What's new

Let's All Laugh At... Let's All Laugh At West Ham

Oscar22

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2004
16,819
15,351
I hope they get Timmy Sherwood in next... Christ on a bike imagine how many pages we could get in this beautiful thread with a partnership like that...
 

thinktank

Hmmm...
Sep 28, 2004
45,893
68,893



PyVX61J.jpg
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,680
104,956
This isn't good, surely? Wouldn't the Daves see it as an opportunity to buy the stadium?

It would go to market though wouldn’t it?

I’m sure a developer would want the site for residential or commercial use. They’ll have more money than the dildo brothers.
 

Gbspurs

Gatekeeper for debates, King of the plonkers
Jan 27, 2011
26,945
61,824
Imagine if it got sold for housing and left Spam homeless. I would do a sexy wee.
 
Jan 28, 2011
5,645
78,675
West Ham have played three games so far this season. In that time, they have


Equalled the all-time Premier League number of defeats (351) (*) :)

Become the first ever Premier League team to lose their opening 3 EPL games two seasons in a row :joyful:

Equalled the record for losing away games by 4 goals or more (20) :playful:

And have now lost more home games (15) at the OS than they've won (14) :LOL:



(*) Everton have also lost 351 games, although West Ham's achievement is by far the more 'impressive' as they've actually done it In four seasons fewer than Everton. :ROFLMAO:


They also remain the only team in all four divisions without a point. :hilarious:

And I've not even mentioned the £100m they've spent to get themselves into this position. Or the fact that the only guy who's been able to score for them this year picked up an injury on Saturday. Or the fact that the stadium deal looks as if it's about to bite them on the ass big time.

Frankly, if they carry on this rate, then...

2gmnu3.jpg
 

spurs

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2005
766
938
Most wham fans think they will get the stadium cheap.
The deal they got is so dodgy especially as wham donated to the Tories
I think the stadium was only ever designed as a temporary structure and hence the maintenance costs will become increasingly big.
If wham have a contract that has been underwritten by the government, they may be safe
Didn’t Levy have some legal contract that ensured the fund in track would remain for 50 years? Is that really likely to hold up if public opinion says they are sick of subsiding the stadium?
 

BehindEnemyLines

Twisting a Melon with the Rev. Black Grape
Apr 13, 2006
4,574
13,160
The fact is, the only, and by far most effective plan, was that originally proposed by Levy and Spurs - knock the thing down and build a purpose built stadium. The problem was, that didn't fit in with the desired outcome for local politics.......oh, and athletics decided they wanted a legacy that was never originally planned. They have now spent £120m+ on a bodged conversion for football whilst agreeing a lease that will never repay those conversion costs (let alone operating costs) - take into account the Net Present Value of the capital invested and it is a huge bodge up..........enter Levy with his agreement that the track remains for 50 years and the stadium is in a quandary - I am certain that if they reneg on that then Levy will take them to the cleaners (particularly in light of our ever increasing costs at NWHL).
Whilst the operting company might go bust, I'm pretty certain the stadium isn't an asset of that company, and therefore a new operating company will be created, and WH will be forced to negotiate a new rental agreement - a lack of viable alternatives means that WH will have to pay near market rates for their stadium, though a lack of alternative tenants also means that the field is restricted..........though it would be hilarious if a cricket or rugby club got involved - at the rates they are currently paying I could see Orient being very interested too!
 
Last edited:

Croftwoodspurs

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2012
357
648
I believe this could be more complicated.. But if you rent a house and the landlords decides to sell the contract you had with the previous
Landlord does not have to be honoured...
 

Ionman34

SC Supporter
Jun 1, 2011
7,182
16,793
The fact is, the only, and by far most effective plan, was that originally proposed by Levy and Spurs - knock the thing down and build a purpose built stadium. The problem was, that didn't fit in with the desired outcome for local politics.......oh, and athletics decided they wanted a legacy that was never originally planned. They have now spent £120m+ on a bodged conversion for football whilst agreeing a lease that will never repay those conversion costs (let alone operating costs) - take into account the Net Present Value of the capital invested and it is a huge bodge up..........enter Levy with his agreement that the track remains for 50 years and the stadium is in a quandary - I am certain that if they reneg on that then Levy will take them to the cleaners (particularly in light of our ever increasing costs at NWHL).
Whilst the operting company might go bust, I'm pretty certain the stadium is an asset of that company, and therefore a new operating company will be created, and WH will be forced to negotiate a new rental agreement - a lack of viable alternatives means that WH will have to pay near market rates for their stadium, though a lack of alternative tenants also means that the field is restricted..........though it would be hilarious if a cricket or rugby club got involved - at the rates they are currently paying I could see Orient being very interested too!
As I understand it, the clause for the retention of the running track came as a direct result of our superior bid being turned down.
Public opinion is irrelevant in these circumstances. If the current owners were to go bust, the legal precedence still holds, otherwise certain parties will need to explain why they turned down a bid that provided the tax payer with value for money, gave the stadium to WH for a song, then carried out the stadium “conversion” that was proposed by THFC in the first place, all at an astronomical cost to the tax payer once again.

I’m pretty sure that all of the parties involved in the deal would want to avoid any kind of investigation like the plague.
 

Col_M

Pointing out the Obvious
Feb 28, 2012
22,638
45,677
if WH do get to purchase AND remove the track, exactly WHO is held accountable for reneging on the 50yr clause and how could Sours benefit financially?
 
Top