Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 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. And so they bloody well should - for the rest of their tenancy. Let's see if they do though. BTW - I think you'll find that currently they struggle to fill their present ground. So they need to find a whole lot more fans (circa 20K) from somewhere. (You need to be very careful now) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 And so they bloody well should - for the rest of their tenancy. Let's see if they do though. BTW - I think you'll find that currently they struggle to fill their present ground. So they need to find a whole lot more fans (circa 20K) from somewhere. (You need to be very careful now) Why do i need to be careful? Im sure selling the land their ground is on will help clear their debts and they'd easily be able to come up with the £2m tenancy fees with the increased TV revenue which starts next season even if their crowds dont change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky 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? Which at the time - was a good deal for all involved, the club, buyer and finance company. This has nothing to do with a club facing administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Why do i need to be careful? Im sure selling the land their ground is on will help clear their debts and they'd easily be able to come up with the £2m tenancy fees with the increased TV revenue which starts next season even if their crowds dont change. I see you were careful. So grab a bargain while you can - even though you don't need it (but the council need somebody to keep the cobwebs out), flog your old place for a nice little earner - go play in a half empty stadium. Fookin brill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 I think you'll find that currently they struggle to fill their present ground. i looked it up earlier and they done 10 sell outs this year. We was listed as 7 for comparisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Which at the time - was a good deal for all involved, the club, buyer and finance company. This has nothing to do with a club facing administration. It was a very good deal for all involved, they got a club with premier league potential and a premier league stadium for a snip. You were whinging about West Ham being atttractive to a sugar daddy because of their stadium, same goes for us. Do you think we'd have been as attractive if we were still at the dell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 I see you were careful. So grab a bargain while you can - even though you don't need it (but the council need somebody to keep the cobwebs out), flog your old place for a nice little earner - go play in a half empty stadium. Fookin brill. If Saints where in their situation, loads of debt and the chance to clear it off and move into a 55,000 stadium would you be so outraged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 It was a very good deal for all involved, they got a club with premier league potential and a premier league stadium for a snip. You were whinging about West Ham being atttractive to a sugar daddy because of their stadium, same goes for us. Do you think we'd have been as attractive if we were still at the dell? No we wouldnt - but we weren't - also we didnt get the council to build it for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 No we wouldnt - but we weren't - also we didnt get the council to build it for us. So you agree we benfitied hugely from having a stadium which we didn't pay the full amount for, not that dismisilar to West Ham really, except they dont have the advantage of owning theirs. The council didn't build it for West Ham, they built it for the Olympics, West Ham are simply taking advantage of their circumstances. It isn't disgusting, wrong or immoral and it's certainly no less "wrong" that us benefiting by being brought by billionaires for 1/3 of the amount of debt we owed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 If Saints where in their situation, loads of debt and the chance to clear it off and move into a 55,000 stadium would you be so outraged? No I wouldn't - nor am I outraged now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 No I wouldn't - nor am I outraged now. So you'd bite their hand off, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 So you agree we benfitied hugely from having a stadium which we didn't pay the full amount for, not that dismisilar to West Ham really, except they dont have the advantage of owning theirs. The council didn't build it for West Ham, they built it for the Olympics, West Ham are simply taking advantage of their circumstances. It isn't disgusting, wrong or immoral and it's certainly no less "wrong" that us benefiting by being brought by billionaires for 1/3 of the amount of debt we owed. As I said - totally different circumstances. Totally dissimilar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 So you'd bite their hand off, yes? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 As I said - totally different circumstances. Totally dissimilar. not that disimilar at all. one club is in loads of debt, has the opportunity to clear their debt in full by moving stadium, the other club was in loads of debt and went into admininstration to clear their debt, which was a 1/3 of what they actually owed and then soared throught the leagues with debts gone owned by billionaires who funded their success out of their own wealth. arguably our circumstances were far more "wrong" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 No. You wouldn't take it? You'd stay at SMS, keep the debt and the struggles to pay it and refuse the chance for the far bigger, brand new stadium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Just because its worked out incredibly well for WHU, doesn't mean that it's right. Its a joke that they're paying so little money for a top stadium. Don't think anyone is having a go at them for making the most of the opportunity, it's more that whoever built it should have put a bit more thought into how it was going to be used afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Just because its worked out incredibly well for WHU, doesn't mean that it's right. Its a joke that they're paying so little money for a top stadium. Don't think anyone is having a go at them for making the most of the opportunity, it's more that whoever built it should have put a bit more thought into how it was going to be used afterwards. What makes it so wrong? They are paying £2m a year to RENT the stadium. That works out at £105k for every league game. I dont think that is particularly low amount it seems about right. Why is it so wrong for them yet fine for Man City to do exactly the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 You wouldn't take it? You'd stay at SMS, keep the debt and the struggles to pay it and refuse the chance for the far bigger, brand new stadium? I dont think we need a bigger stadium - nor do west ham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 not that disimilar at all. one club is in loads of debt, has the opportunity to clear their debt in full by moving stadium, the other club was in loads of debt and went into admininstration to clear their debt, which was a 1/3 of what they actually owed and then soared throught the leagues with debts gone owned by billionaires who funded their success out of their own wealth. arguably our circumstances were far more "wrong" We were in admin - West Ham are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 What makes it so wrong? They are paying £2m a year to RENT the stadium. That works out at £105k for every league game. I dont think that is particularly low amount it seems about right. Why is it so wrong for them yet fine for Man City to do exactly the same thing? When have I said that it's ok that Man City do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 (edited) We were in admin - West Ham are not. I see you are struggling to grasp the principle so i'll make it simple. Both clubs were in circumsatnces which they have used and turned to their advantage, one you are declaring as wrong and disgraceful, the other you seem to think it totally fine and no problem at all. It's very much double standards. 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 I dont think we need a bigger stadium - nor do west ham. So you'd refuse to pay off your debts and move to a bigger stadium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 When have I said that it's ok that Man City do it? I dont get why people are claiming it is so wrong. They are becoming council tenants, they aren't being given a stadium, they are just in the right place at the right time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St_Tel49 Posted 22 March, 2013 Author 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. No - you certainly can't blame them for it - we would bite their hands of for it as would almost any club - but there is no reason why they should be allowed to have it at such a cheap rent - and believe me - in comparison with them developing their own ground it is cheap - whether or not they own it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St_Tel49 Posted 22 March, 2013 Author Share Posted 22 March, 2013 I dont get why people are claiming it is so wrong. They are becoming council tenants, they aren't being given a stadium, they are just in the right place at the right time. Turkish-taking-contrary-view-as-a-matter-of-course shocker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 I dont get why people are claiming it is so wrong. They are becoming council tenants, they aren't being given a stadium, they are just in the right place at the right time. As I said, which you seemed to completely miss...I don't think people are ****ed at West Ham, (although I don't like them and its another thing I don't like them for) people are ****ed off at the fact that it's going to be there home for the foreseeable future, and to do what they want with it and they're putting f*ck all into it and getting all profits from it. The stadium is a £600m+ stadium with the taxpayer putting in 60m for West Ham to use it, yet they're putting in a quarter of that amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 No - you certainly can't blame them for it - we would bite their hands of for it as would almost any club - but there is no reason why they should be allowed to have it at such a cheap rent - and believe me - in comparison with them developing their own ground it is cheap - whether or not they own it. It's costing them £105k per game based on £2m a year for a premier league season. They will only use it 19 times a year, a maxium of say, 30 if they get into Europe and have good domestic cup runs. It isn't that cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 I see you are struggling to grasp the principle so i'll make it simple. Both clubs were in circumsatnces which they have used and turned to their advantage, one you are declaring as wrong and disgraceful, the other you seem to think it totally fine and no problem at all. It's very much double standards. Thanks for making it simple for me. I still disagree with you - our circumstances were not similar at all. I have grasped the principles as well - they are just different principles to the ones you apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 As I said, which you seemed to completely miss...I don't think people are ****ed at West Ham, (although I don't like them and its another thing I don't like them for) people are ****ed off at the fact that it's going to be there home for the foreseeable future, and to do what they want with it and they're putting f*ck all into it and getting all profits from it. The stadium is a £600m+ stadium with the taxpayer putting in 60m for West Ham to use it, yet they're putting in a quarter of that amount. They are. They are giving away 100k tickets a season to kids, paying £2m a year for the right to use it and £15m for stadium alterations. hardly f*ck all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Thanks for making it simple for me. I still disagree with you - our circumstances were not similar at all. I have grasped the principles as well - they are just different principles to the ones you apply. How so? You were bleating they will be attractive to a sugar daddy because of their stadium, ealier you admitted if we didn't have SMS, which we didn't pay for fully, then we we wouldn't have been as attractive to potential investors. We didn't pay for our stadium, they aren't paying for thiers, whats the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 How so? You were bleating they will be attractive to a sugar daddy because of their stadium, ealier you admitted if we didn't have SMS, which we didn't pay for fully, then we we wouldn't have been as attractive to potential investors. We didn't pay for our stadium, they aren't paying for thiers, whats the difference? I was not bleating. I was highlighting the point that they would be a far better proposition to any potential investor. We paid what the finance company agreed for SMS - all parties were satisfied as far as I am aware, ergo we paid for our stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 I was not bleating. I was highlighting the point that they would be a far better proposition to any potential investor. We paid what the finance company agreed for SMS - all parties were satisfied as far as I am aware, ergo we paid for our stadium. Correct, as where we. The stadium cost £30m, we were brought for c£13m, we didn't pay the full value of it and have benefited from this by having billionaire owners. We were a better proposition for an investor because of this. You've admitted yourself that we would have been less attractive to a buyer if we were still at the Dell. West Ham might not be in admin but they are taking advantage of their circumstances, much as the liebherrs did of ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Correct, as where we. The stadium cost £30m, we were brought for c£13m, we didn't pay the full value of it and have benefited from this by having billionaire owners. We were a better proposition for an investor because of this. You've admitted yourself that we would have been less attractive to a buyer if we were still at the Dell. West Ham might not be in admin but they are taking advantage of their circumstances, much as the liebherrs did of ours. Exactly - the Leibherrs took advantage of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Exactly - the Leibherrs took advantage of us. and we've benefited hugely from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 and we've benefited hugely from it. We have - and it has no similarities to WHU whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 **** all compared with what they would be paying if they were building their own stadium....how much did Brightons cost ?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 **** all compared with what they would be paying if they were building their own stadium....how much did Brightons cost ?! They aren't building their own stadium, they are renting one. I'm not sure why people are struggling to grasp this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 We have - and it has no similarities to WHU whatsoever. Yes it does. As i've explained. You may not agree but both clubs have benefited from the circumstances they are in. You may not like it because West Ham have benefitted from theirs but thats how it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Not sure how accurate this is, but seems all very accurate... http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/southampton-saints-alive.html Just as it looked like the club would have to fold, the cavalry arrived in the shape of Markus Liebherr, whose DMWSL 613 Limited acquired the share capital of the football club (and other group companies) from the administrators of Southampton Leisure Holdings Plc on 8 July 2009. Not only did the new owner save the club, but he also paid the debts in full, as opposed to many new owners who only pay a few pennies in the pound for debts owed, leaving many small business and public authorities out of pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mack rill Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 I dont get why people are claiming it is so wrong. They are becoming council tenants, they aren't being given a stadium, they are just in the right place at the right time. So were Spur,s with a much bigger fan base, but then i bet the deck was stacked with slimy Trev n the fingers in the FA pie, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Not sure how accurate this is, but seems all very accurate... http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/southampton-saints-alive.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5088457/Southampton-Football-Club-owner-in-crisis-as-shares-suspended.html http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4481187.Swiss_Saints_deal_completed/ our debts were £27m in 2008, up from £19m the year before, they paid £13m to buy us and clear them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 They aren't building their own stadium, they are renting one. I'm not sure why people are struggling to grasp this. Believe me - nobody is struggling to grasp it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Yes it does. As i've explained. You may not agree but both clubs have benefited from the circumstances they are in. You may not like it because West Ham have benefitted from theirs but thats how it is. We were in admin. ML took advantage of our situation. We could have been bought by the much maligned MLT consortium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 We were in admin. ML took advantage of our situation. We could have been bought by the much maligned MLT consortium. We could have but luckily for us it worked out well. As it may or may not do for West Ham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 We could have but luckily for us it worked out well. As it may or may not do for West Ham. Exactly - luckily for us. We became an attractive proposition after ML had bought us - we were staring at an abyss at the time - nothing like the WHU situation at all. While we had not a penny to scratch together they are looking at: "The £160m to £200m cost of converting the £429m stadium will be met largely from the public purse, including a £40m loan from Newham Council." So, what's that, circa £600m and whatever they can get for their old gaff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Exactly - luckily for us. We became an attractive proposition after ML had bought us - we were staring at an abyss at the time - nothing like the WHU situation at all. While we had not a penny to scratch together they are looking at: "The £160m to £200m cost of converting the £429m stadium will be met largely from the public purse, including a £40m loan from Newham Council." So, what's that, circa £600m and whatever they can get for their old gaff. Err. ML bought us because we were an attractive proposition. Odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Err. ML bought us because we were an attractive proposition. Odd. I'm well aware of that - he saw us as an attractive proposition. But we could just as easily have been bought by anybody else - given the predicament we were in (SISU anybody?). Either way, it's irrelevant to this particular argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 Exactly - luckily for us. We became an attractive proposition after ML had bought us - we were staring at an abyss at the time - nothing like the WHU situation at all. While we had not a penny to scratch together they are looking at: "The £160m to £200m cost of converting the £429m stadium will be met largely from the public purse, including a £40m loan from Newham Council." So, what's that, circa £600m and whatever they can get for their old gaff. And that money from the public purse is paying for the council owned stadium which can be used for any event the council sees fit, which includes renting that stadium to a football club to use. The council own the stadium, not the club, the club are tennants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 I'm well aware of that - he saw us as an attractive proposition. But we could just as easily have been bought by anybody else - given the predicament we were in (SISU anybody?). Either way, it's irrelevant to this particular argument. What is this particular argument then? We were an attractive proposition, which is why the Leibherrs bought us. We didn't become one after they bought us. Glad you agree with me. SMS was a stadium looking for the right occupants and the Leibherrs got it on the cheap. Remarkably similar to what West Ham have done here. Remarkably similar except they are renting not buying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 March, 2013 Share Posted 22 March, 2013 And that money from the public purse is paying for the council owned stadium which can be used for any event the council sees fit, which includes renting that stadium to a football club to use. The council own the stadium, not the club, the club are tennants. I think we've got the bit about who owns the stadium. So the club are just tennants - how long for...??? 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