1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

New Stadium

Discussion in 'West Ham United' started by saint_clark, Sep 2, 2016.

  1. saint_clark

    saint_clark Up the Saints

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    18,611
    Likes Received:
    593
    Supports:
    Southampton
    So lads, visiting your new gaff on the 25th...stuff I've read online has said that the best bet for getting away is the Stratford station, but if the away end is on the south side then for us further south we should head for Pudding Mill station-Canary Wharf-Waterloo right? Seems the quickest way to me especially if crowds are controlled to Stratford and the away end is that way anyway.
    Also, where's good for away fans to drink (if anywhere)?
     
  2. SFCFAN

    SFCFAN 75 OF THE 92 GROUNDS DONE

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    7,799
    Likes Received:
    4
    Supports:
    SOUTHAMPTON
    Paid for tickets over 2 weeks ago still havent arrived, heard the delays West Ham's anyone know whats going on?
     
  3. Red Tide

    Red Tide Registered User

    Joined:
    May 7, 2018
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    233
    Location:
    Scotland
    Supports:
    Man United/Rangers
    West Ham: London Stadium rent 'does not even cover cost of matches', owners say

    52 minutes ago | West Ham

    West Ham's rent at their London Stadium "does not even cover cost of staging matches", the ground's owners say.

    Lyn Garner, London Legacy Development Corporation chief executive, also said "high operating costs" and "a lack of commercialisation" meant they were facing "losses for the next 97 years".

    West Ham have paid an annual rent of £2.5m since moving in in August 2016.

    The stadium, built for the London Olympics in 2012, has been dogged by controversy over its finances.

    In July, it was revealed £450,000 of taxpayers' money had been spent on unsuccessfully searching for a sponsor for the venue, which cost £323m to convert into a football ground after an original estimate of £190m.

    It was planned that any sponsorship would offset some of the £140m losses expected over the next 10 years.

    "To be honest, what is really driving the problems here are the low rents paid by the concessionaires, particularly West Ham," Garner told a London Assembly meeting.

    "The elephant in the room is the fee that they pay us in a usage cost does not cover the event-day costs, and that's before we go anywhere near a commercial advantage. It simply does not cover the costs of running the events on a day-to-day basis.

    "The stadium is a centrepiece of the legacy of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. It's really important that we tackle the public subsidy issue over the next few years. There is much to do and many reasons for it."

    '300k is a drop in the ocean'

    Garner also said the group had decided to reject West Ham's offer to pay £300,000 to change the colour of the running track around the ground, from green to claret.

    She said it was rejected for a variety of reasons, including the fact "it could affect potential naming rights" deals, adding that they were in discussions overcharging an annual commercial fee of "around £300,000" instead.

    "The usage fee is extremely low," she added. "We could take the £300k. It's a drop in the ocean for the size of the losses we are dealing with and will be dealing with for the next 97 years of this contract.

    "But it's not unreasonable to ask the club to pay something extra for something they are getting back which is extra."

    Meanwhile, LLDC chairman Sir Peter Hendy told assembly members that it was wrong to suggest the stadium was not suitable for football - one of the reasons that have been put forward by some looking to explain the club's recent on-pitch struggles as they sit bottom of the Premier League.

    He cited recent quotes from manager Manuel Pellegrini in which he said: "The pitch has the same measurements. The grass is in very good shape. The atmosphere with 55,000 people is great. The stadium is not an excuse."


    West Ham: London Stadium rent 'does not even cover cost of matches', owners say


     
  4. Red Tide

    Red Tide Registered User

    Joined:
    May 7, 2018
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    233
    Location:
    Scotland
    Supports:
    Man United/Rangers
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    West Ham have refused to retract claims that the public is being "misled" by London Stadium's owners over the venue's financial struggles.

    London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) said it was running at a loss because of "low rents" paid by the Hammers, a claim the club dispute.

    LLDC asked for a retraction of the club's claim it had misled the public.

    In response, West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady says the owners "have not managed costs competently".

    In a letter, to London Assembly chairman Tony Arbour, seen by the BBC, Brady said: "We are staggered that the operating costs at the London Stadium exceed revenue."

    Brady says LLDC chief executive Lyn Garner "omitted a number of key facts" at a London Assembly meeting last Friday.

    Garner had said: "The elephant in the room is that the fee [West Ham] pay us for usage costs does not cover the event-day costs."

    The Premier League club responded by saying it was "concerned" that "the public and, more importantly, taxpayers" were being "deliberately misled" over the long-running financial struggles of a stadium that was built for the London Olympics in 2012.

    The Hammers say they contribute a total of £10m a year in revenue, including rent.

    A letter sent by LLDC chairman Sir Peter Hendy on Monday in response to West Ham's statement read: "This is an extremely serious and damaging statement to make against public officials appearing before elected assembly members and we will be asking West Ham to retract the claim."

    The letter adds: "Their claim that we enjoy £10m from our association with West Ham is simply wrong and the money we generate from West Ham does not cover the cost of putting on the match days."

    In her letter, the latest response from the club, Brady says: "In our view, the actual elephant in the room is the E20's [LLDC's] failure to manage the operating costs competently.

    "I would like to make clear to you that at no time did West Ham state that LLDC officials had lied. We said the statement Ms Garner had made was misleading the public because it did not present all the facts. We stand by that statement."

    Home of the 2012 Olympics has become a battleground - analysis
    Simon Stone, BBC Sport football reporter

    Karren Brady's letter is the latest in a tit-for-tat exchange between West Ham and their landlords.

    As has been apparent for some considerable time, London Stadium needs to generate more revenue if it is not going to end up landing the taxpayer with a very large bill.

    West Ham have what they believe to be a watertight lease that runs for 99 years. The London Legacy Development Corporation currently receives £3m annually from the club but feels there are areas that would allow them to make a bit more.

    So, arguments are taking place over the colouring of the carpet behind both goals, which badly needs replacing. West Ham are prepared to pay the one-off £380,000 cost, if they can change the colour to claret. LLDC wants an annual fee and to have it left a neutral green because claret might put off potential stadium naming rights sponsors - even though it hasn't found any yet and none is in the pipeline.

    West Ham argue they are providing £10m in revenue, £6m of which comes through catering facilities used by their fans. But that figure doesn't take into account the costs involved in creating the catering itself, so the actual figure is less, although the Hammers privately feel the LLDC should be ending up with far more than the £30,000 per game they say is made from catering.

    With the London Mayor's office also involved, the home of the 2012 Olympics has become a battleground.

    As Brady correctly points out, the deal for West Ham to play at London Stadium was done to prevent it turning into a white elephant.

    Yet, for all the magnificent athletics, rugby, baseball and pop concerts that take place there, without a positive relationship with its core tenant, one of Britain's most iconic sporting venues will never fulfil its legacy.

    West Ham refuse to retract claim public is being 'misled' over London Stadium finances
     
  5. Red Tide

    Red Tide Registered User

    Joined:
    May 7, 2018
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    233
    Location:
    Scotland
    Supports:
    Man United/Rangers
  6. Red Tide

    Red Tide Registered User

    Joined:
    May 7, 2018
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    233
    Location:
    Scotland
    Supports:
    Man United/Rangers
    Stadium owners spend £4m on legal fees in disputes with West Ham

    By Frank Keogh
    BBC Sport

    31 minutes ago | West Ham

    Owners of London Stadium have spent £4m of taxpayers' money in legal fees in the past three years over disputes with tenants West Ham.


    The London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) has been in dispute with the Hammers over several aspects of its 99-year lease.

    Gerry Murphy, LLDC deputy chief executive, confirmed the costs at a London Assembly meeting.

    Assembly member Caroline Pidgeon said the situation was "extraordinary".

    The LLDC says high operating costs mean it loses £250,000 for every West Ham match, while the Hammers have claimed they contribute a total of £10m a year in revenue, including rent.

    The stadium, built for the London Olympics in 2012, has been dogged by controversy over its finances. Converting it into a football ground cost £323m when the original estimate was £190m.

    Although West Ham pay an index-linked annual rent of £2.5m as tenants, the venue is still set to lose £140m over the next 10 years.

    Murphy, speaking at a meeting of the assembly's budget and performance committee, said: "Over the last three years our legal costs in relation to West Ham, by the end of this year, will be about £4m."

    West Ham and the corporation have been in dispute over a number of areas, including the club's bid to increase capacity from 57,000 to 66,000. The issue is due to be heard by the High Court later this year.

    They also disagreed over who should pay to make the stadium more supporter friendly, and a mutually agreed legal expert ruled in West Ham's favour.

    This meant the LLDC must pay for:

    • Work to replace the material around the pitch perimeter
    • The installation of pumps to allow the sale of draught beer at all bars
    • Hospitality staff who work in the corporate boxes at the stadium
    • Ensuring all televisions at the ground are allowed to show live sport - West Ham paid for the licence but the London Stadium had adverts on some screens
    LLDC chief executive Lyn Garner said the contract - which was drawn up with West Ham before she took over - was "ambiguous in places and unclear".

    She told the committee: "We take professional legal advice and, where we think it is right, we have to defend the public purse."

    Liberal Democrat Pidgeon said: "It's extraordinary that there are 97 years left [on the contract] and there are constantly issues."

    The committee deputy chair, Labour's Len Duvall, added: "It's about time the London Legacy Development Corporation and West Ham put aside their squabbles and sort out their relationship."

    West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady is due to appear before the assembly's budget monitoring sub-committee on 17 October.

    Stadium owners spend £4m on legal fees in disputes with West Ham
     

Share This Page