|
Post by jeycov on Aug 11, 2017 9:17:17 GMT
Good luck to him
|
|
|
Post by pez75 on Aug 11, 2017 9:34:46 GMT
£110k per week? He would not be able to do a 40 hour week in a potbank let alone 100 minutes a week on a football pitch. Ridiculous sum for a player who plays for about 20 minutes a game before giving up and blaming others for his attitude. Yawn - stop trying to re-write history just because he's acted like a twat. We have lost our best player - move on. At least you will get the chance to boo him at least twice more this season as your post suggests you have probably done it while he was playing for us... ![O_o](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/cGxK1LQ3mbwGz59PPCrG.gif)
|
|
|
Post by StoKeith on Aug 11, 2017 9:36:05 GMT
What was he on here?
|
|
|
Post by pez75 on Aug 11, 2017 9:36:52 GMT
He turns 29 this season and they signed him to 5 years, no wonder he was so desperate to go. For all those moaning about our lack of investment atleast we show some sense, that is crazy money for a player you just know they won't be able to shift till he is 34... Alternatively they have decided that Arnie is a player they want and have paid what it took to get him?
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Aug 11, 2017 9:37:34 GMT
Amazing what you can afford using tax payers money They aren't tho really are they ? How many Hammers fans have to come on here and explain the situation before people will stop blarting out this tax payers remark. It's embarassing, it's as bad as the Vale fans that were blarting on about the Council helping us build our ground.
|
|
|
Post by y_oh_y_delilah on Aug 11, 2017 9:43:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alster on Aug 11, 2017 9:44:15 GMT
He turns 29 this season and they signed him to 5 years, no wonder he was so desperate to go. For all those moaning about our lack of investment atleast we show some sense, that is crazy money for a player you just know they won't be able to shift till he is 34... Alternatively they have decided that Arnie is a player they want and have paid what it took to get him? I've got no problem with us showing some sense but surely the answer is to sell and reinvest. Its the reinvestment bit we seem to be struggling to get the hang of.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 11, 2017 9:45:09 GMT
£110k per week? He would not be able to do a 40 hour week in a potbank let alone 100 minutes a week on a football pitch. Ridiculous sum for a player who plays for about 20 minutes a game before giving up and blaming others for his attitude. That's the same argument that says no one can ever earn more than a nurse. It would be nice, but for better or worse we are operating in a market place where people are not paid by their 'worthiness' or 'work rate' rather the unique skills they bring to the table.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 9:45:59 GMT
I think Arnie is comfortably worth that money in the current crazy market. It's a crying shame he is no longer our player. You can'd validate the length of the contract though Gods, surely?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 9:47:05 GMT
I hope he turns it on Sunday!
|
|
|
Post by burge2u on Aug 11, 2017 9:49:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pez75 on Aug 11, 2017 9:49:42 GMT
I think Arnie is comfortably worth that money in the current crazy market. It's a crying shame he is no longer our player. You can'd validate the length of the contract though Gods, surely? As long as West Ham can, it doesnt matter...
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Aug 11, 2017 9:50:23 GMT
Amazing what you can afford using tax payers money They aren't tho really are they ? How many Hammers fans have to come on here and explain the situation before people will stop blarting out this tax payers remark. It's embarassing, it's as bad as the Vale fans that were blarting on about the Council helping us build our ground. They got a free ground, which has released a huge amount of equity. I hope they go down, they won't though.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 11, 2017 9:52:05 GMT
I think Arnie is comfortably worth that money in the current crazy market. It's a crying shame he is no longer our player. You can'd validate the length of the contract though Gods, surely? No, but I'm sure somehow the negotiation is a balancing act between salary and contract duration.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Aug 11, 2017 9:53:12 GMT
They aren't tho really are they ? How many Hammers fans have to come on here and explain the situation before people will stop blarting out this tax payers remark. It's embarassing, it's as bad as the Vale fans that were blarting on about the Council helping us build our ground. They got a free ground, which has released a huge amount of equity. I hope they go down, they won't though. Yes they did, which would have been a white elephant otherwise. They took full advantage of a situation which I'd hope we would have done the same. However the legacy committee wasted the taxpayers money. West Ham haven't taken a penny.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Aug 11, 2017 10:17:09 GMT
£110k per week? He would not be able to do a 40 hour week in a potbank let alone 100 minutes a week on a football pitch. Ridiculous sum for a player who plays for about 20 minutes a game before giving up and blaming others for his attitude. That's the same argument that says no one can ever earn more than a nurse. It would be nice, but for better or worse we are operating in a market place where people are not paid by their 'worthiness' or 'work rate' rather the unique skills they bring to the table. i've never really thought the "footballers aren't worth that sort of money" argument makes any sense, if someone is willing got pay that sort of money then they obviously think it's worth it otherwise they wouldn't buy the player or offer them high wages. Worth is all subjective and nobody is being forced to pay anyone anything, it's all voluntary so wheres the harm ? imo much of this moaning about footballers earning big wages largely stems from jealousy.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Aug 11, 2017 10:28:06 GMT
They got a free ground, which has released a huge amount of equity. I hope they go down, they won't though. Yes they did, which would have been a white elephant otherwise. They took full advantage of a situation which I'd hope we would have done the same. However the legacy committee wasted the taxpayers money. West Ham haven't taken a penny. The legacy committee, who Gold and Sullivan probably had links too.... spurious as they might seem.
|
|
|
Post by tijuanabrass on Aug 11, 2017 10:35:29 GMT
Amazing what you can afford using tax payers money In a way, he's still "our Arnie." He's everyone's Arnie really, isn't he!
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Aug 11, 2017 10:35:41 GMT
They got a free ground, which has released a huge amount of equity. I hope they go down, they won't though. Yes they did, which would have been a white elephant otherwise. They took full advantage of a situation which I'd hope we would have done the same. However the legacy committee wasted the taxpayers money. West Ham haven't taken a penny. WHU have gained massive financial benefit from the cock-ups made by Coe, Johnson etc. This situation has given them an unfair advantage over their competitors both nationally and locally (they can offer Prem tickets for the price that Orient have to charge for lower league football). No one is saying they acted illegally ( I do feel the Olympics legacy people should be prosecuted/sacked for incompetence) but it is valid to point out they are gaining a facility that should be earning the tax payer a reward rather than one which is eventually going to need even more subsidy (is the 2.5M rent set for the entirity of the lease or will it rise as the policing costs etc rise?)
|
|
|
Post by lancashirelad on Aug 11, 2017 10:38:08 GMT
Rumours at the time of his new contract was about 70k pw so over 50% increase see why he was keen to move. He did well for Stoke and likewise Stoke for Arnie. I will his skills and his abilities to play for 20mins and get us points, but not his head dropping moments.
|
|
|
Post by duckling on Aug 11, 2017 10:39:58 GMT
Yes they did, which would have been a white elephant otherwise. They took full advantage of a situation which I'd hope we would have done the same. However the legacy committee wasted the taxpayers money. West Ham haven't taken a penny. WHU have gained massive financial benefit from the cock-ups made by Coe, Johnson etc. This situation has given them an unfair advantage over their competitors both nationally and locally (they can offer Prem tickets for the price that Orient have to charge for lower league football). No one is saying they acted illegally ( I do feel the Olympics legacy people should be prosecuted/sacked for incompetence) but it is valid to point out they are gaining a facility that should be earning the tax payer a reward rather than one which is eventually going to need even more subsidy (is the 2.5M rent set for the entirity of the lease or will it rise as the policing costs etc rise?) It's inflation adjusted and is for 99 years. In the event of relegation it reduces by half. They don't pay for the policing, maintenance, etc. That's on the taxpayers.
|
|
|
Post by pyrus on Aug 11, 2017 10:42:59 GMT
To paraphrase Mrs Merton
"So, Marko. What first attracted you to the £110,000 per week role at perennial relegation strugglers, West Ham?"
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Aug 11, 2017 10:43:40 GMT
WHU have gained massive financial benefit from the cock-ups made by Coe, Johnson etc. This situation has given them an unfair advantage over their competitors both nationally and locally (they can offer Prem tickets for the price that Orient have to charge for lower league football). No one is saying they acted illegally ( I do feel the Olympics legacy people should be prosecuted/sacked for incompetence) but it is valid to point out they are gaining a facility that should be earning the tax payer a reward rather than one which is eventually going to need even more subsidy (is the 2.5M rent set for the entirity of the lease or will it rise as the policing costs etc rise?) It's not inflation adjusted and is for 99 years. In the event of relegation it reduces by half. They don't pay for the policing, maintenance, etc. That's on the taxpayers. So in a few years time when policing costs for Prem league games go over 2.5m a season the tax payer will be paying for WHU to play football. Madness.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Aug 11, 2017 10:48:25 GMT
Yes they did, which would have been a white elephant otherwise. They took full advantage of a situation which I'd hope we would have done the same. However the legacy committee wasted the taxpayers money. West Ham haven't taken a penny. WHU have gained massive financial benefit from the cock-ups made by Coe, Johnson etc. This situation has given them an unfair advantage over their competitors both nationally and locally (they can offer Prem tickets for the price that Orient have to charge for lower league football). No one is saying they acted illegally ( I do feel the Olympics legacy people should be prosecuted/sacked for incompetence) but it is valid to point out they are gaining a facility that should be earning the tax payer a reward rather than one which is eventually going to need even more subsidy (is the 2.5M rent set for the entirity of the lease or will it rise as the policing costs etc rise?) But they aren't spending tax payers money like some people keep saying. The whole farce is down to Coe and chums not West Ham. The stadium was going to be built no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by duckling on Aug 11, 2017 10:48:53 GMT
It's not inflation adjusted and is for 99 years. In the event of relegation it reduces by half. They don't pay for the policing, maintenance, etc. That's on the taxpayers. So in a few years time when policing costs for Prem league games go over 2.5m a season the tax payer will be paying for WHU to play football. Madness. I was mistaken in thinking it's not inflation adjusted. There were many reports that it's not, but the BBC said it is. They don't pay for stewards and other security, turnstile operators, pitch maintenance including undersoil heating, cleaning, etc.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Aug 11, 2017 10:51:39 GMT
WHU have gained massive financial benefit from the cock-ups made by Coe, Johnson etc. This situation has given them an unfair advantage over their competitors both nationally and locally (they can offer Prem tickets for the price that Orient have to charge for lower league football). No one is saying they acted illegally ( I do feel the Olympics legacy people should be prosecuted/sacked for incompetence) but it is valid to point out they are gaining a facility that should be earning the tax payer a reward rather than one which is eventually going to need even more subsidy (is the 2.5M rent set for the entirity of the lease or will it rise as the policing costs etc rise?) They don't pay for the policing, maintenance, etc. That's on the taxpayers. Correct but the reason for that is because the Legacy committee insisted on retaining match day catering, set fee + % of stadium naming rights plus other bits that raises money for the taxpayer.
|
|
|
Post by duckling on Aug 11, 2017 11:02:06 GMT
They don't pay for the policing, maintenance, etc. That's on the taxpayers. Correct but the reason for that is because the Legacy committee insisted on retaining match day catering, set fee + % of stadium naming rights plus other bits that raises money for the taxpayer. The committee gets 30% of catering over £500k. Anyone know how much catering normally brings in? The first £4 million in stadium naming goes to the committee and 50% of anything above that. The committee only gets 10% of pitch advertising. If the committee was serious about raising money for the taxpayers, they could have, you know, charged West Ham more in rent. And made the club cover at least part of the utilities (all electricity, water, and heating are on the taxpayer), security, and maintenance. And made the club cover more than £15 million of the £323 million in conversion costs.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Aug 11, 2017 11:03:34 GMT
WHU have gained massive financial benefit from the cock-ups made by Coe, Johnson etc. This situation has given them an unfair advantage over their competitors both nationally and locally (they can offer Prem tickets for the price that Orient have to charge for lower league football). No one is saying they acted illegally ( I do feel the Olympics legacy people should be prosecuted/sacked for incompetence) but it is valid to point out they are gaining a facility that should be earning the tax payer a reward rather than one which is eventually going to need even more subsidy (is the 2.5M rent set for the entirity of the lease or will it rise as the policing costs etc rise?) But they aren't spending tax payers money like some people keep saying. The whole farce is down to Coe and chums not West Ham. The stadium was going to be built no matter what. No they are not spending tax payers money but because of the money saved on relocation and having their policing and match costs subsidised by the tax payers It enables the bubble blowing arseholes to pay far higher wages than they should be able to
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Aug 11, 2017 11:08:29 GMT
Correct but the reason for that is because the Legacy committee insisted on retaining match day catering, set fee + % of stadium naming rights plus other bits that raises money for the taxpayer. The committee gets 30% of catering over £500k. Anyone know how much catering normally brings in? The first £4 million in stadium naming goes to the committee and 50% of anything above that. The committee only gets 10% of pitch advertising. If the committee was serious about raising money for the taxpayers, they could have, you know, charged West Ham more in rent. And made the club cover at least part of the utilities (all electricity, water, and heating are on the taxpayer), security, and maintenance. And made the club cover more than £15 million of the £323 million in conversion costs. There shouldn't have been the need for the ridiculous conversion costs. That's on Coe's shoulders for not designing the stadium with football in mind after the Olympics. The straight forward deal would have been to charge more rent and Leave West Ham to run their club like everyone else, but they must feel they can get more money with the way they've structured the deal this way. Will be interesting to see the outcome in a few years when the figures are available.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Aug 11, 2017 11:15:01 GMT
But they aren't spending tax payers money like some people keep saying. The whole farce is down to Coe and chums not West Ham. The stadium was going to be built no matter what. and having their policing and match costs subsidised by the tax payers It enables the bubble blowing arseholes to pay far higher wages than they should be able to See my comment above. The only reason it appears to be subsidised is because of the profits they're taking that would normally be West Ham's That's what several West Ham fans have pointed out but people keep ignoring it. They've got an almost free use of a shiny new stadium, that's it. The rent is roughly the running costs, the tax payer is still ending up with % of Match day takings & Advertising income. The money spent building the stadium was always going to be spent, the money spent converting to a football stadium was wasted by Coe refusing to design the stadium ready for football afterwards.
|
|