or to join or start a new Discussion

Articles/all comments
These 368 comments are related to an article called:

Reasons behind OS Decision Delay?

Page 7 of 15

posted on 5/12/12

I am not laughing at deaths, stop twisting my words..

posted on 5/12/12

Getting away from the personal insults for a moment.

A share of the profit from naming rights was always part of the deal and is nothing new.



The two David's

posted on 5/12/12

having to agree to pay a % of any profits from a future sale will affect them, not the club.

Finally saying there is a low figure you are not prepared to go above is just a sensible bargaining position.

posted on 5/12/12

Would any of you start a negotiation by letting people think you had money to burn? No, better to act "poor" and get a better deal.

We all know Man City and Chelsea get burned with transfers, extend that to this deal and looking poor does you no harm at all.

posted on 5/12/12

We are on the way to make ONE super club in east London..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/west-ham/9722711/West-Hams-Olympic-Stadium-move-can-create-a-super-club-in-east-London.html

posted on 5/12/12

Just been reading all the stories on this.

The talk of "profits" being paid is misleading, the only profits the club will have to pay is from naming rights and possible hospitality. Not ticket sales or any other profits.

I could care less if Gold and Sullivan make £50m instead of £100m if/when they move on. That will be them losing money and not West Ham.

posted on 5/12/12

Not ticket sales or any other profits

=================

Why would they want a share of zilch?

Surely a share of nothing, is nothing.

posted on 5/12/12

What a reply from Chicken.. Did you use your single brain cell or part of it?

posted on 5/12/12

Maf not laughing at deaths for now.

posted on 5/12/12

Has it worked out how to make 100% * 0 = 100 instead ??

posted on 5/12/12

One more single brain cell chicken child. Dramatic, no need to have a proper football debate with these idiots.

posted on 5/12/12

Obviously not.

posted on 5/12/12

It's officiall..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/20611708

posted on 5/12/12

Good news, now wait, every time West Ham try to get the best possible final financial deal jealous fans will say it's because we have no money. Rather than just being prudent.

posted on 5/12/12

<quote>
Adding retractable seating and fully extending the roof on the venue will cost between £130m and £150m, on top of the £429m it cost to build the stadium for the Games. The vast majority of that conversion money will come from a mix of public funding, including a £40m loan from Newham Council, the local authority.
<quote>

So "prudent" you have to beg from one of the UKs' POOREST councils.

Chapeau !!!

posted on 5/12/12

We are getting loan from Newham Council rather than getting FREE money from the govt....Chepeau...

posted on 5/12/12

Wow, when Levy does his utmost to get the best financial deals for Spurs thier fans are ecstatic. West Ham play a similar game and they don't like it.

posted on 5/12/12

"Wow, when Levy does his utmost to get the best financial deals for Spurs thier fans are ecstatic."

With ENICs' money.
Dunno, maybe Newham council will loan us the money to buy Andy Carroll.

posted on 5/12/12

So "prudent" you have to beg from one of the UKs' POOREST councils.

====================

Pikey's..

posted on 5/12/12

myhammers..........................No one from the Spurs board has said there will never be retractable seating. The problem with retractable seating is a) having to re-design & reconfigure part of the stadium structure & footings. b) Doing it this way (rather than installing when OS was being built) increases the costs exponentially.

In answer to the comments re West Ham being clever by bidding low, this is not how Public Sector bidding works and West Ham WILL HAVE TO meet the LLDC T&C's if they wish to be tenants of the OS.

Nothing has been signed or agreed as of yet, WHU have only been given preferred bidder status subject to rigorous financial conditions being met.

LLDC chairman and London Mayor Boris Johnson said: "My position on the future of the stadium remains what it has always been: that we can secure a terrific future for this much loved and iconic venue with or without a football team playing there.

"It will, if it goes through, mean a football legacy for the stadium but there is still a lot of negotiation to go on between the LLDC and West Ham United about the terms of the deal."

The LLDC also want a % of the profit from any future sale of West Ham, because of the mess that Manchester made when letting City have Eastlands without any conditions re the future sale of the club.

posted on 5/12/12

Incidentally, West Ham will never own this stadium whereas Spurs will own the Northumberland Park set up once it is finished!!

posted on 5/12/12

Greaves

I agree there is still along way to go before it's all finalised.

From my understanding LLDC have not yet decided what the final terms and conditions will be, negotiations are still ongoing.

As for a share of any resale profits, I simply don't care as it will come from the two David's end, not out of the club.

posted on 5/12/12

True, West Ham will never own it. I'd be interested to know how maintenance and ongoing refurbishment costs will be met. If it is by the "landlord" renting could be financially better than owning.

posted on 5/12/12

"I'd be interested to know how maintenance and ongoing refurbishment costs will be met."

Start at the bottom line : the stadium is zero profit.
Which means that whatever the lifecycle costs are each year, the tenant must be paying at least that.

posted on 5/12/12

The only downside to renting over owning comes if the owner is mortgage free. As very few, if any clubs are in that position West Ham will not be financially disadvantaged by renting.

Page 7 of 15

Sign in if you want to comment