Renting football grounds

G G

GeekinGav

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 Dec 2012
Messages
2,880
Does anyone know how much rent we pid for the stadium to MCC before we had money?

been revealed that West Ham will only pay £2.5m a year, that sounds pretty cheap for a 60,000 stadium in the heart of London. Especially in the time of how much money is in the game now.

Would be interesting to know what the comparisons are.
 
We paid 50% of gate receipts above 35,000 which was about £2M per year. That's been re-negotiated to a fixed £3M per season.

However the council also received Maine Road and we paid £20M to fit out the stadium for football. I think West Ham will benefit from the sale of the Boleyn ground also.
 
Last edited:
They paid £15M towards the £272M conversion costs compared to us paying £20M plus Maine Road out of the £42M overall cost and we pay for our own policing etc.
 
Im reading that they are literally only paying for 25 days use a year despite the tax payer coughing up over £250M to convert it to a football stadium for them and the rest of the year, the tax payer will pay all costs.

No wonder they wanted to keep it quiet.
 
west didsblue said:
We paid 50% of gate receipts above 35,000 which was about £2M per year. That's been re-negotiated to a fixed £3M per season.

However the council also received Maine Road and we paid £20M to fit out the stadium for football. I think West Ham will benefit from the sale of the Boleyn ground also.
Click to expand...

I think that we also pay £1m per year for the naming rights. So £4m total (ignoring inflation).

Looking at West Ham's deal this is one area they could lose out on. I think that they have to pay an additional £4m+ per year for naming rights.

West Ham also lose out on other events held at the stadium. They receive no additional income from this while we get the full venue payment for concerts etc under the latest deal.

We probably make £1m per concert so, most years, this income alone more than covers our rent.

Given the minimal conversion costs (that you quoted) this is a really good deal for both City and the Council.
 
£2.5m is a joke for that part of London. Clearly sounds like a gift from the Tories to ensure the support/backing of 'celebrity' Karren Brady. A clear political favour.

I like West Ham but that to me is a clear waste of public money. I hope someone/some group contests it and the deal is investigated.
 
West Ham's deal is bent as fuck, which I think everyone knows and that's why they've fought so hard to keep the details quiet. How on earth it cost £270m to convert it to a football stadium, when it only cost us £42m to do the same thing, should seriously be investigated, as should how on earth West Ham have only paid £15m of that when we paid £20m and gave them Maine Road. They've already sold Upton Park for £60m, or 24 years rent if you prefer, then on top of that absolute bullshit it turns out that the taxpayer will be picking up the bill for all the maintenance, policing and staffing, all for the ridiculously low fee of £2.5m a year. It's a complete joke and I think it's no coincidence at all that Tory peer Karen Brady is at the heart of it.

Even if they weren't inexplicably picking up the tab for all the cleaners/police/caterers etc, it would take the full 99 years of the lease to even pay off the ridiculous sum it cost to convert it into a football stadium. It's honestly shocking that they've been allowed to get away with this
 
BigOscar said:
West Ham's deal is bent as fuck, which I think everyone knows and that's why they've fought so hard to keep the details quiet. How on earth it cost £270m to convert it to a football stadium, when it only cost us £42m to do the same thing, should seriously be investigated, as should how on earth West Ham have only paid £15m of that when we paid £20m and gave them Maine Road. They've already sold Upton Park for £60m, or 24 years rent if you prefer, then on top of that absolute bullshit it turns out that the taxpayer will be picking up the bill for all the maintenance, policing and staffing, all for the ridiculously low fee of £2.5m a year. It's a complete joke and I think it's no coincidence at all that Tory peer Karen Brady is at the heart of it.

Even if they weren't inexplicably picking up the tab for all the cleaners/police/caterers etc, it would take the full 99 years of the lease to even pay off the ridiculous sum it cost to convert it into a football stadium. It's honestly shocking that they've been allowed to get away with this
Click to expand...

Shocked there hasn't been more uproar TBH.
 
GeekinGav said:
Does anyone know how much rent we pid for the stadium to MCC before we had money?

been revealed that West Ham will only pay £2.5m a year, that sounds pretty cheap for a 60,000 stadium in the heart of London. Especially in the time of how much money is in the game now.

Would be interesting to know what the comparisons are.
Click to expand...

We're not renting COMS, we have a finance lease, in effect we have full ownership rights and a mortgage estimated to last the entire useful life of the building.
 
BigOscar said:
West Ham's deal is bent as fuck, which I think everyone knows and that's why they've fought so hard to keep the details quiet. How on earth it cost £270m to convert it to a football stadium, when it only cost us £42m to do the same thing, should seriously be investigated, as should how on earth West Ham have only paid £15m of that when we paid £20m and gave them Maine Road. They've already sold Upton Park for £60m, or 24 years rent if you prefer, then on top of that absolute bullshit it turns out that the taxpayer will be picking up the bill for all the maintenance, policing and staffing, all for the ridiculously low fee of £2.5m a year. It's a complete joke and I think it's no coincidence at all that Tory peer Karen Brady is at the heart of it.

Even if they weren't inexplicably picking up the tab for all the cleaners/police/caterers etc, it would take the full 99 years of the lease to even pay off the ridiculous sum it cost to convert it into a football stadium. It's honestly shocking that they've been allowed to get away with this
Click to expand...
Yes it's a fucking disgrace. Yet we're the ones that get accused of financial doping. I'd be even more pissed off if I were a London council tax payer, particularly if I were a Tottenham or Arsenal fan who are paying through the nose for tickets partly because they have spent or are spending hundreds of millions on their own new stadia.
 
Only just seen the details but this is a fucking disgrace and a slap in the face for the tax payers who paid to build the sodding thing in the first place.
 
Manchester seemed to get it right with the CoM stadium (presumably that was the Bernstein influence) and didn't fall into the 'everyone will still want to watch athletics after the games finish' trap. They stayed realistic and spent 112m on construction as opposed to about 700m for the Olympic Stadium and, having City as an agreed future tenant made it easier to build with a view to converting it to a football stadium post games.
West Ham look like they've got a cracking deal and it's not difficult to see why the people that signed off on it didn't want it made public. The main difference appears to be exclusivity, The Etihad is City's stadium 24/7, 365 days a year and we use it as we please. It sounds like, in theory, West Ham only have it 'exclusively' on match days and that's why they're not paying the running costs. I'm sure West Ham will be thinking that this is an agreement that will develop to their advantage and that they will gradually exert more control over the stadium in time if interest in holding other events there wanes.
 
Wreckless Alec said:
Could have been worse, Spurs and Levy might have got their hands on it. Good for West Ham.
Click to expand...
The difference is that Spurs were going to knock it down and build a new one. If that were to happen, they would have had to pay for it rather than the taxpayer having to fork out £272M on conversion costs, so I don't think it would have been worse.
 
Bozzie said:
Manchester seemed to get it right with the CoM stadium (presumably that was the Bernstein influence) and didn't fall into the 'everyone will still want to watch athletics after the games finish' trap. They stayed realistic and spent 112m on construction as opposed to about 700m for the Olympic Stadium and, having City as an agreed future tenant made it easier to build with a view to converting it to a football stadium post games.
West Ham look like they've got a cracking deal and it's not difficult to see why the people that signed off on it didn't want it made public. The main difference appears to be exclusivity, The Etihad is City's stadium 24/7, 365 days a year and we use it as we please. It sounds like, in theory, West Ham only have it 'exclusively' on match days and that's why they're not paying the running costs. I'm sure West Ham will be thinking that this is an agreement that will develop to their advantage and that they will gradually exert more control over the stadium in time if interest in holding other events there wanes.
Click to expand...

That’s true, although Sport England seemed incredibly reluctant to allow City to establish any form of identity around the stadium and surrounding area for years after we moved in. The resentment at having to give over the stadium to a football club was palpable despite the fact the stadium wouldn’t have existed it hadn’t been for City. The kept up the pretence that we were only their through their generosity for years. Funny how that changed when Sheik Mansour started investing heavily and the club and council were finally in a position to tell Sport England to get over themselves.
 
BigOscar said:
West Ham's deal is bent as fuck, which I think everyone knows and that's why they've fought so hard to keep the details quiet. How on earth it cost £270m to convert it to a football stadium, when it only cost us £42m to do the same thing, should seriously be investigated, as should how on earth West Ham have only paid £15m of that when we paid £20m and gave them Maine Road. They've already sold Upton Park for £60m, or 24 years rent if you prefer, then on top of that absolute bullshit it turns out that the taxpayer will be picking up the bill for all the maintenance, policing and staffing, all for the ridiculously low fee of £2.5m a year. It's a complete joke and I think it's no coincidence at all that Tory peer Karen Brady is at the heart of it.

Even if they weren't inexplicably picking up the tab for all the cleaners/police/caterers etc, it would take the full 99 years of the lease to even pay off the ridiculous sum it cost to convert it into a football stadium. It's honestly shocking that they've been allowed to get away with this
Click to expand...
To be fair they had to take the roof off the Olympic Stadium and fit all that sliding seating in - whereas we just dug a hole, laid a pitch and duplicated the south stand for the north stand - oh and did it 12-13 years earlier. And in Manchester not London.
 
Good luck to them great club great fans it's only the old cartel brigade spitting their dummies out because they haven't struck this deal themselves.
 
kiam06 said:
Good luck to them great club great fans it's only the old cartel brigade spitting their dummies out because they haven't struck this deal themselves.
Click to expand...

Its actually Barry Hearn, ex owner of Leyton Orient and taxpayers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top