Football Governance Bill

No surprises that the Peers holding up the process for the Football Governance bill have interests in premier league clubs, including West Ham United vice chair Baroness Brady:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cj3ex7zlr6ro

Quoted from Southwark Mariner

No surprises that the Peers holding up the process for the Football Governance bill have interests in premier league clubs, including West Ham United vice chair Baroness Brady:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cj3ex7zlr6ro

The charming Karen , doesn't suprise me , morally you would think West Ham would be all for helping the wider game seeing as pretty much everyone is participating in them being one of the only profitable clubs in the country  .

Quoted from Mappers

The charming Karen , doesn't suprise me , morally you would think West Ham would be all for helping the wider game seeing as pretty much everyone is participating in them being one of the only profitable clubs in the country  .

They pay next to nothing (in relative terms) for their stadium and the taxpayers pick up the deficit. They only paid £15 million for their stadium

West Ham United pays £3.6 million per year in rent for the London Stadium.
This rent is part of a 99-year lease agreement with the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC). The rent includes business rates of £2 million.
Explanation
West Ham signed a 99-year lease agreement for the London Stadium, which was the main venue for the 2012 London Olympics.
The club paid £15 million towards the conversion of the stadium into a dual-use arena.
The rent deal has been beneficial for West Ham, but the stadium has been dogged by financial controversy.
The stadium's owners have said that the rent doesn't cover the cost of staging matches.
The stadium's high operating costs and lack of commercialization have led to losses for the owners.
Taxpayers have had to make up the shortfall

Any government interference in sport is bad news in the long run. Football is probably the UK’s most succesful industry .
Are there not enough problems in this country for the government to focus on without sticking its nose into football.

Quoted from HerveJosse

Any government interference in sport is bad news in the long run. Football is probably the UK’s most succesful industry .
Are there not enough problems in this country for the government to focus on without sticking its nose into football.

Well the Saudi and UAE governments have already stuck their noses into English football so are you saying that’s fine but the UK government doing so isn’t?

Quoted from MarinerRob

They pay next to nothing (in relative terms) for their stadium and the taxpayers pick up the deficit. They only paid £15 million for their stadium

West Ham United pays £3.6 million per year in rent for the London Stadium.
This rent is part of a 99-year lease agreement with the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC). The rent includes business rates of £2 million.
Explanation
West Ham signed a 99-year lease agreement for the London Stadium, which was the main venue for the 2012 London Olympics.
The club paid £15 million towards the conversion of the stadium into a dual-use arena.
The rent deal has been beneficial for West Ham, but the stadium has been dogged by financial controversy.
The stadium's owners have said that the rent doesn't cover the cost of staging matches.
The stadium's high operating costs and lack of commercialization have led to losses for the owners.
Taxpayers have had to make up the shortfall

Well as a tax payer, I cannot recall them asking me if I minded!

Quoted from MarinerRob

They pay next to nothing (in relative terms) for their stadium and the taxpayers pick up the deficit. They only paid £15 million for their stadium

West Ham United pays £3.6 million per year in rent for the London Stadium.
This rent is part of a 99-year lease agreement with the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC). The rent includes business rates of £2 million.
Explanation
West Ham signed a 99-year lease agreement for the London Stadium, which was the main venue for the 2012 London Olympics.
The club paid £15 million towards the conversion of the stadium into a dual-use arena.
The rent deal has been beneficial for West Ham, but the stadium has been dogged by financial controversy.
The stadium's owners have said that the rent doesn't cover the cost of staging matches.
The stadium's high operating costs and lack of commercialization have led to losses for the owners.
Taxpayers have had to make up the shortfall

Just to add to this excrement show....

The conversion of the Olympic Stadium into West Ham United's new home cost £323 million. This was over the original budget of £272 million. The conversion included removing the original roof and light paddles, installing a new permanent roof, and strengthening the superstructure.

The short sightedness in the planning is outrageous...it was always going to be a football stadium..anyone could see that when we got the olympics....with a little planning they could have saved the taxpayer 100's of millions...Bet the 15 million contribution didnt go very far.

The West Ham/London Stadium deal isn't as good for them as it seems.

Firstly, West Ham get no money whatsoever from non-Football events at the stadium. Compare that to Tottenham who now have a deal allowing them to stage 30 non-football events per year (NFL, Boxing, Rugby, Concerts etc...) bringing in huge revenue.

They also have a terrible deal in regards to catering at the Stadium. They get only 30% of the catering profit above £500,000. That works out at less than £1 million a year. Again compare that to Tottenham who generate up to £1m of catering income per match.

Tottenham make around £5m per home match based on ticket sales plus catering income minus all costs. Add in Cup & European games and they are making around £125m profit on match day income.

West Ham only generate around £40 million of ticket sales. They keep 100% of that, but with a nominal amount of catering income to add on they are light years behind Tottenham despite having a stadium slightly bigger and of similar age.

Yes Tottenham have a mortgage to pay off for the new stadium but it's transformed their income generation to elite level. West Ham have a rented stadium and are barely generating more money than they did at the old Boleyn Ground.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the Olympic stadium had no plan beyond 2012. They had a ridiculous red line about keeping it as an Athletics venue rather than building a new national Athletics stadium with a more appropriate capacity (25-30k) elsewhere following the games. Building a Stadium Australia type venue for 2012 that would be suitable for Football and/or Rugby conversion after the game would have been a better solution.

If the PL want the regulator to go away the easier thing for them to do would be to offer a merger (takeover) of the EFL and come up with a funding model more like the one in Germany. There would be nothing to regulate in professional football if there was one combined league structure under one organisation.