|
The Mutts Nutz 8:35 Tue Sep 15
Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
|
From The Grauniad
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/sep/15/west-ham-details-olympic-stadium-deal
Campaigners for transparency over West Ham’s move to the Olympic Stadium have scored a major victory after the Information Commissioner ruled the terms of the deal should be made public, the Guardian can reveal.
Both the London Legacy Development Corporation and West Ham had long argued that the deal for the largely-taxpayer-funded stadium should remain buried beneath a sea of black ink for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The decision could be embarrassing for the London mayor, Boris Johnson, who was desperate to conclude a deal with a football club to give the stadium a sustainable future, and West Ham, battling to convince the public the terms do not amount to a taxpayers’ subsidy for a rich football club.
It may also reopen the argument over whether the LLDC broke European state-aid rules, after the Guardian revealed earlier this year that it had failed to apply to the European Commission for an exemption.
Following a convoluted Freedom of Information process started last September by the Charlton Athletic Supporters’ Trust, the Information Commissioner has ruled that the commercial terms under which the east London club will become the stadium’s anchor tenants next summer must be published.
It is already known that West Ham will pay only £15m of the £272m needed to make the 54,000-capacity stadium suitable for Premier League football, athletics and other events. The annual rental agreement on the 99-year lease is believed to be around £2.5m, although the true figure has never been confirmed.
A host of other details around the proportion of the naming rights, catering, merchandising and hospitality revenues taken by West Ham have remained secret, meanwhile.
The LLDC will also be obliged to reveal which costs it is meeting, on matchdays and elsewhere, and which are being met by West Ham. The exact terms of the lease, including a negotiated discount if West Ham are relegated, will also have to be revealed for the first time. During a long game of legal ping pong with those who sought more transparency, the LLDC would reveal only that West Ham retained all the money from ticket sales and that the annual usage fee covers matchday costs.
Unless it is successful with an appeal the LLDC will be forced to reveal the terms of the deal in its entirety, giving rise to a new wave of scrutiny over whether the taxpayer is getting value for money.
West Ham had argued in its submission that it was “deeply concerned that the disclosure of the commercially confidential and sensitive information will inevitably have an adverse impact on the stadium partnership”.
It was also concerned that full transparency around the terms had “the very real potential to damage the perception of WHUFC in relation to the stadium”. It said it could affect its ability to sell tickets and prejudice its negotiating position with customers and suppliers.
The LLDC argued that it would impact its search for a naming-rights partner and prejudice future negotiations between the stadium operator, Vinci, and other potential users of the stadium. It also revealed that West Ham had threatened to sue for breach of confidence if confidentiality clauses were broken.
But the Commissioner ruled that neither the LLDC nor West Ham had been able to demonstrate how the information could be exploited by competitors or how it would place them at a commercial disadvantage.
A coalition of 14 club supporters’ trusts, formed to campaign on the issue, will now call on Johnson not to appeal the decision and to publish the contract immediately.
“The Information Commissioner’s decision could not have been clearer, and it is equally clear to us that publication must follow. This campaign is publicly backed by 25,000 individuals, football supporters’ trusts from around the country, and the public interest in the issue is there for all to see,” said a spokesman. “We call on the mayor not to use the appeal system to delay publication of this document further. If he does it will open him up to the suspicion that he has something to hide.”
The largest chunk of funding for the transformation comes from a one-off settlement of £148.8m from the exchequer in 2010.
Newham council has provided £40m, West Ham £15m, almost £40m comes from the original £9.3bn budget for the Olympics, and a further £25m from the government.
The cost of the conversion soared from the original estimate of £160m when the decision was taken to award West Ham a 99-year lease after an earlier process had collapsed amid acrimony and legal challenge.
West Ham and the LLDC have argued that without the upfront costs to convert and kit out the stadium to make it suitable for football, it would be an ongoing drain on the public purse.
The LLDC board was formerly chaired by Johnson, who quietly resigned from the post shortly before the general election, and is now headed by his long time Olympics adviser, Neale Coleman.
“We are disappointed by the Information Commissioner’s decision which we believe will damage our ability to secure the best deal for the taxpayer in future. The stadium will have many users and publishing the contractual details will undermine our ability to deliver the best financial outcome from numerous future negotiations. We always strive to balance transparency while protecting the taxpayers’ financial interest and we are considering the ruling carefully as we decide what action to take.”
It is believed that the LLDC will come to a decision in the next 10 days over whether to appeal. If it decides against, it has 35 days from 3 September, the date the Information Commission sent the letter, to make the information public.
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
1964
6:29 Wed Oct 7
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3263708/West-Ham-tried-buy-Olympic-Stadium-outright-Tottenham-Leyton-Orient-forced-rent-insists-David-Gold.html
|
riosleftsock
2:11 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
Its good to know that these Charlton fans are such public-spirited people.
Let's hope they don't have any PFI schools or hospitals anywhere near them, as they would have an apoplectic fit if they saw what our previous government managed to sign up to on these.
Probably won't get far with a FOI on any of them either.
|
Mike Oxsaw
2:06 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
Gavros 1:58 Fri Oct 2
That just means that if any money is to be made on such an arrangement, it stays ring-fenced & legally protected within an exclusive elite group of people.
It's protectionism in all but name, agonisingly phrased to keep it all "legal".
|
Gavros
1:58 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
Good value for money given the net figure is well below that, you have to admit.
I see that Osborne is busy brown tonging the NFL about a permanent franchise.
"the NFL have been in talks with HMRC and Treasury officials to examine the opportunities for an NFL team being based here and discuss any barriers they currently faced"
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/london-based-nfl-team-closer-to-touchdown
So I assume that means some sort of tax break for the NFL franchise and letting their players get away with non-dom status?
|
riosleftsock
1:58 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
I tried to join that site with a number of witty usernames and got blocked.
They are moaning now about the steelworks in redcar not being saved by state aid, but the olympic stadium is being saved with state aid.
Not understanding the difference between subsidy and investment.
Thick cunts.
|
El Scorchio
1:56 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
Ah, well that's definitely doable if true.
|
Arko
1:53 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
Every game over 25 games apparently will cost us another 100K each I read somewhere.
|
El Scorchio
1:25 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
If you pro rata our rental rate for 25 days over a year, it actually works out as 36.5 million quid per annum!
Not that that means a great deal, though.
I wonder how much more exactly we have to pay for going over the 25 days. Sullivan only said it was 'alot'. Could be interesting/costly if in addition to our league games, we had 6/7 home cup games in a season and also the games a European campaign would entail?
|
1964
12:23 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
El Scorchio
A point made dozens of times but the Charlton blinkered don't want to hear about the other half dozen organisations deals and whether they are good for the taxpayer.
Only ours, which tells you everything about their motives.
|
El Scorchio
12:12 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
'Similarly, we are renting the stadium for 25 days. They have got 340 days to get income from other people. Nobody is criticising the UK Athletics deal.'
Good point.
|
1964
11:52 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
This thread is 10% talking about the rights/wrongs of the stadium deal.
The other 90% is people slagging each other off.
The Charlton losers must be gigling at this.
|
Johnson
10:40 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
I most certainly do support West Ham United, which is why I can be found at games. As you say numerous people know me on here, some agree with me, some don't, but none doubt my support for the club.
You on the other hand, will not be found at games and have taken on more than one occasion to slag off our support as you see them as beneath you.
Why don't you slither back to KUMB and see if they will tolerate your snidey, vile, condescending approach to people again?
|
Johnson
10:37 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
He didn't confirm the rent in this article but does say we've surrendered virtually all concessions match day income:
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/west-ham-chief-david-sullivan-hits-back-in-olympic-stadium-row-a2923151.html
He does manage to chuck in a bit of bullshit mind, when claiming it was the most robust bidding process ever. Can't help himself can he?
|
Dapablo
10:35 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
"I am not part of anything you consider "our" Dapablo"
I know that's why i keep asking you why you're here exactly, you don't support West Ham United, you only ever appear on stadium threads and a give brief disgruntled acknowledgement when we win a game.
You've so blatantly have got issues with your life go and sort them out, and those of your "numerous" friends on here should be informing you likewise.
|
Willtell
10:28 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
I remember seeing that said Johnson. I thought he was referring to the extra the LLDC would get for naming rights from having a PL club resident...
|
Steve P
10:27 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
I took that to mean that the LLDC share of other income streams weren't included, though?
Not sure if that can be called 'rent', but if they are, we'll soon find out!!
|
Johnson
10:24 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
Didn't Sullivan say something about the reported figure not being the full extent or something, P?
|
Steve P
10:14 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
I guess we're not really talking about the Burton on Trent, as that is already in the public domain?
It would have to relate to the exact details about sharing the other income streams?
|
Johnson
10:07 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
I am not part of anything you consider "our" Dapablo you disgusting cunt.
|
Willtell
10:03 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
It's up to the LLDC not WH. We've said we don't mind details being made public except where shareholder info for WH is concerned. But it's the rent that is being questioned not the penalties put against the shareholders for selling WH.
|
madeeasy
9:58 Fri Oct 2
Re: Details of West Ham’s Olympic Stadium deal must be made public
|
Did we appeal or does this all come out in a few days time?
|
|
|
|
