David Gold on Talksport today

An archive of news, events and discussion leading up to and post West Ham United's historic move from Upton Park to Stratford in 2016.

Moderators: Gnome, Rio, bristolhammerfc, the pink palermo, chalks

Locked
User avatar
miles
This site...
Posts: 4464
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 4:56 am
Has liked: 303 likes
Total likes: 383 likes

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by miles »

the pink palermo wrote: Well, living within our means would also mean funding any new stadium correctly, out of our own pockets
Why on earth would it?
and not taking a freebie handout of something that isn't suitable, simply because it's free then
Like you said, it's the infrastructure around the stadium that is of real value. As for the bowl itself, who knows what they were planning to do. We might never know, but given their public admission of hesitancy now that it appears the new tender includes a condition for the running track to stay for the duration of the lease, we were probably going to do whatever we wanted with it once 2017 was over and it became clear to everyone that public interest in athletics was non-existent. The b*stard Levy of course, was wise to it. :lol:
Or should we only live within our means once we've had the "gift" ?
I can't see why West Ham getting a good deal out of anything should be confused with not living within our means. That makes no sense at all.
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
Posts: 45056
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: The Notorious Gate B @LS
Has liked: 759 likes
Total likes: 2939 likes

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by the pink palermo »

miles wrote:Why on earth would it?

I can't see why West Ham getting a good deal out of anything should be confused with not living within our means. That makes no sense at all.
Because if we were living within our means, we would pay for a stadium ourselves . Those that bang the self sufficent business model drum need to be consistent surely ?
User avatar
miles
This site...
Posts: 4464
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 4:56 am
Has liked: 303 likes
Total likes: 383 likes

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by miles »

the pink palermo wrote:
Because if we were living within our means, we would pay for a stadium ourselves . Those that bang the self sufficent business model drum need to be consistent surely ?
Er, paying for a stadium we can't afford is the very definition of not living within our means. I'm not sure why you think being self-sufficient means passing up on an opportunity to grow the club for less money than would otherwise be required.

We can barely bring in enough decent players during a transfer window to satisfy the baying blood hounds as it is already, imagine having to sign the likes of Tristan and Di Michele whilst selling every half-decent youngster for 5 years while we build the bloody thing ourselves. Fathead grinding out 15th place every year old-school Wimbledon style to keep us on the gravy train (or is it off the gravy train? what exactly is a gravy train btw? :lol: ) so we can keep up with the payments. The suicide rate on here would go through the roof...
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
Posts: 45056
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: The Notorious Gate B @LS
Has liked: 759 likes
Total likes: 2939 likes

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by the pink palermo »

the pink palermo wrote:
Because if we were living within our means, we would pay for a stadium ourselves . Those that bang the self sufficent business model drum need to be consistent surely ?
miles wrote:
Er, paying for a stadium we can't afford is the very definition of not living within our means. I'm not sure why you think being self-sufficient means passing up on an opportunity to grow the club for less money than would otherwise be required.

..
Because any form of hand out comes with strings attached , and as such you lose your independence , and the right to self determination .In short, you are no longer the master of your own destiny .........

What started out as being an opportunity and a proposed budget for conversion to a football stadium for £180m , has since been cut back to a rented athletics stadium , with a significantly reduced conversion budget , with a co-tennant that has a 99 year lease guaranteeing a track .......

And because of that , I don't believe it will give us an opportunity to grow .Sound the death knell more like .

This isn't like appointing a Manager : get it wrong, and appoint a different one .This is a for ever decison - no way back , no chance to change our minds .

Not much point in Goldy standing up at a fans forum and saying "sorry, we thought we had made the right decision , but we got it wrong" as he did when talking about Avram is there ?

Too late then.......
User avatar
brownout
Posts: 10299
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 8:26 pm
Has liked: 91 likes
Total likes: 174 likes

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by brownout »

Even if the running track was to go, unless we can lower the pitch to install more seats where the track is now, I can't see how the stadium will be suitable for football.
User avatar
miles
This site...
Posts: 4464
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 4:56 am
Has liked: 303 likes
Total likes: 383 likes

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by miles »

the pink palermo wrote: Because any form of hand out comes with strings attached , and as such you lose your independence , and the right to self determination .In short, you are no longer the master of your own destiny .........
Not quite sure what strings were attached with the original bid, if that's what you're talking about.
What started out as being an opportunity and a proposed budget for conversion to a football stadium for £180m


It was a very good opportunity for West Ham, for sure. Gone now.
has since been cut back to a rented athletics stadium , with a significantly reduced conversion budget , with a co-tennant that has a 99 year lease guaranteeing a track .......
Er, yes, thanks to the vigorous efforts of Levy and Hearn. Like I said, mission accomplished for them two.
And because of that , I don't believe it will give us an opportunity to grow .Sound the death knell more like .
Can't see us moving there with the new conditions. And I suspect Gold and Sullivan think so too. It'll be tougher for lovely Karen to let go, for sure.

What next? I expect the three of them to start dialing oil shiekhs and touting us around. Good luck to that without the OS...
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
Posts: 45056
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: The Notorious Gate B @LS
Has liked: 759 likes
Total likes: 2939 likes

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by the pink palermo »

miles wrote:Not quite sure what strings were attached with the original bid, if that's what you're talking about.

It was a very good opportunity for West Ham, for sure. Gone now.

Er, yes, thanks to the vigorous efforts of Levy and Hearn. Like I said, mission accomplished for them two.
The £180m conversion budget had been halved before Spurs went anywhere near the OS .It was always pie in the sky .Nothing but a great shining lie designed to assuage the fans before any objections could surface and kill our bid stone dead .

As you well know, our owners then used the Spurs interest - which had been actively solicited by the OPLC- to galvanise support for the move on a tribal basis - but now it's all Spurs fault it's gone wrong is it ?

And the strings were there for the original bid : there has always been a requirement for the stadium to house athletics - Brady has reinforced that message in virtually every public statement .It's why the OPLC voted 14-0 for us not Spurs .

Our bid was weak for one crucial reason , right from the outset : The fans were not consulted - the apathy when the bid fell apart told it's own story .Where was the public outcry , the outrage, the thronged masses descending on city hall ?Where was the queue down Green St, fans demanding to see the Vice Chair wanting to know where our dream move had gone wrong ?

Had they consulted the fans, and made an honest bid, pointing out football and athletics do not mix, we may have seen off the whole legacy argument , instead having endorsed a mixed use facillity we have now boxed ourselves into a corner .Our owners have sold us down the river to save themselves a few quid, possibly in the belief they could do some sort of renegotiation once the keys were in their mitts , but with each public statement, each desperate announcement , our committment to retaining a track grew and grew .

FWIW, I hope we do pull out altogether .I'd gladly see an athletics stadium in Stratford - I'm happy for the taxpayer to fund it to the tune of £30m just to keep it servicable for the years 2012-2017 .

Only when it is screamingly obvious it is not possible for British Athletics to pay for it's upkeep, and they themseves abandon it in a decade or so's time should our club go anywhere near it : buy the site, knock down half the stadium and make it suitable for football .

I reckon £180m would be enough - and we know our owners can afford that , it was, afterall, the original budget .
User avatar
WestHamIFC
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 10:18 pm
Location: Essex
Contact:

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by WestHamIFC »

WestHamIFC wrote: Exactly. Nail on head. There's been so many current 'armchair' fans who don't bring their families for that very reason.
hadleighhammer wrote: So all have to put up with leasing a bodge job stadium with a view over a running track so we can try to attract a few armchair fans who can't be bothered to go at the moment as it's a bit difficult to get to? And don't forget the tourists and the corporates..
Headbanger

Where exactly did I say that?? Try re-reading my post a bit more carefully.

hadleighhammer wrote: I fully understand and agree with moving to attract such fans for the good of the club, but it should be a purpose built site and cater for the requirements regarding view, etc the regulars also want.
This I agree with. I'm totally against the Running Track Stadium. But we do need to move from the Boleyn. People who are claiming there's no transport issue at UP live in cloud cuckoo land.
User avatar
mywhufc
Posts: 3326
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:25 pm
Contact:

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by mywhufc »

WestHamIFC wrote:. ]
This I agree with. I'm totally against the Running Track Stadium. But we do need to move from the Boleyn. People who are claiming there's no transport issue at UP live in cloud cuckoo land.
transport problems are a smoke screen. Spuds will get PP for their 60,000 stadium yet the nearest tube is seven sisters. We have 4 tube stations may be 5 that are nearer the Boleyn than Seven sisters to WHL. all it needs is integrating better.
A start would be putting police back on the traffic lights on the A13 waving the leaving traffic through, worked before in clearing the cars quicker.
Those that live or have lived around the area know that the traffic is worse on a weekday In Rush hour than it is on a saturday when west ham is at home.
User avatar
the bubble hammer
Posts: 1618
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:29 am
Has liked: 1 like
Total likes: 5 likes

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by the bubble hammer »

A start would be putting police back on the traffic lights on the A13 waving the leaving traffic through, worked before in clearing the cars quicker.[/quote]


I totally agree
User avatar
hammer1975
Posts: 16639
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:16 pm
Has liked: 933 likes
Total likes: 1088 likes

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by hammer1975 »

perhaps I am a little drunk this evening but I have a slightly different view of the news today

i think it's very good news.....for two reasons

firstly, it will cause spuds to f*** off, sorry I mean lose interest in the OS (agree with the comments here that they wanted to stop us from getting the satium just as much if not more than they wanted it themselves - this may be a recent sky driven intensity in our competive relationship from some peoples point iof view but as a person with a large number of spuds fans in my wider family I can say that they have focused more on our negatives than their positives for most of my life)

Secondly, and most importantly, by 2017 the economy should have picked up (and it may take all the way to 2017) resulting in less public pressure on money used to build olympic infrastructure. coupled with London having won the olympics and world championships over a 5 year period. there are no other significant athletics championships to hold and the chances of getting either of those two again in 100 years is very, very slim. suddenly it becomes 'in the public interest' to sell the stadium rather than hold and subsidise/maintain a purpose built athletics stadium in the public portfolio unused by a major athletics championship for 100+ years.

i fully expect us to get the lease for the stadium
i fully expect the club owning the lease to be offered the freehold for the govt (especially if tory in 2018) to cash in
i fully expect the club that gets the freehold to get rid of the running track as soon as possible

if london had lost the 2017 world championships it would have bid for 2021, 2025, and 2029 until it won and prolonged the period of a running track

i would still prefer to stay at the boleyn but i think it inevitable we will move to statford and given that reluctant acceptance I see today's developments as positive for us

i'm sure pinky will now point out that I'm being drunk and irrational by highlighting a gaping hole in my argument that I am missing but at least I've had an hour of optimistic naive bliss in what seems like perfect clarity thinking about us at stratford in a 60k seater stdium without a running track beyond 2018 :lol:
User avatar
taffhammer
Posts: 2736
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:37 pm
Location: from the wick of hackney to the seaside
Total likes: 5 likes

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by taffhammer »

Francoisvander or else wrote: so having a sh*t in comfort and having a good tasting pie is of more importance to you than watching a game from behind a running track with a bunch of tourists Headbanger
No not at all , read my post and you will understand that i think moving to a stadium that has seats over a running track and has sorted out the facilities that the anti's have claim will be sh*t will be a great opportunity for us. If these do not work out i would not want to move there. The point being that i am not opposed to it because we don't know the full details yet.I'm for it because it could be a great opportunity.
I don't get this using a head banging a wall smilie thing, it's a forum and it's an opinion. I could be wrong so what.
User avatar
Tin Hat
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:42 pm
Location: Exiled in Newington Kent
Has liked: 4 likes
Total likes: 7 likes

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by Tin Hat »

I've just seen on Twitter that someone has just asked him "if we don't go to the OS,where will we go?," to which he replied "The Boleyn, it's not the end of the world". Make of that what you will.
User avatar
hadleighhammer
Gentrified
Posts: 9992
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: On my computer trying to keep up with the Sky fixture changes
Has liked: 11 likes
Total likes: 8 likes

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by hadleighhammer »

WestHamIFC wrote:
Where exactly did I say that?? Try re-reading my post a bit more carefully.

This I agree with. I'm totally against the Running Track Stadium. But we do need to move from the Boleyn. People who are claiming there's no transport issue at UP live in cloud cuckoo land.
Pop Robson wrote:DavidGoldWHU @DavidWood44 I understand. It's the 10,000 to 20,000 that can't or won't come because the poor access. DG
WestHamIFC wrote: :thup:

Exactly. Nail on head. There's been so many current 'armchair' fans who don't bring their families for that very reason

Problem is, how many would we also lose by going the OS 'cos current fans refuse to watch Football over a Running Track??

It might end up balancing itself out...
Well your view that we need to move, and thumbs up for DG's statement and this certainly strongly implies to me your ok with it on the basis of it 'balancing itself out'. Maybe I'm reading this wrong though if you're against the OS move?

Personally aswell I don't think we need to move. Would certainly support it if done on the right terms though such as the Parcelforce site. If it's not on the right terms, then I'll oppose any move, not just the OS.
User avatar
WestHamIFC
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 10:18 pm
Location: Essex
Contact:

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by WestHamIFC »

mywhufc wrote:transport problems are a smoke screen. Spuds will get PP for their 60,000 stadium yet the nearest tube is seven sisters.
:lol:

Probably the biggest reason Tottenham abandoned the original Northumberland project and went for the OS was because they did not get any Public Funding assistance to improve the shabby travel links around WHL.

I recall Levy himself saying Stratford would proivde the best transport links of any club in London!

A key part of the new deal offered to them by Boris is the funding of local transport improvements.

Hope the weather's fine in Cuckoo Land, btw...
User avatar
WestHamIFC
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 10:18 pm
Location: Essex
Contact:

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by WestHamIFC »

hadleighhammer wrote: Well your view that we need to move, and thumbs up for DG's statement and this certainly strongly implies to me your ok with it on the basis of it 'balancing itself out'. Maybe I'm reading this wrong though if you're against the OS move?
I am in favour of moving from The Boleyn. I'm not in favour of moving to a Running Track Stadium.

If we have proper Retractable Seating at the OS I'm in favour. It we build a proper Football Stadium on the OS site, I'm in favour. In such a case I truly believe our fanbase would rise significantly.

However if we moved to a Running Track Stadium, then I believe we would lose as many fans (including me) as we would gain - hence "balancing itself out", which of course is not worth the investment. In this case I would not favour a move to the OS but to another suitable site.

My point is there's no doubt the biggest positve about the OS move has is it's location and transport (and at the same time, the biggest negative is the Running Track). I really find it ludicrous anyone can think transport won't improve at the OS.
User avatar
tjr008
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:50 pm
Total likes: 4 likes

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by tjr008 »

FWIW - I've been to Melbourne when the seats have been out, and it actually works well. We could sit people in the upper tier as well, which would be miles away, but if they're cheap, then I would buy one.

I would be so pleased if Stratford worked out, I just want to see this resolved now. If we can close the ends in with a deep tier if retractables, the view from the sides is great... We'll see...
User avatar
WHU Independent
Posts: 6659
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:35 pm
Has liked: 1639 likes
Total likes: 506 likes

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by WHU Independent »

If they move to the OS and the pitch is far away from the seats, I will HAVE to give up my season ticket as I simply won't be able to see the pitch or the players on it - dodgy minces, can't see long distances. No point paying loads cash for something I can't even see :(
User avatar
Headtheball
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:22 pm
Location: In exile - Newport, South Wales

Re: David Gold on Talksport today

Post by Headtheball »

I really don't think that the 2 Daves and Karren believe we would accept a massive distance from the edge of the pitch. It's the major issue to be addressed. The elephant in the room. So, until Spurs are out of the equation it's frustrating, as they cannot put forward their solution to this conundrum. We have to be patient unfortunately.
Friday's decision hopefully has put an end to Spurs interest, because the track is here to stay. If they put in a bid, it shows them up as hypocrites. They would be spectacularly stupid to do so, given they have pissed off the govt and OPLC members throughout 2011.
Locked