Oh dear West Ham.

Cheers tax payer Ham

West Ham have to pick up this extra cost it's not fair during times of austerity for the person on the street to fund these owners at West Ham.

Tax payer owned ham

Gold and Sullivan have Brady making 'special films' and have big latex orders placed to ramp up production.....

Picking up thrown coins at home games is an idea to raise funds

The enquiry strikes me as simply throwing good money after bad.

Did West Ham get a fantastic financial deal? Yes.

Is the contract signed and sealed now? Yes.

So given the second point, all that can be achieved is saying "if something similar comes up again we must do better."

comment by Sane is back (U21166)
posted 34 minutes ago
The enquiry strikes me as simply throwing good money after bad.

Did West Ham get a fantastic financial deal? Yes.

Is the contract signed and sealed now? Yes.

So given the second point, all that can be achieved is saying "if something similar comes up again we must do better."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Could be that he knows that something can be done with the contract and the amount West Ham need to fund towards additional running or conversion costs?

such a tin pot club

Arouna

"Could be that he knows that something can be done with the contract and the amount West Ham need to fund towards additional running or conversion costs?"

I've looked back at the news from April when the full contract was released and as the the news coverage of this enquiry and and far as I can see that doesn't seem to be the case.

None of the many sources hint at any option for the rent to be unilaterally renegotiated and that being the case I can't see what an enquiry can achieve apart from recommendations for future similar cases.

comment by Sane is back (U21166)
posted 24 minutes ago
Arouna

"Could be that he knows that something can be done with the contract and the amount West Ham need to fund towards additional running or conversion costs?"

I've looked back at the news from April when the full contract was released and as the the news coverage of this enquiry and and far as I can see that doesn't seem to be the case.

None of the many sources hint at any option for the rent to be unilaterally renegotiated and that being the case I can't see what an enquiry can achieve apart from recommendations for future similar cases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know what could happen. But if someone is launching an enquiry someone is getting bad news

West Ham must be forced to pay the full 55 million

LQ

"West Ham must be forced to pay the full 55 million"

The contract is signed sealed and done though, how can the club now be forced to pay anything extra?

comment by Sane is back (U21166)
posted 14 minutes ago
LQ

"West Ham must be forced to pay the full 55 million"

The contract is signed sealed and done though, how can the club now be forced to pay anything extra?
----------------------------------------------------------------------


look at how OJ simpson was deemed not guilty back in 95. clever men and women can work the law/contracts

Not sure how that is in anyway relevant

What you want to happen and what will happen are two different things.

Just because a signed contract/agreement appears to keep WESt Ham tied into the deal of the century......It doesn't mean that it won't change to not be such a good deal

Well contract law is usually watertight.

A property owner can't suddenly double rent in the middle of the agreed rental period.

They would never have tenants if they did. Plus plenty of other places to rent. West Ham however would have no other choice

Indeed, imagine the legal case. The government declared any landlord can change the rent anytime they like.

not sure how that is the same.

One is a house and the other is a football ground to be used 20-25 times a year

Still a legal rental document.

I'd imagine there has to be options to renegotiate but I'd expect them to be at say 10, 20, 30 years and so on. But I've honestly no clue if that is the case.

I'm still trying to find the full contract on line, considering it been made public it's bloody hard to find.

I'm working tonight, kind of, so will see if I can find anything.

Here we are.

"The rent includes the exclusive occupation of the club store, ticket office, board room, player’s lounge, office space and storage areas 365 days per year. The rent is index linked with RPI so that will increase with inflation. Assuming an annual inflation of 2% over 99 years that rent could increase to £17.8m per year but TV and ticket revenues would increase likewise. It could mean West Ham pay in excess of £763m in rent in the next 99 years which is more the combined £702m it cost to build the stadium."

-----

So the rent is linked to the Retail Price Index (RPI) and there are no extra clauses to renegotiate the rent in any way.

So LLDC cannot legally increase the rent above inflation.

Easily solved, evict West Ham on the grounds of continued crowd violence then make them renagotuate the deal and pay the extra 55 million.

comment by Sane is back (U21166)
posted 9 hours, 4 minutes ago
Here we are.

"The rent includes the exclusive occupation of the club store, ticket office, board room, player’s lounge, office space and storage areas 365 days per year. The rent is index linked with RPI so that will increase with inflation. Assuming an annual inflation of 2% over 99 years that rent could increase to £17.8m per year but TV and ticket revenues would increase likewise. It could mean West Ham pay in excess of £763m in rent in the next 99 years which is more the combined £702m it cost to build the stadium."

-----

So the rent is linked to the Retail Price Index (RPI) and there are no extra clauses to renegotiate the rent in any way.

So LLDC cannot legally increase the rent above inflation.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Breach of contract is a good option. But stating they would over 99 years pay more than the initial build cost is still a deal.

No maintance to pay and still not covered much of the conversion costs.

Renegotiate even, there's talk now that West Ham will end up paying somehow.

I hope that's true.

"there's talk now"

Well from you for one, but is there any talk from anyone with a real legal understanding of the contract, or is it just the tabloid press and talkshite?

comment by Sane is back (U21166)
posted 37 minutes ago
"there's talk now"

Well from you for one, but is there any talk from anyone with a real legal understanding of the contract, or is it just the tabloid press and talkshite?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I bet the press don't have legal teams