[St Charles Owl]

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.

And the stadium can still be used for all those events, this is not just West Ham's stadium to use.  West Ham will end up the biggest renter of the stadium, but as you say there will be plenty others.  As Wakey said, I think this is a great deal for West Ham and a decent one for the taxpayers.

[theo_luddite]

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

 
I googled it as nobody seems to know. Apparently West Ham trousered anything up to the £70 million that they valued it on their books. So great deal for the 'ammers and stuff the tax payer. The  Olympic Stadium was a typical British White Elephant with no realistic plan in place to do anything with it other than strip it back to bare bones and make it maybe a 20,000 seat athletics stadium to be used twice a year. Had they engaged with a West Ham or a Spurs or even the FA then Lord Coe's legacy might have happened had the stadium been designed with football in mind rather than athletics. Instead West Ham pay peanuts per year unless there's an annual inflation clause in the agreement. They will trouser at least £100 million per year from the new TV agreements as long as they don't get relegated. 

[St Charles Owl]

There isn't that much difference between this deal and the one Man City got for the Ethiad, which is still owned by the local council.

[theo_luddite]

Might be wrong, didn't the council take over Maine Road as part of the deal? Moss Side still doesn't look much better mind.

[HighlandTerrier58]

I agree with much of what has been written above but do feel a little uneasy about the way this all panned out, especially the desire of certain parties to hold their cards so close to their chests. Having lived up the road in Walthamstow for some years I also do feel for the Orient. Of course they wouldn't fill the venue but it's right on their doorstep and must be a body blow to a grand old club. I hope to hell the fixture computer doesn't make them clash with West Ham!
The following link is quite an interesting read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Ma...er_Stadium

One wonders if The Hammers will develop the vicinity of their stadium in the same way Manchester has. I suspect not. Clearly land values there [Stratford] are astronomical in comparison but I can't get away from the feeling that West Ham's motives are purely [and in this modern game understandably] selfish. There is something about the whole process that leaves a bad taste in my mouth although I do accept that the risk of a 'white elephant' could not be swept under the carpet and at least the issue seems to have been resolved.
In terms of the taxpayer I can only assume that West Ham's taxable revenue will be the benefit.
More importantly, Town's win at Ewood Park today leaves me feeling decidedly chuffed!

UTT.

[WakeyTerrier]

Lots of Chinese and Arab investment in the surrounding land around the ground.

For the record Man City paid £20million of the £40million cost to convert the Etihad and pay £4million in rent per year