Jump to content

PauloBarnesi

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, gordoncharles said:

As tempting as it must be for you to blame some tories, Coe wasn't even on the committee that came up with that deal. It did, however, include the Labour Mayors of Tower Hamlets, Newham and Hackney, and the Labour Leader of Waltham Forest Council. 

It's similar to all those who have that earnest belief that Real Madrid is funded by the Spanish State / Madrid Council / The Ghost of the Generalisimo.

However, I agree with villa4europe. The EU has investigated clubs in other countries for a lot less than this.

I was really just being deliberately cynical, I've got no real agenda towards the Tories regarding this. 

It just seems a shit deal for the taxpayer, unless I've read it incorrectly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a terrible deal for the tax payer, have seen a few journos standing up for West Ham and to be fair they've been offered a golden goose they're not going to say no

My issue with it is that this £2.5m a year in rent suddenly means it's no longer a white elephant? I disagree, this goes all the way back to the Olympic committee years before we even hosted the games and just bad decisions being used to cover worse ones with then the taxpayer being spoon fed bullshit about how it's better than it was (basically like all government spending...)

The ultimate kick in the teeth is the FFP and all the bullshit rules and then you have West Ham effectively being given £750m and all the bells and whistles that will come through association with that stadium, it's put us and Everton and several other clubs, you could even make a decent argument for Liverpool, miles and miles behind them

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

It's a terrible deal for the tax payer, have seen a few journos standing up for West Ham and to be fair they've been offered a golden goose they're not going to say no

My issue with it is that this £2.5m a year in rent suddenly means it's no longer a white elephant? I disagree, this goes all the way back to the Olympic committee years before we even hosted the games and just bad decisions being used to cover worse ones with then the taxpayer being spoon fed bullshit about how it's better than it was (basically like all government spending...)

The ultimate kick in the teeth is the FFP and all the bullshit rules and then you have West Ham effectively being given £750m and all the bells and whistles that will come through association with that stadium, it's put us and Everton and several other clubs, you could even make a decent argument for Liverpool, miles and miles behind them

How big is it going to be as a football stadium? It'd be pretty bleak if they can't fill it. I suppose they're in London though. They'll be an attractive prospect for investment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

60k people being charged God knows what because it's going to be a tourist trap, I'd guess £60-90 per game? Plus the corporate facilities, plus the sponsorship

On a personal note for Wolfie and porno dwarf you also have the sale / redevelopment of Upton Park which seeing as London flats average around £500k at the moment they'll do ok from, plus then their value going up by £100m+

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'll take enough in about 2 home games ticket sales to cover the annual rent.... and not have to worry about the gas bill, electrical bill, police bill, pitch maintenance, general upkeep... 

Insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The deal for the stadium is ridiculous, especially as they get to sell off the Boleyn Ground and pocket all that cash.

West Ham will be a very cash-rich club, so there's no need for their lease on the Olympic Stadium to be subsidised at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A legacy of the colossal waste of money that is hosting an Olympics. It's baffling the UK government hasn't at least tried to get more money off West ham given that other clubs wanted the stadium too. Essentially West ham get a free stadium and keep the profits from their old one, plus a few extra sweeteners. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charging rent I think is fair enough, but they shouldn't get all the stuff thrown in for free like police, upkeep, utility bills, even pitch maintenance. 

They should cover all of this on top.

Ultimately, the tax payers are paying their gas bill which is ridiculous for any sports club, let alone one getting £100m a year from TV and prize money alone. 

The deal needs to be challenged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only shining light is the almost factual knowledge that they won't invest the Upton Park sale cash in the club, I'll be amazed if them pair are still there in 2 years time, they'll be incredibly rich off the back of this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's this absolute dross I'm reading on the BBC about Bilic buying into the 'West Ham way' of playing attractive attacking football. Unless I've just come out of hibernation, West Ham have played nothing but percentages style workman-like football with a team full of workmen for as long as I can remember, bar this season, what a load of bollocks.

Edited by penguin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, penguin said:

What's this absolute dross I'm reading on the BBC about Bilic buying into the 'West Ham way' of playing attractive attacking football. Unless I've just come out of hibernation, West Ham have played nothing but percentages style workman-like football with a team full of workmen for as long as I can remember, bar this season, what a load of bollocks.

Yes but but but they won us the World Cup remember so it must be true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The council should have negotiated a higher rental price but they were scared it would just be a white elephant I guess. The stadium being built just for the Olympics was a nonsense really. I dislike the fact that West Ham will now become a big club, but I also guess it shows the advantage London has over Birmingham. It sucks they have so many big clubs there and we have none now. Thats one of the reasons I will be glad if Leicester win the title and Spurs dont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, penguin said:

the 'West Ham way' 

I hear this a lot, the "west ham way", the "man utd way", the "Liverpool way" etc.

I'd love to hear someone explain what is meant by this and to be more precise what exactly is the difference between the respective "way" of each team.

Because I'm fairly sure the "insert team name here" way is essentially high pressing, attacking football. But it's called a "way" to make it sound more mystical to evoke memories of days gone by.

Then just to be certain throw in the word "philosophy" once or twice to make it sound even more exciting.

Edited by Shropshire Lad
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â