Petition: Hold public inquiry into West Ham & LLDC deal for rental of Olympic Stadium

[ozzygull]

People aren't trying to jeopardise the move. They want to see a cash rich Premier League club pay for its move. All they'll have to do is pay their rent and a few other 'tiny' bills. Their running costs will be tiny compared to The Albion's (player's wages excluded) while their income is massive. Something very wrong with 'deal'.

The Olympic Stadium, as part of the Olympics was the centrepiece for a 4 year plus advertising campaign for GB PLC. Even if it were knocked down it more than covered its costs.

I understand now.

 

[Creaky]

How much rent are UK Athletics paying for their use of the stadium which has been guaranteed for 50 years?

What about the IPC and the IAAF for their meets?

Should there be a public enquiry into these as well?

 

[wellquickwoody]

What would be your alternative proposal for the future of the Olympic Stadium ?

That the money raised from the sale of the Boleyn ground is at least partially used to pay back the taxpayer, and that West Ham pay for the majority of the upkeep, running costs and security of the stadium area.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

What sort of "public inquiry" are the petitioners hoping for? What has happened is clearly a political decision. Is it possible to overturn a political decision by means of a public inquiry?

For starters to reveal the missing parts of the contract - "Much of the contract between LLDC and West Ham, which has been seen by the BBC, is redacted."

 

[Questions]

How much rent are UK Athletics paying for their use of the stadium which has been guaranteed for 50 years?

What about the IPC and the IAAF for their meets?

Should there be a public enquiry into these as well?

It is not athletics that needs the changes made though is it. If WHU want to use the stadium then they should pay a damn sight more than they are within this current contract. Many sports need subsidising and I don't think people mind seeing that but football is awash with cash and I think this is what irks people.

 

[GT49er]

What would be your alternative proposal for the future of the Olympic Stadium ?

Pull it down and build affordable rented accommodation (i.e. council houses) for people that are needed to work in London, and who don't command huge incomes.

 

[Phat Baz 68]

If Albion were the club in question, would any of you sign it then ? Just a question

 

[Gwylan]

If Albion were the club in question, would any of you sign it then ? Just a question

If we were receiving PL money and had banked a pile from the sale of our ground, then yes

 

[albionite]

If Albion were the club in question, would any of you sign it then ? Just a question

Interesting. Doubt I would but still think it would be wrong.

Not sure I object to West Ham benefiting from this it's their owners.

Can see West Ham becoming one of the big clubs in next five years instead of the yo yo club they are now.

 

[*Gullsworth*]

If Albion were the club in question, would any of you sign it then ? Just a question

Of course not. No Hammers fans will sign it but that doesn't make it right. We (Tony Bloom) paid for our stadium we were not subsidised, we had no ground to sell. Why v shouldn't the money from the sale of The Boleyn Ground go straight to the taxpayers payment of the upkeep of the ground.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Pull it down and build affordable rented accommodation (i.e. council houses) for people that are needed to work in London, and who don't command huge incomes.[/UOTE]

Like that idea,but can't see it happening. Have signed the whole deal stinks and what about European competition rules ? Is not effectivley football on the rates ?

 

[*Gullsworth*]

Pull it down and build affordable rented accommodation (i.e. council houses) for people that are needed to work in London, and who don't command huge incomes.[/UOTE]

Like that idea,but can't see it happening. Have signed the whole deal stinks and what about European competition rules ? Is not effectivley football on the rates ?

Bet Arsenal fans think it unfair.

 

[Easy 10]

That the money raised from the sale of the Boleyn ground is at least partially used to pay back the taxpayer, and that West Ham pay for the majority of the upkeep, running costs and security of the stadium area.

Pull it down and build affordable rented accommodation (i.e. council houses) for people that are needed to work in London, and who don't command huge incomes.

Both of which would satisfy the "why should West Ham get a free stadium ?" mantra. Wow, bulldoze the whole thing within 3 years and build housing, like that wouldn't cost any more.

The fact is, they've been able to negotiate a cracking deal, because the alternative is for an enormous empty shell of a stadium to sit there rotting .West Ham are RENTING. That means they are not responsible for the upkeep. It was a vast vanity project by the Government and local authority, with no tangible plan towards legacy, or what the frig they would to with a 60,000 seater stadium after 3 weeks of games.

West Ham are somehow coming out of this as the "bad guy" for the apparent pittance they are paying to get this facility. The reality is, without them, the taxpayer would be getting CUFF ALL back from this. Don't blame the football club for getting an option by moving in. Blame the total financial folly of the whole project from the start, by vain politicians who could not see beyond July 2012, or didn't give a toss anyway.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Both of which would satisfy the "why should West Ham get a free stadium ?" mantra. Wow, bulldoze the whole thing within 3 years and build housing, like that wouldn't cost any more.

The fact is, they've been able to negotiate a cracking deal, because the alternative is for an enormous empty shell of a stadium to sit there rotting .West Ham are RENTING. That means they are not responsible for the upkeep. It was a vast vanity project by the Government and local authority, with no tangible plan towards legacy, or what the frig they would to with a 60,000 seater stadium after 3 weeks of games.

West Ham are somehow coming out of this as the "bad guy" for the apparent pittance they are paying to get this facility. The reality is, without them, the taxpayer would be getting CUFF ALL back from this. Don't blame the football club for getting an option by moving in. Blame the total financial folly of the whole project from the start, by vain politicians who could not see beyond July 2012, or didn't give a toss anyway.

Sorry Easy but.....

As a tenant you usually accept the property in its current condition or move on(as long as it is legal), you also pay for internal decor and improvements that you see fit (a bigger table n chairs/seats up to the pitch edge are your expense), and if you are so vain as to employ a security guard/doorman, and a butler/steward that is your problem.

I would also point out that the current arrangement is detrimental to our club, and every other club in the UK/Europe. It gives West Ham a short term cash injection and lowers their operating costs for years to come. FFP anyone?

 

[Easy 10]

Sorry Easy but.....

As a tenant you usually accept the property in its current condition or move on(as long as it is legal), you also pay for internal decor and improvements that you see fit (a bigger table n chairs/seats up to the pitch edge are your expense), and if you are so vain as to employ a security guard/doorman, and a butler/steward that is your problem.

I would also point out that the current arrangement is detrimental to our club, and every other club in the UK/Europe. It gives West Ham a short term cash injection and lowers their operating costs for years to come. FFP anyone?

As unpalatable as the current arrangement may be, I'm still waiting to hear a better resolution that is actually viable. Whats the alternative ? This isn't West Hams f-up. They've just capitalised on it.

It is NOT West Hams responsibility to make sure the taxpayer gets a return on this monstrous project. The blame for this loss lies TOTALLY with the government and Newham Council for bankrolling it without any legacy provision in place. West Ham have turned out to be the beneficiaries of that, but they are not to blame. Its not like they've shoved anything else aside that could've saved this ridiculous white elephant from financial ruin.

 

[wellquickwoody]

As unpalatable as the current arrangement may be, I'm still waiting to hear a better resolution that is actually viable. Whats the alternative ? This isn't West Hams f-up. They've just capitalised on it.

It is NOT West Hams responsibility to make sure the taxpayer gets a return on this monstrous project. The blame for this loss lies TOTALLY with the government and Newham Council for bankrolling it without any legacy provision in place. West Ham have turned out to be the beneficiaries of that, but they are not to blame. Its not like they've shoved anything else aside that could've saved this ridiculous white elephant from financial ruin.

You are spot on, it is not the fault of West Ham. But that does not mean that people should not object to the arrangement as it currently stands, I do not want to see another 'superclub' in the UK (especially when they have not earnt that status) as it puts my team at a disadvantage once more.

I would like to see the deal renegotiated, and maybe LO given an option to use it alongside West Ham if they wanted to. That cannot be achieved by accepting the status quo.

 

[beorhthelm]

Both of which would satisfy the "why should West Ham get a free stadium ?" mantra. Wow, bulldoze the whole thing within 3 years and build housing, like that wouldn't cost any more.

to be fair, it would have been cheaper for the taxpayer to bulldoze and build new home. i normally highlight that West Ham's tenancy is acceptable as its the best deal on offer (Orient only wanted it if free, Spurs were only interested in bidding to force through permission for their WHL changes). the very best deal would be to just get rid, politcally that was apparently never even an option. this happens with most Olympics (and World Cups) where the bid includes a "legacy" and its assumed most the facilities will be left for prosperity. it is odd that West Ham will sell their ground for housing when its a 1/4 the footprint of the Olympic stadium.

 

[Easy 10]

You are spot on, it is not the fault of West Ham. But that does not mean that people should not object to the arrangement as it currently stands, I do not want to see another 'superclub' in the UK (especially when they have not earnt that status) as it puts my team at a disadvantage once more.

I would like to see the deal renegotiated, and maybe LO given an option to use it alongside West Ham if they wanted to. That cannot be achieved by accepting the status quo.

Firstly, a fancy new stadium does not equate to a new superclub for everyone to deal with (as at a lesser level we could certainly attest). Sunderland have been playing in a "new" 50k+ stadium for the best part of 10 years now, and achieved the square route of naff all. West Ham moving into this athletics track will not provide an automatic launch pad to put them on an equal footing with the elite, there's a lot more to it than that.

And with the best will in the world, dear old Leyton Orient are a complete irrelevance in this. Were they to be given an option to use this stadium alongside West Ham, then all you'd have is another Queens Park at Hampden. A single side open once a fortnight, for three men and a dog to rattle around in for the visit of Macclesfield. Pointless. Brisbane Road is actually one of the better lower league stadiums these days - I cannot BELIEVE there is a single LO fan who would want to bin that off to sit at an empty athletics track.

West Ham Utd have given Newham Council an "out" with this. Its not ideal, its probably not even fair. But that's all there is on the table - and you can thank Seb Coe, the starstruck London 2012 Newham councillors and the government cronies for that.

 

[Crenol]

There are two sides to this.

1) Is it a good deal for the tax payer? No. It is not. BUT it is probably one of the best possible deals that could have been got after those in charge messed up the planning and legacy. However, you could also argue West Ham could contribute a hell of a lot more and still get a good deal out of it - their rates and not having to pay for corner flags, goals, electricity etc. seems low and strange.

2) Is it a good deal for football? The OVERWHELMING answer is No. No club should get government help/subsidies to run their club. It makes a mockery of fair play and level playing fields. Someone above highlighted Sunderland's 50K stadium as an example that it doesn't help. The major difference is they actually have to pay for theirs and so don't suddenly get a 71odd million pound cash injection, plus very low rental rates combined with tiny running costs. This gives West Ham a huge advantage that no other football club gets and should not be allowed. As others have said it would be interesting to see a European ruling on this as I don't see how it could be legal.

If both 1 and 2 are not answered with a "yes" then something should be done about it. Right now the best you could have for 1 is "maybe" but 2 is a definite "no". It is not sour grapes, it is perfectly fine for them to play at the stadium, they should just pay a going rate and not be subsidised by the government.

 

[Easy 10]

There are two sides to this.

1) Is it a good deal for the tax payer? No. It is not. BUT it is probably one of the best possible deals that could have been got after those in charge messed up the planning and legacy. However, you could also argue West Ham could contribute a hell of a lot more and still get a good deal out of it - their rates and not having to pay for corner flags, goals, electricity etc. seems low and strange.

2) Is it a good deal for football? The OVERWHELMING answer is No. No club should get government help/subsidies to run their club. It makes a mockery of fair play and level playing fields. Someone above highlighted Sunderland's 50K stadium as an example that it doesn't help. The major difference is they actually have to pay for theirs and so don't suddenly get a 71odd million pound cash injection, plus very low rental rates combined with tiny running costs. This gives West Ham a huge advantage that no other football club gets and should not be allowed. As others have said it would be interesting to see a European ruling on this as I don't see how it could be legal.

If both 1 and 2 are not answered with a "yes" then something should be done about it. Right now the best you could have for 1 is "maybe" but 2 is a definite "no". It is not sour grapes, it is perfectly fine for them to play at the stadium, they should just pay a going rate and not be subsidised by the government.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said there. I'm not a West Ham apologist - I just feel the vitriol being aimed their way over this whole deal is completely misguided. They've moved in and taken advantage of a set of circumstances which has come about through a combination of epic incompetence and vanity by the authorities. They've got some savvy players on board who have pulled off an amazing deal for their football club. The fact is, outside of PL football, there IS no viable alternative for this stadium to be anything other than a white elephant. Brady / Gold / Sullivan knew damn well this was the case before a ball was kicked in the negotiations, so they were holding all the cards to broker this deal. Newham Council were over the barrel, and they've taken it right up the ringer. Hard.

You should post more often btw.