crispy wrote:
Trying not to be pedantic, it isn't true that it needs to be knocked down.
There are multiple solutions however none of them are cost effective whilst the running track is required, then if the running track isn't required then the stadium could be "rebuilt" anyway.
Not sure what you mean crispy.
Lets assume that there is no requirement for athletics , bearing in mind the rakes for the upper and lower stands, how exactly would you get people nearer the pitch?
There is no way this lot will rebuild the stadium, but I think we all know that.
would people accept a 25% portion of our yearly transfer budget to be put towards the cost of a conversion for the next 5 years?
we always get told of rough figures that we have to spend, the chairman mouth off about the large bids they put in for players but we never see the money get spent come deadline day.
last season is a prime example of the sizeable bids going in, the "payet money" the "zaza money"
what has happened to that money? at least if it was put towards a conversion the fans can see it being used for good, it would create more of a unity with fans and the board
and finally bring the fans closer to the pitch
the team will be good one year, **** the next two and so on.
our ground will always be there, fix it and make the match day good experience again, nothing worse than watching the **** seasons in a **** stadium - at least if people are there with their mates and having a good time it's still west ham as we know/knew it
When we do have a decent season you'll only feel part of it at the away games. I feel so detatched from the action and players in that place that I end up switching off and start pissing about with mates etc.It is so the worst kind of stadium possible for our kind of support. Take a % out of the transfer budget to improve the stadiium the liars won't spend it on players anyway. Anything to change the souless void that is the OS.
There is absolutely no incentive for the owners to spend one single bean on that stadium. A 90% renewal rate on the back of at best a mediocre first season with more teething problems than Shane MacGowan fully justifies such an approach.
Where's the incentive to improve the fan experience when they're queuing around the block anyway?
Spurs are moving back though. What with the FA charging astronomical prices and their recent record at Wembley I'm not surprised their board want the old gaff knocked down so quick.[/quote]
Appreciate spurs are on a strict time scale .but still surprises after over a year they haven't finished the Upton Park demolition .
B'WoodBob wrote:There is absolutely no incentive for the owners to spend one single bean on that stadium. A 90% renewal rate on the back of at best a mediocre first season with more teething problems than Shane MacGowan fully justifies such an approach.
Where's the incentive to improve the fan experience when they're queuing around the block anyway?
^^^^
Nailed it.... said it numerous times on here, us as soft touch fans keep turning up are making them c**** think they're invincible.
We're making Brady believe her own hype about the stadium... in reality its a failure, a shambles, definitely not the most successful stadium migration in history....
but we've just renewed 90% of season tickets, so how the f*** can we moan about it?
like your mrs ****ing someone else over and over again but keep taking her back, you'll keep getting shafted
I think this season is crucial for them both on and off the pitch .if it's more of the same they will be lucky to get 70% renewal next season .im not sure how appealing the rented stadium situation is for a new owner .I just don't see how knocking the stadium down and redeveloping could ever be justified to the tax payer who's ****ed out close on a billion already there would be uproar .
For the sake of comparison does anyone know what the % renewal rate was at the Boleyn, last season aside as that would be massively skewed to a higher %.
bubbles500 wrote:
Appreciate spurs are on a strict time scale .but still surprises after over a year they haven't finished the Upton Park demolition .
Demolition didn't actually start until October, disposal licenses where easier for WHL, the West and North stands at BG were actually fairly complex to remove (don't think WHL had the same issues) plus the cost to remove WHL was I believe in the region of 20 million.
B'WoodBob wrote:There is absolutely no incentive for the owners to spend one single bean on that stadium. A 90% renewal rate on the back of at best a mediocre first season with more teething problems than Shane MacGowan fully justifies such an approach.
Where's the incentive to improve the fan experience when they're queuing around the block anyway?
For a 90% renewal rate the seat allocations are going well on the ST renewals thread
Thanks for the link to the Football Stadium atmosphere charts - don't know who was sampled in questionnaire, but putting the OS last isn't quite fair, we should have been at least 18th. Of the away games i went to this season, Liverpool has to rank pretty low (how they got 4th in this poll is beyond me).
Have we actually had official confirmation about the reconfigure back to football .I think para games end the end of July so will give us about 6 weeks to September the 9th presume that will be enough ?
