Taxpayers paying for West Ham's Stadium?

Late to join this one but the cock up was by the Olympic legacy committee who did not sort this out before the stadium was built. If they had sorted out a football tenant, the only logical answer, then it would have been built in a way that needed minimum alteration, as per Man City's ground. Ideally they would also have got rid of the stupid running track, a killer for football stadiums, but I grasp that leaving the track was part of the deal for winning the Olympics in the first place. Once the games were finished London was left with a huge white elephant. A couple of years of an empty stadium meant it was a doddle to get the stadium for a song. Most Olympics are a drain to the taxpayers of the nations, despite the lies we are told beforehand. Ours was no different.

In the end it was probably the best deal for the taxpayer but it was also an awful deal for the taxpayer. Just less awful than it could have been. Whether it works for West Ham is dependent on how well they can fill the gaps and create atmosphere. It could be a stinker for them but I hope not. They sound as if they have their heads screwed on with regards to pricing so that is a good start.
 
MegaSteve said:
Bottom line is... Aside from the Olympics athletics isn't that much of a draw...
Click to expand...

And the World Championships , Diamond League both which will sell out plus Euro's which is planned in the Stadium
 
MegaSteve said:
Hardly week in week out income though is it...
Click to expand...

Hence why a lot of stadiums have multi use and the Olympic Stadium should stay exactly that. As with the other sports from the Olympics - the legacy must remain
 
MegaSteve said:
Operate without outside financial assistance through grants etc...
Click to expand...

I'm struggling to see the point ? Yes a lot of athletes rely on money from UK Athletics and lottery etc - but what does that have to do with continuing with the sporting legacy of the Olympics and ensuring we still have a world class athletics venue in this country
 
The point MegaSteve is making, I think and happen to agree with, is that athletics can not justify a stadium as grand as the Olympic stadium. The income atheltics generates from the events it stages does not cover the costs of the stadium, I am excluding the building costs from that as that would just be silly. Large stadiums can only survive in the UK either via football or significant tax payer support. Athletics having this stadium is a luxury. People are entirely justified in questioning whether such a large stadium for a sport that can not pay its way is justified.

The Tottenham proposal of refitting Crystal Palace seemed a pretty good one as a stadium around 15-20,000 seats, set up for athletics only could be a real centre of excellence that would be more sustainable. A little like the cycling centre in Manchester. The Olympic stadium is simply too big and expensive to run for athletics to warrant.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
The point MegaSteve is making, I think and happen to agree with, is that athletics can not justify a stadium as grand as the Olympic stadium. The income atheltics generates from the events it stages does not cover the costs of the stadium, I am excluding the building costs from that as that would just be silly. Large stadiums can only survive in the UK either via football or significant tax payer support. Athletics having this stadium is a luxury. People are entirely justified in questioning whether such a large stadium for a sport that can not pay its way is justified.

The Tottenham proposal of refitting Crystal Palace seemed a pretty good one as a stadium around 15-20,000 seats, set up for athletics only could be a real centre of excellence that would be more sustainable. A little like the cycling centre in Manchester. The Olympic stadium is simply too big and expensive to run for athletics to warrant.
Click to expand...

And as I said - hence why the stadium becomes a multi event for not just athletics - we couldn't hold the World Atheltics with a stadium of just 20,000 - that's not the legacy meant from the Olympics

The Olympics were just the start of things - the stadia was built for more than just the two weeks - it was for the future as well , all the stadia is being used for the future of the sport. The Olympic stadium will be still used for athletics regardless of if it can fund - unfortunately not every sport gets helping hands from billionaire owners or multi billion telly deals - that doesn't mean that are shifted off into small stadiums so that the rich football teams can have the grand stadium - especially when it wasn't built for football
 
MegaSteve said:
Thought the legacy was to inspire folk up off their butts and to participate...

Not, leave behind an unaffordable white elephant...
Click to expand...

Part of the legacy was getting the best sporting events to the country - world championships for multiple sports. Enhance the exposure of sport in the country to encourage people to partake in many sports beyond the rich play ground of football
 
I haven't looked into this at all but surely one sensible answer would be to hold concerts in the same way Wembley Stadium did (saw the likes of Queen, Live Aid, Genesis etc). Would get regular use and income. Not sure what limitations there would be in terms of noise etc and how close the nearest accommodation is
 
Twire said:
All I'll say is it was a very unbalanced report. West Ham do have a cracking deal, but not quite as rosy as made out.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, I didn't see any of this mentioned in the BBC program.




Government responds to West Ham Olympic Stadium petition

A statement read: “West Ham United has a concession at the Stadium and their contributions reflect that status. The contract, awarded after an open public competition, has been widely scrutinised and tested in court.

“Following the completion of its transformation programme the Stadium will be – unlike so many previous Olympic Stadiums – a world-class multi-use arena with a long-term future, and one that won’t require continuous support from the taxpayer. The stadium remains in public ownership (E20 Stadium LLP – a joint venture between the London Legacy Development Corporation and Newham Council) and the profits from its multiple uses will flow to the taxpayer.

“As a long-term concessionaire West Ham United will only access the full stadium facilities for and shortly ahead of home matches, anticipated to be an average of 25 games a year. The stadium’s other anchor concession-holder, British Athletics, has a concession for one month a year. The stadium will be available for commercial and other uses at all times outside of these existing commitments.

“The Stadium is a multi-use venue, which has already hosted a major athletics meet this year, the Sainsbury’s Anniversary Games, and will host a range of other events in 2015 including five matches during the Rugby World Cup this autumn, a Rugby League international between England and New Zealand and the Race of Champions motorsport event. In addition the Stadium will host elite athletics including the IAAF and IPC Athletics World Championships in 2017.

“A world class stadium operator has been appointed and it is part of the operator agreement that the Stadium will host concerts and other events.

“None of these events will financially benefit West Ham United. All revenues from these events will be shared by the operator and the Stadium owners. The stadium operator has a proven international track record of success in managing and maximising revenue from multi-use stadia and is contractually incentivised to generate maximum income.

“The agreement with West Ham United, including their contribution to transformation costs and rent, followed an open competitive process, which was delivered under EU rules, conducted visibly and exposed to significant scrutiny. The outcome has been tested in the courts and upheld. As the winning bid this constituted the best available return for the taxpayer and secures the commercial viability of a national asset for the next 100 years.

“The European Commission (EC) is responsible for assessing whether public investment distorts the competitive market. The EC has considered this issue on more than one occasion and has done so with full sight of the contractual terms, comprehensive detail of the tender exercise and in depth legal opinion on compliance with UK and EU law. It has found no case to answer. Therefore we do not believe that a public inquiry is necessary.

“The detail of the rental agreement between the Stadium owners and West Ham United is commercially sensitive. Disclosing details of the contract would undermine the future negotiating position of the Stadium’s operator, Vinci, who are working hard to bring in future events to get the greatest possible return and ensure that the Stadium is a commercial success.

“It is important that the stadium owners and operator are able to negotiate future contracts in a way that derive maximum value and are not constrained by any one agreement. Such arrangements are standard practice and are designed to both protect the previous public expenditure and maximise the return on this investment.

“Department for Culture, Media and Sport.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top