Olympic Stadium Discussion and Questions

[Knighter10WHU]

Yes re: Birmingham, but I guess a half decent Crystal Palace site for use by athletes in the South might kill any argument for continued use of the OS for athletics. Though the suggestion that West Ham make a donation to help will have only one outcome ....

Seems that the only reason we are still having to convert for athletics is for 1 Diamond League meeting each year (which incidentally hasnt been held for 4 years anyway). Surely its best suited for everyone that they just take athletics to Birmingham now and use the money we will inevitably have to pay the government to take over the stadium to invest in Crystal Palace?

[Mullhull]

Seems that the only reason we are still having to convert for athletics is for 1 Diamond League meeting each year (which incidentally hasnt been held for 4 years anyway). Surely its best suited for everyone that they just take athletics to Birmingham now and use the money we will inevitably have to pay the government to take over the stadium to invest in Crystal Palace?

Diamond League is back this year, I can see them just scrapping it all and moving to Birmingham. UK Athletics are also having issues and having to dip into reserve funds. They might just move up to Birmingham it would make sense too.

I honestly believe Khan is going to propose a new deal between us and the LLDC and it will be more favourable for us. Because the LLDC is still running at a loss and the most profitible thing at the OS is us.

Either that or as I've suggested before they're waiting for Sulli to sell his shares to DK and then propose selling the stadium to DK.

[Knighter10WHU]

Diamond League is back this year, I can see them just scrapping it all and moving to Birmingham. UK Athletics are also having issues and having to dip into reserve funds. They might just move up to Birmingham it would make sense too.

I honestly believe Khan is going to propose a new deal between us and the LLDC and it will be more favourable for us. Because the LLDC is still running at a loss and the most profitible thing at the OS is us.

Either that or as I've suggested before they're waiting for Sulli to sell his shares to DK and then propose selling the stadium to DK.

I think what you have said all makes sense and is the best solution for all parties. The issue we'll run in to is West Ham getting the stadium for a knock down price and the public reaction to that, there's already numerous pieces from the press about WHU getting the deal of the century, I just cant see Khan selling it/giving it to us or DK on the cheap.

Hopefully I'm proved wrong because that is the best solution for all and will help to hugely increase the value and investor interest in the club. Plus hopefully we get to finally make some proper changes to the stadium and surrounding area.

[Diogenes]

Of course I could be wrong, but I think the chances of West Ham owning the Stadium are pretty slim. More likely, IMHO, is someone else buying it then agreeing a more equitable rental agreement for 'all parties'. That could of course be Kretinsky as the new Stadium owner.

[Hamburger]

Reading the comments over on Takeover thread, of course the dust bowl offers better facilities than the Upton Park, the latter was built by Victorians for horse & carts. If we had bought the bus station they could have built flats, shops and a multi-storey car park. If the government was serious about 'regeneration' they would bulldozed areas of the old, inefficient properties and built the infrastructure to help redevelop the East End. The shiny new development that is there now is a boat in an old murky pond probably filled by wokes and has done nothing for the 'community' which is a term relevent to over 30 years ago. Today most of the indigenous population have left, my family moved from Plaistow & Romford in the 80's along with hordes of others. The area used to thrive because of the Boleyn and the East End spirit, what does the dust bowl do for Hackney? The concrete environs is already tired and full of weeds and a slum waiting to happen, nobody is proud of it.

[bonzosbeard]

Of course I could be wrong, but I think the chances of West Ham owning the Stadium are pretty slim. More likely, IMHO, is someone else buying it then agreeing a more equitable rental agreement for 'all parties'. That could of course be Kretinsky as the new Stadium owner.

We wouldn't do well out of it, the new owner would charge West Ham more rent.

[Johnny Byrne's Boots]

We wouldn't do well out of it, the new owner would charge West Ham more rent.

Isn't the rent payable part of the lease agreement? I'm fairly sure it can't be changed unilaterally, that there has to be agreement between both parties.

[Diogenes]

We wouldn't do well out of it, the new owner would charge West Ham more rent.

Why not? I said 'equitable' for all parties. It depends what we get in return. At the moment the current ownership, management etc. is constrained by politics. Once the 'sale' is done, the new owners are pretty much free to do what they like. As I said, personally I would still rent as it makes much better business sense in this day and age, however I would pay more (than we do today) in return for more input into the future growth, use and changes to the Stadium and opportunity to share in the 'potential' rewards. The Stadium and its surrounding area (if included in any deal) does offer significant business opportunity due to its location, access and travel links, space to build, neighboring entertainment complexes etc. etc.

[Mullhull]

I think what you have said all makes sense and is the best solution for all parties. The issue we'll run in to is West Ham getting the stadium for a knock down price and the public reaction to that, there's already numerous pieces from the press about WHU getting the deal of the century, I just cant see Khan selling it/giving it to us or DK on the cheap.

Hopefully I'm proved wrong because that is the best solution for all and will help to hugely increase the value and investor interest in the club. Plus hopefully we get to finally make some proper changes to the stadium and surrounding area.

Khan wants the LLDC to turn a profit he's got us and them working together but they are still adamant of getting £4m a year in naming rights and Brady has told them you won't get that but it's like they're ignoring Brady for some reason.

If they get £2m that Brady is telling them then the stadium would have have made £1.2m profit for the LLDC last year instead of the £800k losses. Well technically you know there would be other factors involved. But still a profit.

The public aren't really aware that the stadium was costing millions a year in taxpayer's money.

The stadium will still fetch a pretty penny but West Ham hold all the cards. Without West Ham it loses money, a lot of money. Total White elephant. The best they could do is sell the land for redevelopment and at least make some money.

Yes they have West Ham in a 99 year lease but West Ham could cut the nose off to spite their face for £3m a year, they could just keep paying it and leave for Essex if the LLDC wanted to mess them about. They would not be in breach of anything and the stadium would still bleed money.

There is literally zero threat that another big club would come in and take it over. Closest team is Orient and there is zero chance Millwall will come this side of the river. Charlton? No chance.

[jabbaglob123]

I really don't get why I keep seeing posts saying the stadium was only built to last 25 years and is temporary.

Nothing about it seems temporary to me.

It just looks a bit bare bones and cheap.

[simon hammer]

It just looks a bit bare bones and cheap.

We've had squads like that in the past.

[HammerMan2004]

I really don't get why I keep seeing posts saying the stadium was only built to last 25 years and is temporary.

Nothing about it seems temporary to me.

It just looks a bit bare bones and cheap.

The original plan was always to remove the upper tier from the structure. Under the original plans, it was due to be removed to leave behind an athletics stadium with a capacity of 25,000.

[jabbaglob123]

The original plan was always to remove the upper tier from the structure. Under the original plans, it was due to be removed to leave behind an athletics stadium with a capacity of 25,000.

Why the hell did they spend millions on the new roof then. That's madness

[bonzosbeard]

Why the hell did they spend millions on the new roof then. That's madness

Premier league rules that every seat has to be covered with a roof.

[Diogenes]

I really don't get why I keep seeing posts saying the stadium was only built to last 25 years and is temporary.

Nothing about it seems temporary to me.

It just looks a bit bare bones and cheap.

To be fair, I do understand the 'temporary' criticism of the Stadium, however all modern Stadia look like that. They are all Maccano unit moveable sub sections. To be honest I prefer Arsenals to Spurs Stadium, but they are both 'soulless' bowls when compared to the 'old days'. So lets not w*nk ourselves silly over our competitions Stadia. None of them are like the 'old days'.

[Doc H Ball]

To be fair, I do understand the 'temporary' criticism of the Stadium, however all modern Stadia look like that. They are all Maccano unit moveable sub sections.

You really think that Arsenal’s stadium looks and is built like ours?

[Doc H Ball]

The shiny new development that is there now is a boat in an old murky pond probably filled by wokes…

What does that even mean?

On second thoughts, don’t reply on here where it’s a distraction, but start a thread in the Snug about why you think people living on the Boleyn Estate are all ‘wokes’ and we can have a laugh.

[BigFatSam]

To be fair, I do understand the 'temporary' criticism of the Stadium, however all modern Stadia look like that. They are all Maccano unit moveable sub sections. To be honest I prefer Arsenals to Spurs Stadium, but they are both 'soulless' bowls when compared to the 'old days'. So lets not w*nk ourselves silly over our competitions Stadia. None of them are like the 'old days'.

Ours is laughable in comparison to any new stadium built. Ours is typically West Ham and by that I mean cheap looking and *****.

[e20too]

I really don't get why I keep seeing posts saying the stadium was only built to last 25 years and is temporary.

Nothing about it seems temporary to me.

It just looks a bit bare bones and cheap.

Indeed the base structure and terracing on which it was built was always planned to be permanent the upper terracing was to come down but it’s not like it was built ignoring factors like concrete cancer or less adherence to building regs and everything else like roof supports was strengthened so though not as ‘perfect’ as a ground up permanent structure it’s probably got as much life in it as most stadiums if short no doubt of the very best. Sadly it’s failings are more that it was prevented from being easily adaptable for football in the first place or flexible in ways to make those adaptations. Which means as the architects said at the time doing more to adapt it would have involved costs that would have meant it better to knock it down and start again. That said continuous improvements, if athletics goes, would be feasible to substantially improve matters but would a more substantial redesign be a better solution if it freed up land for other purposes is the big question.

[Diogenes]

You really think that Arsenal’s stadium looks and is built like ours?

I didnt say that. I said that all modern Stadiums are not like the 'old'Stadiums' and are, to a degree, 'soulless' Mecanno constructs. Of course each is different in its own way but I prefer the LS to the Emirates (I am a regular guest at the Emirates and Spurs grounds).