St_Tel49 Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 I'm speechless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Posted this in another forum... 1. Why would they leave a fantastic stadium (not even like it's a sh*thole, it still looks good) for a ground that it will be difficult to generate an atmosphere in? 2. Why are they using £60million of tax payers money to help them for f*cks sake!!! Cant see it myself, Upton Park was all about the fans & the intimidating atmosphere, there miles form the pitch now & will they fill it ? Looking at it, the best thing to do would be to dig the pitch further down so you can have more stands at the front (also that way you can have flat stands parallel to the pitch rather than curved all the way). Whether that's what will happen is another story, but for the best part of £200million it's what I'd be expecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Someone has really f*cked up with this, for the government to be paying so much and WHU paying pretty much f*ck all. Aren't they paying £15m, which is only 3m more than Jarvis...joke. Good idea for the owners though as it will make the club worth a lot mroe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Yep £15million, absolute joke. If they wanted it they should have had to pay the full cost themselves, it's what everyone else does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Yep £15million, absolute joke. If they wanted it they should have had to pay the full cost themselves, it's what everyone else does. They'll turn into Reading with half their stadium being full of daytrippers wanting to visit the Olympic Stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Yep £15million, absolute joke. If they wanted it they should have had to pay the full cost themselves, it's what everyone else does. Why? They won't own it, they are just tenants renting the stadium and it'll be used for other things as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 They'll turn into Reading with half their stadium being full of daytrippers wanting to visit the Olympic Stadium. That is what a lot of people on here want to turn us into don't forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 While I think it's just plain wrong on so many levels, I can sort of understand why they have got it. The council will be caught between the devil and the deep blue sea - the bottom line being they are going to be lumbered with a bloody great white elephant. Let's face it - what are they going to do with it? So they are pretty much consigned to give it to them. It's a very similar to the Etihad, where Manchester council helped city by assisting with the stadium conversion - mind you I think the club paid more than 15 million even all those years ago. The thing about this conversion though is that it has to be able to convert back to an athletics track (I think) - so that could have an impact on how it works as a football stadium. Personally I think they should be made to share with Leyton Orient as well - but unfortunately they'll just get bullied out of it. All pretty mucky really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Why? They won't own it, they are just tenants renting the stadium and it'll be used for other things as well. this, thats how I understand it. 99 yr lease. with regular break options I'd imagine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Why? They won't own it, they are just tenants renting the stadium and it'll be used for other things as well. Ah right, didn't know that. Still £2million a year seems very cheap for something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 That is what a lot of people on here want to turn us into don't forget. There are pros and cons of both options. From a business level it is understandable that a chairman will want to maximize profits by getting as many people through the door as possible. Whereas the fans of the clubs will generally want as many 'proper fans' in the stadium. However in this day and age with money everything in football, if any club's going to move forward then they need to maximise revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsash saint Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 So they have to pay to put an extra bit of roof on, pay £2mm a year in rent BUT will still get all the proceeds for selling Upton Park ?? The Porno barons have played a blinder ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 So they have to pay to put an extra bit of roof on, pay £2mm a year in rent BUT will still get all the proceeds for selling Upton Park ?? The Porno barons have played a blinder ! So they'll actually be making an initial profit out of this move !? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 While I think it's just plain wrong on so many levels, I can sort of understand why they have got it. The council will be caught between the devil and the deep blue sea - the bottom line being they are going to be lumbered with a bloody great white elephant. Let's face it - what are they going to do with it? So they are pretty much consigned to give it to them. It's a very similar to the Etihad, where Manchester council helped city by assisting with the stadium conversion - mind you I think the club paid more than 15 million even all those years ago. The thing about this conversion though is that it has to be able to convert back to an athletics track (I think) - so that could have an impact on how it works as a football stadium. Personally I think they should be made to share with Leyton Orient as well - but unfortunately they'll just get bullied out of it. All pretty mucky really. What's wrong about it? They are renting an excellent sporting facility of the government for a reasonable price. I really don't see what is mucky or wrong about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 So they'll actually be making an initial profit out of this move !? If you own a house, sold it and moved into a rented property you'd do the same. It's not difficult is it. It'll help clear their debts as well. A sensible move for all involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 What's wrong about it? They are renting an excellent sporting facility of the government for a reasonable price. I really don't see what is mucky or wrong about it. Because they're getting a £600m stadium for sweet FA....and even though theyr'e going to use it, they're not even paying the restoration costs. I could understand them having it if they paid for the changes, but they aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Because they're getting a £600m stadium for sweet FA....and even though theyr'e going to use it, they're not even paying the restoration costs. I could understand them having it if they paid for the changes, but they aren't. They aren't getting it, they are renting it. If you rent a house worth £500k and pay £1k a month rent you don't get a house for FA, you become a tenant for an agreed rate. They are renting it, not getting it. It isn't difficult FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lloydie Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Its a bit of a joke that they are only stumping up £15m in renovation costs when the tax payer is putting in £60m. Especially as Spurs said they would help finance such a move. Even more outrageous they wont pay when you consider how much they will net from the sale of upton park, and get to keep all ticket and merchandise sales! Not to mention i think they get a slice of stadium sponsorship money too. For £2m per year rent! I wonder what our costs of running St. Mary's are per year?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St_Tel49 Posted 22 March, 2013 Author Share Posted 22 March, 2013 So they have to pay to put an extra bit of roof on, pay £2mm a year in rent BUT will still get all the proceeds for selling Upton Park ?? The Porno barons have played a blinder ! Yep - they've screwed everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 They aren't getting it, they are renting it. If you rent a house worth £500k and pay £1k a month rent you don't get a house for FA, you become a tenant for an agreed rate. They are renting it, not getting it. It isn't difficult FFS. But there are no running profits from renting a house is there !? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itchen_dan Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 From what I gather is that the running track WILL stay and seating will be put on it that can be removed within a few days for athletics events. Pretty clever. EDIT: On SS website "The stadium itself will have retractable seats, allowing the 2017 World Athletics Championships to take place as planned." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 What's wrong about it? They are renting an excellent sporting facility of the government for a reasonable price. I really don't see what is mucky or wrong about it. It's not wrong if the council provided the same amenities and opportunities for all football clubs - unfortunately they don't. Hence the reason why a 'smaller' club may be forced to move it's operation away from the club that has benefited from this white elephant. Obviously I might have got that wrong, and Boris Johnson is planning to build yet another, more suited smaller, stadium and rent that to Leyton Orient at a knocked down rent, then moving on to the next football club in the borough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 They have £70m of debt which they have to clear before moving in (partially by flogging Upton Park). Many clubs borrow using their stadium as security. That will no longer be an option for them as they will be tenants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 (edited) It's not wrong if the council provided the same amenities and opportunities for all football clubs - unfortunately they don't. Hence the reason why a 'smaller' club may be forced to move it's operation away from the club that has benefited from this white elephant. Obviously I might have got that wrong, and Boris Johnson is planning to build yet another, more suited smaller, stadium and rent that to Leyton Orient at a knocked down rent, then moving on to the next football club in the borough. the smaller club wont be paying £2m a year in rent though. Edited 22 March, 2013 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 But there are no running profits from renting a house is there !? So if a company rents office space for £2k a month in a listed building that is worth £20m then they should give the landlord all their profit should they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lets B Avenue Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 So if a company rents office space for £2k a month in a listed building that is worth £20m then they should give the landlord all their profit should they? And if they were to get relegated, which I think is certain (although I might have misread that) and spent a few years bumbling around in the lower leagues, they could end up like Coventry without an essential asset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 the smaller club wont be paying £2m a year in rent though. Exactly what I said - and they shouldn't have to. The council should provide them with a stadium that meets their needs and at a rent that they can afford. They have done it for WHU, therefore they should provide the same service levels to all of their constituents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian lord Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 This deal is more akin to buying a flat leasehold (as opposed to buying freehold) than the rental analogy. The 2£m per year is the mortgage repayments in effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Exactly what I said - and they shouldn't have to. The council should provide them with a stadium that meets their needs and at a rent that they can afford. They have done it for WHU, therefore they should provide the same service levels to all of their constituents. Why do they need a new stadium? Brisbane Road is perfect for them. It's quite a nice little ground, they get crowds of about 4,000. They have a stadium that meets their needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 And if they were to get relegated, which I think is certain (although I might have misread that) and spent a few years bumbling around in the lower leagues, they could end up like Coventry without an essential asset. Well that's their problem and the risk they are taking. The argument seems to be people think they are being given a stadium for £2m a year, they aren't, they are renting the stadium for £2m a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Why do they need a new stadium? Brisbane Road is perfect for them. It's quite a nice little ground, they get crowds of about 4,000. They have a stadium that meets their needs. Because, like WHU, they too want to move to a new stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Because, like WHU, they too want to move to a new stadium. They might want too but do they need too? West Ham have a great opportunity which they have taken, you cant blame them for it. They are paying for it too, people are making out they are being handed a new stadium for nothing when they are simply becoming paying tenants. If we got offered a superb 60,000 all seater stadium in the New Forest you wouldnt hear too many fans bleating on about poor old Bournemouth being shat on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skintsaint Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Do the hammers pay a percentage of income from crowd receipts as well?.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Do the hammers pay a percentage of income from crowd receipts as well?.. No, they get the full income from matchdays... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Do the hammers pay a percentage of income from crowd receipts as well?.. Nope - they pay part of the conversion - a measly 15 million and 2 million rent a year. Peanuts when you think that Cov City were paying rent of 1.3 million a year in league 1. It will be interesting to see though, how many 'other events' are held in the stadium, because I don't think that they have exclusivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skintsaint Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 No, they get the full income from matchdays... thats not a bad gig is it lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Nope - they pay part of the conversion - a measly 15 million and 2 million rent a year. Peanuts when you think that Cov City were paying rent of 1.3 million a year in league 1. It will be interesting to see though, how many 'other events' are held in the stadium, because I don't think that they have exclusivity. World athletics championship in 2017 (i think) for a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 They might want too but do they need too? West Ham have a great opportunity which they have taken, you cant blame them for it. They are paying for it too, people are making out they are being handed a new stadium for nothing when they are simply becoming paying tenants. If we got offered a superb 60,000 all seater stadium in the New Forest you wouldnt hear too many fans bleating on about poor old Bournemouth being shat on. When you look at all of the hurdles other clubs have in building new stadiums - WHU have had it easy - honestly, they have. The rent, by premier league standards is peanuts. As for your analogy in regard to us and Bournemouth you might be correct - but just think about the fans of every other club in the country - it supports my view. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 World athletics championship in 2017 (i think) for a start. Super - 1 event, in 2017. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 When you look at all of the hurdles other clubs have in building new stadiums - WHU have had it easy - honestly, they have. The rent, by premier league standards is peanuts. As for your analogy in regard to us and Bournemouth you might be correct - but just think about the fans of every other club in the country - it supports my view. Thank you. Theyve taken advantage of a good opportunity. They've got a new top notch stadium at a very good price as well as being able to sell their existing one to clear some debt. If Cortese had done similar for us people would be hailing it as a masterstroke of chairmanship by an brilliant businessman. Because it's someone else it's disgusting and immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 I just hope they go down whether that is this year or next year. Yes they've taken advantage of a great opportunity, but that doesn't make it right. And to those saying it will get used for other events....thats originally the plan, but I bet it only gets used for the athletics in 2017 and thats about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Super - 1 event, in 2017. Nicely forgetting the "for a start" i added. That was the only one off the top of my head. They dont move in until 2016/17 season so that will be in there first season. have read the article it'll also be used for concerts, athletics and other sporting events and West Ham will give 100,000 tickets a season to local kids for free. it seems like plenty will benefit from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 I just hope they go down whether that is this year or next year. Yes they've taken advantage of a great opportunity, but that doesn't make it right. And to those saying it will get used for other events....thats originally the plan, but I bet it only gets used for the athletics in 2017 and thats about it. Why do you hope they go down? Some people on this forum are so bitter. Why dont you wish ill on Man city because they lease the stadium that was built for the commonwealth games from Manchester Council. Or Coventry go bust because they rent the Ricoh arena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Theyve taken advantage of a good opportunity. They've got a new top notch stadium at a very good price as well as being able to sell their existing one to clear some debt. If Cortese had done similar for us people would be hailing it as a masterstroke of chairmanship by an brilliant businessman. Because it's someone else it's disgusting and immoral. I totally agree - they have. But that doesn't make it right in the scheme of things. They have been given a massive bonus over every other team in England. How much more attractive will WHU be to the next sugar daddy looking to get in on the premiership action...? What do you reckon...? Prem team, London based, lovely new stadium.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 I totally agree - they have. But that doesn't make it right in the scheme of things. They have been given a massive bonus over every other team in England. How much more attractive will WHU be to the next sugar daddy looking to get in on the premiership action...? What do you reckon...? Prem team, London based, lovely new stadium.... Why isn't it right? We were brought on the cheap by a billionaire who was able to write off all our debt for a third of their true worth. Surely that's given us an unfair advantage over other clubs. Do you not want the liebherrs here because it's wrong that we were attractive to them because we had a decent stadium that we hadn't paid for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Why do you hope they go down? Some people on this forum are so bitter. Why dont you wish ill on Man city because they lease the stadium that was built for the commonwealth games from Manchester Council. Or Coventry go bust because they rent the Ricoh arena. No I don't like them. I don't like them as a club, I don't like their style of football, I despise Kevin Nolan. They gambled massively last year and spent loads of money, which they don't have. A bit like QPR have done but when in the NPC rather than Prem. Same reason I want QPR to go down this season. Call it bitter if you like, you don't have to agree. Just my personal opinion. I have enough mates who are West Ham fans who give me **** on a regular who have now recently piped down a bit due to their awful form. Plus that day at Upton Park was my lowest point this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Why isn't it right? We were brought on the cheap by a billionaire who was able to write off all our debt for a third of their true worth. Surely that's given us an unfair advantage over other clubs. Do you not want the liebherrs here because it's wrong that we were attractive to them because we had a decent stadium that we hadn't paid for? Thought we paid all our debts in full!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Thought we paid all our debts in full!? They paid £13m to own us and make us debt free, the stadium alone cost £32m and we were only 8 years into the mortgage. It was pennies in the pound repayments. So yes, they paid them in full, but not the true amount of debt that we had taken out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Oh right, I didn't know that, I though they came in and paid all our debts off in full. 100% of what debt we were in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Oh right, I didn't know that, I though they came in and paid all our debts off in full. 100% of what debt we were in. IIRC correctly our debts were about £30m when we went into admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now