Angry of Bexley here. I have written to my MP about this. If they're getting 60m of taxpayers money I expect us and the other 90 or so league clubs to be afforded the same consideration.
Limpix: Brits waved their flags. Big bucks sponsors got their wad. WHU get a new ground and the man in the street pays for it. Boris talks this up as "A good deal for Londoners" and becomes PM. The EU falls apart. Britain floods. Charlton go bust.
Angry of Bexley here. I have written to my MP about this. If they're getting 60m of taxpayers money I expect us and the other 90 or so league clubs to be afforded the same consideration.
It looks likely that West Ham will be moving into the Olympic Stadium, anybody worried ?
Two things here: This will be the end of West Ham as a football club. They'll never fill the stadium, lose our money, get relegated and disappear like Coventry, Portsmouth, Rangers etc. They'll also be like MK Dons, a new club, no history, just bling.
It looks likely that West Ham will be moving into the Olympic Stadium, anybody worried ?
Two things here: This will be the end of West Ham as a football club. They'll never fill the stadium, lose our money, get relegated and disappear like Coventry, Portsmouth, Rangers etc. They'll also be like MK Dons, a new club, no history, just bling.
I am not sure you have looked at the whole picture... The david's will sell upton park for a tidy profit, they will then sell the club to someone extremely rich. They will become just another chelsea, but have the best ground in the league, best access and facilities, they will become one of the big clubs if not the biggest. Don't kid yourself that they won't fill it, it will be packed to the rafters of people who have never heard of Billy Bonds, Clyde Best, Alan Devonshire and the like.
I don't get the liking them to MK Dons? they are moving a mile down the road and are not changing their name so their history will always be there! So by your thinking Arsenal are like MK Dons? they moved further than west ham will be. Will Liverpool have no history if they move stadiums?
You might not like West Ham (and I for one hate the move) But make no mistake, this move will work for all the people that want it to. It will be very successful if you like change......... I don't.
They have to use the money they get for upton park to pay down the clubs debts, as they will no longer have an asset to secure the debt against. With debts of circa 70m they have some work to do!
The David's have also been adamant they don't plan on selling west ham anytime soon, and there is in fact a provision in the deal that if indeed they do sell the club at anytime over the next ten years the public purse gets a share of the profits (due to making the club more saleable)
They have to use the money they get for upton park to pay down the clubs debts, as they will no longer have an asset to secure the debt against. With debts of circa 70m they have some work to do!
The David's have also been adamant they don't plan on selling west ham anytime soon, and there is in fact a provision in the deal that if indeed they do sell the club at anytime over the next ten years the public purse gets a share of the profits (due to making the club more saleable)
It's one of those, wait and see things..... They are business men and knew what they wanted to do from the outset. I doubt any profit share they have to give will be minimal because they have got their own way on almost everything they wanted with this ground because no one wanted to be left with an empty stadium.
Not sure how much West Ham's debts are or how much the ground is worth, but I bet after selling Upton Park there will still be profit there. I don't like either of them but they ain't stupid and do know how to make a schilling.
Reading this morning that WHU's debt currently £100m. Perhaps someone can explain how a club with that much debt has managed to secure a £600m stadium for £15m + a peppercorn rent without there being some sort of illegal state subsidy? That's nearly 300 years 'rent' to get our money back discounting the fact it doesn't even cover the upkeep. How many of us would rent out a property which lost us money every month.
In other news LB Newham, one of the UK's poorest boroughs, also lends them £40m. All that hospitality enjoyed by the mayor has paid off big time hasn't it!
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
Sorry NLA, but whats the story here ? (had alook through the thread but didn't see it).
when spurs built their new training ground they did so on the site of Whitewebbs club this housed about 10 tens from the age of 5-18 plus a adults team and a vets team, it had training facilities and changing rooms snooker tables and bar
all enclosed in a safe area
spurs purchased the ground off of Whitewebbs club, Whitewebbs football club paid each year an amount to Whitewebbs club (this had Tennis and Bowls also plus an archery club)
Daniel Levy in the meeting of members and parties concerned stated on more than one occasion that he would house the football club like for like
this never ever happened and will not happen the club has lost 8 teams and is seasons away from folding IMO
They have to use the money they get for upton park to pay down the clubs debts, as they will no longer have an asset to secure the debt against. With debts of circa 70m they have some work to do!
The David's have also been adamant they don't plan on selling west ham anytime soon, and there is in fact a provision in the deal that if indeed they do sell the club at anytime over the next ten years the public purse gets a share of the profits (due to making the club more saleable)
It's one of those, wait and see things..... They are business men and knew what they wanted to do from the outset. I doubt any profit share they have to give will be minimal because they have got their own way on almost everything they wanted with this ground because no one wanted to be left with an empty stadium.
Not sure how much West Ham's debts are or how much the ground is worth, but I bet after selling Upton Park there will still be profit there. I don't like either of them but they ain't stupid and do know how to make a schilling.
Their debts are upwards of 70m, and I remember seeing somewhere a valuation of 25m or so for Upton Park, but I have absolutely no idea if that is realistic or not.
Think a lot of people are under estimating the size of West Ham, huge club, huge potential and as I said before IF they price it right to the normal fan they will sell 50-60 k week in week out
They are a bigger club in terms of support than Chelsea
Not good for us as I'm sure their marketing is a lot better than ours
It's a great deal for West Ham. Nothing's for certain but it gives them a very good chance of establishing themselves as one of he biggest teams on the country - fantastic stadium and great access from East and South East England (unfortunately for us). Old fans will still go and new ones don't care about the 'character' of Upton Park (never thought much of it myself).
West Ham aren't holding anyone to ransom or doing anything wrong. The problem was that the Government of the time made an ill-considered commitment to retaining a stadium for athletics that was never viable on its own (a 25k stadium - I stand corrected Soapy Jones). Premier League football is the only sport that could make it viable without burdening the tax payer with an unreasonable and indefinite bill for maintenance and capital repayments. Within those constraints we have got the best, although not great, deal for the tax payer, whatever supporters of other football clubs may think. Maybe the commitment to a permanent new athletics stadium was worthwhile just to secure the Olympics, maybe it wasn't. But we are where we are.
west ham have always been a more appealing club to many sth of the river, the east end catchment is huge I don't envisage sell outs but 40 to 45 k easy and on big games with bigger clubs coming to them I see no issue with hitting the 50k plus
The more I think about, I might have underestimated the threat to Charlton. I think we should make trouble over it. The transport links from south of the river have been transformed, as they needed to be for the Olympics- but all this at the taxpayers' expense and so West Ham get a taxpayer subsidised go on our patch, and that before we even get on to the subsidy for the actual stadium move.
Since this government and Boris are so pro-business and competition, they stand accused of using taxpayer money to give one business an unfair advantage over 6-7 others. They have no popular mandate to do that. The issue may not be so much whether West Ham can go there at all, but whether West Ham are paying anywhere near enough for the privilege.
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
Sorry NLA, but whats the story here ? (had alook through the thread but didn't see it).
when spurs built their new training ground they did so on the site of Whitewebbs club this housed about 10 tens from the age of 5-18 plus a adults team and a vets team, it had training facilities and changing rooms snooker tables and bar
all enclosed in a safe area
spurs purchased the ground off of Whitewebbs club, Whitewebbs football club paid each year an amount to Whitewebbs club (this had Tennis and Bowls also plus an archery club)
Daniel Levy in the meeting of members and parties concerned stated on more than one occasion that he would house the football club like for like
this never ever happened and will not happen the club has lost 8 teams and is seasons away from folding IMO
Premier League football is the only sport that could make it viable without burdening the tax payer with an unreasonable and indefinite bill for maintenance and capital repayments.
That's the point though, we as taxpayers are still effectively burdened with the bill yet now have WHU calling the shots instead. For the sake of just £2m a year in rent, as in peanuts in the scheme of things.
I'd rather it was still 100% publically controlled but downgraded to the 25k as planned, retaining athletics, even if it did cost us a little more than it will now in the end.
It's all political in the end of course but contrast this approach with the governments decision to give that huge rolling stock contract to Siemens on the basis that we weren't allowed under EU law to illegally subsidise/favour the UK company (Bombadier?).
The mins didnt reflect the meeting it was when we challenged the mins in the next meeting he denied ever saying it
Yet there was circa 50 people in that meeting who told him he did and it all got a bit irrate and several including myself were asked to leave
He then at the meeting we were asked to leave stated that he had said he would look into finding like for like but this was proving difficult
Which when you considervthe members had to vote after the first meeting when he had clearly stated that they would find the football club another base with like for like facilities at the expense of his business you can see why people felt decieved
Totally mate. Feel sorry for the kids & the teams. Has anyone tried to get one of those "No win/No Fee" lawyers ? If you've got 50-odd people stating what/wasn't said, there must be a good case.
(In saying that, I was taken to the cleaners by Lewisham Council 17 years back, really must try and find a solictor willing to take on The Council).
Premier League football is the only sport that could make it viable without burdening the tax payer with an unreasonable and indefinite bill for maintenance and capital repayments.
That's the point though, we as taxpayers are still effectively burdened with the bill yet now have WHU calling the shots instead. For the sake of just £2m a year in rent, as in peanuts in the scheme of things.
I'd rather it was still 100% publically controlled but downgraded to the 25k as planned, retaining athletics, even if it did cost us a little more than it will now in the end.
It's all political in the end of course but contrast this approach with the governments decision to give that huge rolling stock contract to Siemens on the basis that we weren't allowed under EU law to illegally subsidise/favour the UK company (Bombadier?).
It isn't a good deal for the tax payer, but it is the best one available. The reason it is the best available is because of decisions made in the past, not because of West Ham. It isn't anti-competitive either. The fact that West Ham were the only realistic bidders isn't down to them, or the current Authorities. Other people were free to bid, and Tottenham did, but they weren't prepared to secure the stadium as a permanent venue for athletics. Which was good sense but bad politics.
You and I would prefer to bear the extra expense because we are concerned about a rival club. That isn't an issue for most tax payers, or for the people who represent them.
What would really put the icing on the cake is if it encouraged Crystal Palace to bid for the athletics stadium in CP park, which I imagine now has a very uncertain future.
Premier League football is the only sport that could make it viable without burdening the tax payer with an unreasonable and indefinite bill for maintenance and capital repayments.
That's the point though, we as taxpayers are still effectively burdened with the bill yet now have WHU calling the shots instead. For the sake of just £2m a year in rent, as in peanuts in the scheme of things.
I'd rather it was still 100% publically controlled but downgraded to the 25k as planned, retaining athletics, even if it did cost us a little more than it will now in the end.
It's all political in the end of course but contrast this approach with the governments decision to give that huge rolling stock contract to Siemens on the basis that we weren't allowed under EU law to illegally subsidise/favour the UK company (Bombadier?).
It isn't a good deal for the tax payer, but it is the best one available. The reason it is the best available is because of decisions made in the past, not because of West Ham. It isn't anti-competitive either. The fact that West Ham were the only realistic bidders isn't down to them, or the current Authorities. Other people were free to bid, and Tottenham did, but they weren't prepared to secure the stadium as a permanent venue for athletics. Which was good sense but bad politics.
You and I would prefer to bear the extra expense because we are concerned about a rival club. That isn't an issue for most tax payers, or for the people who represent them.
What would really put the icing on the cake is if it encouraged Crystal Palace to bid for the athletics stadium in CP park, which I imagine now has a very uncertain future.
I don't agree with you. West Ham as a business has been handed an unfair advantage over several clubs: us, Millwall and Orient, but also to a lesser extent the other London Prem league clubs. That's wrong.
The issue is that too much public money has been thrown at West Ham to induce them to go there. That is an issue for all taxpayers.The more I think about it, the more I think this deal could be challenged.
The taxpayer didn't pay for this for West Ham, they paid for it for the Olympics. The taxpayers money is still spent on the stadium whether West Ham went there or not, the problem isn't West Hams fault they are just located and in a better position than anyone else to utilise it.
If peoples problem is just the taxpayer then West Ham going there at least stops the taxpayer paying for the upkeep of an empty stadium. As for challenging the deal, do you not think Mr Hearn hasn't tried every avenue there? You just have to face it, it's happening for better or worse it is going to be West Hams stadium.
Sounds like people would rather it was a wasted stadium than west ham benefit from it and them pay some money back..... Its west ham not millwall ffs
I'm sure if in the future the only viable option for charlton is to take some pre built council stadium on the peninsular we'll all be asking us to pay the maximum so as not to have cost the council any money
I might have to accept that West Ham having it is the least worst option for the taxpayer. Although I am not yet convinced.
What I'm getting at is that is that they are getting MORE money from taxpayers. 40m from Newham for starters. The country is in recession and the FAPL is awash with money. And west ham get taxpayers money???
On this basis we should ask Greenwich to buy the Valley from Jiminez.
For Newham they see the higher business rates and inward investment from a well used stadium as a good investment for £40m. UCL East development wouldn't be happening without a successful southern park
Comments
This will be the end of West Ham as a football club. They'll never fill the stadium, lose our money, get relegated and disappear like Coventry, Portsmouth, Rangers etc.
They'll also be like MK Dons, a new club, no history, just bling.
I don't get the liking them to MK Dons? they are moving a mile down the road and are not changing their name so their history will always be there! So by your thinking Arsenal are like MK Dons? they moved further than west ham will be. Will Liverpool have no history if they move stadiums?
You might not like West Ham (and I for one hate the move) But make no mistake, this move will work for all the people that want it to. It will be very successful if you like change......... I don't.
The David's have also been adamant they don't plan on selling west ham anytime soon, and there is in fact a provision in the deal that if indeed they do sell the club at anytime over the next ten years the public purse gets a share of the profits (due to making the club more saleable)
Not sure how much West Ham's debts are or how much the ground is worth, but I bet after selling Upton Park there will still be profit there. I don't like either of them but they ain't stupid and do know how to make a schilling.
In other news LB Newham, one of the UK's poorest boroughs, also lends them £40m. All that hospitality enjoyed by the mayor has paid off big time hasn't it!
when spurs built their new training ground they did so on the site of Whitewebbs club this housed about 10 tens from the age of 5-18 plus a adults team and a vets team, it had training facilities and changing rooms snooker tables and bar
all enclosed in a safe area
spurs purchased the ground off of Whitewebbs club, Whitewebbs football club paid each year an amount to Whitewebbs club (this had Tennis and Bowls also plus an archery club)
Daniel Levy in the meeting of members and parties concerned stated on more than one occasion that he would house the football club like for like
this never ever happened and will not happen the club has lost 8 teams and is seasons away from folding IMO
They are a bigger club in terms of support than Chelsea
Not good for us as I'm sure their marketing is a lot better than ours
West Ham aren't holding anyone to ransom or doing anything wrong. The problem was that the Government of the time made an ill-considered commitment to retaining a stadium for athletics that was never viable on its own (a 25k stadium - I stand corrected Soapy Jones). Premier League football is the only sport that could make it viable without burdening the tax payer with an unreasonable and indefinite bill for maintenance and capital repayments. Within those constraints we have got the best, although not great, deal for the tax payer, whatever supporters of other football clubs may think. Maybe the commitment to a permanent new athletics stadium was worthwhile just to secure the Olympics, maybe it wasn't. But we are where we are.
Decent away numbers too !!
west ham have always been a more appealing club to many sth of the river, the east end catchment is huge I don't envisage sell outs but 40 to 45 k easy and on big games with bigger clubs coming to them I see no issue with hitting the 50k plus
Since this government and Boris are so pro-business and competition, they stand accused of using taxpayer money to give one business an unfair advantage over 6-7 others. They have no popular mandate to do that. The issue may not be so much whether West Ham can go there at all, but whether West Ham are paying anywhere near enough for the privilege.
Thanks NLA.
I'd rather it was still 100% publically controlled but downgraded to the 25k as planned, retaining athletics, even if it did cost us a little more than it will now in the end.
It's all political in the end of course but contrast this approach with the governments decision to give that huge rolling stock contract to Siemens on the basis that we weren't allowed under EU law to illegally subsidise/favour the UK company (Bombadier?).
But as with most things people dont have the cash to challenge him or the others involved and end up just feeling resentful and bitter towards him
Yet there was circa 50 people in that meeting who told him he did and it all got a bit irrate and several including myself were asked to leave
He then at the meeting we were asked to leave stated that he had said he would look into finding like for like but this was proving difficult
Which when you considervthe members had to vote after the first meeting when he had clearly stated that they would find the football club another base with like for like facilities at the expense of his business you can see why people felt decieved
Has anyone tried to get one of those "No win/No Fee" lawyers ?
If you've got 50-odd people stating what/wasn't said, there must be a good case.
(In saying that, I was taken to the cleaners by Lewisham Council 17 years back, really must try and find a solictor willing to take on The Council).
Good Luck.
You and I would prefer to bear the extra expense because we are concerned about a rival club. That isn't an issue for most tax payers, or for the people who represent them.
What would really put the icing on the cake is if it encouraged Crystal Palace to bid for the athletics stadium in CP park, which I imagine now has a very uncertain future.
The issue is that too much public money has been thrown at West Ham to induce them to go there. That is an issue for all taxpayers.The more I think about it, the more I think this deal could be challenged.
If peoples problem is just the taxpayer then West Ham going there at least stops the taxpayer paying for the upkeep of an empty stadium. As for challenging the deal, do you not think Mr Hearn hasn't tried every avenue there? You just have to face it, it's happening for better or worse it is going to be West Hams stadium.
I'm sure if in the future the only viable option for charlton is to take some pre built council stadium on the peninsular we'll all be asking us to pay the maximum so as not to have cost the council any money
I might have to accept that West Ham having it is the least worst option for the taxpayer. Although I am not yet convinced.
What I'm getting at is that is that they are getting MORE money from taxpayers. 40m from Newham for starters. The country is in recession and the FAPL is awash with money. And west ham get taxpayers money???
On this basis we should ask Greenwich to buy the Valley from Jiminez.