Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] West Ham stadium details



Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,529
Back in Sussex
- £2.5m per year in rent in Premier League.
- £1.25m per year in rent if relegated.
- The first £4m of any naming rights deal will go to the LLDC and Newham borough, with anything above that between the two bodies and West Ham.
- £1m if West Ham win the Champions League
- £250k if West Ham qualify for the Champions League group stages
- £100k if West Ham win the FA Cup or Europa League, or qualify for it
- £100k if West Ham finish in the top five in the Premier League, with smaller payments for other positions in the top 10

BBC article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36043808
Full 207 page document here: http://queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/~/media/lldc/concession agreement 2016.pdf
 


Giraffe

VERY part time moderator
Helpful Moderator
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Aug 8, 2005
26,421
Absolutely nuts, a classic case of the public sector being run by total idiots.

I also believe that they get all the stewarding free with the stadium rent as well?
 


Official Old Man

Uckfield Seagull
Aug 27, 2011
8,458
Brighton
Naming rights.
What's the going rate?
First £4 million to the owners and the rest split between owners & WHU. They could make a profit without playing a game.
 


TWOCHOICEStom

Well-known member
Sep 22, 2007
10,537
Brighton
"West Ham say they have nothing to hide, believe it is a "great deal" for the club and the taxpayer, and say the stadium offers a true legacy.The club added: "Someone renting the stadium for 25 days a year cannot be responsible for 365 days' running costs.""

No, but you could be expected to pay for the staff, heating and lighting on the 25 days you DO use it.
 

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
49,900
Goldstone
It's really quite upsetting to see our money being thrown at rich businessmen like that.

The club added: "Someone renting the stadium for 25 days a year cannot be responsible for 365 days' running costs.""
Every other club has to pay for their stadium, just for the 25 days use.
 


The Andy Naylor Fan Club

Well-known member
Aug 31, 2012
5,143
Right Here, Right Now
"West Ham say they have nothing to hide, believe it is a "great deal" for the club and the taxpayer, and say the stadium offers a true legacy.The club added: "Someone renting the stadium for 25 days a year cannot be responsible for 365 days' running costs.""

No, but you could be expected to pay for the staff, heating and lighting on the 25 days you DO use it.

Does the LLDC have rights to use the stadium for the other 340 days of the year to raise additional revenues?
 

Pinkie Brown

I'll look after the skirt
Sep 5, 2007
3,532
Neues Zeitalter DDR
That has cost at least £272m to convert for football usage!

This figure I really struggle to comprehend. How did it cost so much when the basic infrastructure of the stadium including transport facilities at Stratford were already in place? Very different to the Amex where the whole thing was started from scratch. To an outsider, it appeared to just need some adaptive reuse alterations and other tweaking? £272 million worth though?
 

KVLT

New member
Sep 15, 2008
1,675
Rutland
Absolutely nuts, a classic case of the public sector being run by total idiots.

I also believe that they get all the stewarding free with the stadium rent as well?

Below is a list of other items, outlined in the agreement made public on Thursday October 8th 2015, which the Hammers will not have to fund:

Undersoil heating and floodlighting
Ticket office and turnstiles
Drug testing and medical facilities
Concession areas cleared of snow and ice as required
Team changing rooms, plus changing rooms for ball persons and officials
Security, cleaning, pest control
Stadium tannoy, generator, CCTV surveillance system and monitors
LED pitch-side signage, scoreboards and jumbo video screens at each end of the pitch

Shady, shady Karren Brady.
 

Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
61,647
Location Location
This is what happens when a government and local authority throw VAST amounts of public cash at an enormous vanity project for 2 weeks of running and jumping, with absolutely NO viable legacy in place afterwards.

Distasteful as it is, West Ham have merely taken advantage of that folly and brokered the best deal they could get. Theirs was the ONLY deal on the table whereby the LLDC could at least claw back a tiny proportion of the cataclysmic amount of money they spunked on that stadium. Short of tearing the whole thing down and building flats on the site (never gonna happen, the fallout from that would be just as bad if not worse), West Ham was the only deal in town.

LLDC were over a barrel, and have been brutally f****d over accordingly. Don't blame West Ham. Blame the egos and the politicians who gave this thing the go-ahead in the first place with no plans on what to do with a 60,000 seater athletics stadium once the Games had been and gone.
 


KVLT

New member
Sep 15, 2008
1,675
Rutland
Karren Brady:

"During the negotiations, did I do the best deal I could for West Ham United? Of course I did, that's my job, but not at the expense of the taxpayer. I think what is very clear to anyone reading the agreement for the first time, is just how determined I was to protect the rights of West Ham United and our fans during the negotiations, while also ensuring it was fair to the taxpayer."

???
 

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills


Top
Link Here