|Does exactly what it says on the tin - the forum for football-related discussion.
I was originally in favour of moving to have a State Of The Art Stadium allowing us to compete with the very best in Europe.
Now, I don't believe we will be allowed to have this and so my vote has changed to a resounding No !
I used to be massively in favour of it. Now it's a no from me. We'd just be squatters in somebody else's stadium if the terms are anything like the reports suggest. But then the press are professional liars so maybe those who are waiting for more information are making the right call. Either way, it can't be a yes right now.
Still a 'no' from me, more so now we would be tenants not leasholders.
It's an athletics stadium, not a football ground.
As tenants rather than leaseholders we would be at the whim and mercy of the landlords. What would happen if someone made a better offer once the Boleyn had been sold?
As tenants, the income from concerts and the like would belong to the landlord.
Once the novelty has worn off, how many will we get for run of the mill games? What will the atmosphere be like with a half empty stadium?
I've been inside the OS and it's really long way to the pitch.
I was a Yes but am now Unsure since the mess from when we won. Last time although it wasn't all our own terms, we had a control and could adapt the stadium. It would seem this time we have a lot less control. Unless certain criteria are met for us then it has to be a no. If we can get a similar deal as to we had before (just say a 99 year lease instead of say 100/200) then I am all for it.
Some of you would be happy with 40,000 at the BG... shows ambition doesn't it... increase the capacity by 5000...
60,000 or 50,000 shows true ambition if we're going to increase it would need to be worthwhile from a business point of view... 5000 isn't worth it.
We need to move from the BG unless they have the idea to knock it down and rebuild it.
But redevelopment is severely limited if we stay.
As has been mentioned by others, I was for it, but after the fiasco of having to re-bid on totally different terms, I feel the stadium is an accident waiting to happen.
So, it's definitely a no from me.
I agree. But not to the Olympic stadium, for the reason above. It's an accident waiting to happen and we should walk away. If we can't afford a new build, it will have to be 45k at The Boleyn Ground. I would much rather that than ANY capacity at the Olympic Stadium.
I've voted yes but have interpreted that as yes if we can make the stadium suitable for football.
I think without that caveat a yes v no poll is limited. I'd be interested to know if any of the no's would change their vote to a yes if the stadium was made football friendly or is it a blanket no whatever's on the table.
If you read through the thread, I think most people have done exactly that, WHUTerry.
I wanted to previously, with reservations, but not now the circumstances have changed so much. Just because it's a massive opportunity right on our doorstep, doesn't mean it's the right decision for us. I think it would be much too big a gamble for us, with too little in return.
A blanket 'no' was impulsive.
A more considered 'no' comes from watching this unconsulted 'plan' unravel.
I don't think my first thoughts on the subject will change; in fact, the more time passes, the deeper my resistance becomes.
I changed my vote from yes to no based upon it not being football friendly. It doesn't seem very likely it will be football friendly.
Users browsing this forum: Absentee Hammer, alf git, Aztec Hammer, Boere War, Coley, Concerned of Canvey, Der-Hammer, DustyHammer, GingerJohn, Google [Bot], Hayden, Iron Bhoy, ironworks41, James P, johnnydolphin, Lee_WHU, Lincolnhammer92, Longneck'd Iron, Madrid Hammer, monkeyhanger, mr2teatime, Paolo Futre, ParisTheHammer, rare as rockinghorse shat, RM6, sammer, Sawbo, Scratchy, Simply Moore, SxHammer, TC10, warp, whizzer, wizzo_66 and 160 guests