the pink palermo wrote:Well wobbly on the Olympic Stadium .
Every time I hear him speak on the topic it's going cooler and cooler .
I think the 99 year lease to Athletics has scuppered the plan they had .
He did mention " we have to do a consultative process with our fans" - which is an implicit acknowledgment that to date they have not .
Very interesting quote. As you know, the club has had a specific request for a ballot prior to bidding and knocked it back in the form of their 28/10 O.S. release. That effectively stated that there had already been a 'consultation'. They have now had a second request and been informed that there will be large scale polling at the ground if they do not organise such themselves. Hopefully this is all coming now to a head...
I was pleased to hear you say that Brady is largely absent. Any news on Sullivan? He hasn't been quoted on anything since August as far as I can see, which is astounding given various events since then.
Anybody got the feeling Gold is now basically our sole chairman, Sullivan and Brady seem absent and not as involved but Gold seems to be at the forefront, interviews, etc, even just basic things like Twitter answering everyone. I think Gold deserves some credit for his fan relations, his communication via fans with twitter, keeping them informed, a mass improvement over previous years.
fmgod wrote:Anybody got the feeling Gold is now basically our sole chairman, Sullivan and Brady seem absent and not as involved but Gold seems to be at the forefront, interviews, etc, even just basic things like Twitter answering everyone. I think Gold deserves some credit for his fan relations, his communication via fans with twitter, keeping them informed, a mass improvement over previous years.
I think they're all as involved as each other but play different roles.. Brady does the books, Sullivan is the main one when it comes to the transfer market and Gold takes care of the public relations. Not a bad set-up really, long may it continue.
DavidGoldWHU David Gold
“@SpeakYourBrain: Very sad to hear you so uncertain about the OS. Spurs have won haven't they Completely screwed us Absolutely not true DG
7 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
OLYMPIC STADIUM MOVE MIGHT NOT HAPPEN - GOLD
SOCCER West Ham
West Ham co-chairman David Gold has admitted for the first time the club may not move into the Olympic Stadium.
The Hammers were awarded the stadium earlier this year only for the deal to collapse last month due to legal challenges by Tottenham and Leyton Orient, as well as an anonymous complaint to the European Commission.
A new tender process is being launched by the Olympic Park Legacy Company and the venue, complete with an athletics track, will now be rented out after the London 2012 Games with West Ham seemingly the most likely tenants.
But Gold today revealed that while the club remain desperate to leave their current Boleyn Ground at Upton Park, there is now a doubt surrounding their plans to move into the Stratford site.
"I have mixed feelings," Gold told talkSPORT. "The Olympic Stadium is very exciting, but we need a consultancy procedure with our fans, that is important.
"I am ruling out developing the Boleyn, that would be pouring money down the drain.
"But what we can't do is nothing. West Ham have been at the Boleyn for over 100 years. I believe we are the eighth largest supported club in the country, and yet we perform more like the 20th biggest, and that's because we are at the Boleyn.
"So we have to change that. The obvious change that everyone is looking at is the Olympic Stadium. But there is a doubt, there are issues unresolved."
end
_________________________________
Category:SSO
Date time:09/11/11 12:55:42
I have no idea if it was deliberate, but his comments on the OS are quite clever politically.
We need to make the govt/boris/olympics committee//athletics people realise that a permanent track is a big ask and that WHUFC have a right to negotiate.
OLYMPIC STADIUM MOVE MIGHT NOT HAPPEN - GOLD
SOCCER West Ham
West Ham co-chairman David Gold has admitted for the first time the club may not move into the Olympic Stadium.
The Hammers were awarded the stadium earlier this year only for the deal to collapse last month due to legal challenges by Tottenham and Leyton Orient, as well as an anonymous complaint to the European Commission.
A new tender process is being launched by the Olympic Park Legacy Company and the venue, complete with an athletics track, will now be rented out after the London 2012 Games with West Ham seemingly the most likely tenants.
But Gold today revealed that while the club remain desperate to leave their current Boleyn Ground at Upton Park, there is now a doubt surrounding their plans to move into the Stratford site.
"I have mixed feelings," Gold told talkSPORT. "The Olympic Stadium is very exciting, but we need a consultancy procedure with our fans, that is important.
"I am ruling out developing the Boleyn, that would be pouring money down the drain.
"But what we can't do is nothing. West Ham have been at the Boleyn for over 100 years. I believe we are the eighth largest supported club in the country, and yet we perform more like the 20th biggest, and that's because we are at the Boleyn.
"So we have to change that. The obvious change that everyone is looking at is the Olympic Stadium. But there is a doubt, there are issues unresolved."
end
_________________________________
Category:SSO
Date time:09/11/11 12:55:42
No, it's because we were badly run for many years and made some very bad decisions, perhaps most notably not sacking Roeder or Grant until too late.
White Hart Lane isn't much bigger than Upton Park & Spurs seem to do OK.
Can't really see a downside to expressing a doubt over the move - coming out and saying we're 100% going to do it after all the shifting of goalposts in the past few months would just make us look like doormats and remove any leverage we have
DavidGoldWHU David Gold
“@magicsuitcase: were not competing because we have been buying crap players and been poorly managed for years!” For over 100 years DG
I have copied the full article in the Olympic Stadium Forum, but this piece which appeared in Planning Magazine probably explains the situation pretty much as it is:
Ford (Chair of the Olympic Park Legacy Company - addressing a committee of the London Assembly earlier this week) said that the state aid challenge related to the fact that the OPLC was offering full ownership of the stadium to bidders, and said: "We are now restructuring our offer and will come to the market shortly with an offer for rental of the stadium, rather than ownership – to narrow the scope for litigation.
"This arrangement will give us more flexibility over future uses of the stadium and is a good option for the public purse."
Despite this, she insisted that there had not actually been any state aid issues with the deal and that, had it not been for the "sickening" and "vindictive" complaints to the EC, the sale could have gone ahead as planned.
In response to questions from committee members over the possibility of the stadium requiring cross-subsidy from the rest of the Olympic Park or the taxpayer should the stadium not generate sufficient future revenue, Ford admitted that this was "possible".
"It is not our intention that the stadium will be publicly subsidised but in the event of a shortfall, we may have to consider reverting to what was the original plan for the stadium."
An OPLC spokesman told Planning that the tenancy would be a 99-year lease - in effect "for life". He said: "The legacy company will launch a tender process to secure tenants and occupants for the stadium shortly. In keeping with the Olympic bid commitment the stadium is a multi-use, multi-sport stadium with athletics at its core. It is a flexible structure and can host a variety of sports that include football, athletics, cricket, rugby, NFL, Australian Rules and motorsport as well as entertainment events.
"This will be an open process and we will consider all bids on equal terms, as long as they meet our objectives and criteria, are workable and are backed up by a robust business plan."
Conclusion: it looks like there will be no tenancy without 'athletics at its core' and that will be enshrined in the lease. The ability to renegotiate the terms of that lease would appear to me to be limited and fraught with difficulty, so if the Spunk Daddies thought that they might be able to quietly drop the running track in the future then this looks unlikely. The track is going to be there for life and apparently the OPLC will fall back on public subsidy if they have to in order to maintain that (i.e. they will stick to that and will not be held to ransom by a football club). If we go there it will be West Ham Athletic FC. That is why I remain completely and fundamentally opposed to this move. The Spuds are right - that stadium does not work as a football venue with a running track. END OF STORY.
In the Boleyn Ground we have one of the biggest stadiums in the country that enables us to have the 8th best support. acting like the 20th is because of the way the club has been run despite this great support the Boleyn facilitates.