Jambomo Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 They might have got a better deal on the rent but its probably better that the ground is in regular use and is still available for athletics events etc. I believe Tottenham wanted to buy it and essentially rip it apart which would have been and even bigger pissing-away of taxpayers money. I guess that, with the fact that it isn't really 'their' stadium makes it less of a good deal for them, although you can hardly say they are doing badly from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Burton Albion took 11,000 to Old Trafford. They must be even hugerer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Totteringham fans were spewing at missing out on the Queen Elizabeth right up until a "mystery fire" made their new stadium possible. Pity its not more clear but there is a sign outside Forest Gate station that points to the new stadium. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5495998,0.0248607,3a,29.6y,326.69h,84.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV7eTAyZHdurpYnOBKRiTZw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeboy Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Great that the Hammers fans signed off their last game at the old ground with a bang. So glad that my tax dollars have been used to help them find a bigger ground. Would you rather it sat empty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesc Fabregas Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 That's a few snide digs you've made. Define 'fanboy' please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdenbeath Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Is this the same stadium that was to be an athletics venue as was stated in the Olympic bid as part of the Olympic legacy? Bit ironic a Queen's Park fan going on about a football stadium being subsidised by the taxpayer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 They might have got a better deal on the rent but its probably better that the ground is in regular use and is still available for athletics events etc. I believe Tottenham wanted to buy it and essentially rip it apart which would have been and even bigger pissing-away of taxpayers money. I guess that, with the fact that it isn't really 'their' stadium makes it less of a good deal for them, although you can hardly say they are doing badly from it. That's an understatement! Reports suggest that the taxpayer is paying most of the maintenance and policing costs too. Remember that stadium will be rebranded in West Ham colours too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeboy Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 If you rent your home from a private landlord, do you expect to pay for maintainance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 If you rent your home from a private landlord, do you expect to pay for maintainance? West Ham's landlord is, in effect, the taxpayer who has been well and truly stuffed in that deal. It's a form of state aid IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 West Ham's landlord is, in effect, the taxpayer who has been well and truly stuffed in that deal. It's a form of state aid IMO. TBH that is always going to be the problem with building stadia like this for events such as the Olympics. The taxpayer was always going to lose out because we paid to build it and it will have maintenance costs which we pay for, whether West Ham are in it or not. Whoever came in to use it would probably try for roughly the same deal, as said, the other option is that nobody uses it barring the occasional athletics meet which is surely more of a waste? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 TBH that is always going to be the problem with building stadia like this for events such as the Olympics. The taxpayer was always going to lose out because we paid to build it and it will have maintenance costs which we pay for, whether West Ham are in it or not. Whoever came in to use it would probably try for roughly the same deal, as said, the other option is that nobody uses it barring the occasional athletics meet which is surely more of a waste? The costs are much higher due to the conversion. The original plan was for the stadium to remain an athletics stadium with a reduced capacity. The conversion cost (including the new roof, is reportedly over £150 million. possibly nearer £200 million. West Ham is paying only £15 million, Newham Council £40 million, the LLDC and the Government paying the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Can a large athletics stadium ever be anything other than a white elephant? London only gets 1 weekend of high class athletics a year. How do you make any money for the rest of the time? It was a mad decision not to build it with retractable seating in the first place. Anyone could see as soon as the plans were announced that this was obviously going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Can a large athletics stadium ever be anything other than a white elephant? London only gets 1 weekend of high class athletics a year. How do you make any money for the rest of the time? It was a mad decision not to build it with retractable seating in the first place. Anyone could see as soon as the plans were announced that this was obviously going to happen. Probably would have reduced their chances of knighthoods and gongs if they'd done that. After all, it was all about athletics and the legacy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 The costs are much higher due to the conversion. The original plan was for the stadium to remain an athletics stadium with a reduced capacity. The conversion cost (including the new roof, is reportedly over £150 million. possibly nearer £200 million. West Ham is paying only £15 million, Newham Council £40 million, the LLDC and the Government paying the rest. You make it sound as though West Ham have held them to ransom. If those who are responsible for the Olympic Stadium didn't get a good deal it's because they didn't negotiate a good one. Are you going to criticise West Ham for not paying more than they had to? Fair enough we can question why they haven't agreed a better deal with West Ham, but I still think it's a better option than being used once every so often for athletics and empty the rest of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Can a large athletics stadium ever be anything other than a white elephant? London only gets 1 weekend of high class athletics a year. How do you make any money for the rest of the time? It was a mad decision not to build it with retractable seating in the first place. Anyone could see as soon as the plans were announced that this was obviously going to happen. Totally agree. You make it sound as though West Ham have held them to ransom. If those who are responsible for the Olympic Stadium didn't get a good deal it's because they didn't negotiate a good one. Are you going to criticise West Ham for not paying more than they had to? Fair enough we can question why they haven't agreed a better deal with West Ham, but I still think it's a better option than being used once every so often for athletics and empty the rest of the time. I criticised the deal, not West Ham who negotiated a fantastic deal at the taxpayers' expense. West Ham should be paying both a bigger contribution towards the conversion costs and a higher annual lease charge. But the politicians and bureaucrats screwed up and are getting away with it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 You make it sound as though West Ham have held them to ransom. If those who are responsible for the Olympic Stadium didn't get a good deal it's because they didn't negotiate a good one. Are you going to criticise West Ham for not paying more than they had to? You're spot on here. West Ham have played a blinder, even if Gold and Sullivan do sell up and make their uber millions in the not too distant future. The fault lies 100% with the idiots taken to the cleaners by successful business people that live in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Chris Smalling leaving Upton Park... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy boo Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Upton Road? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawfield shed boy Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 I've probably been to more games at Upton Park than that insufferable, unfunny c**t. I'll be sad to see the back of the place. Many happy memories from going there. Couldn't get a sniff of a ticket for any of the home games this season. You need to keep in with the right crowd... Three games this season - Tickets for em all including my scottish friends... 👠Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy boo Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 You need to keep in with the right crowd... Three games this season - Tickets for em all including my scottish friends... 👠Mate from Essex and his mates have been good contacts for us over the years. Also, unused season tickets on the website got us 4 for Palace game. One was £80 though:o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.