Football Forum | Ticket Forum | Off-Topic Forum | All

Chigwell 6:47 Fri Jan 9
Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

Is he a Spurs fan by any chance?

From todays' Times:


Matt Dickinson Chief Sports Correspondent

Last updated at 12:01AM, January 9 2015



For the first time since that indelibly uplifting summer of 2012, I wandered through the Olympic Park this week. The memories came flooding back as, for £11 between four of us, we swam in the very pool where Michael Phelps made history.

For another £22 each (including bike and helmet hire, and an hour’s group tuition), we cycled around the wooden velodrome of Sir Chris Hoy’s epic triumph and Victoria Pendleton’s tears, feeling the thrill of defying gravity on its daunting 42-degree wooden banks.

Perhaps one day, too, we will sit again in the stadium where Mo Farah, Jessica Ennis and Greg Rutherford put the Super into Saturday, and Usain Bolt danced down the track into immortality, although I may resent paying that entrance fee. When West Ham United reopen the doors, me, you — all of us — should be demanding a free ticket given everything we have already put into that ground.

As the cranes and diggers continue to convert the Olympic Stadium into a new Barclays Premier League venue, I am not sure if any of us have quite cottoned on to the scale of our collective generosity and West Ham’s enormous good fortune.

Across London, Tottenham Hotspur are working out how to stay competitive while rebuilding White Hart Lane and only now Arsenal are emerging from the years of austerity paying for their £390 million home. Liverpool will have the financial pain of reconstructing Anfield.

Meanwhile, David Sullivan, the co-chairman, talks of “wonderful” times for West Ham and you can practically hear the champagne corks popping with his team flying high in the Premier League, a record £10.3 million profit last season and the move next year into a new gift-wrapped stadium.

There are many ways of measuring the bounteousness of our political leaders in the deal for West Ham, but the simplest is to consider that building and then converting the Olympic Stadium into a fitting home for football will eventually amount to more than £619 million (the figure is still rising) — and West Ham are contributing a paltry £15 million.

They are already guaranteed considerably more than that back for the sale of Upton Park to property developers. West Ham have declined to disclose the figure, but, whenever the amount emerges, it will only reinforce that they have won the jackpot.

It is not just any old stadium they are being handed on a 99-year lease, but an iconic site with fantastic accessibility; with newly installed undersoil heating, retractable seats so that the fans do not have to bear an unsightly running track, a vast extended roof (the largest single-span cantilever in the world) so they do not get wet and hospitality areas so that the owners can maximise matchday income.

There were questions regarding whether the arena would be suitable for football, but no one need have any fears now — certainly not West Ham. When the costs of converting an 80,000-seat Olympic stadium to a 54,000-capacity football ground leapt another £35.9 million last year to £189.9 million given the complexities of the roof, it was not the club’s problem. The stadium owners, the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), had to dig into its contingency fund by flogging off more spare bits of the Olympic site.

The costs to the LLDC are still climbing, ramming home the epic foolishness of excluding football in the original plans.

It is a mistake that has been rectified by all of us, through the Treasury pot, the Mayor of London’s office and a £10 million loan from Newham Council, which gets to use the stadium for mass community events.

There will be a return to the taxpayer in the basic rent paid by West Ham, of between £2 million to £3 million a year — though that amount, too, has to be a bargain for the club given how easily it should be covered by a surge in matchday income.

Consider that West Ham will take all the revenue from ticketing and corporate hospitality. That includes 3,600 premium seats, with the highest cost for whoever wants to sit in Her Majesty’s old seat.

Oh, yes, and rent is automatically reduced in the event of relegation — so Newham Council’s income will diminish if Sam Allardyce messes up, which is probably not how it should work in one of the capital’s most deprived boroughs. West Ham must share income from catering kiosks and naming rights, but they would not have had a penny from the latter at Upton Park.

The club talk up job creation and the boost to the area that their arrival will bring.

And, yes, the more vibrant the Queen Elizabeth II Park becomes the better. The regeneration of a deprived area can be reality and not just political hogwash.

There will be new opportunities for the local community, but no one stands to gain quite like West Ham’s owners. Over many decades, the taxpayer can recoup some of its investment but the obvious, spectacular and immediate gains are all for the club.

Sullivan is already boasting of West Ham being worth £400 million at the new home. It was valued at £105 million when he and David Gold bought it in 2010.

The owners have had to agree to pay a one-off windfall back to LLDC in the event that they sell up in the next ten years, but there is nothing to stop them trying to offload 20 per cent to reduce their debts or cashing out down the line.

No wonder Barry Hearn, the owner of Leyton Orient at the time, was so enraged to lose out in the bidding, calling the deal given to West Ham “state sponsorship beyond my wildest dreams”.

He claims that the contract requires LLDC to pay for security, police, stewarding, ground maintenance and other ancillary costs that, in coming to more than £2 million a year, effectively gives West Ham the stadium rent-free.

In the circumstances, it is surprising that more Premier League rivals have not kicked up a fuss. Maybe it has not yet hit home that this is a deal that, especially given London construction costs, outdoes anything that Manchester City secured when they took over their new ground after the Commonwealth Games.

Maybe we are all just glad that the place is not a white elephant; relieved that there are no more political rows.

The stadium always did need football and perhaps we should just accept West Ham’s luck in being best-placed to capitalise — but what luck it is when their own website positively gushes about all the gains.

Reality Cheques 7:39 Sun Jan 11
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

Gavors
3.52

The reason why Coe’s name doesn’t get mentioned much in these articles is that the decision about what happened to the stadium long term really had little to nothing to do with him as an individual despite all the conspiracy theories about him being Chelsea fan & or some failed footballer, or some of the other crap I’ve read on this thread & it’s just plain ignorance of the facts to think otherwise.

It was almost entirely down to Livingstone as the Mayor & Jowell as his main ally in government dealing with the Treasury & Brown.

In fairness to Livngstone he made it plain from day one when he put his weight behind London even bidding that it had nothing whatsoever to do with sport & little or nothing to do with showcasing London for a fortnights jamboree. For him, it was always about a once in a life time opportunity of completely regenerating a deprived area on London.

As a non Labour supporter , but East Londoner I made him right at the time & I still do regarding the latter.

Hence to try & avoid the white elephant the plan was the reduced stadium plan as we know . I seriously doubt very much that politically & the general public would have supported & swallowed the concept of building it in partnership with a P/L club for their use afterwards. Given the shit storm that has being going on since about 2010 regarding the use of the main stadium, the bid would never have got off the ground in the UK never mind actually winning the Olympic bidding process itself against the toughest of opposition in Olympic history. Some & perhaps many would have rejoiced in the latter , but not me nor many others as personally I didn’t give a fuck at the time & nor still do as to whether we move there or don’t . However, I do agree with Gavros that it would have been a waste to reduce it to a 25k stadium.

As for WH’s so called 100K offer at the, even though that wouldn’t have still been enough to sell it to Joe Public politically, Jowell’s counter argument against that is that the plans & proposals were based on straw & given the fact that within a year or two the whole Icelandic bubble burst you’ll have a hard job proving that assertion was wrong. How was that ever going to work making a deal with a owner convicted of fraud - laughable Indeed, it’s likely that if the government at the time took that route then it’ll have even moe egg on it’s face that the situation it’s ended up in.

As for the article , personally I think it’s just lazy journalism & certainly offers nothing new be that on facts & or perspective.

Whilst only being a minor thing, as Gavros says this bloke will never ever pay to get in to watch a game there anyway, so he’ll never resent anything in that context. WH don’t own the stadium & as many have pointed out we’re merely tenants only, effectively paying rent for use over a 9 month period. Now wether we’re paying enough rent is purely subjective. In any market or sale of anything, something is only worth what someone is willing to pay & after the bidding process I can only assume ours was the best offer on the table.

As for him saying WH’s website even states what a great deal it is , what does he expect it to say - it’s shit to average ? I’m not saying it’s the latter at all , but WH have to sell it to the fans to even have a hope of making it a success. Thus, do I think WH have finally hit the jackpot & fallen in shit & finally come up smelling of roses ? I’m open-minded on that & far too early to tell in my book. It could be the making of the club for sure & equally in a few years time it could be a total fuck up & a great regret.

I don’t care what anyone says , pro or anti the move, no one will know for certain for a few years yet whether it was a wise move or not & in that sense it’s a gamble.

Gavros 3:52 Sun Jan 11
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

It was jowell and Livingstone who made the final decision to make it a 25k athletics only stadium. What a fucking waste that would have been.

Arko 3:12 Sun Jan 11
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

Coe will always get off lightly as he was a great athlete and a hero obviously for bringing the Olympic Games to London, at least he was a main contributor to the cause.

Somehow this is enough to protect him from major criticism about his shortsightedness with regard to post-Olympics use of the OS.

He should carry a hefty portion of the blame for this, but as he's won medals and brought the Olympics to London he keeps on wearing his halo and dreams of the day when athletics will be more popular in the public eye than football...

Lily Hammer 2:53 Sun Jan 11
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

Coe doesn't get mentioned enough in these articles, not the ones I've read.

His name and role in this fiasco of spiraling costs should be far more prominent. I bet every time further unexpected costs are announced, he cringes and feels another ulcer kicking off.

Rodfarts 2:14 Sun Jan 11
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

dicksie3 1:42 Sun Jan 11
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal



I would love to see there faces on the day they attend their 1st OS game(and they will be there despite what they have all said).


Watching them with a MASSIVE smile on their boats whilst thinking fuck what a cunt I was to be against this move.

dicksie3 1:42 Sun Jan 11
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

"Hard to argue with him. We have been incredibly fortunate and the fact that some fans don't want us to move to a brand new, very expensive, state of the art stadium with better transport links, a nicer surrounding area and for a rent of just 3 million a year is pretty bizarre!"

Because some of our fans are as fucking thick as pig shit...

Gavros 1:28 Sun Jan 11
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

The twat will get in for free anyway.

Gloucester Iron 1:25 Sun Jan 11
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

Thanks very much for your contribution to OUR new ground, Matt!

13 Brentford Rd 11:53 Sun Jan 11
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

We offered 100m at the start all those years ago.
COE, JOWELL AND LIVINGSTONE did not want us or football there though.

We offered 40m to share ownership and the RESPONSIBILITYwith Newham council but that was unacceptable too. What else can we do, not our ground is it and will be used for many other events so why should we pay more?

The clue to the deal is in the term TENANT.

El Coucho 10:28 Sun Jan 11
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

One team is right. Man City got given their stadium for nothing and it was always Anne that way. The only complaint I heard about that was from Bill Kenright at Everton.

Also worth mentioning that West Ham tried to offer £100m to get retractable seats in the design from the start.

AdamL 1:24 Sun Jan 11
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

Hard to argue with him. We have been incredibly fortunate and the fact that some fans don't want us to move to a brand new, very expensive, state of the art stadium with better transport links, a nicer surrounding area and for a rent of just 3 million a year is pretty bizarre!

Side of Ham 1:06 Sun Jan 11
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

The deal works for the nation though.... we have it through all the shitty months when it's nigh on impossible to rent out and the nation has it back for the summer.

mentor 12:54 Sun Jan 11
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

everyone else is probably thinking it's an absolute piss take

Who gives a fuck about everyone else?

Side of Ham 12:51 Sun Jan 11
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

When you think about it as an outdoor venue without us as tennants it would only be used in the summer months including Music Gigs/Athletics. West Ham are effectively using/renting the stadium in the majority of months it wouldn't be used and a left empty.

The nations population will get enough usage with events booked and probably the best of the weather to do so.It will be an excellent acoustic stadium by it's changes and this will appeal to many a rock band.

Northern Sold 11:03 Sat Jan 10
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

We are doing the tax payer a massive favour.



Partly correct.... the West Ham game attending London tax payer..... everyone else is probably thinking it's an absolute piss take

oneteaminlondon 10:59 Sat Jan 10
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

Without West Ham United the place would soon be rotting hulk instead of and asset to the tax payer. We are doing the tax payer a massive favour.

Why wasn't there the same uproar about Men City taking on the former Commonwealth Games stadium? And weren't they given it for keeps?

neilalex 1:35 Sat Jan 10
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

In fairness he does lay the blame where it lies ie. the 'epic foolishness' of not considering football in the original plans.

Regardless of what that po faced little cunt Coe says, the whole thing was a vainglorious monument to his minority sport. Payback for all those times he was last pick for the football teams on the playground.

deanfergi 1:23 Sat Jan 10
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

As we have the OS for 19 home PL games per season does anyone know how/what we pay for home cup game use? Or if we get refunded if the PL gets reduced for example?..

dicksie3 1:13 Sat Jan 10
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

The cloaked folk say the move is going to bankrupt our club though and turn us into non-league tripe cunt shit?

Eerie Descent 1:10 Sat Jan 10
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

Enjoyed reading that.

CR 1:08 Sat Jan 10
Re: Matt Dickinson does not like our OS deal

I believe the reason why people are so upset with our stadium deal is that we will stop being the but of the joke. West ham have always underperformed allowing others to have a joke at our expense. We have got ourselves a good deal with the stadium which has upset both bigger and smaller clubs. The bigger clubs are afraid it will be another club competing for top places in the league Smaller clubs see someone else moving up and away from them.

Page 1 - Next