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

[Driver8]

Yeah looks pony.

They will be doing a good trade in binoculars.

 

[Simster]

The views are going to be shit from nearly every seat.

Yeah looks pony.

These. I'm not sure who the biggest Toby is here - the tax payer or next season's West Ham STH.

 

[Driver8]

These. I'm not sure who the biggest Toby is here - the tax payer or next season's West Ham STH.

There would be some serious moaning on here if that was our stadium. The views are going to be Withdeanesque.

 

[Creaky]

Why was there not similar 'protests' over the KC Stadium - Paid for by the tax payer and built at the turn of the century at a cost of £44 Million - income received to date just over £49,000.

 

[nicko31]

Done. Says it all about public sector procurement and how to strike a deal. West Ham have done nothing wrong of course, but a horrendous deal for the tax payer

 

[narly101]

Unbelievable. Petition signed.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

There would be some serious moaning on here if that was our stadium. The views are going to be Withdeanesque.

Terrible views - Their business model must be to attract tourists as one off matchday purchasers, rather than season ticket holders.

Do West Ham get any of the matchday catering revenue ?

I suspect this will all end in tears for West Ham.

 

[Superseagull]

Was there last night. For the amount of money spent on it since the olympics the stadium is very poor. Behind the goals the huge gap between the top and bottom tier is weird. Loads of scaffold and cheap black fabric screening (think Withdean) gets you to seating behind goals. Upper tier you are miles away from pitch. The concourse area is very open and bare. No sign of any TV's for fans to watch. Just some metal fencing between the concourse and outside of stadium. On a cold wet windy day the concourse will be horrible. Give me the Amex any day.

 

[Easy 10]

Was there last night. For the amount of money spent on it since the olympics the stadium is very poor. Behind the goals the huge gap between the top and bottom tier is weird. Loads of scaffold and cheap black fabric screening (think Withdean) gets you to seating behind goals. Upper tier you are miles away from pitch. The concourse area is very open and bare. No sign of any TV's for fans to watch. Just some metal fencing between the concourse and outside of stadium. On a cold wet windy day the concourse will be horrible. Give me the Amex any day.

I think it'll be gubbins as well, but its still a work in progress. I'm sure in a years time the scaffolding and black fabric will be gone and the concourses more developed with TV's etc.

 

[Curious Orange]

Why was there not similar 'protests' over the KC Stadium - Paid for by the tax payer and built at the turn of the century at a cost of £44 Million - income received to date just over £49,000.

I thought the Hull Council paid for the stadium in part by selling off a big wedge of Kingston Communications.

 

[Frampler]

Went on Wednesday, was sat along the side of the pitch, at the front of the upper tier, and the view was similar to the back of the West Upper at the Amex - I suspect all the West Ham STHs will sit in the tens of thousands of seats along the sides rather than the ends behind the goals. On the west side of the stadium, there's a vast gap between the bottom tier and the luxury boxes - I assumed it was the athletics practice area. It still feels like an athletics stadium with some extra seats crammed in for rugby.

The concourses are crap (the wiring looked unfinished so I'm sure there is more work to be done), and you have to go down four flights of stairs from the upper tier to get food or drink.

Still, to get that for 2 million a year rent is a bloody steal - given the cost of renting in London, you could probably secretly house people in all the cupboards and make back twice your money. It beggars belief that over 700 million has been spent on that stadium thus far. Stadium projects with a public element seem to be a licence to print money - the Millenium Stadium and Wembley spring to mind.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Went on Wednesday, was sat along the side of the pitch, at the front of the upper tier, and the view was similar to the back of the West Upper at the Amex - I suspect all the West Ham STHs will sit in the tens of thousands of seats along the sides rather than the ends behind the goals. On the west side of the stadium, there's a vast gap between the bottom tier and the luxury boxes - I assumed it was the athletics practice area. It still feels like an athletics stadium with some extra seats crammed in for rugby.

The concourses are crap (the wiring looked unfinished so I'm sure there is more work to be done), and you have to go down four flights of stairs from the upper tier to get food or drink.

Still, to get that for 2 million a year rent is a bloody steal - given the cost of renting in London, you could probably secretly house people in all the cupboards and make back twice your money. It beggars belief that over 700 million has been spent on that stadium thus far. Stadium projects with a public element seem to be a licence to print money - the Millenium Stadium and Wembley spring to mind.

Some of the problems are how the media present the expenditure of public money on public build projects. Whereas a private stadium build will give you the actual contract value - i.e. the construction cost, or their choice of what they decide to reveal to you, in reporting public projects the media do appear to include professional fees and other costs that aren't actually part of the contract sum without really telling you. Hard to know what £700m actually means without it being specifically called the contract value.

 

[Frampler]

Some of the problems are how the media present the expenditure of public money on stadium. Where as a private stadium build will give you the actual contract sum - i.e. the construction cost, in reporting public projects the media do appear to include professional fees and other costs that aren't actually part of the contract sum, without really telling you.

Even if we assume that there are 50 million in professional fees that would not get included in the cost of a private build, that is still 650 million pounds of public money on a stadium that, since work started on it in 2005, has been used for about 6 weeks. I think the media are doing sterling job exposing how much of a bloody waste that is.

 

[heathgate]

West Ham has only contributed £15m towards the £272m conversion costs of the Olympic Stadium, with the taxpayer footing the rest of the bill. Considering the cost to the taxpayer, and the effect of this taxpayer subsidy on competition between clubs, a full public inquiry into the deal is needed.

On top of the minimal conversion contribution, West Ham has been allowed to keep the sale proceeds of their current stadium, valued at £71m. Rental is £2.5m a year, halving should WHU be relegated. Taxpayers will cover the costs of stadium utilities, security, pitch maintenance, goalposts and corner flags - estimated to be worth £1.4m - £2.5m a year. Public money should be used responsibly, and in a way which does not distort the competitiveness of independent sports bodies and businesses.

Over 10,000 signatures have been achieved today alone but it is really important that all football clubs join together to ensure there is an inquiry into this. This level of help for one club alone, at the expense of the tax payer, makes a mockery of fair play and opportunity for all.

Please sign it here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106355

Not forgetting that the stadium will still be an asset owned by the local authorities, not West Ham. Its no different to Don Valley for example.

 

[Superseagull]

I have not got a problem with its conversion to a multi sport stadium, or West Ham renting it 23 times a year. What I have got an issue with is the £600 odd million pounds of tax payers money spent on the stadium over the years only for it only for it to be so naff in terms of concourse design, seating angles, tight seat spacing, huge gaps and voids between the tiers. The Amex costing £95 million is an absolute bargain in comparison.

 

[Creaky]

I thought the Hull Council paid for the stadium in part by selling off a big wedge of Kingston Communications.

. . . . and?

The council actually sold their interest in KC in 2004 and 2007 but that's irrelevant - KC was an asset owned by the council so the capital received on its sale belonged to the local tax payers. In 13 years the council has received less than £50,000 return on their investment - I would guess this is far less than if they had retained their interest in Kingston Communications. On the other hand they continue to own a civic amenity which is used for more than just Football and Rugby League.

As regards West Ham, £2+ million pounds to rent a stadium for 25 days seems reasonable - it would also seem unreasonable to separate the cost of things like security and stewards from that rent unless you expect them to pay for those items for the remaining 340 days as well! If I hire a managed office I don't expect to pay separately, (although they may be itemised in the overall rent), for things like security and reception staff.

The stadium will be used on far more occasions by other sports - athletics, rugby union, rugby league, even motorsport and possibly cricket) - why have we not heard how much each of these are paying? On a 'daily basis' I'd be surprised if it is as much as West Ham are paying.

I don't think all the angst is about the rent West Ham are being charged and there would still be the same objections if they were paying 3, 4, 5 million.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Even if we assume that there are 50 million in professional fees that would not get included in the cost of a private build, that is still 650 million pounds of public money on a stadium that, since work started on it in 2005, has been used for about 6 weeks. I think the media are doing sterling job exposing how much of a bloody waste that is.

When I say costs, I don't honestly know what they attribute to the stadium when they say it cost £400m or whatever. Is that from taking over the Stratford site and the clearance, decontamination, river diversions, infrastructure etc. before they even broke ground for the stadium itself, or is that £400m from a level site all ready for the stadium to start construction?

£180m to just amend the roof does seem absolutely ridiculous compared with our stadium cost. So you might be right, and there should be more transparency over it, but likewise it is hard to get a handle on what all the figures actually mean.

 

[Birdie Boy]

. . . . and?

The council actually sold their interest in KC in 2004 and 2007 but that's irrelevant - KC was an asset owned by the council so the capital received on its sale belonged to the local tax payers. In 13 years the council has received less than £50,000 return on their investment - I would guess this is far less than if they had retained their interest in Kingston Communications. On the other hand they continue to own a civic amenity which is used for more than just Football and Rugby League.

As regards West Ham, £2+ million pounds to rent a stadium for 25 days seems reasonable - it would also seem unreasonable to separate the cost of things like security and stewards from that rent unless you expect them to pay for those items for the remaining 340 days as well! If I hire a managed office I don't expect to pay separately, (although they may be itemised in the overall rent), for things like security and reception staff.

The stadium will be used on far more occasions by other sports - athletics, rugby union, rugby league, even motorsport and possibly cricket) - why have we not heard how much each of these are paying? On a 'daily basis' I'd be surprised if it is as much as West Ham are paying.

25 days? Are you saying that the hammers mega-store, ticket office, managers office, general staff offices etc. Are only used on match days?

 

[Curious Orange]

. . . . and?

The council actually sold their interest in KC in 2004 and 2007 but that's irrelevant - KC was an asset owned by the council so the capital received on its sale belonged to the local tax payers. In 13 years the council has received less than £50,000 return on their investment - I would guess this is far less than if they had retained their interest in Kingston Communications. On the other hand they continue to own a civic amenity which is used for more than just Football and Rugby League.

And what?

I asked a question, which you seem to have at least partially clarified. I don't quite see how the KC Stadium equates to the situation at the Olympic Stadium though, Hull aren't the only club that rent their stadium from a the local authority... though I can only think of Peterborough off the top of my head!

 

[Bold Seagull]

And what?

I asked a question, which you seem to have at least partially clarified. I don't quite see how the KC Stadium equates to the situation at the Olympic Stadium though, Hull aren't the only club that rent their stadium from a the local authority... though I can only think of Peterborough off the top of my head!

Manchester City...