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
|All you need to know about West Ham United FC's potential move to Stratford.
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.
That's about the most sensible post I've read about the OS
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.
Well said. Totally agree.
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
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).
Er, Bond Scheme anyone???
Thank f*** you guys didn't run the protests against that... ;->
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
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.
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.
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.
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. 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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: 1mcavennie and 4 guests