The author is the guy who appears in the doc, saying " I've spoke to the owners lots of times and I guarantee you, they will not sell"
Still he got one thing right. Release the bloody contract, so we can all see. He's wrong about who is holding it back though. I've already pointed that out to him on the You Tube page of the BBC doc - anyone can see it, if they read the FOI thread - but he's not listening.
Orchestrating? I'm struggling to keep up
Guy from QPR trust on this afternoon on ITN I think.
He has a point. The public money that the inquiry would cost could be much better spent, it's not like the corner flags and goal nets that West Ham need are going to buy themselves.
Yes I suppose we did try to build a support base in Kent and bussed in fans but not at the taxpayers expense we didn't.
We already had a supporter base in Kent. It would have been very odd to exclude Medway from Valley Express, but the coaches have never been particularly successful there because of the direct railway link, which doesn't exist in most of the rest of the county. Proportionately, Medway is one of the better areas of Kent for Charlton support.
If you read the claims made in the article, without context, it would suggest the author knows a lot.
However, the way he/she makes the point suggests the opposite.
I think I missed this bit though - "This is somewhat pointless exercise as the issue has already been raised in House of Commons on 24th June this year." I don't recall. Was it an opposition time question or something? In-between [insert anti-Labour/SNP stereotype] rants?
If you read the claims made in the article, without context, it would suggest the author knows a lot.
However, the way he/she makes the point suggests the opposite.
I think I missed this bit though - "This is somewhat pointless exercise as the issue has already been raised in House of Commons on 24th June this year." I don't recall. Was it an opposition time question or something? In-between [insert anti-Labour/SNP stereotype] rants?
He's well known to the Spurs Trust guys as someone who presents himself as ITK. And if you go back to the film, you can see that this is exactly what the BBC producer used him as. He complained on You tube that he was filmed for 15 mins but only appears for 15 seconds..Seems a sincere guy though, being used as useful idiot by Gullivan and Brady.
I think he refers to the briefest exchange between Chris Bryant and Boris, which appeared in the film too. A matter of seconds.
He has a point. The public money that the inquiry would cost could be much better spent, it's not like the corner flags and goal nets that West Ham need are going to buy themselves.
It won't need a full public enquiry. In much the same way as we didn't need to get a single councillor elected in the Valley Party campaign. They capitulated the next day in the face of obvious public pressure and media scrutiny.
It's hilarious that that blog compares us offering a bus service to fans in Kent to them costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds to get a state-built stadium and pay for their bloody corner flags. Deluded
It's hilarious that that blog compares us offering a bus service to fans in Kent to them costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds to get a state-built stadium and pay for their bloody corner flags. Deluded
Trying to deflect the argument onto someone else ...and failing dismally
Cannot believe he actually made the point about the Valley Express, it is not the first time this point has been tried before. The difference between the two are so breathtakingly obvious that anyone who attempts to justify West Ham being effectively awarded hundreds of millions of pounds to flog tickets to other teams' fanbases by using this spurious argument should be publicly flogged.
I will be fairly candid here in my belief that I do not believe anything will change, or at least there will be no significant u-turns from the current situation. It's all a back-slapping exercise. At the very least I would like any taxpayer money that this project receives to be considered in the same vein as if an owner or sponsor pumped in millions of pounds into a club for FFP purposes, but that is obviously not going to happen. Apparently it is OK to cheat as long as it is with taxpayers' money.
This lot love to jump on the waste of tax payers money bandwagon don’t they? Probably the same crowd that want to get rid of the royal family. Probably on benefits their whole lives. The new ‘London’ branding is going to really rub salt in their wounds. Let’s hope so. After all there is only one club in London.
Cannot believe he actually made the point about the Valley Express, it is not the first time this point has been tried before. The difference between the two are so breathtakingly obvious that anyone who attempts to justify West Ham being effectively awarded hundreds of millions of pounds to flog tickets to other teams' fanbases by using this spurious argument should be publicly flogged.
I will be fairly candid here in my belief that I do not believe anything will change, or at least there will be no significant u-turns from the current situation. It's all a back-slapping exercise. At the very least I would like any taxpayer money that this project receives to be considered in the same vein as if an owner or sponsor pumped in millions of pounds into a club for FFP purposes, but that is obviously not going to happen. Apparently it is OK to cheat as long as it is with taxpayers' money.
I can, and it'll work too!
In this day and age people don't read full articles and digest all the information. They read the first and last paragraphs and skim the rest. Anyone that has no real interest in the subject will take from the article that Charlton, and their Supporters' Trust (with no affiliation to the club) are complaining because West Ham are going to take their fans. And how hypocritical of them as they have been doing that to Gillingham for years with the Premier League money - that they had no right to, anyway.
The whole point of 'PR' like this is to mislead the vast majority, and I fear that it will work.
There is an argument that West Ham are helping out to make use of the stadium opposed to it sitting around and decaying like many of those before it. None of us on here believe that, but I suspect that with a few well written articles one could convince many that it's true. And West Ham are going to offer Premier League football to ALL Londoners for a fraction of the price that the 'greedy rip off' clubs are charging now. What's not to like? I mean the railways are subsidised by the many for the benefit of the few. We can all get on a rain if we want to but we choose not to. West Ham are making Premier League football affordable to the thousands of families that, currently, can't afford to go. Sure the Tax Payer is helping out a bit, but it's all good, isn't it?
It is pretty sad. I'm ashamed to say not only is my brother a Hammer but he is also a leftie and I thought even he of all people would have been able to have seen past the team colours to realise how f**ked up this deal is for every other team in London, but he has come out swinging in West Ham's corner. His argument is that West Ham were offered a great deal and would have been idiots to have not taken it, which is true I guess but he did not want to sign the petition and he also disagreed that West Ham will steal any fans from other clubs.
But my brother is probably the one Hammers fan who has had an education beyond Key Stage 3 so if that's what he thinks there is probably little hope for the rest.
Also there is a lot of just simple jealousy as West Ham have the potential to become a much bigger club overnight, passing other established teams that just cannot ever see themselves in a 54,000 capacity stadium with public transport links that are better than just about every other club in the country.
I have to confess that I'd be screaming for us to take advantage of a similar opportunity if it presented itself to us.
Last night was the first time I saw the "London Branding". It looks like something USASoccerGuy would create.
The NSNO thread on this topic is interesting, as it moves slowly over several months. It starts with people feeling sorry for West Ham fans because it will be a terrible football ground, and then moves on to a growing resentment over the taxpayer bill etc.
Last night was the first time I saw the "London Branding". It looks like something USASoccerGuy would create.
The NSNO thread on this topic is interesting, as it moves slowly over several months. It starts with people feeling sorry for West Ham fans because it will be a terrible football ground, and then moves on to a growing resentment over the taxpayer bill etc.
True, but it's very clever. Sadly for West Ham fans, they will soon 'lose their club' as it will become something else. It will have to to attract the numbers of fans that they are looking for. It is West Ham, London for now. It will eventually be London's West Ham.
Still they will make a Champion's League challenge according to one of the Porn Barons so that's ok then.
Just imagine it. August 2016, first game of the season, West Ham at home to Spurs, first game on Sky Sports Super Sunday. As the camera pans round, the away end is packed with Spurs fans, whereas half the home end lies empty. The game kicks off. No atmosphere can really be heard apart from the fairly vocal Spurs fans. Then it happens. One Hammers fan starts hissing. Soon the rest of the Hammers fans are all hissing in unison, trying to mimic the sound of gas.
Just imagine it. August 2016, first game of the season, West Ham at home to Spurs, first game on Sky Sports Super Sunday. As the camera pans round, the away end is packed with Spurs fans, whereas half the home end lies empty. The game kicks off. No atmosphere can really be heard apart from the fairly vocal Spurs fans. Then it happens. One Hammers fan starts hissing. Soon the rest of the Hammers fans are all hissing in unison, trying to mimic the sound of gas.
If it is all so wholesome then I don't see why the documentation is redacted. In the light of not having a clear explanation as to the use of taxpayers money, it is not unreasonable to assume there is large scale corruption going on. The easiest way to allay fears and criticisms is to have everything out in the open, and it looks like Boris Johnson is preventing that. what has Boris got to hide?
Also there is a lot of just simple jealousy as West Ham have the potential to become a much bigger club overnight, passing other established teams that just cannot ever see themselves in a 54,000 capacity stadium with public transport links that are better than just about every other club in the country.
I have to confess that I'd be screaming for us to take advantage of similar opportunity if it presented itself to us.
Would you? I know some people wouldn't care less if their club was financed by nazi gold and owned by Fred West if he had the dosh, and I'm probably in a minority, but I would be embarrassed and ashamed that my club was reliant on the taxpayers generosity personally. As a public sector worker who has seen my workplace hammered (excuse the pun) by this government's austerity policy and in many cases no longer able to effectively deliver essential services to the poorest in society I think it's an effing disgrace the taxpayer is pumping £100m's towards West Ham's benefit.
I genuinely wouldn't want a single penny of taxpayers money given to CAFC and find it difficult to square the view that this is in anyway acceptable regardless of who the recipient was.
Also there is a lot of just simple jealousy as West Ham have the potential to become a much bigger club overnight, passing other established teams that just cannot ever see themselves in a 54,000 capacity stadium with public transport links that are better than just about every other club in the country.
I have to confess that I'd be screaming for us to take advantage of similar opportunity if it presented itself to us.
Would you? I know some people wouldn't care less if their club was financed by nazi gold and owned by Fred West if he had the dosh, and I'm probably in a minority, but I would be embarrassed and ashamed that my club was reliant on the taxpayers generosity personally. As a public sector worker who has seen my workplace hammered (excuse the pun) by this government's austerity policy and in many cases no longer able to effectively deliver essential services to the poorest in society I think it's an effing disgrace the taxpayer is pumping £100m's towards West Ham's benefit.
I genuinely wouldn't want a single penny of taxpayers money given to CAFC and find it difficult to square the view that this is in anyway acceptable regardless of who the recipient was.
I think you misread my post. I wasn't talking about taxpayers money, although I don't see why it is any more acceptable to demand to spend someone else's money - taxpayers or wealthy business owners - and there's never a shortage of fans demanding it. I was referring to wanting us to become a much bigger club and overtake other clubs in the process. One could argue that promotion to the Premier League does just this.
However, now that I think about it, if a super stadium was already built with a condition that it must be used for sporting events and we were the only institution that could make use of it I would have no problem if the Taxpayer 'invested' in it. If we were in a position to negotiate a fantastic deal then I wouldn't offer any more money than I had to.
However, this, probably, says more about me. I am not a Socialist in any shape or form!
Last night was the first time I saw the "London Branding". It looks like something USASoccerGuy would create.
The NSNO thread on this topic is interesting, as it moves slowly over several months. It starts with people feeling sorry for West Ham fans because it will be a terrible football ground, and then moves on to a growing resentment over the taxpayer bill etc.
Sadly for West Ham fans, they will soon 'lose their club' as it will become something else. It will have to to attract the numbers of fans that they are looking for. It is West Ham, London for now. It will eventually be London's West Ham.
Comments
Still he got one thing right. Release the bloody contract, so we can all see. He's wrong about who is holding it back though. I've already pointed that out to him on the You Tube page of the BBC doc - anyone can see it, if they read the FOI thread - but he's not listening.
Orchestrating? I'm struggling to keep up
Guy from QPR trust on this afternoon on ITN I think.
However, the way he/she makes the point suggests the opposite.
I think I missed this bit though - "This is somewhat pointless exercise as the issue has already been raised in House of Commons on 24th June this year." I don't recall. Was it an opposition time question or something? In-between [insert anti-Labour/SNP stereotype] rants?
I think he refers to the briefest exchange between Chris Bryant and Boris, which appeared in the film too. A matter of seconds.
I will be fairly candid here in my belief that I do not believe anything will change, or at least there will be no significant u-turns from the current situation. It's all a back-slapping exercise. At the very least I would like any taxpayer money that this project receives to be considered in the same vein as if an owner or sponsor pumped in millions of pounds into a club for FFP purposes, but that is obviously not going to happen. Apparently it is OK to cheat as long as it is with taxpayers' money.
In this day and age people don't read full articles and digest all the information. They read the first and last paragraphs and skim the rest. Anyone that has no real interest in the subject will take from the article that Charlton, and their Supporters' Trust (with no affiliation to the club) are complaining because West Ham are going to take their fans. And how hypocritical of them as they have been doing that to Gillingham for years with the Premier League money - that they had no right to, anyway.
The whole point of 'PR' like this is to mislead the vast majority, and I fear that it will work.
There is an argument that West Ham are helping out to make use of the stadium opposed to it sitting around and decaying like many of those before it. None of us on here believe that, but I suspect that with a few well written articles one could convince many that it's true. And West Ham are going to offer Premier League football to ALL Londoners for a fraction of the price that the 'greedy rip off' clubs are charging now. What's not to like? I mean the railways are subsidised by the many for the benefit of the few. We can all get on a rain if we want to but we choose not to. West Ham are making Premier League football affordable to the thousands of families that, currently, can't afford to go. Sure the Tax Payer is helping out a bit, but it's all good, isn't it?
But my brother is probably the one Hammers fan who has had an education beyond Key Stage 3 so if that's what he thinks there is probably little hope for the rest.
I have to confess that I'd be screaming for us to take advantage of a similar opportunity if it presented itself to us.
The NSNO thread on this topic is interesting, as it moves slowly over several months. It starts with people feeling sorry for West Ham fans because it will be a terrible football ground, and then moves on to a growing resentment over the taxpayer bill etc.
Still they will make a Champion's League challenge according to one of the Porn Barons so that's ok then.
What a wonderful legacy. Brilliant job everyone.
Seems the racism is no longer saved for Spurs >> http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=159587
In the light of not having a clear explanation as to the use of taxpayers money, it is not unreasonable to assume there is large scale corruption going on.
The easiest way to allay fears and criticisms is to have everything out in the open, and it looks like Boris Johnson is preventing that. what has Boris got to hide?
I genuinely wouldn't want a single penny of taxpayers money given to CAFC and find it difficult to square the view that this is in anyway acceptable regardless of who the recipient was.
However, now that I think about it, if a super stadium was already built with a condition that it must be used for sporting events and we were the only institution that could make use of it I would have no problem if the Taxpayer 'invested' in it. If we were in a position to negotiate a fantastic deal then I wouldn't offer any more money than I had to.
However, this, probably, says more about me. I am not a Socialist in any shape or form!