Lady Brady has announced that the East Stand of the London Stadium is to be named after an ex player of theirs.
I'm surprised they would be allowed to do that as renters but some of their fans replies are pretty darn good.
I really hope it is!I wonder if it'll only be during West Ham games so it'll just be a tacky-looking sticker at the top of the roof or something that they'll have to peel off every time there's a concert or whatever there
I wonder if it'll only be during West Ham games so it'll just be a tacky-looking sticker at the top of the roof or something that they'll have to peel off every time there's a concert or whatever there
Apparently they are spending £4 million on doing up their training ground to put an indoor pitch in.
I'm thinking Lady Brady has been on the 'erb. Might be buying the LS ...
https://www.skysports.com/football/...west-ham-would-consider-buying-london-stadium
Hang on, surely the retracting seating is purely to cater for the football..... Nice way to twist it.Yet Brady believes the specific cost of retractable seating to cater for an athletics running track muddies the waters
If West Ham want to buy the stadium they'd only be able to be a leasehold owner anyway wouldn't they, they couldn't own the freehold as thats already owned isn't it?
So buying the stadium wouldn't get rid of the track anyway!
It's not the worst idea in the world to be honest. The stadium has already cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds, and given the quite frankly criminally stupid rental agreement West Ham managed to get, it's just losing more and more taxpayer money by the day. Selling to West Ham, even if it is for a cut price, would at least be the end of it as far as taxpayer money is concerned. Of course it's still ridiculous that we've lost so much money out of it but if we carry on as we are there's no end to it. Cut the taxpayers losses and just sell up I say.
Best case scenario for the taxpayer would be if they could turf out West Ham, knock down the stadium and then just sell the land to property developers to recover at least some of the money that has been pissed up the wall on this ridiculous athletics stadium that nobody needs.
Levy and his associates who wanted to buy the OS won't be happy to see the Sleazy Daves getting any cut price deals on an outright purchase - they'll have it mortgaged up and turning in some quick profits and sticking their fingers up to any thoughts of a Legacy Stadium.
It's not like it's an apartment, they'd surely buy the whole freehold. I'm not really sure what you mean when you say it's already owned - why does that matter? Obviously if you're buying something it's already owned by someone else until you buy it. That doesn't mean you can't buy it. Not really sure what you mean, sorry mate.
Not if the freehold wasn't for sale. The owners might be better off selling it to them on a leasehold basis and charging a base rent. Not that West Ham might want that obviously.
Yeah but the trouble is why would West Ham agree to that? It'd be basically agreeing to pay more rent but without any obvious benefit to them, which they'd be daft to do. If they sold them everything outright then although the costs for the club would initially go up, they'd at least own the land etc. so eventually could make good money off it, so there's some intensive for them to agree to it.
Gold, Sullivan and Brady are asset strippers, previous at Birmingham, then the closed Boleyn Ground debacle
Rightly or wrongy why give them the chance to syphon off money out of the game and club at the expense of the taxpayer.
Levy's plan included the rock/concerts and other sports on the site, there is still loads of planning permission over there for housing in place as well - I wouldn't like to see them shysters anywhere near that.
I don't like it either, the whole situation is a fucking shitshow, but It all comes down to whether or not the money lost by selling to them for less than it cost to build is more or less than the money that will continue to be pissed up the wall by keeping a failing stadium taxpayer-owned. If it really is costing the taxpayer 20m/year then it's not very long before that would become a bigger cost than the x-amount of money we'd lose by cutting our losses and selling to West Ham. If we lose 20m/year for 99 years then that's going to be far more than we'll lose by just selling them the stadium, even if it is for a cut price.