The deal under which West Ham are moving into the Olympic Stadium is continuing to attract criticism and arguments that it is highly disadvantageous to taxpayers.
The deal under which West Ham are moving into the Olympic Stadium is continuing to attract criticism and arguments that it is highly disadvantageous to taxpayers.
The Government has insisted that the terms of the deal are commercially confidential, but it is being claimed that the rent is around £2.5m a year. This compares with the £4m a year plus running costs that Manchester City pay for their City of Manchester stadium (arguably still quite a favourable deal).
Of course, the last thing one wants is for former Olympic stadiums to be deserted, derelict or at best under used which is what has happened elsewhere. It would also be unrealistic to try and capture more than a fraction of the conversion costs. Nevertheless, it is a concern that the stadium apparently expects to make only £200k from all events next year, a poor return on capital.
Of course, West Ham saw an opportunity and seized it and the fans of rival clubs are understandably aggrieved. The deal could only be overturned now by an EU state aid ruling and I still think that there is not enough new evidence to overturn earlier decisions.