West Ham's Olympic Stadium Deal

[Christian Slater]

Is it true that, not only will they get it for a ridiculous £2.5m a year, but they also don't have to pay for expenses like policing? And, if so, who's picking up the bill?

Policing, catering staff, maintenance staff etc.

The taxpayer. So West Ham's contribution will likely just cover the costs of running the place. Oh, the monument outside the ground costs roughly £1m a year to maintain.

 

[Christian Slater]

Pretty much the identical deal that saw City gifted the common wealth stadium; isn't it?
Not like precedent isn't set, and I'm far happier with the stadium being used.

And that was unethical in a sporting sense too. Financially for Manchester it turned out to be brilliant because Mansour doesn't want dossers to inhabit near his (the council's) stadium so he's rejuvenated the area.

 

[Anon]

Spurs were never interested, it was blindingly obvious they used feigned interest purely to get more public funds (from the Tottenham regeneration money post-riots) for their WHL development, I don't believe for a second that their 'interest' was ever serious in any way whatsoever - yet seemingly they've gotten away in the media about the threats to move the team if they don't get their hands on that public money, funny that? I also remember barely any fuss about Man City having the Commonwealth stadium either. How selective the finger points...

I understand to a point the concerns of Orient, as the stadium is nearer to them than UP - however in a city like London where the number of professional clubs is surely the highest in the world, any stadium move is going to upset someone along the line. And let's not forget (a la Hearn), we're staying in the same London borough. Stratford isn't an Orient fan hotbed (it's barely a West Ham hotbed...) and even before the move is much more part of West Ham (the area) than Leyton is. Hearn saying nonsense like "my dog could have negotiated a better deal" isn't really understanding the point of leverage, i.e. the Olympic committee had none, hence the deal West Ham struck.

People will probably go down the Wenger route and cry foul at West Ham, but West Ham simply took advantage of Seb Coe's ridiculous notion many years ago that the stadium could be a viable revenue generator post games. It was obscene from him to think the public money could be money generating without us being there, and given the amount of money that was spent it would have made it even worse to have it rot (Spurs was never a serious option, Orient wouldn't have made the council as much money back). Finger-pointing at West Ham as the primary bad guys in this is misguided and lacking in understanding of the process from start to finish.

The deal should have been made public, no doubt, given the public funds used. West Ham have got very lucky (although I've always thought G&S bought the club with the aim to sell us once we've moved to the OS) in that there's been a cockup of a situation on their doorstep, and the deal is very good for us no doubt, but there was no leverage for any other better deal. They've prevented the cockup from being an even bigger cockup.

---

Believe it or not, I'm not actually in favour of the move. I think for all the fanfare it'll be a soulless gutless atmosphere and simply won't be the West Ham I've grown up with, I have a season ticket this year but won't do next year. Business-wise though they've prevented the cockup of public money spent with no viable post-games plan, from being an even bigger cockup from getting nothing/not much thereafter.

 

[Pagnell]

Policing, catering staff, maintenance staff etc.

The taxpayer. So West Ham's contribution will likely just cover the costs of running the place. Oh, the monument outside the ground costs roughly £1m a year to maintain.

Then that's a fucking disgrace. The cost of the rent doesn't bother me much, it's cheap but would just be sitting there doing nothing. But for everything else to be picked up by the tax payer? Ridiculous and whoever negotiated that on behalf of the general public should be named, shamed and sacked.

 

[silkyman]

I also remember barely any fuss about Man City having the Commonwealth stadium either. How selective the finger points...

Well there was a bit, mainly from Manchester United fans at least. They still call it the council house. But there was also complaints from high profile athletes most prominently Jonathan Edwards who was very outspoken in his belief that is Manchester should have a 41,000 seat athletic stadium.

The main difference here though is that city being tenants was instrumental to the Commonwealth Games in the first place. If memory serves no sitting tenant would have made the bid financially non-viable. With the Olympic Stadium it feels like more of an afterthought.

City had been linked with a move to a new stadium right back in the days of the Olympic bids in the late 80s. It was designed, planned and built from the start with a view to City moving in in 2003. One stand was temporary to allow access to work vehicles to dig out the bottom tier which had been built beneath the track and then buried. There's a good reason why the seats were light blue! It was no surprise to anyone so any angst and controversy had years and years to work its way out.

On the deal itself, City are paying 3 million a year in rent plus half the naming rights which means that West Ham are paying less per year for a much larger venue which cost several times more to build even factoring in inflation, paying less for any conversion costs, which are significantly more expensive despite City having a complete change from athletics to football so it seems West Ham have a good deal.

City are paying more to rent a stadium that cost less to build AND convert than the Olympic Stadium's conversion costs alone.

I admit I don't know who profits when city host concerts or other events but I think it's the club I've also never heard anything about the council picking up any of the staffing costs or any of the other benefits West Ham are getting.

Meanwhile because city were the tenants from the start and United weren't actually interested there were no long-running legal battles to drum up opposition support. The stadium also isn't right on the doorstep of another football club. Let alone one with a high profile well known and very media savvy chairman.

Purely on rental terms, either City have been fucked over, or West Ham have an incredible deal.

 

[Stevencc]

 

[Whitechapel]

Then that's a fucking disgrace. The cost of the rent doesn't bother me much, it's cheap but would just be sitting there doing nothing. But for everything else to be picked up by the tax payer? Ridiculous and whoever negotiated that on behalf of the general public should be named, shamed and sacked.

We will also be paying for corner flags and goal posts.

 

[silkyman]

What are they actually doing for the conversion? That's a lot of money to relay a pitch and paint some lines on it.

 

[Whitechapel]

What are they actually doing for the conversion? That's a lot of money to relay a pitch and paint some lines on it.

As you can see, it's going to be emptier than...well, a certain stadium up north that was obtained in a similar fashion.

 

[Pagnell]

Instead of mocking West Ham, Arsenal fans should be fucking grateful. At least the Emirates won't be the worst in London for empty seats any more.

 

[silkyman]

Wow. A lot of work being done then... Shows the difference in having it built specifically with a view to converting it to football rather than doing it as an afterthought. Seems that basically, West Ham are renting it for a minimum of 19 matches a season rather than taking complete control of it, so the taxpayer should still get plenty of financial benefit from other events there.

Sadly I can't see the post immediately following mine. But I'm sure it's full of insight and thoughtful, considered opinion.

 

[shane]

The firm I work for had season tickets at the Boleyn years ago so I was regularly getting phone calls from the club asking me to come in to their office at Westfield Stratford for a "presentation". I live around the corner so dropped in one day.

Lots of big touch screens, imitation crowd noises, technical stadium chat etc but the only thing I walked away from it with is the knowledge that the corporate seating (bar the seats near the pitch) is going to be pretty terrible. When the seats are moved over the track, it creates large areas with nothing in between. It really looked awful.

The "kop style seating" (their words) on the opposite side looked a lot better.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

 

[JimJams]

So fresh, so clean.

 

[SALTIRE]

Only once bottles get thrown onto it can it then be called West Ham's new ground.

 

[Jarv]

Crickey do they run Shuttle buses from one side of the technical area to the other

 

[Benji]

They're going to need a bigger bubble machine.

 

[JimJams]

Erm, where are the benches?

 

[PDS]

As the first league visitors we'll find out next week, but I'm expecting a similar view to the old Withdean:

 

[AFCB_Mark]

And between West Ham faffing around apparently still deciding what the setup of the away end should be, and our famously brilliant ticketing operation (still waiting for season tickets to arrive), it'll be a miracle if we actually get any West Ham tickets organised and sold in time.

 

[claret50]

Erm, where are the benches?

The subs have to slum it sitting on these seats.

 

[Modernist]

 

[JimJams]

The subs have to slum it sitting on these seats.

So just a 2 minute drive to the pitch then?

 

[Murphy]

It's just not right. Or maybe it's just weird and needs getting used to. Doesn't appear to hold in the atmosphere as well as UP used to, but that's not surprising.

 

[MJA]

I thought it looked pretty awesome last night

 

[Anon]

Was a season ticket holder last season (and many years before), but am still not keen on the move because of the distances to the pitch and by the looks of it, my fears are realised. For all the positivity around the club at the moment - the owners have a lot to be thankful for how last season turned out - glad I didn't sink money into a season ticket this year given the need for binoculars.

EDIT: Looking at that picture above, seems like if you're on that bottom tier you might be alright (though it's still big gap to the pitch), and should reserve total judgement until I've actually been. But if you're on the middle or top tier, it looks so far away you'd probably have a better view from Upton Park.

I still can't help think that despite the increased capacity, this whole endeavour will be a massive mistake.

 

[Christian Slater]

Surely tickets weren't sold for those bottom tier seats?

 

[JimJams]

Concessions for those under the bridge. 10% off.

 

[Christian Slater]

I can't work it out. Is that bridge removable for certain situations, or is that just a costly fuck up?

 

[Abertawe]

I think it looks horrible to be honest. I know they'll benefit financially but I'd be gutted having to watch my team in that stadium, absolutely horrible for watching football.