promised land Posted 19 March 2017 Share Posted 19 March 2017 1 hour ago, Kitchandro said: Why do people keep saying it's beautiful? I think it's as ugly as fvck. From the outside it looked cheap to me, all those white panels look like builders hordings around a unit being refurbed in a city centre, concourse was dreadful, toilets even worse and very small. Infact the concourse reminded me of centre and court 1 at Wimbledon. The most non atmospheric ground I think I've ever been in, surprised we didn't give the 'Yeovil town make more noise' an airing, top tier probably did but we couldn't hear it lower down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
An Away Move Posted 19 March 2017 Share Posted 19 March 2017 I went to the game and had a drink with some West Ham fans after the game. One of the things that has really upset them is that their most vocal 'sections' from the Boleyn Ground have been split up. They thought purposely, but it surely has just been done without a thought to it. Maybe next year when season ticket holders can move where they want on renewal things will improve with the atmosphere? It would be the equivalent of us taking everyone out of SK1 and dispersing them randomly in pockets across all sections of any new stadium. Also they don't have their own stewards, security or hospitality staff. I also hear there has been fighting amongst their own fans over sitting and standing early on in the season. They were impressed with our away support. "We hear you might be going to Madrid?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pentatonic Posted 19 March 2017 Share Posted 19 March 2017 I haven't had the pleasure to visit England yet, and a tour of some of the great old football stadiums is on the itinerary. Shame that Upton Park won't be on that list. Stupid and greedy of the WHU owners to tear down tradition like that. Soon, there won't be a White Hart Lane, either. Thought I read a rumor a few years ago that Craven Cottage could be turned into condominiums, but isn't that one of the "crown jewels" of English football stadiums? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosbehFox Posted 20 March 2017 Share Posted 20 March 2017 At least a third of Craven Cottage is protected via listing, so it's one ground I suspect Fulham will be with for a few years. They did consider rebuilding the Riverside Stand a few years back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripeyfox Posted 20 March 2017 Share Posted 20 March 2017 To be honest the whole situation is a mess, and it goes right back to the start of the bidding process for London. The stadium was originally designed as a temporary venue, or at least partly temporary - to be an 80,000 seater venue with temporary upper tier and roof which would be scaled back to a 20,000 or something permanent athletics venue after London 2012. But somewhere along the way, LOCOG became fixated on an "anchor tenant" - effectively a Premier League club who could provide decent revenue rather than the stadium sitting empty most of the time apart from the odd track and field meet. Spurs and West Ham were interested, but Spurs plan involved losing the track which LOCOG were insistent MUST stay. So they effectively backed themselves into a corner where Gold/Sullivan/Brady and co had their pants down and moved in for a very low rent. They presumably thought that low ticket prices would be a good sell to West Ham fans! Meanwhile the taxpayer had to stump up the hundreds of millions of pounds to convert the venue, add the new massive roof etc which will take the stadium operators god knows how long to recoup the costs, and West Ham fans end up watching football in a very nice, but totally unsuitable venue. The conversion from football to athletics mode takes about 5 days and costs another couple of hundred grand each time - crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossman Blessed It Posted 20 March 2017 Share Posted 20 March 2017 It's a shame really as Upton Park was one of the football grounds in the UK with real heritage and reputation. Doing it on the cheap like this shows the pretty annoying side to commercialism in football. Still, not our problem; should we expand the KP and stay in the Premiership for a few years consecutively we'd definitely maintain our atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weller54 Posted 20 March 2017 Share Posted 20 March 2017 7 hours ago, Pentatonic said: I haven't had the pleasure to visit England yet, and a tour of some of the great old football stadiums is on the itinerary. Shame that Upton Park won't be on that list. Stupid and greedy of the WHU owners to tear down tradition like that. Soon, there won't be a White Hart Lane, either. Thought I read a rumor a few years ago that Craven Cottage could be turned into condominiums, but isn't that one of the "crown jewels" of English football stadiums? White Hart Lane should be turned into Condoms as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripeyfox Posted 20 March 2017 Share Posted 20 March 2017 28 minutes ago, Bossman Blessed It said: It's a shame really as Upton Park was one of the football grounds in the UK with real heritage and reputation. Doing it on the cheap like this shows the pretty annoying side to commercialism in football. Still, not our problem; should we expand the KP and stay in the Premiership for a few years consecutively we'd definitely maintain our atmosphere. I don't understand the notion that it was done "on the cheap". The total cost of the London Stadium is more than £700M! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosbehFox Posted 20 March 2017 Share Posted 20 March 2017 23 minutes ago, stripeyfox said: I don't understand the notion that it was done "on the cheap". The total cost of the London Stadium is more than £700M! I think it's down to finishes. The concourses are not fitted out; more stalls and toilets are pre fabricated boxes just inserted on to hard standing. Its largely cladding on the outside rather than brick or block. There's no centre piece curtain walling either. The new roof is very expensive as the structure and foundations were still in place, they had to go with a canvas/membrane system due to weight. If you visit most other Olympic Stadiums, the turnstiles are never in the position of at the very grounds entrance. Instead you access a turnstile at the start of the site, then walk to your seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossman Blessed It Posted 20 March 2017 Share Posted 20 March 2017 37 minutes ago, stripeyfox said: I don't understand the notion that it was done "on the cheap". The total cost of the London Stadium is more than £700M! Built for the purpose of hosting the olympics, not regular football. There's absolutely no flow in the approach, turnstiles and concourse area whatsoever. The compact concourse on match days, followed by the anticipant walk up the stairs at your block in the KP all adds to the atmosphere. Sound circulates through our stadium due to it's football specific design. By 'on the cheap', I mean that instead of waiting, accruing funds and building a new ground from scratch, West Ham opted to lease the Olympic stadium. I remember how intimidating Upton Park was last season - there was a hell of a lot of soul in there and West Ham fans loved it, so did I to be honest (we also won that day which helped). They've abandoned that completely and you can tell it's having an impact on their players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desertfox2 Posted 20 March 2017 Share Posted 20 March 2017 Surely it was pretty obvious that to prevent it becoming a white elephant a football team would eventually move in after the Olympics. Should have been factored in to the design what a waste of 700m. Typical govt waste of money. The amount spurs are spending having them or West Ham involved in the design stage would have been prudent. But meh only taxpayers money was probably the attitude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkie1999 Posted 20 March 2017 Share Posted 20 March 2017 And yet the west ham fans were gloating about having a new ground with cheap season tickets and being able to spend the extra revenue to make them a top 6 club. Wonder if they're feeling the same now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripeyfox Posted 20 March 2017 Share Posted 20 March 2017 59 minutes ago, Bossman Blessed It said: Built for the purpose of hosting the olympics, not regular football. There's absolutely no flow in the approach, turnstiles and concourse area whatsoever. The compact concourse on match days, followed by the anticipant walk up the stairs at your block in the KP all adds to the atmosphere. Sound circulates through our stadium due to it's football specific design. By 'on the cheap', I mean that instead of waiting, accruing funds and building a new ground from scratch, West Ham opted to lease the Olympic stadium. I remember how intimidating Upton Park was last season - there was a hell of a lot of soul in there and West Ham fans loved it, so did I to be honest (we also won that day which helped). They've abandoned that completely and you can tell it's having an impact on their players. I see what you mean yes. West Ham's owners have sold the club's soul down the river in order to make more profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy boxing Posted 20 March 2017 Share Posted 20 March 2017 It just isn't a football ground and clearly West Ham moved there for financial reasons but the place is just soulless and very difficult to create an atmosphere there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STUHILL Posted 20 March 2017 Share Posted 20 March 2017 The deal they got at the expense of the tax payer was a disgrace, so whereas I feel sorry for their fans, as most didn't want the move, I am happy that the owners are taking a lot of stick for it and rather than pushing top 4 like they thought they would, they are back battling relegation! I've never been, but seeing how far back the fans are, makes it look pretty awful for the fans. They are stuck with it now though as no way are their owners ever going to give a deal like that up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fairbanksh Posted 20 March 2017 Share Posted 20 March 2017 The deal between the owners and Boris Johnson absolutely stinks but it's London!! I was actually with a disabled Hammers fan and these facilities are excellent TBH atmosphere was ok around this part of the ground as was the view but you can large areas where you are so far back or near ground level where majority of our fans were pretty dire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
promised land Posted 20 March 2017 Share Posted 20 March 2017 4 hours ago, stripeyfox said: The conversion from football to athletics mode takes about 5 days and costs another couple of hundred grand each time - crazy. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2016/nov/02/west-ham-stadium-losses-retractable-seating-problems The price to convert it has jumped from £300k to £8 million, some jump! Yearly too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maf13r Posted 20 March 2017 Share Posted 20 March 2017 The place was a shambles for disabled/wheelchair access. How on earth they held the paralympics there is beyond me. Like it has been said before them atmosphere was very strange didnt feel like I was watching a football match Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylofox Posted 20 March 2017 Share Posted 20 March 2017 17 hours ago, Sly said: Why are West Ham "struggling" because of the move to the Olympic Stadium? Surely it's no different for the opposing team? Just an excuse for them after a poor start. Lots of teams struggle first season in a new ground. Excuse or not it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 20 March 2017 Author Share Posted 20 March 2017 17 hours ago, Wymeswold fox said: Just strikes me as a long-term business corporate deal, rather than a general football stadium that is purpose-built for the potential of having a strong football atmosphere etc. Liverpool have expanded their ground, but some of their fans don't believe it has enhanced the atmosphere there. Feels as if Liverpool's (alongside the London Stadium) is more like a corporate deal for £££ than the aim to make the ground more intimidating imo. It is. That's what top level football is nowadays in this Country. The PL want to be/are a brand - we see the big clubs go on tours to America, China etc year after year - Top clubs have a lot of regular tourists. Whenever we play at Old Trafford I don't feel like I'm at a game outside the ground. Liverpool have expanded - thankfully not moved - but £60 a ticket. It's a joke. But the tourist people will pay it and that's what they want. The Premier League want to appeal to people abroad. It's why they keep on telling us "it's the best league in the World". During the Manchester City v Liverpool game yesterday they kept reinforcing "oh Guardiola v Klopp, two of the best managers in Europe here in the Premier League"... They big certain games up so much (Man United v Liverpool, Man United v Manchester City etc) that when these games are played they end up being a "let down" (if you will). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livid Posted 20 March 2017 Share Posted 20 March 2017 I went down for the Olympics and it was fine as an athletics stadium standing alone in the Olympic Village. It literally was just a stadium. It didn't need offices, a shop, corporate hospitality, food outlets, all of that was being catered for elsewhere. No surprise that for all the money thrown at it, it has come up short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.