|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Jan 17, 2024 20:58:56 GMT
Were you a taxpayer circa 2015? Did they increase taxes to pay for it ? 2015, no
|
|
|
Post by walrus on Jan 17, 2024 22:33:23 GMT
Were you a taxpayer circa 2015? Did they increase taxes to pay for it ? 2015, no Doesn’t matter whether they increased taxes. Every pound spent on that was not spent elsewhere. Would you rather public money was spent on schools, healthcare, roads etc. or on giving West Ham a shiny new stadium?
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Jan 17, 2024 22:39:45 GMT
Did they increase taxes to pay for it ? 2015, no Doesn’t matter whether they increased taxes. Every pound spent on that was not spent elsewhere. Would you rather public money was spent on schools, healthcare, roads etc. or on giving West Ham a shiny new stadium? The stadium was already built for the Olympics and at least West Ham paying towards it and it still being used I don't think West Ham moving there denied some orphans a new school
|
|
|
Post by Kenilworth_Stokies on Jan 18, 2024 8:50:41 GMT
Doesn’t matter whether they increased taxes. Every pound spent on that was not spent elsewhere. Would you rather public money was spent on schools, healthcare, roads etc. or on giving West Ham a shiny new stadium? The stadium was already built for the Olympics and at least West Ham paying towards it and it still being used I don't think West Ham moving there denied some orphans a new school No, but if they'd payed a fair price for being there we could give some orphans* a new school** from the proceeds. *Tory Donors ** Yacht
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 18, 2024 10:51:38 GMT
Hopefully it is
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 18, 2024 12:21:09 GMT
Doesn’t matter whether they increased taxes. Every pound spent on that was not spent elsewhere. Would you rather public money was spent on schools, healthcare, roads etc. or on giving West Ham a shiny new stadium? The stadium was already built for the Olympics and at least West Ham paying towards it and it still being used I don't think West Ham moving there denied some orphans a new school Public money was spent on the stadium after the Olympics to assist the change to being predominantly a football stadium as such other services will have suffered yes
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2024 12:31:22 GMT
Doesn’t matter whether they increased taxes. Every pound spent on that was not spent elsewhere. Would you rather public money was spent on schools, healthcare, roads etc. or on giving West Ham a shiny new stadium? The stadium was already built for the Olympics and at least West Ham paying towards it and it still being used I don't think West Ham moving there denied some orphans a new school The taxpayer would have got a better deal if they'd demolished the stadium and sold off the land. Obviously the optics wouldn't have been acceptable
|
|
|
Post by onepara on Jan 18, 2024 12:45:20 GMT
Couldn't the stadium have been shared with Orient? Orient then to sell their ground for income. Would Orient fans actually want that? They don’t typically sell out their 9,000 capacity ground currently. Them playing in a big bowl of a stadium like that would be awful for the fan. A bit like Darlington when they were getting 2,000 fans in their 25,000 seater stadium. They made a bid for it at the time, but of course, W'ham got it.
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Jan 18, 2024 12:54:02 GMT
Scumbag club that should have been relegated over the Tevez/Mascherano fiasco. It would be belated poetic justice to see them homeless and begging Orient to let them ground share. Couldn't happen to a more deserving mob.
|
|
|
Post by walrus on Jan 18, 2024 23:31:40 GMT
Would Orient fans actually want that? They don’t typically sell out their 9,000 capacity ground currently. Them playing in a big bowl of a stadium like that would be awful for the fan. A bit like Darlington when they were getting 2,000 fans in their 25,000 seater stadium. They made a bid for it at the time, but of course, W'ham got it. Yes, but would the fans actually want that? Just because the club ownership made a bid doesn’t mean the bulk of the fans supported it. New grounds are always at best bittersweet for fans, and this one had the added drawback of being clearly far too big for them.
|
|
|
Post by malteser68 on Jan 19, 2024 4:31:49 GMT
Since it's subject to a 99 year lease with pittance rent it's not saleable. Would need to read the lease, but you'd expect West Ham will need to just buy the freehold, again for a cheap price, and deal with repairs. Overall they've had a brilliant deal at taxpayers expense and the money they'll need to spend to get the freehold will be nothing compared to the cost of building a stadium from scratch and funding it yourself And then Everton got a 10 point deduction when books didn’t balance due to money spent in building their new stadium!!
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 19, 2024 8:14:55 GMT
Since it's subject to a 99 year lease with pittance rent it's not saleable. Would need to read the lease, but you'd expect West Ham will need to just buy the freehold, again for a cheap price, and deal with repairs. Overall they've had a brilliant deal at taxpayers expense and the money they'll need to spend to get the freehold will be nothing compared to the cost of building a stadium from scratch and funding it yourself And then Everton got a 10 point deduction when books didn’t balance due to money spent in building their new stadium!! Don’t think that's right, money spent on stadium doesn't affect FFP
|
|