If you were West Ham you would eye up the big developments in Gravesend, Greenhithe and down into Ashford as prime areas to get support from. If you can sell a season ticket priced at a decent level with free train travel, that'll be enough for a lot of people
I don't understand why people turn this into an issue about taxpayer funding.
We needed a stadium for the Olympics. We built one. Now the Olympics have finished, surely there is a responsibility to maximise the returns on the stadium over the long-term. This means leasing it out to the highest bidder.
Any bidder will only bid at the market rate (by definition). If that doesn't cover the maintenance/running costs then so be it. No tenant is going to pay more than they have to!
Then tell them to piss off and stay at Upton Park.
What would that achieve?
Are you saying, as a taxpayer, that you would rather have an empty stadium cost X to run than a well-used stadium costing X to run but also bringing in some income?
I don't understand why people turn this into an issue about taxpayer funding.
We needed a stadium for the Olympics. We built one. Now the Olympics have finished, surely there is a responsibility to maximise the returns on the stadium over the long-term. This means leasing it out to the highest bidder.
Any bidder will only bid at the market rate (by definition). If that doesn't cover the maintenance/running costs then so be it. No tenant is going to pay more than they have to!
Why the hell should ANY privately owned football club benefit from a stadium built by the tax payer?
Spurs want a 60,000 seater stadium so we're building one out of our own pocket yet West Ham get given one at a fraction of the cost that Spurs need to fork out to build one...and still more tax payers money will be used for the rebuilding costs.
Are you saying, as a taxpayer, that you would rather have an empty stadium cost X to run than a well-used stadium costing X to run but also bringing in some income?
The stadium should be scaled back to the original planned capacity and left for athletics, what it was designed for. Simple as taht.
the bigger target area for West Ham will be north Kent, 10 minutes on High Speed from Ebbsfleet, tons of cheap parking, 5 minute walk to the stadium when you get off at Stratford International
This is true. 20 mins on the DLR from Woolwich Arsenal as well.
We needed a stadium for the Olympics. We built one. Now the Olympics have finished, surely there is a responsibility to maximise the returns on the stadium over the long-term. This means leasing it out to the highest bidder.
Any bidder will only bid at the market rate (by definition).
If that doesn't cover the maintenance/running costs then so be it.
Disagree. Unless the shortfall in costs is small & justifiable in terms of providing world class athletics arena, then the stadium should be demolished.
I think the accessibility from both Woolwich and Ebbsfleet could well be a problem for us, particularly if we go into the sort of coma we did for most of the 60's and 70's. I do wonder sometimes how committed some of the crowd are, are they there as it's a convenient day out? I always think of the day Curbs left and he came on the pitch, now that was a bloke deserving of peoples time, but half the ground was empty by the time the game finished.
I don't understand why people turn this into an issue about taxpayer funding.
We needed a stadium for the Olympics. We built one. Now the Olympics have finished, surely there is a responsibility to maximise the returns on the stadium over the long-term. This means leasing it out to the highest bidder.
Any bidder will only bid at the market rate (by definition). If that doesn't cover the maintenance/running costs then so be it. No tenant is going to pay more than they have to!
Why the hell should ANY privately owned football club benefit from a stadium built by the tax payer?
Spurs want a 60,000 seater stadium so we're building one out of our own pocket yet West Ham get given one at a fraction of the cost that Spurs need to fork out to build one...and still more tax payers money will be used for the rebuilding costs.
Are you saying, as a taxpayer, that you would rather have an empty stadium cost X to run than a well-used stadium costing X to run but also bringing in some income?
The stadium should be scaled back to the original planned capacity and left for athletics, what it was designed for. Simple as taht.
I don't understand why people turn this into an issue about taxpayer funding.
We needed a stadium for the Olympics. We built one. Now the Olympics have finished, surely there is a responsibility to maximise the returns on the stadium over the long-term. This means leasing it out to the highest bidder.
Any bidder will only bid at the market rate (by definition). If that doesn't cover the maintenance/running costs then so be it. No tenant is going to pay more than they have to!
I don't understand why people turn this into an issue about taxpayer funding.
We needed a stadium for the Olympics. We built one. Now the Olympics have finished, surely there is a responsibility to maximise the returns on the stadium over the long-term. This means leasing it out to the highest bidder.
Any bidder will only bid at the market rate (by definition). If that doesn't cover the maintenance/running costs then so be it. No tenant is going to pay more than they have to!
Then tell them to piss off and stay at Upton Park.
Exactly.
Of course it is an issue about taxpayer funding. The FAPL under Scudamore, an über capitalist, claims itself to be a federation of 20 private businesses. Why on earth should one of them be subsidized to get a brand new stadium, especially when the vast majority of taxpayers actively don't want to have their taxes used to support West Ham, the beneficiary of oodles of all that private money.
A lot of awkward political questions need to be asked by all non West Ham taxpayers. I will certainly be asking them.
Personally I would much rather the stadium be reduced to 25,000k as a non -football stadium, which was supposed to be the other option. Even if that costs the taxpayer more, it does not hurt other football clubs in the process.
I cannot see many people forking out to travel from places like Gravesend let alone Ashford on a Javelin and then cough up Premier League prices too. They can hardly drive there, can they?
As I recall, Man City may the council a proportion of the ticket sales that exceed Maine Road's capacity. The use of Eastlands as Man City's new ground was factored in from the very start of the process rather than what is happening in Stratford.
the bigger target area for West Ham will be north Kent, 10 minutes on High Speed from Ebbsfleet, tons of cheap parking, 5 minute walk to the stadium when you get off at Stratford International
This is true. 20 mins on the DLR from Woolwich Arsenal as well.
How on earth we as taxpayers have allowed this to happen is a disgrace and we will probably end up paying yet more to convert the stadium.
Do I get my london council Tax back from WHUFC I paid to build it in the first place ?
(An aside: Did man citee pay back any money for the Commonwealth Stadium ?).
Not sure but City have spent a fortune completely regenerating the area around the Etihad for their new training campus, so they've more than paid their way.
Why the hell should ANY privately owned football club benefit from a stadium built by the tax payer?
Spurs want a 60,000 seater stadium so we're building one out of our own pocket
Conveniently ignoring the 27 million pounds coming from public funds for public space improvements, energy & transport schemes.
Without this money, in my opinion, the Spurs project would be a lot less viable or alternatively Spurs would have to find the money themselves.
Whilst you're also conveniently forgetting the much more than the £27m Spurs are having to fork out for the local regeneration.
Woo £27m, just a slight difference.
Happy to acknowledge Spurs are spending money albeit to make money. Also happy to acknowledge the money from the tax payer that Spurs benefit from is less than the sum that West Ham will probably benefit from.
Notwithstanding the above, it is disingenuous to imply Spurs are not benefiting from taxpayers money in their ground development.
Yeah forking out 27 mil and still not paid my boys old football club a bean for stealing their football ground even though levy said like for like
Spurs and community dont go together like ham in bagels
Both clubs robbing the communities they are in
That whole issues irks me. I (and a lot of other people actually) didnt know anything about it until you mentioned it on here. Levy gets on tits at times. He play billy big balls but then he wants everything on the cheap, including transfer deals. Its bang out of order what he did.
As for the going back to the tax payer, yes £27m of tax payers money is being pumped into the development which will benefit the whole of Tottenham as an area and a community. I fail to see how giving West Ham the Olympic Stadium benefits anyone other than West Ham. The whole thing stinks. Should be knocked back to 25,000 capacity. End of.
Ummm. I really do have a problem when it comes to the taxpayers money being wasted on spurious "local benefit" to the tune of £27m. What exactly are Spurs offering the community that £27m of taxpayers money couldn't be offered over a wider area of the community instead of being tied to the football club. It's a disgrace.
I don't understand why people turn this into an issue about taxpayer funding.
We needed a stadium for the Olympics. We built one. Now the Olympics have finished, surely there is a responsibility to maximise the returns on the stadium over the long-term. This means leasing it out to the highest bidder.
Any bidder will only bid at the market rate (by definition). If that doesn't cover the maintenance/running costs then so be it. No tenant is going to pay more than they have to!
Why the hell should ANY privately owned football club benefit from a stadium built by the tax payer?
Spurs want a 60,000 seater stadium so we're building one out of our own pocket yet West Ham get given one at a fraction of the cost that Spurs need to fork out to build one...and still more tax payers money will be used for the rebuilding costs.
Are you saying, as a taxpayer, that you would rather have an empty stadium cost X to run than a well-used stadium costing X to run but also bringing in some income?
The stadium should be scaled back to the original planned capacity and left for athletics, what it was designed for. Simple as taht.
Shame there moving from the Boleyn . Wish them well great club with proper history
This.
Not that we've had too many in recent years but it'll be a shame that we'll never have an away game at Upton Park again after they move. I prefer proper old football grounds like Upton Park, Brisbane Road etc
If I remember rightly, the problem is that we committed to retaining a 60k-seater athletics stadium as part of the Olympic 'legacy'. It was a key part of the Olympic bid - and a ridiculous one. If you think West Ham will struggle to fill the stadium, what chance do you think the regional finals of the hop skip and jump have? Spurs came up with the sensible proposal to redevelop the stadium exclusively for football and invest money in improving the Crystal Palace athletics stadium. It would have been a win-win for both sports but I guess politics trumps common sense.
We committed to nothing of the sort. We told the World that in legacy it would be reduced to 25000 and kept for athletics.
Giving it to a Premier League football club run by a bunch dildo salesmen who pedal filth for a living is obscene.
So back to 25000 rent it to the local football team, ie Orient at a fair rate and use it for a few 20/20 cricket matches and open air concerts in the summer please.
The best bit john boy is the legal threats and letters to any one who tries to go to press or media
The bloke is a horribke piece of crap who has 2 big goons surrounding him when he attended the meetings
I hate him with a passion he got two lads nicked who turned up with a banner up there and made someone phone talk sport to saybthey got their facts wrong in a previous phone call when in fact they got it spot on
There was 50 of us in that room the majority were spuds and each one says he is a scum maggot
The club board that took the money of the sale of the land are just as much scum dont get me wrong and many of that board have moved away but he deliberatly miss lead the members back tracked and amazingly omitted a whole hr of the meeting from the mins
Shame there moving from the Boleyn . Wish them well great club with proper history
This.
Not that we've had too many in recent years but it'll be a shame that we'll never have an away game at Upton Park again after they move. I prefer proper old football grounds like Upton Park, Brisbane Road etc
In years to come people will be shaking their heads at the wanton destruction of so many historic grounds - its a mindless destruction of our heritage. This wouldn't happen to country homes or opera houses, yet the destruction of so much of the fabric of the nations favourite game goes on with hardly a blink of the eye...
over dramatic maybe but it's a real shame that the list of ex-grounds gets bigger every year
It seems that we UK tax payers (as part of our contribution to IMF and European funds to bail out ailing european economies) have been subsidising most Spanish clubs for years!
Comments
A large number of current WH fans may not want to move but over time they will be replaced by a new breed who will know no different.
Long term I see this as a good move for West Ham and a bad one for Spurs, Charlton, Orient and to a degree, Millwall.
Are you saying, as a taxpayer, that you would rather have an empty stadium cost X to run than a well-used stadium costing X to run but also bringing in some income?
Spurs want a 60,000 seater stadium so we're building one out of our own pocket yet West Ham get given one at a fraction of the cost that Spurs need to fork out to build one...and still more tax payers money will be used for the rebuilding costs. The stadium should be scaled back to the original planned capacity and left for athletics, what it was designed for. Simple as taht.
(An aside: Did man citee pay back any money for the Commonwealth Stadium ?).
Of course it is an issue about taxpayer funding. The FAPL under Scudamore, an über capitalist, claims itself to be a federation of 20 private businesses. Why on earth should one of them be subsidized to get a brand new stadium, especially when the vast majority of taxpayers actively don't want to have their taxes used to support West Ham, the beneficiary of oodles of all that private money.
A lot of awkward political questions need to be asked by all non West Ham taxpayers. I will certainly be asking them.
Personally I would much rather the stadium be reduced to 25,000k as a non -football stadium, which was supposed to be the other option. Even if that costs the taxpayer more, it does not hurt other football clubs in the process.
I cannot see many people forking out to travel from places like Gravesend let alone Ashford on a Javelin and then cough up Premier League prices too. They can hardly drive there, can they?
Not sure but City have spent a fortune completely regenerating the area around the Etihad for their new training campus, so they've more than paid their way.
http://www.mcfc.co.uk/citytv/Features/2011/September/Planned-Academy-flythrough
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/sep/14/manchester-city-campus-patrick-vieira
Without this money, in my opinion, the Spurs project would be a lot less viable or alternatively Spurs would have to find the money themselves.
Woo £27m, just a slight difference.
Now officially the club of the people
How fitting
Should be charged 300 million on a 20 yr lease
Notwithstanding the above, it is disingenuous to imply Spurs are not benefiting from taxpayers money in their ground development.
Spurs and community dont go together like ham in bagels
Both clubs robbing the communities they are in
As for the going back to the tax payer, yes £27m of tax payers money is being pumped into the development which will benefit the whole of Tottenham as an area and a community. I fail to see how giving West Ham the Olympic Stadium benefits anyone other than West Ham. The whole thing stinks. Should be knocked back to 25,000 capacity. End of.
Not that we've had too many in recent years but it'll be a shame that we'll never have an away game at Upton Park again after they move. I prefer proper old football grounds like Upton Park, Brisbane Road etc
Giving it to a Premier League football club run by a bunch dildo salesmen who pedal filth for a living is obscene.
So back to 25000 rent it to the local football team, ie Orient at a fair rate and use it for a few 20/20 cricket matches and open air concerts in the summer please.
The bloke is a horribke piece of crap who has 2 big goons surrounding him when he attended the meetings
I hate him with a passion he got two lads nicked who turned up with a banner up there and made someone phone talk sport to saybthey got their facts wrong in a previous phone call when in fact they got it spot on
There was 50 of us in that room the majority were spuds and each one says he is a scum maggot
The club board that took the money of the sale of the land are just as much scum dont get me wrong and many of that board have moved away but he deliberatly miss lead the members back tracked and amazingly omitted a whole hr of the meeting from the mins
over dramatic maybe but it's a real shame that the list of ex-grounds gets bigger every year
guardian.co.uk/football/2013/mar/21/eu-debt-spain-football-clubs