|All you need to know about West Ham United FC's potential move to Stratford.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/20 ... 00081.jpg/
View from row 13, only a couple of rows lower than my seat at the Boleyn, no comparison. As a designer, its such a shame to see a stadium with such potential fail, from my knowledge, no retractable seating or further design work could help.
That pic sends shivers down the spine ... An awful view as you are just so far away. Better off 3 rows from the back where I was.
The plans from West Ham to convert the stadium after the Olympics are supposed to be superb, however, I cannot for the life of me see how you can transform an athletics stadium like this to a proper football arena.
The perfect scenario would be us building a proper football stadium (Upton Park 2.0) from scratch with around 50.000 capacity without having to making any compromises regarding any athletics legacy crap. I'd rather see us playing another five years at Upton Park and establishing ourselves in the Premier League before financing a proper football arena which is belonging to the club and allows us to create further income from selling naming rights and so on.
The Olympic Stadium will NEVER be a proper football stadium, no matter how much money you want to throw at it...
Not too late for a U-turn Sunshine. Funnier things have happened in football.
Say that to Diouf.
Telegraph Sport understands that:
1. protracted negotiations with West Ham
2. and threats of further legal challenges from Leyton Orient owner Barry Hearn
...could cause the timetable to slip again.
3. The OPLC, recently rebranded the LLDC, set a self-imposed secret deadline of May 21.
4 The LLDC justifies the almost total lack of transparency around the stadium process on the grounds that it is commercially sensitive.
OR, the way I see it:
4. The LLDC are desperate for us to take over as we alone can save the thing from becoming the 'white elephant' that we all knew we had to prevent from happening in the first place.
1. We want the stadium, but not in its current state, as it is 'unfit for purpose'
2. Hearn will have to be silenced one way or another
3. any delay in announcing WHUFC as the winner will be primarily down to us trying to extract the correct deal for a football tenant.
Do you know, I think that is about the most sensible post I have read about the OS for along time....
The board will not except it if it is not on our terms. Have faith.
I take it you never saw my post back in April :<)
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=139389#p3346440" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Well, the board will only do it if it is on terms that they are happy with. I just think what they are happy with and what a lot of people here are happy with are totally different things.
An alternative view might be :-
The commitment to athletics, and particularly the 2017 Athletics World Championships, limit major works to the stadium for the next five years and take some of the short/medium term pressure off the politicians to deal with the white elephant. The question they will be asking themselves is why then, in a recession, should large amounts of public money be spent on making the stadium more football friendly when the rental return will never cover it. There comes a point where the existence and subsidy of the white elephant is the lesser of the evils. While the Olympics are approaching and 'negotiations' are continuing the pressure is off anyway.
If you paper-mached it, you could make it look like the World Cup
I am not sure about that I did a bit on the various RoI/TCO models the government would be looking at a month or so back. Not sure that they would want to go anywhere near the backlash they will receive post Olympics/Para Olympics if they are going to leave it as a empty shell venue only useful for some office accommodation, a few summertime low key athletics meeting and one or two concerts and cricket matches while waiting for another 5 years before it is used for the World Championship. In their RoI/TCO modelling they will have to equate what has already been spent £500M? against what they need to spend to convert it, ranging from downsize to full football conversion.They then need to look at what income they can see for each scenario ranging from not much to quite bit with the football conversion. Being fully kitted for football gives income from a number of sources of income including our use in the winter when otherwise it would remain empty. Why would anyone pay for branding on a stadium only used a couple of times a year between October 2012 and July 2017 to one used potentially 365 days a year? There is already the committed conversion costs which may have to be spent anyway to downsize it. So the only real RoI/TCO they need to consider is ~ Can the extra conversion costs over and above those already committed be recovered from West Ham's rent over the term of the contract plus what other additional revenue earning opportunities does the conversion solution offer.
If the additional conversion costs are say £100M (plus the money already agreed £34M?) then West Ham paying rental of say £2M p.a over 100 years would, taking into account present value /rate of return figure's, probably pay off the loan and contribute to the yearly service and maintenance charges. Additional contributions from; LBN, Essex Cricket, local athletics from any scenario plus , Rugby, Football, England 20:20 cricket, UK Athletics, Branding, Concerts etc from a full conversion. All would add to the RoI/TCO model and might even make the stadium profitable in the long run.
So in essence the equation is quite simple
What is the RoI/TCO with added conversion to football costs against the RoI/TCO leaving as is and then downsizing after 2017 and maybe a few scenarios in between
I suspect the government would prefer a nice steady income form the only show in town ~ after all by 2017 most if not all the other London Premiership and Championship teams will have their own shiny new grounds by then and they will not have the opportunity of finding a suitable host tenant prepared to use it 30+ times per year. during the winter months .
There just won't be more money put upfront. If it's not in an existing ring-fenced budget it won't happen. The white elephant result becomes politically bearable when the alternative is to spend large amounts of public money you don't have, and you have a previous government to blame for how things turned out. I sense that all the nervousness and urgency has gone out of the politics.
Spending £100M to get loose change back over 100 years, I don't think so.
Never mind inside, what in the name of holy **** is that monstrosity they've put up outside? Looks like a portakabin crashed into a roller coaster. Its 'art' apparently (i.e. a load of **** but more expensive than than a blow job off Kate Middleton) and they charge FIFTEEN QUID to go up it.
The whole complex is a mess.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest