West Ham United - getting a subsidy for their new stadium

[bizzaro]

Just find this £35 million figure of ADDITIONAL public money outrageous.

When there is a back tracking from EFC regarding Walton Hall Park

...




http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33214058

Olympic Stadium: Final bill raises questions over West Ham deal

Such was the inevitable focus on Mo Farah on Friday, it was easy to overlook the latest story regarding the scene of the British athlete's greatest triumph.

Just a few minutes before the double Olympic champion issued his statement denying the use of performance-enhancing drugs, the final bill for the reconstruction of the Olympic Stadium was revealed.

Converting it into the new home of Premier League side West Ham United will now cost £272m, meaning the overall spend will reach £702m for the 54,000-seater arena - a lot more expensive per spectator than the £798m lavished on the 90,000-capacity Wembley.

The announcement served as a reminder of two principal concerns that continue to hang over the stadium: the amount of public money used to make the venue suitable for football, and what some regard as a lack of transparency.

Certainly, the agreement that anchor tenants West Ham negotiated - to pay just £15m towards the conversion costs - looks more and more like the deal of the century.

The stadium's owners, the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), admits the project is over-budget by around £35m.

Putting the largest cantilevered roof in the world on to a superstructure that had not been built to bear that kind of weight was far more complex and expensive than envisaged - the contract was announced initially at £155m, before rising to £189m in October.

Compare that to the £42m required to convert the City of Manchester stadium after the 2002 Commonwealth Games.

The new figures emphasise just how regrettable it is that the stadium was not originally designed for multi-purpose use - the original roof was not designed for long-term use and was too small to cover the retractable seats in 'football mode'. Had it been, the burden on the taxpayers would not perhaps be anywhere near as great.

The original plan was to convert the stadium into a 25,000-seat athletics facility after the Olympics. However, it later became apparent that having a Premier League football club would be far more financially viable, with Tottenham Hotspur and West Ham left to fight it out as the two main bidders.

 

[The Esk]

Just find this £35 million figure of ADDITIONAL public money outrageous.

When there is a back tracking from EFC regarding Walton Hall Park

...




http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33214058

Olympic Stadium: Final bill raises questions over West Ham deal

Such was the inevitable focus on Mo Farah on Friday, it was easy to overlook the latest story regarding the scene of the British athlete's greatest triumph.

Just a few minutes before the double Olympic champion issued his statement denying the use of performance-enhancing drugs, the final bill for the reconstruction of the Olympic Stadium was revealed.

Converting it into the new home of Premier League side West Ham United will now cost £272m, meaning the overall spend will reach £702m for the 54,000-seater arena - a lot more expensive per spectator than the £798m lavished on the 90,000-capacity Wembley.

The announcement served as a reminder of two principal concerns that continue to hang over the stadium: the amount of public money used to make the venue suitable for football, and what some regard as a lack of transparency.

Certainly, the agreement that anchor tenants West Ham negotiated - to pay just £15m towards the conversion costs - looks more and more like the deal of the century.

The stadium's owners, the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), admits the project is over-budget by around £35m.

Putting the largest cantilevered roof in the world on to a superstructure that had not been built to bear that kind of weight was far more complex and expensive than envisaged - the contract was announced initially at £155m, before rising to £189m in October.

Compare that to the £42m required to convert the City of Manchester stadium after the 2002 Commonwealth Games.

The new figures emphasise just how regrettable it is that the stadium was not originally designed for multi-purpose use - the original roof was not designed for long-term use and was too small to cover the retractable seats in 'football mode'. Had it been, the burden on the taxpayers would not perhaps be anywhere near as great.

The original plan was to convert the stadium into a 25,000-seat athletics facility after the Olympics. However, it later became apparent that having a Premier League football club would be far more financially viable, with Tottenham Hotspur and West Ham left to fight it out as the two main bidders.

Totally agree and I wonder how the public subsidies involved in this are consistent with the State Aid requirements of FFP.

In May I commented as follows:

"The truth is that WHU have only paid £15m for a 99 year lease, and are only paying £2m a year in rent for a stadium that cost the tax payer £429 million initially and whose reconstruction costs of £145m has been funded by £60m from Central Government, £40m from Newham Council and £20m from LLDC. In addition the GLA through Boris Johnson have contributed another £25 million."

When the Olympic Stadium was first constructed McAlpines offered to build a stadium roof with a similar specification to the new requirement. At the time the incremental cost was £4m, it was rejected by the Olympic Delivery Authority.

 

[bizzaro]

Totally agree and I wonder how the public subsidies involved in this are consistent with the State Aid requirements of FFP.

In May I commented as follows:

"The truth is that WHU have only paid £15m for a 99 year lease, and are only paying £2m a year in rent for a stadium that cost the tax payer £429 million initially and whose reconstruction costs of £145m has been funded by £60m from Central Government, £40m from Newham Council and £20m from LLDC. In addition the GLA through Boris Johnson have contributed another £25 million."

When the Olympic Stadium was first constructed McAlpines offered to build a stadium roof with a similar specification to the new requirement. At the time the incremental cost was £4m, it was rejected by the Olympic Delivery Authority.

It certainly looks like double standards.

My grievance is that a London club is getting preferential treatment to clubs outside of London.

 

[TheFinnFan]

If it sounds too good to be true......

.....

 

[bizzaro]

If it sounds too good to be true......

.....

Thats not the point.

We're making the point that this is a potential misuse of public money and that a London football club is getting preferential treatment.

 

[The Esk]

It certainly looks like double standards.

My grievance is that a London club is getting preferential treatment to clubs outside of London.

In a joint statement between the EU and UEFA in 2012 the following point was made re FPP and State Aid:

"The main idea behind State aid control is that European undertakings should compete on a
level playing field, where no operator is given special advantages by any layer of the
government. In this respect, the financial regulations by UEFA and the State aid rules by
the Commission pursue broadly the same objective of preserving fair competition between
football clubs."

That is clearly not the case with West Ham's move to the Olympic Stadium

 

[bizzaro]

In a joint statement between the EU and UEFA in 2012 the following point was made re FPP and State Aid:

"The main idea behind State aid control is that European undertakings should compete on a
level playing field, where no operator is given special advantages by any layer of the
government. In this respect, the financial regulations by UEFA and the State aid rules by
the Commission pursue broadly the same objective of preserving fair competition between
football clubs."

That is clearly not the case with West Ham's move to the Olympic Stadium

CLEARLY. Yet they have.

 

[davmaher]

It certainly looks like double standards.

My grievance is that a London club is getting preferential treatment to clubs outside of London.

The same thing happened with Man City with the Commonwealth Games stadium. Without this it's unlikely they would have been taken over by the Abu Dhabi group. Effectively, fans of other clubs have paid for West Ham's new stadium, which then gives West Ham a major competitive advantage against those same clubs. I would imagine Gold & Sullivan will sell up in a few years and West Ham will join the ranks of the football mega-rich. All paid for by us and fans of every other football club in the country.

 

[TheFinnFan]

• Thats not the point.

We're making the point that this is a potential misuse of public money and that a London football club is getting preferential treatment.

Yes I know....I hope they wont be proving that saying wrong...a bit too good for them that

 

[The Esk]

The fact is (and Everton are living proof of this) new stadium developments do not have a business case without some form of subsidy, usually from public funds.

Arsenal's Emirates Stadium is the only exception that springs to mind.

 

[Hellerad]

Imagine West Ham missing Europa because this violates FFP and Everton squeak in.

 

[roydo]

I know it was ages ago, but didnt the grounds they built for Italia 90 get divied up between some teams?

 

[The Esk]

I know it was ages ago, but didnt the grounds they built for Italia 90 get divied up between some teams?

Never heard that story mate, most of the stadia were owned by local councils. In the lead up to 1990 the councils were forced by FIFA to upgrade their stadia at huge cost. As the councils did not have the funding they went into debt.

In 2011, 21 years later, the councils collectively were still paying €55 million in interest payments on that debt.

 

[roydo]

Never heard that story mate, most of the stadia were owned by local councils. In the lead up to 1990 the councils were forced by FIFA to upgrade their stadia at huge cost. As the councils did not have the funding they went into debt.

In 2011, 21 years later, the councils collectively were still paying €55 million in interest payments on that debt.

Seem to recall they made some clubs share the new WC grounds. Probably tosh though.

 

[roydo]

Partly tosh.


The Stadio Olimpico is the main and largest sports facility of Rome, Italy. It is located within the Foro Italico sports complex, north of the city. An asset of the Italian National Olympic Committee, the structure is intended primarily for football. It is the home stadium ofSerie A clubs Lazio and Roma, and the venue of the Coppa Italia final. The stadium was rebuilt for the 1990 FIFA World Cup, and hosted the final.

Govt paid for the San Siro to get upgraded as well.