|
Post by march4 on Aug 20, 2015 22:54:13 GMT
To have the Olympics you need a stadium. To maintain a 'legacy' after the Olympics you still need your athletics stadium. However, athletics will use the stadium for only 2 weeks in the year. Therefore, you need someone else to use the stadium for the other 50 weeks. The stadium has to be redesigned for this 50 week user.
Now you can look for suitable owners eg Disney Corporation, but if they aren't willing to use it, then to keep the stadium you are going to have to offer someone else a very good deal.
The alternative is you allow the stadium to rot like the White City Stadium did.
Simples!
|
|
|
Post by scfc2014 on Aug 21, 2015 0:21:43 GMT
Thats the thing with stoke fans you are all nosy fuckers,keep your nose out and mind your own business,if west ham want do it let them
|
|
|
Post by sage on Aug 21, 2015 1:06:05 GMT
Signed. I understand west ham have done a nice little deal for themselves but why should they profit so much from a government fuck up? Don't want my money subsidising them. Sell the land off for development and avoid spending another 200 million quid tax payers money. BigTimePete - Your money gets spunked on plenty of Government initiatives well exceeding what's being spent on making this stadium fit for it's only sustainable purpose - e.g. a £12.4 Billion Foreign aid budget that lines the pockets of despot dictators etc..and it's easy fare to jump on the bandwagon. The OS re-workings in real terms is pocket money. The big point here is the written in stone commitment we (Coe) to a lasting athletics legacy which was part of our bid to get the Olympics in the first place and why this face saving exercise applies no logic to the expense of doing it!! The government wastes a fuck of a lot of money, mostly selling off state assets for cheap to Osborne and Cameron's already filthy rich mates, yet the only example you can think of for the Govt wasting money is one of the only half decent things they do which is the measly 0.7% of GDP which goes on foreign aid (which btw is far far less likely to end up in dictators' pockets than charitable donations which have far less oversight, instead it goes to infrastructure projects etc) - too many people read the Daily Mail, this is how the fuckers get away with it!!
|
|
|
Post by hammered on Aug 21, 2015 1:30:25 GMT
BigTimePete - Your money gets spunked on plenty of Government initiatives well exceeding what's being spent on making this stadium fit for it's only sustainable purpose - e.g. a £12.4 Billion Foreign aid budget that lines the pockets of despot dictators etc..and it's easy fare to jump on the bandwagon. The OS re-workings in real terms is pocket money. The big point here is the written in stone commitment we (Coe) to a lasting athletics legacy which was part of our bid to get the Olympics in the first place and why this face saving exercise applies no logic to the expense of doing it!! The government wastes a fuck of a lot of money, mostly selling off state assets for cheap to Osborne and Cameron's already filthy rich mates, yet the only example you can think of for the Govt wasting money is one of the only half decent things they do which is the measly 0.7% of GDP which goes on foreign aid (which btw is far far less likely to end up in dictators' pockets than charitable donations which have far less oversight, instead it goes to infrastructure projects etc) - too many people read the Daily Mail, this is how the fuckers get away with it!! Might be the example I've used but you've perfectly detailed the point. A different debate that defines the mindset maybe?
|
|
|
Post by mateybass on Aug 21, 2015 3:02:05 GMT
Signed and shared on facebook
|
|
|
Post by crowey on Aug 21, 2015 3:11:56 GMT
Signed from Oz
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Aug 21, 2015 5:15:07 GMT
I've signed - only another 84,506 needed to get it debated in parliament...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 5:32:04 GMT
Won't get you anywhere, unless you like to listen to lies
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 5:37:59 GMT
BigTimePete - Your money gets spunked on plenty of Government initiatives well exceeding what's being spent on making this stadium fit for it's only sustainable purpose - e.g. a £12.4 Billion Foreign aid budget that lines the pockets of despot dictators etc..and it's easy fare to jump on the bandwagon. The OS re-workings in real terms is pocket money. The big point here is the written in stone commitment we (Coe) to a lasting athletics legacy which was part of our bid to get the Olympics in the first place and why this face saving exercise applies no logic to the expense of doing it!! The government wastes a fuck of a lot of money, mostly selling off state assets for cheap to Osborne and Cameron's already filthy rich mates, yet the only example you can think of for the Govt wasting money is one of the only half decent things they do which is the measly 0.7% of GDP which goes on foreign aid (which btw is far far less likely to end up in dictators' pockets than charitable donations which have far less oversight, instead it goes to infrastructure projects etc) - too many people read the Daily Mail, this is how the fuckers get away with it!! I'm extremely well informed about all of that. But here I am thinking only of a football club run by porn barons greedily profiting from taxpayers money. I'd prefer them to contribute more money to the works needed. That is all we are talking about here. Fucks sake. West ham have become a loathsome club since the porn boys took over
|
|
|
Post by liam007 on Aug 21, 2015 5:51:42 GMT
I,ve asked Davesviews and he reckons West Ham have to sell....
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 21, 2015 6:17:44 GMT
There are two correct ways to build an athletics stadium which is to be used for football after the games.
If Athletics is to be retained then football can be planned for in the original design with good sight lines for football and retractable seats to cover the athletics track. The Stade de France is an example of such a stadium.
If Athletics is not to be retained then a model like the Manchester Commonwealth Stadium is good. That stadium had the concrete terraces which would eventually hold seats in place below the athletics track. After the games, the athletics track was removed and a temporary stand at one end of the athletics track was removed and a new permanent stand closer to the football pitch was built.
Both stadia work because they were sensibly planned at the outset.
Personally, I would have preferred the Commonwealth games model and the lower costs (compared to the dog's breakfast we have with the Olympic stadium) would have meant there would have been enough money saved to build a new 25k or 30k athletics stadium in the Olympic park. Result? Two stadia fit for purpose and the deal for whichever club moved into the football stadium should have been that the work to finish off the stadium would be financed with public money but that the proceeds of sale of the club's existing ground would go to the exchequer.
So, I have signed the petition because I want an enquiry into how the Government and those responsible for the planning the Olympic "legacy" got things so wrong in failing to accept FROM the START that a football tenant was the only way to make financial sense of the stadium after the games. I have not signed the petition to have a go at West Ham - they negotiated the best deal they could - not their fault that they were negotiating with idiots! I suspect that most of their fans would have preferred my option 2 where, like the Man City stadium, the final design was totally compatible with football, with a new Athletics stadium nearby. Interestingly - something along these lines was proposed by Spurs in their bid to demolish the stadium and build a new football stadium on the same site.
|
|
|
Post by The battheader chronicles on Aug 21, 2015 6:24:10 GMT
There are two correct ways to build an athletics stadium which is to be used for football after the games. If Athletics is to be retained then football can be planned for in the original design with good sight lines for football and retractable seats to cover the athletics track. The Stade de France is an example of such a stadium. If Athletics is not to be retained then a model like the Manchester Commonwealth Stadium is good. That stadium had the concrete terraces which would eventually hold seats in place below the athletics track. After the games, the athletics track was removed and a temporary stand at one end of the athletics track was removed and a new permanent stand closer to the football pitch was built. Both stadia work because they were sensibly planned at the outset. Personally, I would have preferred the Commonwealth games model and the lower costs (compared to the dog's breakfast we have with the Olympic stadium) would have meant there would have been enough money saved to build a new 25k or 30k athletics stadium in the Olympic park. Result? Two stadia fit for purpose and the deal for whichever club moved into the football stadium should have been that the work to finish off the stadium would be built with public money but that the proceeds of sale of the club's existing ground would go to the exchequer. So, I have signed the petition because I want an enquiry into how the Government and those responsible for the planning the Olympic "legacy" got things so wrong in failing to accept FROM the START that a football tenant was the only way to make financial sense of the stadium after the games. I have not signed the petition to have a go at West Ham - they negotiated the best deal they could - not their fault that they were negotiating with idiots! I suspect that most of their fans would have preferred my option 2 where, like the Man City stadium, the final design was totally compatible with football, with a new Athletics stadium nearby. This! I'm not signing it to have a go at West Ham. They got the best deal for themselves and who can blame them! I just want a propper enquiry into the lack of long term thinking that's gone into the stadium, to the point where the best option was to sell its useage off for peanuts at great expense to the taxpayers
|
|
|
Post by st4scfc on Aug 21, 2015 7:10:42 GMT
Signed. 272m makes you sick, they should have to pay every penny back in installments if they want it that bad Trouble is though,the people that really matter at WHUFC don't want it at all,never mind that bad. i'm sure with £272m they could turn it into a number of things. Seems West ham want it through greed and greed only
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Aug 21, 2015 7:17:22 GMT
But you all forget they won the World Cup for us, Trevor Brooking as actually a god so leave the little lambs alone, thinking about it the number of times they have bent the rules and got away with ...............NO FUCK EM signed.
|
|
|
Post by st4scfc on Aug 21, 2015 7:17:37 GMT
272m makes you sick, they should have to pay every penny nack in installments if they want it that bad The problem is that no club would spend that type of money. If they wanted a new stadium they can build a proper large stadium, designed for football for that money and have plenty of change. They can build it where they want it to their own spec. So if a football club doesn't use it then Olympic stadium is just one huge, massively expensive white elephant. A white elephant that just publicly shows what an ego trip the Olympics were. Who else is going to be able to take on the stadium? Who could afford the running costs? Athletics - no chance - they'd quarter fill it once every few years I'd guess. Rugby have Twickenham already. The Millennium Dome and Wembley have the concert scene corned in London. So we either knock it down or use it for football. If you use it for football you have to make it attractive for a football club to take it on (and let's face it as, as a purpose built athletics stadium with only a few clubs could consider, they haven't got a great market). So your suggestion of making them pay the full whack is just dumb. got to say again with £272million im sure they could come up with better uses. Whu owners just want a cheap stadium to maximise profits, why should they have an unfair advantage over other clubs
|
|
|
Post by gingerninja on Aug 21, 2015 7:39:52 GMT
Hughes alluded to a left park signing during his Press Conference yesterday. Any ideas who this could be. The Calleri link seems to havedropped off the radar?. Dave views where are you?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 21, 2015 8:25:52 GMT
Hughes alluded to a left park signing during his Press Conference yesterday. Any ideas who this could be. The Calleri link seems to havedropped off the radar?. Dave views where are you? I'm struggling to see what this has to do with the Olympic Stadium!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 8:47:46 GMT
just a typical Oatcake knee jerk reaction of "Let's not look at the full story (because that would take too much reading and understanding of the situation) or the big picture and blame who deserves blaming...let's just look at the tabloid headlines and blame West Ham"
they have done good business to get it for what they have, if you're not happy with that and the fact the taxpayers are footing the bill then by all means lay the blame at the door of those that should be blamed for it....that most certainly ISN'T West Ham!!!!!
if we had done an insanely good piece of business because of other people completely fucking things up then we'd be celebrating like mad on here! it's not West Ham's fault that the developers and the govt. have screwed up massively here, they've just been in the right place at the right time to enable them to reap the benefits of poor planning by the govt. from the outset.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 8:49:20 GMT
The problem is that no club would spend that type of money. If they wanted a new stadium they can build a proper large stadium, designed for football for that money and have plenty of change. They can build it where they want it to their own spec. So if a football club doesn't use it then Olympic stadium is just one huge, massively expensive white elephant. A white elephant that just publicly shows what an ego trip the Olympics were. Who else is going to be able to take on the stadium? Who could afford the running costs? Athletics - no chance - they'd quarter fill it once every few years I'd guess. Rugby have Twickenham already. The Millennium Dome and Wembley have the concert scene corned in London. So we either knock it down or use it for football. If you use it for football you have to make it attractive for a football club to take it on (and let's face it as, as a purpose built athletics stadium with only a few clubs could consider, they haven't got a great market). So your suggestion of making them pay the full whack is just dumb. got to say again with £272million im sure they could come up with better uses. Whu owners just want a cheap stadium to maximise profits, why should they have an unfair advantage over other clubs do you not think they actually looked at what else they could do with it beforehand? do you really think they thought "Tell you what lads, we have an offer from a football club on the table that will lose us fuck loads of money and make us look like right dicks with the general public to boot so let's just take that and not look at any alternatives whatsoever yeah?"
|
|
|
Post by peterthornesboots on Aug 21, 2015 8:53:52 GMT
This is the famous "Olympic Legacy" A massive multi-million pound stadium that will never be filled to capacity again. If West Ham didn't step in it would be empty, but they are basically getting a brand new stadium for a pittance. A lot of the post-Olympic issues suggests that no one on the planning committee bothered to do much planning!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 8:56:37 GMT
The government wastes a fuck of a lot of money, mostly selling off state assets for cheap to Osborne and Cameron's already filthy rich mates, yet the only example you can think of for the Govt wasting money is one of the only half decent things they do which is the measly 0.7% of GDP which goes on foreign aid (which btw is far far less likely to end up in dictators' pockets than charitable donations which have far less oversight, instead it goes to infrastructure projects etc) - too many people read the Daily Mail, this is how the fuckers get away with it!! I'm extremely well informed about all of that. But here I am thinking only of a football club run by porn barons greedily profiting from taxpayers money. I'd prefer them to contribute more money to the works needed. That is all we are talking about here. Fucks sake. West ham have become a loathsome club since the porn boys took over and why aren't they contributing more????? because they don't have to because of the govt!!!! serious question here......you pay the legally required amount of tax as we all do, why don't you volunteer more tax? you don't have to and the govt. haven't told you to but you may as well just volunteer it eh? that's basically wehat you're saying here......west ham have been TOLD what they have to pay; they haven't said "We refuse to pay anymore" and they haven't said "We're not paying what you want to ask us for"...they have been TOLD what they have to pay towards it. why on earth do you think they'd then pay more just out of the goodness of their hearts? it'd be nice if we did but unfortunately we don't live in some John Lennon dream world where everyone's equal and does what they think is morally correct; we are ALL out to make what WE can for our OWN lives, whether that's £15,000 a year or £450mill a year is completely irrelevant. you pay your legally entitled dues, if you don't think that's enough then blame the people who TOLD them the small amount of what they needed to pay, not the ones who thought "Fuck me, good deal that. cheers" as you, i and everyone would do exactly the same thing! i don't sit there thinking "I pay a certain amount of tax but realistically i could probably pay a bit more so i best had", i pay what i'm legally told to pay (as i suspect you do and no more). this is no different! It's the govt. and the developers that fucked up here, no-one else!
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Aug 21, 2015 8:57:38 GMT
The problem is that no club would spend that type of money. If they wanted a new stadium they can build a proper large stadium, designed for football for that money and have plenty of change. They can build it where they want it to their own spec. So if a football club doesn't use it then Olympic stadium is just one huge, massively expensive white elephant. A white elephant that just publicly shows what an ego trip the Olympics were. Who else is going to be able to take on the stadium? Who could afford the running costs? Athletics - no chance - they'd quarter fill it once every few years I'd guess. Rugby have Twickenham already. The Millennium Dome and Wembley have the concert scene corned in London. So we either knock it down or use it for football. If you use it for football you have to make it attractive for a football club to take it on (and let's face it as, as a purpose built athletics stadium with only a few clubs could consider, they haven't got a great market). So your suggestion of making them pay the full whack is just dumb. got to say again with £272million im sure they could come up with better uses. Whu owners just want a cheap stadium to maximise profits, why should they have an unfair advantage over other clubs But what better uses are there? They can't knock it down - they're tied into the deal they made with the IOC, and there'd be too much loss of face. So what else is there? Can't blame the WHU owners at all really. It's the Government's fault. Not planning on what they were going to use the stadium for before they built it. It would be like us looking for a new ground. We could build a new Brit in Stoke, just for football, with all the facilities we need, and to the size and spec we want - for £100-£150 million But say, the government had built an enormous athletics stadium in Crewe that they had no use for. Would we really be interested in paying £270 million to convert it to our needs?
|
|
|
Post by terrorofturfmoor on Aug 21, 2015 9:00:39 GMT
Let's have ALL the corners filled in at the Brit on tax payers money and see if other clubs are happy about paying towards it then!!!! Oh FFS - Stoke already had their pile of public money sorting the Brit. As a major employer and key brand for the city it made and makes sense. The same of WHU. The difference here is that WHU are RENTING a publicly owned building. WTF they do with the Boleyn is nothing to to do with anybody but THEM.(Regrettably). oooooooooh sorry, by renting it then that makes it okay, I'm happy to pay towards something that was a complete waste of tax payers money when it was built, just for a fuckin one off occasion.....and I'm now happy to keep paying towards it while West Ham now call it their home......IF I was going to pay tax towards a "Stadium" I'd much prefer it be towards the Britannia, and that would piss me off as well, but at least it's towards MY club!!! And as for you saying about paying towards the Brit before.....it was hardly on the scale of the Olympic stadium, that looks like we're gonna be funding towards YOUR benefit for some time to come!!!
|
|
|
Post by boothenesque on Aug 21, 2015 9:03:05 GMT
Thats the thing with stoke fans you are all nosy fuckers,keep your nose out and mind your own business,if west ham want do it let them That's fine but they're doing it at the taxpayer's expense to gain an advantage over other clubs and then continue to have it subsidised. Other football clubs, with much less resource, are not supported like this and are ruthlessly dealt with. West Ham have well connected people and are a PL club with a good ground already. They need to find a use for the stadium but why hand it to West Ham? Signed. I think it's at 16800 ish now.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Aug 21, 2015 9:03:08 GMT
just a typical Oatcake knee jerk reaction of "Let's not look at the full story (because that would take too much reading and understanding of the situation) or the big picture and blame who deserves blaming...let's just look at the tabloid headlines and blame West Ham" they have done good business to get it for what they have, if you're not happy with that and the fact the taxpayers are footing the bill then by all means lay the blame at the door of those that should be blamed for it....that most certainly ISN'T West Ham!!!!! if we had done an insanely good piece of business because of other people completely fucking things up then we'd be celebrating like mad on here! it's not West Ham's fault that the developers and the govt. have screwed up massively here, they've just been in the right place at the right time to enable them to reap the benefits of poor planning by the govt. from the outset. It isn't blaming West Ham, it's the use of public money and the deal set up etc. "Rental is £2.5m a year, halving should WHU be relegated. Taxpayers will cover the costs of stadium utilities, security, pitch maintenance, goalposts and corner flags - estimated to be worth £1.4m - £2.5m a year." I think if most of us lost our jobs, our landlords wouldn't halve the rent, especially if we had a shed load of cash tucked away from a recent windfall, like West Ham's £71m sale of the old ground they can keep.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 21, 2015 9:06:08 GMT
do you not think they actually looked at what else they could do with it beforehand?
No. The politicians were simply on an ego trip wanting to host the Olympics and hopefully win votes. Anything else like the legacy is irrelevant to them. There are loads of examples in society today where we build things, have investment projects, etc. but do not spend the money necessary to maintain them thereafter. They are all around you if you look: cycle lanes/paths, footpaths, roundabouts with directional chevrons set in the brickwork; at sea-side resorts near me, the councils spend £millions on piers but fail to maintain cliff paths and close them on H & S grounds. Petition signed
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Aug 21, 2015 9:13:24 GMT
I agree with 'L-P' but I signed because as a London council tax-payer I don't want to subsidise West Ham and I think making old whatshername a Tory peer stinks! Anyhow, are they going to name the renovated stadium after the areas two most famous people i.e. The Kray Twins Stadium?
|
|
|
Post by cousindupree on Aug 21, 2015 9:15:09 GMT
There are two correct ways to build an athletics stadium which is to be used for football after the games. If Athletics is to be retained then football can be planned for in the original design with good sight lines for football and retractable seats to cover the athletics track. The Stade de France is an example of such a stadium. If Athletics is not to be retained then a model like the Manchester Commonwealth Stadium is good. That stadium had the concrete terraces which would eventually hold seats in place below the athletics track. After the games, the athletics track was removed and a temporary stand at one end of the athletics track was removed and a new permanent stand closer to the football pitch was built. Both stadia work because they were sensibly planned at the outset. Personally, I would have preferred the Commonwealth games model and the lower costs (compared to the dog's breakfast we have with the Olympic stadium) would have meant there would have been enough money saved to build a new 25k or 30k athletics stadium in the Olympic park. Result? Two stadia fit for purpose and the deal for whichever club moved into the football stadium should have been that the work to finish off the stadium would be financed with public money but that the proceeds of sale of the club's existing ground would go to the exchequer. So, I have signed the petition because I want an enquiry into how the Government and those responsible for the planning the Olympic "legacy" got things so wrong in failing to accept FROM the START that a football tenant was the only way to make financial sense of the stadium after the games. I have not signed the petition to have a go at West Ham - they negotiated the best deal they could - not their fault that they were negotiating with idiots! I suspect that most of their fans would have preferred my option 2 where, like the Man City stadium, the final design was totally compatible with football, with a new Athletics stadium nearby. Interestingly - something along these lines was proposed by Spurs in their bid to demolish the stadium and build a new football stadium on the same site. This I've signed cheekily even though I live in the USA but a UK citizen. I too would like to see how such gross incompetence was allowed to happen. Politicians and civil servants should ALWAYS be made accountable thats what we think when we elect them. Annoyed that the sleazy porn brothers will personally pocket from this deal. But you can't blame them for exploiting an opportunity
|
|
|
Post by Onneravineet on Aug 21, 2015 9:20:45 GMT
Signed.
There are lots of things wrong with any team getting this kind of bias and unfair financial contribution.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 9:38:46 GMT
just a typical Oatcake knee jerk reaction of "Let's not look at the full story (because that would take too much reading and understanding of the situation) or the big picture and blame who deserves blaming...let's just look at the tabloid headlines and blame West Ham" they have done good business to get it for what they have, if you're not happy with that and the fact the taxpayers are footing the bill then by all means lay the blame at the door of those that should be blamed for it....that most certainly ISN'T West Ham!!!!! if we had done an insanely good piece of business because of other people completely fucking things up then we'd be celebrating like mad on here! it's not West Ham's fault that the developers and the govt. have screwed up massively here, they've just been in the right place at the right time to enable them to reap the benefits of poor planning by the govt. from the outset. Who's blaming west ham For the original mess? its a fuck up but why should they benefit to this extent? They should make a fair contribution since they are deriving benefit. I'm sureagreements have been made that cannot be reneged upon but that club is benefitting from tax payers money that will soon be used to beat us to a couple of signings no doibt. Fuck west ham, leeches
|
|