West Ham... Olympic Stadium

[jevs]

Hopefully here's a few answers to your questions

HOW WILL THE STADIUM WORK FOR WEST HAM FANS? BY SIMON CASS
Will the athletics track have to go?
Not if the next generation of Mo Farahs and company are going to have something to run on in five years’ time. The stadium will host the 2017 World Athletics Championships after Lord Coe’s persuasive powers proved instrumental in bringing yet another major sporting event to London following the best Olympic Games in history.

How will the seating work in such a large venue?
Here’s where the money starts mounting up. A key part of West Ham’s bid is to retain the running track but they do not want fans match-day experience to suffer. The plan is to install retractable seating to slide over the running track to ensure Hammers’ fans continue to get a close up view of their club’s renaissance.

Will the venue get a roof?
Mercifully the weather held out for those magical nights in August but the stadium was originally conceived as a summer venue. Another chunk of cash has been earmarked to extend the venue’s circular roof to protect West Ham fans from the unpredictable elements.

How much is all this going to cost?
Converting the iconic venue to one which fits the bill for the Barclays Premier League, and one which can also cater for athletics and pop concerts, won’t come cheap. Estimates for the work range between £130million up to £200m and it is worth remembering the stadium cost £429m to put up in the first place.

So who is going to cough up?
Well, West Ham are willing to part with £15m towards the conversion plus £9million annually in rent and cash from commercial proceeds. Fellow tenants, Newham Council, are in for between £40m and £60m while the Treasury has reached into its pockets for another £38million. Some shortfall estimates for the work range between £15 and £20m although West Ham argue that the cost of the conversion is covered with the cash already on the table.

This is starting to sound like a cracking deal for West Ham - are they getting a 60,000 stadium for a knockdown price?
There is little doubt that moving home would do wonders financially for a club currently around £80 million in debt and turning over around £80 million a year, provided they can maintain their top flight status. Do so and the match day revenue generated by the move to Stratford will dwarf the £18m they pull in annually at Upton Park. David Gold and David Sullivan shelled out in the region of £50m to buy a 50% controlling stake in West Ham in January 2010 and a Premier League club with an iconic, state of the art home could certainly be an attractive proposition for outside investors. But one of the caveats of West Ham’s lease is expected to be that they share a slice of the profits with taxpayers if Gold and Sullivan eventually decide to cash in.

So off to the New Boleyn Ground we go then?
Romantic though that sounds, there is little prospect that West Ham will not attempt to sell the naming rights to their new ground. Manchester City get an estimated £400m from Etihad to have the airline’s name emblazoned on what was the City of Manchester Stadium, constructed for the 2006 Commonwealth Games. And while West Ham are unlikely to strike a deal of that magnitude, the potential naming rights cash would be too tempting to turn down especially if it covered the £9m-a-year they are paying their landlords.

And what happens to West Ham’s old Green Street home?
Flattened is the overwhelming expectation. A 99-year lease on their new arena means the beige towers built from the proceeds of the £18m sale of Rio Ferdinand to Leeds will slip into memory. Potential buyers are already circling with community houses, flats and a supermarket the likely uses for the site.

When will West Ham move in?
Prior to the last bidding process collapsing in May, the club reckoned they could be out of their present home by the summer of 2014. But as a result of the delays in reaching a decision about the fate of the Olympic Stadium West Ham will need to extend that until at least the start of the2015/16 season. Many feel that timescale errs on the optimistic side as the necessary construction work may take until the summer of 2016 to be finished.


Read more: West Ham handed Olympic Stadium: Club wins three-year battle for arena | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Triggaaar]

Hopefully here's a few answers to your questions

Not really, it seems like a complete joke to me. The stadium belongs to the public, cost about £429m, will cost another £160-£200m, so why should West Ham get it for something like £20m - AND then be able to sell naming rights and then sell the club for a profit? The profit will simply because the public have paid for a magnificent stadium and given it to West Ham cheap.

 

[jevs]

Not really, it seems like a complete joke to me. The stadium belongs to the public, cost about £429m, will cost another £160-£200m, so why should West Ham get it for something like £20m - AND then be able to sell naming rights and then sell the club for a profit? The profit will simply because the public have paid for a magnificent stadium and given it to West Ham cheap.

So what are your suggestions then ?

 

[Bob!]

Hopefully here's a few answers to your questions

Would West Ham get to keep the money from the sale of the Boleyn?

 

[jevs]

Would West Ham get to keep the money from the sale of the Boleyn?

I honestly don't know the answer but i would assume so

 

[Doc Lynam]

So the Olympic legacy is West Ham get a new football stadium, with a further 150/ 200 million minimum being paid for on alterations by us. Brilliant!

Can i blame "Lord" Coe for any of this?

 

[Triggaaar]

So what are your suggestions then ?

For the owners, my suggestion is to go for it, you're going to make a packet. For the fans - I don't know, I'd want to see how the stadium will look. You could end up being a big club (after being bought by some Arabs) with 60k per game. That will sound appealing to a lot of fans (particularly those that don't go to games).

For the rest of us, my suggestion is - if a club (any) wants the stadium, then they need to pay for it. Why should Newham council pay 40-60m and WH pay 20 ish? And WH get to sell the naming rights? Surely the treasury and Newham council should the lions share of those if they're paying the lions share. I can't see what's in this for anyone except the club, and they're the ones that aren't paying for it. Brighton have had to pay £100m for a 30k stadium, surely the clubs up there (WH and Spurs) should have to pay that much for a 60k stadium.

 

[Poojah]

Putting the commercial arguments to one side, how are the retractable seats going to work? The front row of seats is already at pitch / track level, so surely any further retractable seats could only be flat and therefore still awful from a spectator's perspective, no?

I recall similar plans were touted for the new Wembley some time ago, but were subsequently scrapped on the basis that they where shit.

 

[Cat Fish]

Lot of misinformed bullshit on this thread regarding this isnt there?

Why should West Ham give profits from their existing ground to go towards the Olympic Stadium? If you sold your house and decided to rent would you give your new landlord a share?

West Ham are not getting the stadium for £15m they are offering to pay towards conversion and then pay £9m a year in rent. This I think is until conversion costs are payed for so at approx £160m conversion costs minus £15m initial outlay they could be paying £9m for 17 years. After that my belief is annual rent would decrease to approx 2.5m a year for the remaining 82 years. This equates to West Ham putting in a total of £372 million over the period.

If you were looking to rent a house and you found one with no toilet in you would expect your landlord to put one in. This equates to West Ham paying for it to be put in themselves.

The government in their arrogance rejected football from the off despite West Ham offering 100 million towards the cost up front if they could buy it after the event and have a say in its design. They then designed a stadium that purposefully wouldnt be suitable for football - sheer arrogance and mis managing of public money. Football was always the best chance of a decent legacy and they ignored it. Stade de France should have been the template from the off.

West HAm are actually taking a massive risk as they will no longer own a ground so will have no asset to secure finance against. They are doing the government a favour IMHO! If West Ham pulled out the public have a state subsidised White Elephant on their hands which will dwarf the O2 fiasco.

The conversion is basically doing what the stadium should have done in the first place - Government balls up from day one and only in this country could we design a stadium with no forethought of what will happen post event. No toilet or catering facilities within the structure, no corporate facilities and design for a six week period only. That is the real disgrace.

The government will be desperate to offload this and West Ham know it. They will get a great deal out of it - why not? - any other club would!

Potentially I see West Ham being the new Man City - look what happened to them after they moved into The Ethiad.

Bottom line - No West Ham will cost us money long term.

 

[Cat Fish]

For the owners, my suggestion is to go for it, you're going to make a packet. For the fans - I don't know, I'd want to see how the stadium will look. You could end up being a big club (after being bought by some Arabs) with 60k per game. That will sound appealing to a lot of fans (particularly those that don't go to games).

For the rest of us, my suggestion is - if a club (any) wants the stadium, then they need to pay for it. Why should Newham council pay 40-60m and WH pay 20 ish? And WH get to sell the naming rights? Surely the treasury and Newham council should the lions share of those if they're paying the lions share. I can't see what's in this for anyone except the club, and they're the ones that aren't paying for it. Brighton have had to pay £100m for a 30k stadium, surely the clubs up there (WH and Spurs) should have to pay that much for a 60k stadium.

We own ours West Ham will be renting.

 

[Triggaaar]

Why should West Ham give profits from their existing ground to go towards the Olympic Stadium?

They shouldn't.

West Ham are not getting the stadium for £15m they are offering to pay towards conversion and then pay £9m a year in rent. This I think is until conversion costs are payed for so at approx £160m conversion costs minus £15m initial outlay they could be paying £9m for 17 years. After that my belief is annual rent would decrease to approx 2.5m a year for the remaining 82 years.

So even ignoring the original cost of the stadium, the stadium's costing about £180m. £9m/yr rent on that in 5%, which sounds fair enough. That won't pay of the cots though, that will just service the debt. Money isn't free is it. But after 17 years, they only have to pay £2.5m (1.5%, even ignoring the current valuation of the stadium). That's crazy.

If you were looking to rent a house and you found one with no toilet in you would expect your landlord to put one in. This equates to West Ham paying for it to be put in themselves.

This is like looking to rent a £300k house, and asking the owner to install a swimming pool, new basement with cinema, etc costing £100k. And For this, you want to pay £10k up front, then £5k a year rent (5% of the cost), which is less than the rent of the original house. Oh, and after 18 years, you want your rent to drop to £1,500 per year.

If West Ham pulled out the public have a state subsidised White Elephant on their hands which will dwarf the O2 fiasco.

If the government just scrapped it as is, how would that cost more than spending £160m, and getting a 5% return for 17 years, followed by a 1.5% return (ie, a loss) for 82 years?

The conversion is basically doing what the stadium should have done in the first place - Government balls up from day one

I don't disagree, just looking at what's the best thing to do now.

The government will be desperate to offload this and West Ham know it. They will get a great deal out of it - why not?

Eh? You just said West Ham are taking a massive risk and doing the government a favour, now you're saying it's a great deal and any other club would do the same. I agree any other club would do the same, I think this is good for the rich owners, but I don't think it's good for public money, I think they should get more.

Potentially I see West Ham being the new Man City - look what happened to them after they moved into The Ethiad.

Indeed, so don't let them have such a ridiculously cheap deal then.

Bottom line - No West Ham will cost us money long term.

I don't know what that means. Is it 'No WH will NOT cost us money' or 'Know WH WILL cost us money'?

We own ours West Ham will be renting.

Sure, but a 60k stadium with amazing transport links for £2.5m a year is stupidly cheap.