West Ham's Olympic Stadium Deal

[Christian Slater]

They'll pay £2.5m a year for 99 years. The revenue from one matchday will cover that. I think football should be a sport on and off the field, being handed a free stadium and reaping all the financial benefits doesn't seem very sporting to me.

Of course people will defend West Ham, and most clubs would jump at the same chance. It still diminishes any future success. It's a financial PED.

 

[Whitechapel]

Just to add, if they get relegated they'll only have to pay half that.

 

[johnnytodd]

No problem from me........ i love any team upsetting the Plastic SKY clubs and their fans.

 

[Whitechapel]

The Olympic Stadium was originally built for £430m and it has cost a further £272m to get it ready for West Ham's use from 2016-17.

 

[johnnytodd]

Proper club West Ham some say the only Proper club in London along with Spurs

those of a certain age will understand.

 

[Pagnell]

Proper club West Ham some say the only Proper club in London along with Spurs

those of a certain age will understand.

In which case you must have read about it I guess.

 

[Art Morte]

I don't understand what's people's problem with this. You've built a new fancy stadium, so use it! What was the alternative to West Ham moving in? Leyton Orient moving in? Using it only for random events? Football is a big English export and a domestic business plus a free time activity. It only makes sense that if there's a stadium available for a big English club, it's put to the best use, i.e. football. People shouldn't get bitter over a wee bit of common sense.

 

[Whitechapel]

I don't understand what's people's problem with this. You've built a new fancy stadium, so use it! What was the alternative to West Ham moving in? Leyton Orient moving in? Using it only for random events? Football is a big English export and a domestic business plus a free time activity. It only makes sense that if there's a stadium available for a big English club, it's put to the best use, i.e. football. People shouldn't get bitter over a wee bit of common sense.

I see that you're not a UK tax payer.

 

[johnnytodd]

In which case you must have read about it I guess.

lived it unlike you

TV boy

 

[Christian Slater]

I don't understand what's people's problem with this. You've built a new fancy stadium, so use it! What was the alternative to West Ham moving in? Leyton Orient moving in? Using it only for random events? Football is a big English export and a domestic business plus a free time activity. It only makes sense that if there's a stadium available for a big English club, it's put to the best use, i.e. football. People shouldn't get bitter over a wee bit of common sense.

Aside from the cost incurred for the taxpayer it's a massively unfair financial advantage West Ham have been given. Now, for no work on their behalf, they are able to take in matchday income close to United and Arsenal. Other clubs have to save and plan to buy or improve their stadiums, West Ham have bypassed that at the cost of the nation.

 

[shane]

Too bad the name "Liberty Stadium" is taken.

*My mates joke.

 

[Art Morte]

I see that you're not a UK tax payer.

I'm not, but it wouldn't change my view. Can you tell me what would have been the alternative to West Ham's move in?

Aside from the cost incurred for the taxpayer it's a massively unfair financial advantage West Ham have been given. Now, for no work on their behalf, they are able to take in matchday income close to United and Arsenal. Other clubs have to save and plan to buy or improve their stadiums, West Ham have bypassed that at the cost of the nation.

If I got it right, West Ham are paying 2.5m rent for 99 years. Presuming they're staying in the Prem. That would be 247.5m. They could build a new stadium with that money that they would own themselves. What's wrong with using a bit of common sense and instead making good use of the state of the art Olympic stadium? Or, again, can you tell me what would have been the alternative and how that would have been better?

 

[Whitechapel]

I'm not, but it wouldn't change my view. Can you tell me what would have been the alternative to West Ham's move in?

West Ham moving in and paying a fair price?

 

[Art Morte]

West Ham moving in and paying a fair price?

And if West Ham had instead said "no thanks, we're using that money to build our own stadium", what would have been the alternative then?

 

[Whitechapel]

And if West Ham had instead said "no thanks, we're using that money to build our own stadium", what would have been the alternative then?

Allowing Spurs to rip out the running track, and then Spurs paying a fair price.

Failing that, sell the land to developers.

 

[Jarv]

I'm not, but it wouldn't change my view. Can you tell me what would have been the alternative to West Ham's move in?



If I got it right, West Ham are paying 2.5m rent for 99 years. Presuming they're staying in the Prem. That would be 247.5m. They could build a new stadium with that money that they would own themselves. What's wrong with using a bit of common sense and instead making good use of the state of the art Olympic stadium? Or, again, can you tell me what would have been the alternative and how that would have been better?

they wouldn't be able to build a stadium anywhere close to the standard of the Olympic stadium for £247m. (emirates cost £390m, Spurs new stadium estimated to be around £400m) it cost £272 to convert it to meet their wants and needs and they paid £15m towards. If they used it as is after the Olympics i wouldn't have as much of an issue but the £272 spend was at their request.

 

[Art Morte]

Allowing Spurs to rip out the running track, and then Spurs paying a fair price.

Failing that, sell the land to developers.

Spurs, lol. They've never been interested afaik.

And what, selling to developers? You do realize this stadium was just built a few years ago? Tear it down already? Pls, post realistic alternatives or just say you haven't got any.

 

[Art Morte]

they wouldn't be able to build a stadium anywhere close to the standard of the Olympic stadium for £247m. (emirates cost £390m, Spurs new stadium estimated to be around £400m) it cost £272 to convert it to meet their wants and needs and they paid £15m towards. If they used it as is after the Olympics i wouldn't have as much of an issue but the £272 spend was at their request.

Well who is wrong, the one who requests or the one who accepts? The ground's owners, the London Legacy Development Corporation, looked at their options and decided to accept the offer. Don't you think they would have accepted a better offer if one was on the table? Why would West Ham fork more money on the table if their offer was already the best?

 

[Whitechapel]

Spurs, lol. They've never been interested afaik.

And what, selling to developers? You do realize this stadium was just built a few years ago? Tear it down already? Pls, post realistic alternatives or just say you haven't got any.

You really are clueless mate, West Ham are ripping off the tax payer. Simple. Spurs were interested, but backed out when they were told the running track had to stay.

No issue with West Ham using the stadium, but the UK tax payer (Not you) shouldn't have to pay for corner flags and goal posts as well as stadium staff and god knows what else.

When you have a valid argument, then please feel free to share.

 

[Christian Slater]

I'm not, but it wouldn't change my view. Can you tell me what would have been the alternative to West Ham's move in?



If I got it right, West Ham are paying 2.5m rent for 99 years. Presuming they're staying in the Prem. That would be 247.5m. They could build a new stadium with that money that they would own themselves. What's wrong with using a bit of common sense and instead making good use of the state of the art Olympic stadium? Or, again, can you tell me what would have been the alternative and how that would have been better?

Without factoring in inflation for the next 99 years the rent they're paying barely covers the cost to convert the stadium to play football in, never mind build one. You think building a 60,000 seater stadium in London would cost around £250m? It cost way over £400m to build it in the first place.

I'd prefer West Ham to sort their own stadium out in a way that's not unethical in relation to sporting competition.

 

[smat]

I'd prefer West Ham to sort their own stadium out in a way that's not unethical in relation to sporting competition.

Oh, what's ethical about the Premier League anyway? The game is rigged, my friend. West Ham are lucky bastards but they're just in the right place at the right time.

 

[Pagnell]

lived it unlike you

TV boy

Judging by your posts, I reckon I was regularly attending matches when your old dear was still wiping your arse.

 

[Art Morte]

You really are clueless mate, West Ham are ripping off the tax payer. Simple. Spurs were interested, but backed out when they were told the running track had to stay.

No issue with West Ham using the stadium, but the UK tax payer (Not you) shouldn't have to pay for corner flags and goal posts as well as stadium staff and god knows what else.

When you have a valid argument, then please feel free to share.

How are West Ham ripping off the tax payer? They have not made this decision. They made an offer. People are directing their hate at West Ham even though the club has had no say in this. You should blame the stadium's owner if you're not happy, not West Ham.

So, Spurs were not interested when the conditions were laid bare. Meaning that you still haven't provided a realistic alternative to this West Ham deal.

Without factoring in inflation for the next 99 years the rent they're paying barely covers the cost to convert the stadium to play football in, never mind build one. You think building a 60,000 seater stadium in London would cost around £250m? It cost way over £400m to build it in the first place.

I'd prefer West Ham to sort their own stadium out in a way that's not unethical in relation to sporting competition.

Again, why do you blame West Ham? Why should they pay more if no one else has offered to pay more for the use of the stadium?

Listen, people, you wanted the Olympics and you got them. Lots of tax payer money was involved. You had to build a new stadium for the Olympics. You did. After the Olympics you were left with the question "what to do with this stadium that we used tax payer money to build now that the Olympics are over?" One of the biggest 15 football clubs in the country is moving in to use it. That makes sense to me. This is just an additional cost to the tax payer for the Olympics, not for financially supporting West Ham.

 

[Christian Slater]

Oh, what's ethical about the Premier League anyway? The game is rigged, my friend. West Ham are lucky bastards but they're just in the right place at the right time.

Agreed, but there has to be a meritocracy at some level, otherwise it becomes pointless.

This "luck" thing is becoming a bit too frequent.

 

[Christian Slater]

How are West Ham ripping off the tax payer? They have not made this decision. They made an offer. People are directing their hate at West Ham even though the club has had no say in this. You should blame the stadium's owner if you're not happy, not West Ham.

So, Spurs were not interested when the conditions were laid bare. Meaning that you still haven't provided a realistic alternative to this West Ham deal.



Again, why do you blame West Ham? Why should they pay more if no one else has offered to pay more for the use of the stadium?

Listen, people, you wanted the Olympics and you got them. Lots of tax payer money was involved. You had to build a new stadium for the Olympics. You did. After the Olympics you were left with the question "what to do with this stadium that we used tax payer money to build now that the Olympics are over?" One of the biggest 15 football clubs in the country is moving in to use it. That makes sense to me. This is just an additional cost to the tax payer for the Olympics, not for financially supporting West Ham.

Where have I blamed West Ham?

 

[Art Morte]

Where have I blamed West Ham?

You called them unethical. But there's nothing unethical about putting an offer on the table. It's up to other parties to better it. Apparently no one did. It's fair play to West Ham and good that a big club is getting a big stadium that would otherwise have been left underused, I presume from the lack of real alternatives provided.

 

[G.B]

big club

hur hur

 

[Christian Slater]

You called them unethical. But there's nothing unethical about putting an offer on the table. It's up to other parties to better it. Apparently no one did. It's fair play to West Ham and good that a big club is getting a big stadium that would otherwise have been left underused, I presume from the lack of real alternatives provided.

It is unethical from a sporting sense, but that's more on the governing bodies allowing it. Doesn't matter which club it is.

 

[JimJams]

I think any club would jump at the chance to do what West Ham are doing and you can't really blame them, but it's definitely wrong.
The obvious thing to point out is the way Arsenal have had to conduct their business in order to fund a new stadium which came at the expense of success to a certain degree, but they've worked through it, done the hard part and can now reap the rewards. West Ham on the other hand will get all the same benefits that Arsenal have got without any of the work to get there. Which is completely unfair. However it is only as unfair as being a well run club who keep their finances in check and spend within their means being overtaken by a club who have had a billionaire take over them and completely overhaul a club without them earning what they spend.

 

[johnnytodd]

Judging by your posts, I reckon I was regularly attending matches when your old dear was still wiping your arse.

Hilarious