West Ham and the Olympic Stadium

Amelia Chaffinch · 14-04-2016, 21:03

I've just seen a piece on SSN that West Ham will not be paying for policing, stewarding, power, etc when they move into the Olympic Stadium. Alright, they're paying mega rent but why should the taxpayer be footing the bill? The taxpayer is well and truly hammered. Doh

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/we...25486.html

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/1...ic-stadium

**Lord Snooty** · 14-04-2016, 21:04

Barry Hearn's not happy.

**themaclad** · 14-04-2016, 21:45

Suspect neither are the tax payers of Newham

**St Charles Owl** · 14-04-2016, 23:51

I don't think its that bad a deal for the taxpayer!! There is some significant revenue coming from both West Ham matches and other events going to the tax payer as well as the actual rent they will get. I think its a bit unfair to blame West Ham or the LLDC for this one, this stadium was built for a very successful Olympic Games and making sure it has a suitable and profitable use beyond that is vital unless it is to become just another Olympic Stadium needing knocking down. Without WHU moving there then this would have become an even bigger drain on the local community and taxpayer, and despite what that honest man Barry Hearn will say, any deal with Leyton Orient was never going to provide anywhere near the revenues that this deal will give the taxpayer!!

West Ham have certainly benefited by not having to pay for the building of their own stadium, but this does represent a good use of a stadium who use was going to be very limited.

**spireitematt** · 15-04-2016, 00:36

I disagree St Charles Owl. We all know how this has come about and do you remember back in September the Government refused an investigation into it. I wonder why?

**St Charles Owl** · 15-04-2016, 03:00

Problem is though, what was the alternative?? This stadium was built but unlikely to be used much at all, getting this deal done means it will have a regular use instead of becoming a white elephant like we have seen after Olympic Games in cities. Sure they could have maybe got more by negotiating harder but this is better than it sat empty and from what I saw there was no other viable alternative.

SHEP_HTAFC · 15-04-2016, 10:57

Like most football stadiums around the country, they sit empty for all but 20-25 days of the year.
West Ham are paying £2.5M a year for say 25 days use. That amounts to £100K per match day to use the stadium.
I think both parties are getting a good deal.

The only issue I have is with the payments for policing. West Ham pay nowt. Not a bean.
Really screwed that one up did LLDC.

WakeyTerrier · 15-04-2016, 12:32

Deal of the Century as far as the Hammers are concerned and at what cost?

Well West Ham paid £15million towards the renovations, and will pay £2.5million per season whilst in the Premier League...this could potentially rise to £3.5million if they win the Champions League(never happening.

Cost of stadium originally £537million
Cost to convert it for football use £272million

Do the maths..... Stadium total £809million

Cost for West Ham over 99 year lease £262.5million, even if they won the champions League for the next 99years they wouldn't cover the cost.

Having the Tax payer paying for policing and stewards gives them a unfair advantage over every other club and under FA,UEFA and FIFA rules this is not allowed.

Me thinks clubs will contest the deal and it will have to be re written

**spireitematt** · 16-04-2016, 01:36

(14-04-2016, 23:51)St Charles Owl Wrote: I don't think its that bad a deal for the taxpayer!! There is some significant revenue coming from both West Ham matches and other events going to the tax payer as well as the actual rent they will get. I think its a bit unfair to blame West Ham or the LLDC for this one, this stadium was built for a very successful Olympic Games and making sure it has a suitable and profitable use beyond that is vital unless it is to become just another Olympic Stadium needing knocking down. Without WHU moving there then this would have become an even bigger drain on the local community and taxpayer, and despite what that honest man Barry Hearn will say, any deal with Leyton Orient was never going to provide anywhere near the revenues that this deal will give the taxpayer!!

West Ham have certainly benefited by not having to pay for the building of their own stadium, but this does represent a good use of a stadium who use was going to be very limited.

The use of the stadium wasn't and isn't going to be very limited as there were plans for concerts, Rugby matches (they played World Cup matches there) there was talk of setting up a London franchise American Football team and they would play there games there. It's used for Athletics, there was talk of Kent, Middlesex and Essex interested in playing cricket on there because of the oval shape.

There was no way Orient would have been able to have the stadium as they wouldn't have filled it but because the stadium is so close to Leyton Orient it could have an affect on Orient's attendances.

Its questionable if they knew that there was going to be an Olympic stadium was there any need to rebuild Wembley? Because the Olympic stadium could have hosted cup finals and England internationals.

theo_luddite · 16-04-2016, 12:59

Who gets the money for the Boleyn Ground when it is sold for the inevitable redevelopment? The 'Ammers or the taxpayer?