want to take it on. The running track and fianancial ramifications of non ownership (naming rights etc) make it a no no for us. For West Ham the big draw was being able to own a prime asset on the cheap and then sell the club - again non ownership negates much of that argument. Orient couldnt afford the rent. So where it leaves the whole process i dont know
Agree with all this, it was all about making a quick mega buck.
 

Stoof

THERE IS A PIGEON IN MY BANK ACCOUNT
Staff
Jun 5, 2004
32,219
64,273
Not really - from an accounting perspective it is (or will be in a couple of years when the new accounting standard comes in) pretty much exactly the same in the long term as the old deal was.

But from a property law perspective, it is completely different.

EDIT (MY POINT WAS THAT): our Landlord won't let us destroy the Premises in order to rebuild without a running track.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
This is official confirmation that the original bid process was flawed and that they knew any defence of it was doomed to failure so they have pulled out beforehand and so we should maintain our challenge to get our money back.
This is a sly move by the authorities though, it makes no difference whether there is a buyer in place by the time of the Olympics even though the media will make a big thing of it but what this means is that the awarding of the Stadium to Newham & West Ham will just be delayed until we have built the NDP, they can then have a new process which we won't enter and which will not require a cast iron guarantee that the running track must stay.
The outcome of this is that West Ham will eventually be given the stadium but given carte blanche to do what they want with it.
I predict they will rebuild it without a running track and provide an alternative athletics legacy elsewhere, you mark my words.

I agree with you about the stadium being sold after we've built the NDP, but apparently there is a legal document already in existance which gaurentees the running track will be there for the next fifty years. It was mentioned during the bid for the World Athletics championships.
 

talkshowhost86

Mod-Moose
Staff
Oct 2, 2004
48,102
47,057
But from a property law perspective, it is completely different.

Yep I would have thought that the No to Stratford campaign will be delighted with this news as there's no way we'll take it on as a tenant.

If West Ham really sat back and thought about it they wouldn't do that either. It's a daft deal that leaves them saddled with a stadium that is too big for them, has a running track and which they can't alter in any way without permission. It adds very little value to them as a club meaning nobody will be any more interested in buying them when they move in than they are now, and they'll be paying at least £2m a year for the 'benefit'.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the stadium without a football team by 2014.
 

MattyP

Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes
May 14, 2007
14,041
2,980
But from a property law perspective, it is completely different.

EDIT (MY POINT WAS THAT): our Landlord won't let us destroy the Premises in order to rebuild without a running track.

I remain entirely convinced that the prospect of all the corporate income would persuade Levy to at least investigate the possibility of building retractacle seating and incorporate significant features of our design.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Jan 23, 2006
26,891
45,040
Actually they'll never make this money back as it apparantly costs £5m a year to maitain the stadium.

So basically the tax payers will loose out on a further £50m up front and £3m per year (possibly a bit of that off-set by any athletics events that are held there?).

Does this not equate to a government subsidy of £3m per year, is this legal from a competition point of view?
I suspect they will wear this as it won't be for long, just until we have gone ahead with and reached the point of no return on the NDP they can then have a new process and award it to West Ham.
There is absolutely no way the stadium can remain as an athletics venue, that was realized by the OPLC and the Government way back in 2005 which is why they went for a Premiership club, they had to there was no other option, it is also why they so desperately went for the West Ham option to keep the running track, had nobody offered that it wouldn't have been an issue which is why we were initially told that it would be worth our while with our alternative legacy; of course fly in the ointment was the West Ham bid, they had to offer the track because they would have lost to us otherwise. I suspect the OPLC didn't see this coming at the early stage as the porn barons hadn't taken over and elected to enter the bidding process.
 

Mr-T

Well-Known Member
Jan 24, 2006
2,603
563
This is all very exciting.

The unholy trinity of WHUFC, Newham and OPLC has obviously shat itself after the dodgy dealings and pulled the plug.

Proves we were right to press on with legal proceedings but we shouldnt stop now. We could potentially bankrupt wet spam if we chase compensation.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
Believe that whoever becomes tennant will have to pay the running costs aswell as rent.
 

spursontheloose

Check your women for poofish!
Aug 9, 2007
8,055
4,106
If the original agreement has been dropped, then does this mean that we will no longer be offered any monies to help develope the NPD?
 

Real_madyidd

The best username, unless you are a fucking idiot.
Oct 25, 2004
18,792
12,448
If the original agreement has been dropped, then does this mean that we will no longer be offered any monies to help develope the NPD?


No. Our funding was a separate issue, London Regeneration funds that are much needed in Tottenham
 
Top