bonzosbeard wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:34 pm
Are we not better ofAnd f paying rent? We have limited overheads. I expect someone else will buy it, not the club, and charge us a higher rent.
And the new owners decide to get rid of us so we become homeless?
bonzosbeard wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:34 pm
Are we not better off paying rent? We have limited overheads. I expect someone else will buy it, not the club, and charge us a higher rent.
Doesn’t part of the 99 year lease agreement prevent anyone buying the stadium and evicting/raising rent?
bonzosbeard wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:34 pm
Are we not better off paying rent? We have limited overheads. I expect someone else will buy it, not the club, and charge us a higher rent.
Financially, yes we are. Much, much better off. The downside however is we have limited say in how the Stadium is run, managed and developed.
Personally, I can never see us owning it in any shape or form and its also unnecessary. We are far better off re-negotiating the rent and other direct 'investments' in return for more control. The problem, no doubt, is that until the 'sell on' clause is bypassed next year it is not in Gold or Sullivan's best interest to enter any negotiation whereby that may be used as a bargaining chip.
we could do so many things with the bowl a lot wouldnt cost a lot.
1. main walkway to the bowl to be named west ham way. more west ham branding in the area.
2, The outside of the bowl is too white. repaint it claret.
3. The seats inside are again too white. all seats to be claret with light blue and white hammers at all four stands
4. The current areas selling beer and food are poor. again rebrand them and make them proper enclosed areas.
5. More shelving is needed for fans to put their food and drinks on
6. Bigger TV screens in the walkways
7. All staff at the shops and bars to wear west ham t shirts
8. Sort wifi out. maybe a deal with a mobile cmpany give discounts to STH`s.
just a few things that brady should have sorted by now. maybe I should apply for her job . part time basis 100k a year will do me plus free seat !
bonzosbeard wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:34 pm
Are we not better off paying rent? We have limited overheads. I expect someone else will buy it, not the club, and charge us a higher rent.
As others have said - any new owner of the Stadium is tied in to the 'onerous' contract with cheap rents tied to inflation, that they have with the Club - where the costs of fulfilling that agreement far outweigh the economic benefits derived from it. We spent more on stadium operating costs at The Boleyn than we currently pay in rent. That puts the Club in a very good financial position - especially as the costs of maintaining the stadium start to mount up each year.
So no-one would seek to buy the stadium as long as we are tenants. But what if someone bought both the stadium and the Club? They could then mutually terminate the agreement and potentially recharge the Club a much much higher rent. They would then increase ticket prices to cover the increased costs, reduce the number of season tickets so they could sell matchday tickets at higher prices. And when they have done all that - they could then sell off the stadium for a very nice profit and probably get rid of the Club at the same time - having made more than enough out of the stadium.
That's the danger that could happen. Beware any private equity group, especially foreign backed ones without a history of good sports investment, that looks to buy both the Club and the stadium!
Athletics has had more than a decade of use by this time next summer, that to me is more than enough time to prove legacy and enough time for UK Athletics to benefit from a wonderful Olympics and use out of the stadium. They've had their time now and time to soon move on. It's now not sustainable Unlike Football now is there. Take your cut and to excuse a pun run up to Birmingham to love in the heart of the Country in a purely Athletic specific stadium more of a suitable size.
pbenjy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:11 am
A long read about the Olympic legacy in general. Seems like the stadium isn’t the only part of the project that has been a bit of a disappointment.
What a load of nonsense in a typical middle class condescending style the Guardian excels at. As someone who often used scrapyards in carpenters road and worked for a printers in the same area from 2000-2002 I can confirm that the area was a toxic pile. Any idea that the area would become a vast council estate was very wide of the mark. We all moan about gentrification but it's generally the most effective method of improving a run down area. I'm actually left-leaning politically, but I'm realistic enough to know that although there may be minuses Stratford has on the whole benefited from the Olympic legacy
I think it’s an excellent article, if a bit overblown in places and predictably anti-Boris Johnson (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
The main takeout for me is the continued failure to build genuinely affordable housing as part of these big developments. 80% of market value is not affordable.
spod wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:57 pm
I think it’s an excellent article, if a bit overblown in places and predictably anti-Boris Johnson (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
The main takeout for me is the continued failure to build genuinely affordable housing as part of these big developments. 80% of market value is not affordable.
That's true but it's what's happening everywhere. Builders just don't want to build affordable housing, not enough money in it. You'll never get affordable housing built by the private sector, only the council (used to be)able to do that
WoodvaleOne wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:03 am
Affordable housing = less profit for builders and developers. Therein lies the issue.
They repackage it under shared ownerships saying oh you can now buy 35% of your house so it's affordable!
Cockneynomad wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 11:36 am
Looks in the middle of nowhere the housing, like an upmarket beckton, kind of wish we had moved there in the 1990s rather than do up Upton Park
That smell of sewage from Beckton would be great on a warm summers day
I cant remember the exact date the North Bank was demolished to be replaced with The Sir Trevor 5,900 seated stand but I do know it cost £3.5M and was a fully functioning stand with its own toilets and bars etc.
Compare to the new west stand lower which is a rearrangement of scaffolding, seats and walkways that is costing £14.5M.
Resident wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 11:06 am
Cocaine was used more in the 80s. Nothing new.
Fact most of the hooligans left football for the drug and rave scene is what stopped the violence from about 88.
Football matches are far safer than a night out in town and city centres on a weekend and more behaved to be honest.
I will disagree
Some of the boys of a certain age did the Ibiza thing but most lads stayed during the 90's although the numbers reduced due to CCTV, blokes getting older / having kids, fines and bannings.
As the numbers shrunk throughout the UK, it actually got better because there were small, more easily identifiable mobs at every club at every game and although it was a far cry from the increasingly bigger mobs of the 60's, 70's and 80's football violence never actually stopped;
I am not into drugs but sure some of our lads had a toot at some point but never, saw that a lot at football (maybe for weekends away) and for the most part the lads you saw week in, week out including the overseas games weren't into the scene much (with one exception!) it was always football and a row at football if it occured. No idea since 2005 as I left the UK then.
This season they will not pay any extra for playing in a European competition - even if they make millions in prize money.
Signed off by then London mayor Boris Johnson in 2013, the arrangement means home matches are effectively subsidised by taxpayers, with the stadium losing around £10m a year.
It's a loophole that emerged because the club's original deal to rent the stadium did not cover this particular trophy - meaning they are not obliged to offer even a token payment toward running costs.
surely it means that with athletics hopefully moving to birmingham the stadium can one day be owned by WHU . bearing in mind it loses money every year a nominal fee should suffice. then we can properly reconfigure the stands and have a 70k stadium to finally call home.