indierich06 Posted 6 August 2015 Posted 6 August 2015 http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/33780720 Anyone else think this is absolutely disgusting? Surely if they want to use it, they should pay to bring it up to Premier League standard and pay the running costs and an appropriate rental charge. We're going to be paying for policing, stewarding, even the ****ing corner flags and nets! All while Gold and his cronies try and rip off travelling fans as much as they possibly can via ticket prices. Absolutely scandalous.
stripeyfox Posted 6 August 2015 Posted 6 August 2015 It seems the London Legacy team have bent over backwards to avoid having a "white elephant". The costs of reconfuguring the stadium post 2012 are astonishing and West Ham aren't paying for much of that, but you would think at the very least they would have to pay for match day costs. Although I think I read somewhere that West Ham will not get to keep all match day revenues either. I think there is a lot still to come out about the Olympic Stadium move... I'll dig through the skyscrapercity.com forum as I'm sure I've seen lots of detail on there but the thread is 450+ pages long! Decent article here: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/20/west-ham-olympic-stadium-state-aid-question
purpleronnie Posted 6 August 2015 Posted 6 August 2015 Incredible that there wasn't plans for the olympic stadium after the olympics were over, it could have been an easy transition like the commenwealth stadium, now it will end up being one of the most expensive stadiums in the world.
stripeyfox Posted 6 August 2015 Posted 6 August 2015 The original plan, as designed into the stadium plan was to remove the top tier and be left with a 25,000 seater stadium for Athletics. But I suppose this doesn't generate much money - maybe one or two events per year and is not big enough to host a European or World Championship. So an anchor tenant was needed. Tottenham's bid probably offered the best value, but they would not retain the athletics track which was a key stipulation of LLDC. So that left West Ham as the only viable option and it sounds as if WHU have had them over a barrel, so to speak. West Ham will end up with a great deal commercially, but in a stadium not suited to football. Even with the retractable seating in place the front row of the halfway line is still some 15m from the edge of the pitch.
urban.spaceman Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 Things West Ham will not have to pay to provide for the new stadium: - 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 So basically, everything except for the actual paying surface. An £800m stadium (built for £500m and converted specifically for their use at a cost of £272m). Basically free of charge. (OK, £15m was contributed by the club to go towards conversion, and they will pay around £2.5m in annual rent). Overall, they're getting a world class stadium for around the same amount of money they paid for Andy Carroll. When you consider the fact that our stadium cost only £37m (I know it was 15 years ago, etc) and pretty much managed to bankrupt us, coupled with ITV Digital's collapse, Eric Hall and our own financial mismanagement - we were 24 hours from ceasing to exist and only survived thanks to money raised by fans and former players - it's pretty disgusting to see a club to be gifted a stadium with practically zero financial contribution or resulting struggle that so many clubs have had in the past. Not to mention the fact that they're a pretty decent team anyway, and should finish in the top half of the table (somewhere below us hopefully) - with the new TV deal next season they're going to prosper easily. So much for "Financial Fair Play". Disgraceful.
separator Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 They've also sold the Boleyn ground for allegedly £60m+ to property developers, a nice little earner all in all
Super_horns Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 We will all have to pay again when we visit..
Jordan Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 Using public funds for professional sports teams' stadiums almost always ends up as a bad investment when it's done (all too frequently) in the United States. I'm sorry to see that the same mistake is being repeated for West Ham.
Webbo Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 The thing is £2.5 million a year is better than nothing. What else would you do with it?
Hollism Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 The thing is £2.5 million a year is better than nothing. What else would you do with it? Let them and Spurs and anyone else interested go to a bidding war? Surely after several offers and counter-offers, there'd be an agreement for a lot more than 500k a week. There'll be a few players getting paid more than that in five years time.
stripeyfox Posted 21 September 2016 Posted 21 September 2016 Was trying to find a suitable thread to put this in, but has anyone been following the problems West Ham fans are having in the new stadium? Seems to be a real battleground between the club and fans - mainly it seems around standing areas. Those fans who used to stand at Upton Park have now been dispersed around the Olympic Stadium and surrounded by "new" sitters. The club's old stewards are not employed, as the stadium operator has it's own stewards who are taking a heavy handed approach to forcing people to sit. Also concerns about lack of segregation (you can basically walk all around the stadium), no police presence in the stadium (because their radios don't work in there), lack of security etc, and the "best" seats (next to away fans - their L1 if you like) are not being sold to Hammers fans but to tourists via Thomas Cook! Some of the fans are genuinely concerned that when the stadium gets it's first "real" test against Arsenal, Spurs or Chelsea that it is going to mayhem! Seems a real shame - the whole deal is an arrange marriage between two parties who didn't want it! https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/sep/11/west-ham-london-stadium-upton-park
KFS Posted 21 September 2016 Posted 21 September 2016 All this and commuters using Stratford on the evening of West Ham's games get the discomfort of being wedged up against a smelly bald bloke who "'ates Miwawl"
purpleronnie Posted 21 September 2016 Posted 21 September 2016 As usual the club did nothing to prevent problems. It wouldn't have been difficult to designate a standing area (or singing section as clubs prefer to call them) but nope. Its incredible how little thought the fans get when new stadiums are built.
boots60 Posted 21 September 2016 Posted 21 September 2016 Your proper Cockernees don't like change at all. Understandable I suppose. Having all fecked off to Essex years ago brought about by the huge change of traditional east end life, they've now lost their beloved boleyn & are having to adjust to the modern world once again. Confrontation inevitable. The fact that their piss poor on the pitch doesn't help either.
lcfcben76 Posted 21 September 2016 Posted 21 September 2016 seems a real shambles at west ham and even though i despise the club and fans you do have to feel sorry for them with the current state of affairs. However seeing that a fa spat on the clubs CEO at the watford game is quite simply a disgrace
foxy boxing Posted 21 September 2016 Posted 21 September 2016 disgraceful that other football fans and taxpayers have to fund their stadium and that somebody else pays for the policing in and around their ground, with the amount of money football clubs make now they can afford to pay it themselves, they got the stadium on the cheap it is time for them to start paying up
Wymsey Posted 21 September 2016 Posted 21 September 2016 They should've pinched Wembley instead imo. They and the FA have strong ties with Trevor Brooking etc.
stripeyfox Posted 21 September 2016 Posted 21 September 2016 1 hour ago, foxy boxing said: disgraceful that other football fans and taxpayers have to fund their stadium and that somebody else pays for the policing in and around their ground, with the amount of money football clubs make now they can afford to pay it themselves, they got the stadium on the cheap it is time for them to start paying up They didn't "get" the stadium, they just rent it. Whether that is a good deal for the taxpayer is another issue, but the reason West Ham got a good deal was because the London Legacy group backed themselves into a corner by insisting that the running track be retained, leaving West Ham as the only viable anchor tenant.
stripeyfox Posted 21 September 2016 Posted 21 September 2016 West Ham v Chelsea in the next round of the EFL Cup. Could be interesting...
Wymsey Posted 25 September 2016 Posted 25 September 2016 Watching the game today, it seems as if the club constructed some temporary stands in front of where the original Olympic Stadium seats are/were - probably to create a better 'atmosphere'. Looks quite tacky and out of place.
Grewks Posted 26 September 2016 Posted 26 September 2016 So taxpayers are funding West Ham's ground? Forest and Burton will be furious next season.
Jimothy Posted 26 September 2016 Posted 26 September 2016 11 hours ago, Wymeswold fox said: Watching the game today, it seems as if the club constructed some temporary stands in front of where the original Olympic Stadium seats are/were - probably to create a better 'atmosphere'. Looks quite tacky and out of place. The temporary stands are part of the deal, they needed them to make it into a workable football stadium. It just hasn't been done very well.
stripeyfox Posted 26 September 2016 Posted 26 September 2016 12 hours ago, Wymeswold fox said: Watching the game today, it seems as if the club constructed some temporary stands in front of where the original Olympic Stadium seats are/were - probably to create a better 'atmosphere'. Looks quite tacky and out of place. 57 minutes ago, Facecloth said: The temporary stands are part of the deal, they needed them to make it into a workable football stadium. It just hasn't been done very well. It was really the London Legacy's insistance that the stadium must be able to be retain the Athletics circuit which has lead to the slightly odd looking stadium. The entire deal is unsuitable for all parties really. West Ham fans didn't want it, but in the end they were the only ones prepared to take the deal and in the process negotiated a cheap rent. It takes about four or five days I think to reconfigure it back to Athletics mode and same again back to Football mode, at significant cost (not sure who pays for that)! Noticed mass exodus of West Ham fans from around 70 minutes. I know they were 0-2 down but the stadium looked empty by 85 minutes!
sk3since03 Posted 28 September 2016 Posted 28 September 2016 I don't feel for West Ham as a club or its fans! F*** em
yorkie1999 Posted 28 September 2016 Posted 28 September 2016 40 minutes ago, sk3since03 said: I don't feel for West Ham as a club or its fans! F*** em Does anyone. Bunch of scumbags.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.