O/T But the West Ham stadium scandal is getting worse

[TCCANARY 263]

The list of things that they don''t have to pay for is shocking.

It better be a good stadium as WE have paid a lot of money for them to use it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34741829

[Jerzy Krukowski 5]

Tax payers propping up Tory supporting business shocker!

It''s a disgrace, but don''t worry, the benefits will still keep getting cut, just not those of Brady and West Ham''s.

[Jacko 0]

Don''t blame West Ham. Brady, Gold and Sullivan have done the best they can for their club and played an absolute blinder. I have no doubt Gold and Sullivan will probably sell to a wealthy backer and make an absolute killing in fullness of time.

West Ham really now have the potential to go places as a club now. In terms of infrastructure, they''re arguably even ahead of Liverpool and Chelsea when this is all done and completed.

This is all originally went wrong back at the design stage. It was the arrogance of people like Seb Coe telling us that the stadium had to be used solely as an athletics venue. The notion that athletics in this country after the Olympics was ever going to attract crowds of 40,000 - 50,000 was utterly ridiculous. Only football in this country has historically done that on a regular basis.

It''s led to all of these unnecessary conversion costs having to be paid for at the tax payers expense. West Ham have appreciated just what a terrible position the government were in and have exploited to the maximum through strong negotiation.

[TCCANARY 263]

These include the cost of stadium utilities, maintaining the pitch, and the goalposts and corner flags.

Other items - outlined in the agreement made public in October - which the Hammers will not have to fund are:

Undersoil heating and floodlighting

Ticket office and turnstiles

Drug testing and medical facilities

Concession areas cleared of snow and ice as required

Team changing rooms, plus changing rooms for ball persons and officials

Security, cleaning, pest control

Stadium Tannoy, generator, CCTV surveillance system and monitors

LED pitch-side signage, scoreboards and jumbo video screens at each end of the pitch

Even allowing for the initial poor design I fail to see where the above can be justified, these are costs that all the other clubs will have to find so why not West Ham.

Boris Johnson, Seb Coe & Karren Brady are treating the tax payer like fools, no co-incidence that they are all Tories. It has very little to do with ''strong negotiation'' and much more to do with cronyism.

[SwindonCanary 455]

I wonder how much they will get for that hole they''re leaving behind ?

[Bury Yellow 2]

Ha Ha Ha …… and the socialists haven''t ever done the same. Yeh right

[TCCANARY 263]

Could give us an example?

I don''t think Man City get the freebies listed above so why should West Ham?

[Jacko 0]

Because ultimately, once the Spurs bid was rejected out of hand (because there was no running track) what other viable offers were on the table for that stadium - the answer is none (unless you regard Leyton Orient as being able to fill a stadium of that size) and West Ham''s bargaining position was therefore very strong and they could then make excessive demands. Knowing full well that government had nowhere else to go.

This isn''t a Conservative conspiracy. This is a PR disaster for them and is not making them look good at all. I doubt they are prioritising given back handers to Brady, Gold and Sullivan above their imagine as a party and how it looks to the electorate.

They could potentially have negotiated much better than they have but it was an impossible position right from the very start.

The stadium have been earmarked for a football club like the City of Manchester Stadium was following the commonwealth games. The parameters are then in place and you get the proper deal. The Council actually were getting a cut of any match day revenue Man City made when the attendance went over 35,000 until very recently.

There should have also been a smaller, purpose built athletics venue set up nearby to maintain a legacy for athletics as a whole.

[TCCANARY 263]

No-ones negotiating position is that strong that they can get so many freebies, look at the list again, free corner flags?

Someone is taking the p***.

[Grant Holts Moustache 105]

It''s a good deal for their club but I would want to see more detail. For instance the free corner flags you mention, is this part of the government''s sponsorship deal with Harrod UK who supplied all of this type of thing for free as part of the Olympics or are they actually going out and buying these corner flags? The wording of the article is very carefully done and says costs of utilities are met by the corporation but all those things you list are just things they don''t have to pay for which can mean being met by sponsors and deals as part of the legacy.

For me the real issue was how the Olympics as a whole was funded with hundreds of millions diverted from good causes and the arts. Big Lottery closed numerous funds as a result of this. These are the type of funds that would have helped many people living in poverty and struggling in our society. The West Ham deal is chump change in comparison and at least this stadium won''t become a white elephant that''s closed with no public access like others have through lack of funding. The most twisted thing about it being the Big Lottery uses this money to support things like health and wellbeing. Something that could have been applied to to keep these places open if only they had the funds.

[Jacko 0]

Excellent post. I still can''t help but feel that the Olympics whilst being an amazing summer party wasn''t probably the best use of public money you''ll ever see.

[Crafty Canary 495]

The amount of Corbyn cobblers posted on this forum is scary. If we get relegated they''ll probably blame the government for investing in Trident instead of our defence!

[Herman 9,698]

Especially for Crafty.Proud to be a Tory, part 2?[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-health-minister-blocks-law-to-give-the-nhs-cheap-drugs-whose-patents-have-expired-a6724526.html[/url]

[Horse Renoir 1]

They''re the only ones who can really afford to give anything back though. It''s this or we see even less return on our investment.

Also yes, while there''s so many people badly struggling in this country, working 40 hours a week for pittance, just to keep a roof over their head it was a ridiculous use of public money. Raising job seekers allowance a bit to an amount at least semi reasonable and offering employers a cash incentive to hire people would have been an infinitely better use of that money.

LOL at that article, Tory in being regressive and deluded with a callous disdain for ordinary people shocker! That''s a new one! But I suppose having these tossers running our country is a small price to pay as long as they sort out those immigants and give the lazy, work-shy youth and disadvantaged a right kick up the ar*e!...*sarcasm*...

[Crabbycanary3 994]

Was the initial spec/outcome, regarding the City of Manchester stadium, different to the Olympic Stadium?

You say that West Ham were the only option for the Olympic, well surely only Man City were the only viable option for the CoMs? Utd were never going to have it, so who else would hav ehad it?

Genuine question, with the negotiation process etc, that''s all. Does seem like the West Ham side of things has been a farce, with the negotiations being held by one of Lord Sugar''s Apprentices.

[AJ 1,218]

Let''s face it, we wouldn''t be complaining if it was us. They''ve pulled an absolute blinder and done a very, very good deal by being in the right place at the right time. It''s 3 miles from their existing ground and saves them the need for expansion. Access to the ground is obviously going to be great with well connected public transport.

BUT on the flip side

They''ve also sold their soul as a football club in terms of authenticity and football history to be housed in a non-football stadium which will probably lack atmosphere and may well not sell out each week (unless playing a top four side I assume).

That said, will be a good away day...

[Grant Holts Moustache 105]

Nice link for the article and is another great example of a party that protects corporate interests rather than that of the people they are supposed to represent. What sickens me about it is that as a party they advocate austerity then block a bill that would save hundreds of millions for one of the biggest services where they say they want to make efficiency savings. Yet at the same time they have been secretly selling off and contracting out parts of this service for the last few years that have actually increased costs of maintenance, purchase of buildings and support staff such as cleaners to companies like Cerco and G4S who have previously failed on massive contracts. Anyone remember the Olympic security debacle? That was G4S. When you look closer into it too you will find that ministers in Health and Procurement who previously worked for these companies and former ministers now working for them too.

This is the same party that says it wants to give young people skills and get them back to work and then cuts college and skills budgets. As well as still not paying back the Olympic monies diverted (this was promised to be returned in 2012). With this austerity most of our colleges took a 25% budget cut this year! What really must piss the government off too is guess who''s stepped in to try and sort this out. Big Lottery and the European Social Fund. They have put up millions in funding to run programmes to support those same young people branded lazy and work shy when they are being given little chance of a future in an economy that increasing relies on being higher skilled to work in financial, engineering and technological industries. The worst thing is they have no long term vision and do not see that with this cut and the increased fees to go to university they are just going to create a long term skills shortage with a whole generation of young people not equipped to work in these sectors. This will in turn prevent start ups in the economy and dissuade big companies from setting up in the UK. We will have lots of low skilled people in a time when low skill jobs have been steadily disappearing as factories move to other countries and those on the lowest incomes are squeezed meaning they cannot afford to access leisure industries. Something again that provides employment for low skilled workers. I''m going to stop now as I will carry on writing all day. For the record I''m not a socialist or advocate of any party just can''t stand what this current government is doing in the name of austerity as it all done for personal interests.

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

[quote user="Dead Canary"]Nice link for the article and is another great example of a party that protects corporate interests rather than that of the people they are supposed to represent. What sickens me about it is that as a party they advocate austerity then block a bill that would save hundreds of millions for one of the biggest services where they say they want to make efficiency savings. Yet at the same time they have been secretly selling off and contracting out parts of this service for the last few years that have actually increased costs of maintenance, purchase of buildings and support staff such as cleaners to companies like Cerco and G4S who have previously failed on massive contracts. Anyone remember the Olympic security debacle? That was G4S. When you look closer into it too you will find that ministers in Health and Procurement who previously worked for these companies and former ministers now working for them too.

This is the same party that says it wants to give young people skills and get them back to work and then cuts college and skills budgets. As well as still not paying back the Olympic monies diverted (this was promised to be returned in 2012). With this austerity most of our colleges took a 25% budget cut this year! What really must piss the government off too is guess who''s stepped in to try and sort this out. Big Lottery and the European Social Fund. They have put up millions in funding to run programmes to support those same young people branded lazy and work shy when they are being given little chance of a future in an economy that increasing relies on being higher skilled to work in financial, engineering and technological industries. The worst thing is they have no long term vision and do not see that with this cut and the increased fees to go to university they are just going to create a long term skills shortage with a whole generation of young people not equipped to work in these sectors. This will in turn prevent start ups in the economy and dissuade big companies from setting up in the UK. We will have lots of low skilled people in a time when low skill jobs have been steadily disappearing as factories move to other countries and those on the lowest incomes are squeezed meaning they cannot afford to access leisure industries. Something again that provides employment for low skilled workers. I''m going to stop now as I will carry on writing all day. For the record I''m not a socialist or advocate of any party just can''t stand what this current government is doing in the name of austerity as it all done for personal interests.[/quote]I don''t know what makes me more concerned. A - That the Tories could win the next general election and we will have to put up with their "austerity measures" for another 10 years. Or B - That they mug off so many people in the next 5 years that we are faced with a Labour government lead by Jeremy Corbyn.