West Ham's Olympic Stadium deal is an 'unavoidable marriage'
Last updated on .From the section Football
We have known for some time that a hefty wedge of public money would be needed to pay for the costs of retro-fitting an Olympic Stadium that really should have been made for football from the start.
By failing to factor in a Premier League legacy option when designs were being drawn up back in 2006, the total bill for the stadium has now risen to £600million. The cost of extending the roof and adding retractable seats could be as much as £190m.
To pay for it there is - as London Legacy Development Corporation chief executive Dennis Hone put it - a "cocktail of funding". But it is really not that complicated.
All but £15m of the money is coming from the taxpayer - either in the form of direct grants or loans which has prompted criticism that West Ham have got their new, iconic home on the cheap.
As you would expect, Mayor of London Boris Johnson insists this is simply not true, arguing that the 99-year lease with West Ham will help the Olympic Park and stadium generate revenues of £10m a year. Over the course of that lease, he says, the loans and public subsidies will be repaid.
He adds that to guarantee further protection for the public purse, West Ham's owners David Gold and David Sullivan have agreed to pay a one-off windfall back to LLDC in the event they sell the club in the next 10 years.
While that may help to convince those doubters who wonder at the wisdom of handing the Olympic Stadium's keys to a wealthy Premier League club for a relatively small sum (consider the £390m it cost Arsenal to build the Emirates Stadium), it may not persuade West Ham's rivals.
Putting Leyton Orient chairman Barry Hearn's legal challenge to one side, a number of Premier League clubs will no doubt be arching an eyebrow at the turbo boost the move will give West Ham's match-day revenues.
Given they have had to underwrite so little of the capital costs, how does that square with the League's new financial fair play rules?
All of this, of course, assumes West Ham will be capable of filling a venue almost double the size of their current Upton Park home. For all vice-chairman Karren Brady's confidence and drive, that will be no easy task.
Much will depend on whether it really feels like West Ham's own ground and herein lies the rub.
This was a stadium built and paid for by the British public and whoever inherits the deal from Johnson in the future will have to fight hard to protect that at the same time as keeping West Ham and their fans happy.
It would be a tragedy if the golden memories of London 2012 are erased in a hue of claret and blue.
However, the reality for any future Mayor of London is that this was an unavoidable marriage.
Failure to clinch an agreement with the only viable Premier League option would have left the public purse forking out for an underused, white elephant for decades to come - a disaster for an Olympic host that promised to do these things differently.
Comments
Join the conversation
For our government to give £60m of our taxes to help a football club which operates in the biggest money earning league and sector in the world makes me sick.
We have people living on streets, an army that cannot afford boots fighting in Afghanistan and people losing their business & houses.
Absolutely disgraceful.
towards generating new possibilities for business people's private wealth.
The 'regeneration' of the East End being a prime example of this.
A land grab with little to show for it.
See also> Elephant & Castle - recently sold off for absolute peanuts to make way for lucrative luxury flats with zero interest in the community.
You're forgetting that West Ham were prepared to buy the stadium. But it was Tottenham and Barry Hearn who put a stop to that solution. So look to the north of London if you want to blame someone for this becoming a rental and not a sale. And if you look at the facts again, you'll see that West Ham are paying to use it and share it. Every year. Not for ownership. But for rent.
Another LABOUR legacy gone wrong. After Blair revelled in the 'glory' of winning the Olympics, the delivery cost us billions more and the 'legacy' is going to cost us - the taxpayer - billions more.
West Ham (owners minted+massive tv deal) contribution - 15m
Rent - 2m (Andy Carrols yearly wage, for example)
This whole affair stinks. Public money is not there to subsidise the football industry.
Lots of posters have allready stated this, but once again. West Ham will use the stadium less than 30 days a year, for which they will pay a RENT of £2 million. 330+ days the taxpayer will be able to do as they please with it. West Ham will only recieve revenue for matchdays, how much clearer does it need to be?
If West Ham hadn't agreed to move in it would become just another drain on public funds, and probably end up being sold for redevelopment - not the legacy promised!
we as a football team will be able to move forward stop worrying about relegation battles and start thinking about a modern West ham with the chance of making it in to European football and more hopefully.
We need to look forward as a club and stop re-living old glory days and start making a new golden age for WHU
COME ON YOU IRONs
About the comments made if people think that West Ham fans hearts are to be left at Upton park,
Then I am afraid you are completely sorely mistaken !
We are WEST HAM we go with the club OLAS,
A few miles down the road will make no difference
We took the roof of at Wembley and will continue to at Strafford
The crazy Government decision in 2006 to half dismantle the stadium and provide 25k seat athletics’ stadium is real problem. West Ham United are the only viable option as anchor tenants. Rugby or other sports combined just would not pay the rent or attract large crowds consistently. Don’t forget big money naming rights are shared with the Government.