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

BehindEnemyLines

Twisting a Melon with the Rev. Black Grape
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
1,693

Yid-ol

Just-in-Edinburgh
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
25,184
No one going for the Dicks stand?

Looks like they have had a few dick(s) at the club, thought it was just Julian Dicks... Maybe change it to the stand of Dicks?!
 
Last edited:

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
2,907
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 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 :LOL:
 

TheChosenOne

The only way is up
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
32,211

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
2,907
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.
 

BehindEnemyLines

Twisting a Melon with the Rev. Black Grape
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
1,693
Yet Brady believes the specific cost of retractable seating to cater for an athletics running track muddies the waters
Hang on, surely the retracting seating is purely to cater for the football..... Nice way to twist it.
It's also incredibly hypocritical to belittle the athletics and how the stadium can't reach its potential because of it, and yet talk about stadium sponsorship of an iconic Olympic stadium... Frigging idiot in my opinion.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
15,846
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!
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
2,907
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 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.
 

TheChosenOne

The only way is up
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
32,211
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.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
2,907
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.
To be honest at this stage I don't think anyone really gives a fuck what Levy and the powers that be at Spurs think. It's just a black hole for taxpayers' money so the sooner we're rid of it the better IMO. What difference does it make if Levy doesn't think it's fair?

The nonsense "Olympic Legacy" is part of the reason the stadium is so useless in the first place to be honest, it should've always just been designed to be temporary for the games and then torn down. No disrespect to athletics meant here, but if we're brutally honest, outside of the Olympics and at a stretch world championships, virtually nobody gives athletics a moment's thought so given that the big headline events like Olympics/World Champs etc. only come to town once every few decades, it's idiotic that we've got this massive 60k+ stadium for it. And yes, I know it's "multipurpose" and used for other things e.g. concerts, but we've already got 3 or 4 massive stadiums in London for that plus indoor arenas too so there's really not that much demand for another venue like the OS to be honest.

I'm not saying selling to West Ham for a cut price is ideal, but having already wasted so much public money on the bloody thing, given that it's continuing to just haemorage money we either need to either:
  • Renegotiate the deal so that West Ham pay more, at least enough to cover the running costs so we're not losing even more money
  • Find a way to void the contract and kick West Ham out, sell the land off and recoup as much public money as possible
  • Sell to West Ham so it's their problem not the taxpayers' any more
One of these three things has to happen IMO and unfortunately two of those three options require somehow getting out of the tenancy agreement with West Ham, which I don't know how we'd do. Therefore that leaves us with the option to sell to them and cut our losses, or to just carry on as we are which is clearly not a satisfactory solution for anyone concerned.
 
Top