OS plans

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
Pop Robson
Posts: 17082
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:12 pm
Location: Looking for the 50,000
Has liked: 34 likes
Total likes: 15 likes

Re: OS plans

Post by Pop Robson »

Hammer110 wrote: Not that I believe the Tweet for one minute but where do you get the rent figure from?
It was throw about it the press, might have been £2M

I'm sure clungewhu will know the exact amount :wink:
User avatar
Diogenes
Posts: 5049
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:07 pm
Has liked: 432 likes
Total likes: 1144 likes

Re: OS plans

Post by Diogenes »

We don’t stand a cat in hells chance of changing the boards strategy and potential move to the OS. Any effort expended in doing so is a complete waste of time, effort and energy.

Energies should instead be focused on getting the things we would like when we are there which we do have a chance of influencing i.e. retractable seating, making it more West Ham than OS, decent food/drink, more affordable ticket prices, special offers to other events for STH, etc. etc.

This is what I think the supporters survey is (was always) about – post decision not pre decision. I think we stand a reasonable chance of influencing these things, as after all, when they have got it they need us to turn up. I don’t particularly like it but I’m a realist and a pragmatist. So lets stop whining and fix the things we can fix.
User avatar
Iron-worx
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Rebuilding Lady Garrets Tower

Re: OS plans

Post by Iron-worx »

Diogenes wrote:We don’t stand a cat in hells chance of changing the boards strategy and potential move to the OS. Any effort expended in doing so is a complete waste of time, effort and energy.
That's about the most sensible post I've read about the OS :thup:

Of course if the board want to go to the OS that's what will happen, it beggars belief how anybody could even begin to think otherwise.
User avatar
manstev
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 7:52 pm
Location: Beedeeford
Has liked: 9 likes
Total likes: 4 likes

Re: OS plans

Post by manstev »

Diogenes wrote:We don’t stand a cat in hells chance of changing the boards strategy and potential move to the OS. Any effort expended in doing so is a complete waste of time, effort and energy.

Well said. Totally agree.
User avatar
Aceface
Posts: 16360
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:01 am
Location: Blighty
Has liked: 358 likes
Total likes: 1446 likes

Re: OS plans

Post by Aceface »

Pop Robson wrote:£150M to get in a tenant paying £1M a yr for 99 yrs :?

The stands will be named after sponsors,

As BFS would say they talk b*llocks
Bit more complex than that though - as they've already said, the value of the naming rights increases the higher the profile of the tenant, and the figures being bandied about at the upper end were approx. £10m a year. Combine that with the £36 million already allocated for conversions costs and you've got a big chunk of it covered, even before you add in the money they'll get for hosting concerts and other events from people who aren't the main tenant.

The main thing is that given it's the government, they probably don't have that much of a drive to do anything other than cover costs - the renting thing only arose as a means to get around the legal action from everyone with a grievance from the first time round. If it prevents it from turning into a white elephant, even a small loss isn't going to be something that they're going to be overly concerned about. The fear of looking foolish with an unused Millenium Dome-type cock-up on their hands is their main driver.

Agree about the second bit though - you can't name stands you don't own. Presumably they mean they'll name the bank of retractable plastic seats after Moore et al,...which sounds a bit naff
Online
User avatar
Hummer_I_mean_Hammer
Posts: 11574
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:45 pm
Has liked: 940 likes
Total likes: 479 likes

Re: OS plans

Post by Hummer_I_mean_Hammer »

the pink palermo wrote:
My word , a quite remarkable coincidence .

He's missed out the bit about padded heated seats ( individually moulded Reccaro's) and your own personal waiter to fetch and carry you iced tea .

An obvious, and pitiful attempt to stop any anti vote in it's tracks .

Quite disgraceful .

Padded seats?... Heated as well?

Well unless they introduce air conditioning then I am firmly in the no.

(not too bothered about the waiter as I'll bring my own prawn sandwiches along thank you).
User avatar
Up the Junction
Thinks he owns the place
Posts: 70929
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 12:03 am
Has liked: 748 likes
Total likes: 3444 likes

Re: OS plans

Post by Up the Junction »

Iron-worx wrote:Of course if the board want to go to the OS that's what will happen, it beggars belief how anybody could even begin to think otherwise.
Image
User avatar
WestHamIFC
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 10:18 pm
Location: Essex
Contact:

Re: OS plans

Post by WestHamIFC »

Iron-worx wrote:Of course if the board want to go to the OS that's what will happen, it beggars belief how anybody could even begin to think otherwise.
Diogenes wrote:We don’t stand a cat in hells chance of changing the boards strategy and potential move to the OS. Any effort expended in doing so is a complete waste of time, effort and energy.
Er, Bond Scheme anyone??? :think:

Thank f*** you guys didn't run the protests against that... ;->
User avatar
Smudger1
Posts: 636
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:47 am
Location: The Happy place
Has liked: 17 likes

Re: OS plans

Post by Smudger1 »

Bond Scheme; the bonds are still around and a fantastic piece of financial if not PR business, as I recall they managed to persuade RBS to underwrite the whole thing i.e. pay for the whole thing when we only sold a couple of hundred bonds, all for the cost of allowing RBS to sell season tickets for a year, got my S/T dirt cheap that year.

With decisions like that it makes you wonder why RBS are so successful :think:
User avatar
Iron-worx
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Rebuilding Lady Garrets Tower

Re: OS plans

Post by Iron-worx »

WestHamIFC wrote: Thank f*** you guys didn't run the protests against that... ;->
Erm I don't want to protest against moving to the OS, in fact I'm reservedly in favour of moving pending the release of the plans for it, and provided there's nothing untoward in the plans then I'll be absolutely in favour.
User avatar
Doc H Ball
Posts: 14692
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:29 pm
Location: on parole
Has liked: 916 likes
Total likes: 1917 likes

Re: OS plans

Post by Doc H Ball »

Iron-worx wrote: provided there's nothing untoward in the plans then I'll be absolutely in favour.
Bit late by then if the plans are 'untoward' though eh? What do we do then - stomach it or piss off?
User avatar
Iron-worx
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Rebuilding Lady Garrets Tower

Re: OS plans

Post by Iron-worx »

Doc H Ball wrote:Bit late by then if the plans are 'untoward' though eh? What do we do then - stomach it or piss off?
So I'm supposed to be against what might very well be a good thing purely on a basis of I don't know the exact details of it due to a confidentiality clause ?

There's no such thing as certainty in life and this is just one example of that.
User avatar
Hammer110
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:56 pm
Location: Dreaming 父 父

Re: OS plans

Post by Hammer110 »

WestHamIFC wrote:Thank f*** you guys didn't run the protests against that... ;->
Well there hasn't been much of a protest against going to the O/S, apart from mywhufc last time.
User avatar
Up the Junction
Thinks he owns the place
Posts: 70929
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 12:03 am
Has liked: 748 likes
Total likes: 3444 likes

Re: OS plans

Post by Up the Junction »

Iron-worx wrote:Erm I don't want to protest against moving to the OS.
I think that much is clear. Your statement that there's nothing people can do is false however, as history has shown (see my picture above). There is a precedent, if not the desire.
User avatar
Doc H Ball
Posts: 14692
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:29 pm
Location: on parole
Has liked: 916 likes
Total likes: 1917 likes

Re: OS plans

Post by Doc H Ball »

Iron-worx wrote:So I'm supposed to be against what might very well be a good thing purely on a basis of I don't know the exact details of it due to a confidentiality clause ?

There's no such thing as certainty in life and this is just one example of that.
Not saying that you or anyone else should be against the idea - just a bit surprised that anyone can be so for it not knowing just what the f*** it's actually going to look like. As you say, it might very well be a good thing or, on the other hand, it might very well not be. Personally, I'd have preferred the Club to know before committing us to it.

Bit like trading in the missus for an arranged marriage. I might not be against it either, but it's a bit of a risk.

As for the 'certainty in life bit', well no there ain't. There is certainty, however, in detailed architectural plans. Of course Clunge's 'plans' are dfifferent to the ones shown to the SAB and last time I saw Ms B a couple of weeks ago she was off down there to meet architects to 'see what's possible'. Castles in the sky...
User avatar
Iron-worx
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Rebuilding Lady Garrets Tower

Re: OS plans

Post by Iron-worx »

It's not an equatable precedent though is it boss...

Was there anybody in favour of or uncertain about of the bond scheme ?

It was definite and clear cut opposition to whereas moving to the OS has pros, antis and uncertains, so is not clear cut.

So I stand by my statement by basis of there not being the overwhelming sentiment against it to force the issue.
e10hammer
Posts: 867
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:09 pm

Re: OS plans

Post by e10hammer »

I would like to know, if anyone knows what is happening to the stadium when 20,000 seats are removed,when downsizing the stadium from 80,000, or is it remaining the same with seats covered in the top tiers behind the goals ( as i seem to have read somewhere). it seems like a lot of work to be done to change the stadium structurally to remove 20,000 seats.
User avatar
Iron-worx
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Rebuilding Lady Garrets Tower

Re: OS plans

Post by Iron-worx »

Doc H Ball wrote: Not saying that you or anyone else should be against the idea - just a bit surprised that anyone can be so for it not knowing just what the **** it's actually going to look like
If you reread my post the word I used is RESERVEDLY in favour....

While for the record in the poll I'm one of the undecideds...

I accept that there is a confidentiality clause that prevents me from knowing the precise details, and I understand the reason why there's a confidentiality clause....

Not ideal circumstances but few things in life are ideal....

And I'm not going to be anti anything under those circumstances.
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: OS plans

Post by the pink palermo »

Iron-worx wrote:
I accept that there is a confidentiality clause that prevents me from knowing the precise details, and I understand the reason why there's a confidentiality clause....
Care to expand on that ?

Oh, and if you ain't anti , for whatever reason, you must be for it .........the KB doctrine it's known as .
User avatar
Iron-worx
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Rebuilding Lady Garrets Tower

Re: OS plans

Post by Iron-worx »

the pink palermo wrote:
Care to expand on that ?

Oh, and if you ain't anti , for whatever reason, you must be for it .........the KB doctrine it's known as .
I've explained precisely what I am and that's reservedly in favour.

I don't know of anything deal breaking enough to make me definitely anti....

I do know of things that make me in favour....

But I don't know of everything due to the confidentiality clause therefore I'm not definitely in favour but reservedly in favour....

As for the confidentiality clause there are multiple applicants therefore I would expect nobody to be able to openly discuss their plans in full while under consideration by OPLC / LLDC - There's nothing unusual in confidentiality clauses of this type.
Locked