|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Oct 21, 2014 11:20:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Oct 21, 2014 11:25:40 GMT
Nice to see we're paying for West Ham's new stadium.
|
|
|
|
Post by agingerstokie on Oct 21, 2014 11:27:05 GMT
It is a fucking joke
|
|
|
|
Post by manchesterpotter on Oct 21, 2014 11:32:07 GMT
Can't see why any West Ham fan would want this. The place will be awful for watching football.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 21, 2014 11:44:32 GMT
God knows why they didn't plan for conversion to a football stadium in the first place. It was obvious that the original plan for a conversion to a 25K seat athletics stadium was never going to be viable. The planning FROM THE OUTSET for the Manchester Commonwealth Games stadium to be converted for football worked perfectly and, with good planning a football AND athletics option could easily have been designed for the Olympic stadium - much like a smaller Stade de France with perfect sight lines for Athletics and football with retractable seats to reveal the athletics track. I bet the whole thing could have been done to a high standard at £150 million or so less than what this botched plan is going to cost. They are going to end up with a stadium which is lousy as a football venue.
|
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Oct 21, 2014 11:47:00 GMT
A 25% increase! How much of that would trickle down to the coal face. I'd love a 25% increase, instead of 0-1% for the past 6yrs & the forseable future. Rubbish!
Sorry, that should be a 33% increase. Give me the pricing job at Balfour Beatty!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 21, 2014 12:06:35 GMT
Quite a stunt West Ham have pulled off here which sill see them set fair for decades.
In essence they will pay only £15 million for a 99-year lease on a stadium whose conversion costs will be £150 million to £190 million and whose overall cost counting the initial build will top £630 million.
The are basically getting a stadium costing more than £600 million for just £15 million and a small amount in annual rent [about £2 million].
Gifting this structure which was paid for by the public to West Ham was the biggest mistake of the Olympics.
|
|
|
|
Post by hammered on Oct 21, 2014 12:55:58 GMT
Irony all the way here!!
If as someone above suggested they'd properly thought the Legacy of the Stadium through - this wouldn't even be a debate!!
If West Hams intention to take over the Stadium back in 2006 when the original plans were announced had been taken seriously not dismissed by Coe then - this wouldn't be a debate!!
If once they'd realised they'd screwed up and taken up West hams offer to BUY the stadium with Newham Council and cover the balance cost of conversion - eventually undone by Levy's meddling - there wouldn't be a debate!!
And most supporters of West Ham (given the choice) wouldn't/don't want it anyway!!
|
|
|
|
Post by stokiesteve on Oct 21, 2014 13:26:24 GMT
Irony all the way here!! If as someone above suggested they'd properly thought the Legacy of the Stadium through - this wouldn't even be a debate!! If West Hams intention to take over the Stadium back in 2006 when the original plans were announced had been taken seriously not dismissed by Coe then - this wouldn't be a debate!! If once they'd realised they'd screwed up and taken up West hams offer to BUY the stadium with Newham Council and cover the balance cost of conversion - eventually undone by Levy's meddling - there wouldn't be a debate!! And most supporters of West Ham (given the choice) wouldn't/don't want it anyway!! I wouldn't want it either. You're current stadium is a real mix of modern and traditional. The Olympic Stadium will be a soulless empty place where everyone will sit quiet. It was like that at the Brit when we first moved in but it has slowly gained an atmosphere of its own. I don't know if that would happen at the Olympic Stadium. |
|
|
|
Post by keasie1863 on Oct 21, 2014 14:44:46 GMT
Irony all the way here!! If as someone above suggested they'd properly thought the Legacy of the Stadium through - this wouldn't even be a debate!! If West Hams intention to take over the Stadium back in 2006 when the original plans were announced had been taken seriously not dismissed by Coe then - this wouldn't be a debate!! If once they'd realised they'd screwed up and taken up West hams offer to BUY the stadium with Newham Council and cover the balance cost of conversion - eventually undone by Levy's meddling - there wouldn't be a debate!! And most supporters of West Ham (given the choice) wouldn't/don't want it anyway!! I wouldn't want it either. You're current stadium is a real mix of modern and traditional. The Olympic Stadium will be a soulless empty place where everyone will sit quiet. It was like that at the Brit when we first moved in but it has slowly gained an atmosphere of its own. I don't know if that would happen at the Olympic Stadium. And it will be half empty after the novelty has worn off. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 21, 2014 14:49:52 GMT
I wouldn't want it either. You're current stadium is a real mix of modern and traditional. The Olympic Stadium will be a soulless empty place where everyone will sit quiet. It was like that at the Brit when we first moved in but it has slowly gained an atmosphere of its own. I don't know if that would happen at the Olympic Stadium. And it will be half empty after the novelty has worn off. I'm not sure. WHU's support profile has changed massively over the years as it is, with old skool cockney geezers and pearly kings and queens making way for some decent totty and a good chunk of East Europeans. I reckon with this stadium move they could more or less mop up most of London's Eastern Europeans who want to watch football (which is a lot) if they can keep the prices reasonable. Of course it would mean the club would become unrecognisable but its heading that way anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Stokie Mcpot on Oct 21, 2014 15:15:06 GMT
Arent West Ham fairly well off? It should be for them to pay for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 21, 2014 18:00:16 GMT
Just leave it unfinished then unless West Ham pay, they must sell first, who said that  |
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Oct 21, 2014 18:05:24 GMT
It's all wrong WHUFC should pay for the conversion not the general public.
|
|
|
|
Post by block30row19 on Oct 21, 2014 18:21:30 GMT
Nowt do with West Ham really. Daft as it seems. If you were renting a flat and agreed a monthly rent fee, and before you moved in they said that due to repairs costing more than we thought would you be willing to pay extra you would probably ask them to do one !!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 21, 2014 18:31:15 GMT
Nowt do with West Ham really. Daft as it seems. If you were renting a flat and agreed a monthly rent fee, and before you moved in they said that due to repairs costing more than we thought would you be willing to pay extra you would probably ask them to do one !! Yes, I agree. None of this is down to West Ham and they should get what they paid for - at the price they agreed - even though I think the whole thing is a financial black hole which has shafted the tax payer from the very start. As I stated in an earlier post, the Man City/Commonwealth stadium was properly planned and the design was fit for purpose. Whoever has the ultimate responsibility for this fiasco should hang their head in shame - but as it is Lord Coe, I expect he'll come out of it smelling of roses. But I do remember him right at the start saying that he didn't want the stadium to end up as a football stadium - when it was quite clear that a football club should be the obvious co-tenant and the planning should have been done around that inevitable final outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by hammered on Oct 21, 2014 19:00:00 GMT
Exactly how I see it Lakeland. Ego and pride got in the way of a sensible business plan.
Less than 60 odd games left at the Boleyn now and whilst I understand the growth potential of "the brand" by this move, I know we'll never be the same again.
Flats with shops underneath + a monument in some garden courtyard area is what the Boleyn will be in a few years - the plans are already passed.
The Gov will get a fair bit of revenue though - not just from the 50 odd (out of 365) West Ham will be using it. Concerts/other sporting/public events etc..
Check out Barcelona or Athens Olympic stadia...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 19:20:20 GMT
A 25% increase! How much of that would trickle down to the coal face. I'd love a 25% increase, instead of 0-1% for the past 6yrs & the forseable future. Rubbish! Sorry, that should be a 33% increase. Give me the pricing job at Balfour Beatty!!! I'm guessing you're not too familar with the Civil Engineering industry? |
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Oct 21, 2014 19:46:07 GMT
If Port Fail get wind of this they will be knocking on the council doors, that unfinished White elephant started by billy bellend is really letting vale park down, please Mr Pervez can we have some tax payers money please.
|
|
|
|
Post by minty1964 on Oct 21, 2014 22:32:23 GMT
west ham had a loan of £40 million off Newham Council to fund this project, and the land at the boleyn Ground close to the the docklands is valued around £150 million for a tower complex...i used to live in poplar in the 80's overlooking this area....
they really have been given 7 silver coins for free, for what was a shithole years ago (the area),
and how we have to be responsible for the conclusion of this is beyond me...
do we get recompense for the 12 out of 18 million it cost us to move off the taxpayer...nope
tell balfour beatty to fuck off, west ham to sort their own shit out, and take out a mortgage on the building works / stadium like the rest of have to..
or stay at the Boleyn like the majority of the hammers want to (the 2 i meet at the oval / lords for thest matches every year don't want to move)
Footnote: I never wanted to leave the Vic but eventually was won over by the financial arguement...however, seeing the staler atmosphere now and how difficult the fan experience is at the brit (expensive infa-structure, transport, etc); and how away fans think we are hostile....imagine how hostile the old Vic with a make-up could have been haha oh me oh my
|
|
|
|
Post by broomey1983 on Oct 22, 2014 1:09:26 GMT
if the contract is signed then belfour beaty should fuck off. It isnt hard to win a contract undervaluing a project then trying to get more afterwards. WHU should pay for it all and not our tax money, its a fucking disgrace
|
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 22, 2014 6:05:40 GMT
if the contract is signed then belfour beaty should fuck off. It isnt hard to win a contract undervaluing a project then trying to get more afterwards. WHU should pay for it all and not our tax money, its a fucking disgrace Those state aid chaps in Brussels might also decide to have a fresh look. You can't just throw public cash around these days; state aid compliance is needed. That was what skippered the original deal as I recall. |
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on Oct 22, 2014 7:13:20 GMT
Should have just knocked it down. It would have been a waste but wouldn't have cost the taxpayer any more money. The only legacy it has left is a load of debt, sounds a bit like the Labour Party.
|
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Oct 22, 2014 9:39:33 GMT
A 25% increase! How much of that would trickle down to the coal face. I'd love a 25% increase, instead of 0-1% for the past 6yrs & the forseable future. Rubbish! Sorry, that should be a 33% increase. Give me the pricing job at Balfour Beatty!!! I'm guessing you're not too familar with the Civil Engineering industry? With these hands!?! |
|
|
|
Post by hammered on Oct 22, 2014 22:55:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 22, 2014 23:01:55 GMT
I guess not. I think longer term it sets the stage for WHU to go super-sized like Chelsea and Arsenal and potentially leave Spurs floundering. It's not something I personally want to see though, quite apart from loving the old Upton Park, each time another club goes super-sized it leaves the rest of us that little bit nearer to the trap door. |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 23, 2014 5:53:10 GMT
Isn't the 'West Ham issue' the tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds your owners will make from the sale of Upton Park whilst you move into a stadium I paid for? West Ham will accrue a massive benefit on the back of this taxpayer via this deal and that's without the Orient issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Oct 23, 2014 8:51:58 GMT
They're all 'caaaants'
|
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Oct 23, 2014 8:59:50 GMT
Could the Vic have hosted premier league games?
|
|
|
|
Post by hammered on Oct 23, 2014 9:48:37 GMT
Momo - most of West Hams debt is secured against the Boleyn and we're to be debt free apparently when we move. Selling it will merely mean we are an asset free (as in real estate) concern going forward. The owners took a big risk acquiring us after the Icelandic's and whilst they're a bit low rent PR wise I don't begrudge them maximising this risk for reward. We certainly won't be in the money - just a new stadia that we don't own designed naively with a life-span of 28days (or however long the Olympics/Para Olympics lasted). This is the real issue.
I agree though that the upgrade in Stadia and infrastructure will give West Ham leg-up as it were, like 100,000's of other council tenants we'll be occupying a building funded by the public purse.
Barely a peep when City moved on a similar deal after the Commonwealth games and I don't believe Stockport (Orient) or Man Utd (Spurs) kicked off about it when it was clear City (West Ham) were and were always the only viable Tenants. And it isn't West Ham's fault they decided to build the stadia in Newham.
If there's a noise to be made it should be towards the Legacy Co - Lord Co - the designers and planners who continue to to throw good money after bad!!
|
|
