Mega Ron wrote:We should buy it so that we can control it.
If there is no athletics there and no need to fanny around with the lower tiers then the running costs per year are much lower than at present.
We would also be in control of all revenues including stadium naming rights.
The running costs are not ours, they are LDC's. The naming rights don't get close to closing the financial benefit we've got.
Say what you like but the deal the Board negotiated was the deal of the century.
The elephant in the room is that there is a perception that it ain't a great football stadium, however every game 57k ticket purchasers suggest otherwise....
B'WoodBob wrote:
The running costs are not ours, they are LDC's. The naming rights don't get close to closing the financial benefit we've got.
Say what you like but the deal the Board negotiated was the deal of the century.
The elephant in the room is that there is a perception that it ain't a great football stadium, however every game 57k ticket purchasers suggest otherwise....
But if we buy it and don't have either athletics or the faffing with moving the tiers then the running costs would be ours but would be much lower.
With everything else chucked in we might make money out of it.
Anyone who thinks the bowl is a world class football ground is probably missing their dog in that photo.... :lol:
Selling seats do not mean its a good football ground.... Get your pricing and marketing right and you can sell anything..... Especially to loyal football fans like ours....
Selling seats do not mean its a good football ground.... Get your pricing and marketing right and you can sell anything..... Especially to loyal football fans like ours....[/quote]
That'll be the liars at work again. talking ***** to puff everyone into renewing and to keep moving forward with their stupid plan to add even more empty seats that Liverpool fans can fill when we play them.
B'WoodBob wrote:
Say what you like but the deal the Board negotiated was the deal of the century.
So we have eliminated the running costs of the Boleyn and put up with a badly run new ground. But we pay 2.5 m rent and we earn an extra 12m in tickets a year.
Any other event held at the venue is nothing to do with us financially and we get a very small percentage of catering from our own matches. We no longer have an assest of bricks and mortar and we play our games in a mash up of scaffold when we are allowed to depending on other events.
Ben wrote:It is the deal of the century for the board.
I really don't think it is. They earn more from the attendance figures but unless there's some success along the way in ten years it will be a ground with 30,000 in it and the club / board will be in limbo.
Yes they may be setting it up for a sale but thats not as easy as some make out.
It's a good deal for them on it's own. But when you think of the money they will no doubt end up making from the redevelopment of our home, it is a fantastic deal for them.
Now if they had done it all above board, redeveloped the old site as West Ham and invested the many millions made into the team I would have said they were real fans. But as it is they have 'sold' the ground, a mystery developer will make the hundreds of millions and we are still shopping at tescos only we now have a tesco stadium to match.
Ben wrote:It is the deal of the century for the board.
worst possible deal for us as fans and I would say the worst stadium migration in history
Spot on Ben
If we'd bought the stadium and paid the full cost of conversion we would have been saddled with debt and still have what we've got today stadium wise.
I can't see the circumstances under which the incumbent or any future owners will be incentivized to redevelop the stadium and incur the costs that go with it.
It all boils down back to Coe being bloody minded in his assertion that this would be a legacy stadium for athletics and athletics alone, or at least athletics as a lead sport. Anybody, even someone who needed that dog, could see that was a bloody stupid decisions as there simply are not enough events in the British athletics calendar that would attract even a half full stadium, and there's no way that the Olympics or World Athletics (after this summer) will come back our way again until the stadium is 30/40 years old and probably declared ancient and in need of either a refit or completely starting again somewhere else.
It was an absolute disaster of a plan from day one, and football should have always been considered as an option, if not the main tenant, of the stadium after the Olympics. With that, it could have been built with football in mind, proper retractable seating to get close to the pitch, and still been an athletics legacy given the use over the summer.
AlfieG wrote:Anyone who thinks the bowl is a world class football ground is probably missing their dog in that photo.... :lol:
Selling seats do not mean its a good football ground.... Get your pricing and marketing right and you can sell anything..... Especially to loyal football fans like ours....
Apart from the Withdean its the worse football ground I've set foot in. Difference with Brighton's old stadium was that it was a temporary fixture. With stuck with the most unsuitable football ground in Britain for the next 100 years.
Anyone who believes its iconic, acceptable or actually alright is either extremely biased, protective or they haven't visited many other grounds to benchmark against.
The Sherriff wrote:Anyone who believes its iconic, acceptable or actually alright is either extremely biased, protective or they haven't visited many other grounds to benchmark against.
All in my humble opinion of course.
Alternatively those who don't think it's any good at all are either extremely biased, protective or they haven't visited many other grounds to benchmark against IMHO.
It's all about opinions. There are good things and not so good things about the London Stadium as there are with all grounds. The reality is there are some things that can still be improved and some that cannot be changed and we will have to accept that whether we like it or not.
hammerdivone wrote:
It's all about opinions. There are good things and not so good things about the London Stadium as there are with all grounds. The reality is there are some things that can still be improved and some that cannot be changed and we will have to accept that whether we like it or not.
honestly though mate, do you think it is a good place to watch west ham play?
and do you enjoy the matchday experience in comparison to the BG?
B'WoodBob wrote:
If we'd bought the stadium and paid the full cost of conversion we would have been saddled with debt and still have what we've got today stadium wise.
..
Not so...If we had a joint plan in the original concept just like Man City did and paid for it with the sale of properties on the site of the Boleyn ground and contrbution from the state just like City we would be sitting in a football stadium and have a small athletics stadium next door with the same debt we have now.
