Football and tax payer's money

[Herr Tubthumper]

Football and public money. Among the best deals: West Ham’s £15m up-front contribution to the £140m Olympic Stadium conversion – matching last week’s bid for Andy Carroll. £27m: Amount Spurs plan to pay Gareth Bale over four years – a hit offset by the £27m secured in public grants for their new ground after they threatened to leave the borough.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I wonder how much the land B&H council sold to the Albion for £1 was really worth ?

 

[saafend_seagull]

Football and public money. Among the best deals: West Ham’s £15m up-front contribution to the £140m Olympic Stadium conversion – matching last week’s bid for Andy Carroll. £27m: Amount Spurs plan to pay Gareth Bale over four years – a hit offset by the £27m secured in public grants for their new ground after they threatened to leave the borough.

Plus £2m a year in rent.

Didn't Man City get their stadium for £0?

 

[Dunk]

Hull's KC stadium was paid for by the council- that's £42 million.

The council own it and it is good that a council wants to support local teams so I'm not really saying it is a bad use of money. It's a lot though.

 

[Dandyman]

Football and public money. Among the best deals: West Ham’s £15m up-front contribution to the £140m Olympic Stadium conversion – matching last week’s bid for Andy Carroll. £27m: Amount Spurs plan to pay Gareth Bale over four years – a hit offset by the £27m secured in public grants for their new ground after they threatened to leave the borough.

The support for "New WHL" will bring money into Tottenham via paying customers. The area has still not recovered from the economic destruction of the 1980s.

 

[beorhthelm]

are we going to consider the amount of income tax and VAT that football pays?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

are we going to consider the amount of income tax and VAT that football pays?

It's my view that, given the vast salaries regularly spunked on players West Ham and Spurs can pay for their own grounds.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's my view that, given the vast salaries regularly spunked on players West Ham and Spurs can pay for their own grounds.

true. the Olympic park should be left to be used twice a year for athletics (after spending tens of millions on reducing capacity and other changes), while Tottenham should be allowed to develop WHL with no changes to the surrounding infrastructure. but others have decided that these aren't the best things for the areas concerned.

as pointed out, we got a fat subsidy and grants on our ground, so we really arent in any place to throw stones.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

I wonder how much the land B&H council sold to the Albion for £1 was really worth ?

The 2011/12 BHA Holding Company Accounts indicate that there was a cost of £5.3M payable for the lease of the land on which the Amex stadium is built.

 

[Beach Hut]

Hull's KC stadium was paid for by the council- that's £42 million.

The council own it and it is good that a council wants to support local teams so I'm not really saying it is a bad use of money. It's a lot though.

Except that was totally funded by the unique situation where Hull council owned their own Telecoms and sold that at the high point of the dot com boom.

 

[fosters headband]

Don't forget all the admin pounds lost to the tax payer, our friends up the road cost us all nearly £3mill for their last effort. Not sure how much they cost us in 2000.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

as pointed out, we got a fat subsidy and grants on our ground, so we really arent in any place to throw stones.

How fat and what was the subsidy?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

true. the Olympic park should be left to be used twice a year for athletics (after spending tens of millions on reducing capacity and other changes), while Tottenham should be allowed to develop WHL with no changes to the surrounding infrastructure. but others have decided that these aren't the best things for the areas concerned.

West Ham and Spurs do not need public subsidy.

 

[beorhthelm]

West Ham and Spurs do not need public subsidy.

i agree with you. the Olympic stadium and Haringey's infrastructure do.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Except that was totally funded by the unique situation where Hull council owned their own Telecoms and sold that at the high point of the dot com boom.

They made a fortune from this sale. The last tranch of their shares were sold for a 107m.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

i agree with you. the Olympic stadium and Haringey's infrastructure do.

I'm not sure about Spurs but in the West Ham case tax payers money is going towards the stadium retro-fit according to the BBC.

 

[clapham_gull]

are we going to consider the amount of income tax and VAT that football pays?

If it involves the tax avoided via image rights no problem here.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

If it involves the tax avoided via image rights no problem here.

Good point. I remember Sol Campbell, a single player at the club, was paid more for his image rights than his club's commercial arm ever made. And few, if any, football clubs ever pay corporation due to the losses.

 

[les dynam]

The West Ham-Olympic Stadium deal is a disgrace. The legacy of the Olympics will be Gold & Sullivan getting even richer as they milk the taxpayer funded stadium and infrastructure for their personal gain. The Stadium cost a packet, but the infrastructure that went in to service the Olympic area ran into the billions. Why should a commercial organisation benefit from that? Plus they'll remove the athletics track within 3 years. Plus it breaks London's athletic legacy promises... which were cited as the principle reason for London beating Paris to the Olympics.