|
, 11:45 Wed Dec 12
Worth more rent money?
|
|
West Ham have agreed to pay almost £450,000 extra per season to use London Stadium if the capacity is raised to 66,000.
The figure was revealed in a joint letter from West Ham and the stadium's operators E20 to the London Assembly.
That letter outlined the detail of the 'peace' deal that was agreed by the two parties in November.
The deal was reached minutes before a potentially costly court case, lasting up to six weeks, was set to start.
Under the agreement, London Stadium's capacity will initially rise from 57,000 to 60,000, with the club hopeful that extra space will be ready for the Premier League game against Brighton on 2 January.
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
arsegrapes
5:05 Thu Dec 13
Re: Worth more rent money?
|
£15 a seat would be about right as most of these extra 8-9k seats are already there up in he gods covered up. That's £135k per game X 19 = £ 2,565000
|
Kiwi Hammer
1:44 Thu Dec 13
Re: Worth more rent money?
|
Good business - 9000 x say £50 a seat = £450k. Wow outlay could be paid off in one game.
|
Alfs
1:13 Thu Dec 13
Re: Worth more rent money?
|
Isn't that the going rate for a 2 bed in Hackney nowadays?
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
12:55 Thu Dec 13
Re: Worth more rent money?
|
You have to factor in that the LLDC keep losing to us in court. On that basis, they may regard it as 450k for nothing.
|
Gavros
12:53 Thu Dec 13
Re: Worth more rent money?
|
450,000 for 6000 extra punters. Even if they all went out at 300 quid a pop season tickets and no one turned up, that's still a return of 400%.
The LLDC are absolute mugs!
|
J.Riddle
12:31 Thu Dec 13
Re: Worth more rent money?
|
At a guess I would think they would get 5 or 6 times that if cat 5 on tickets, doesn't include any cut of food, drink, programmes and or purchases in club shop. Then advertising reach is higher so will increase revenue.
|
mallard
12:14 Thu Dec 13
Re: Worth more rent money?
|
Peanuts
|
simon.s
12:03 Thu Dec 13
Re: Worth more rent money?
|
We’ve probably paid more in wages for players who’ve never even kicked a ball in the first team.
They are businessmen. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
