What's new

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

Yid-ol

Just-outside Edinburgh
Jan 16, 2006
31,097
19,275
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
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
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:
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,680
104,956
Apparently they are spending £4 million on doing up their training ground to put an indoor pitch in.
 

ernie78

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2012
7,220
15,218
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:
I really hope it is!
 

cliff jones

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
4,057
6,511
their stand should be re-named the Levy stand, in honour of the bloke who tried to create Stratford Hotspur
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
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

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
Apr 13, 2006
4,571
13,157
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
Aug 13, 2005
46,680
104,956
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
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
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

A dislike or neg rep = fat fingers
Dec 13, 2005
47,870
49,700
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
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
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.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,680
104,956
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.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
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.
 

TheChosenOne

A dislike or neg rep = fat fingers
Dec 13, 2005
47,870
49,700
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.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
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.
 

Blockbuster

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2007
2,765
1,568
The whole thing is dodgy, the rental agreement is laughable and its all gearing towards West Ham 'Saving' the taxpayers money but taking this white elephant off their hands.... absolutely criminal considering the other options that got shut down.

West Ham should be made to pay a fair amount for the stadium rental, PLUS provide their own Stewards, catering, cleaners and pay for the police, like every other club has to do.

that stadium should be turning profit for both west ham and E20.
 

TheChosenOne

A dislike or neg rep = fat fingers
Dec 13, 2005
47,870
49,700
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.

We can only hope the whole carbuncle be sold to the highest bidder and it won't be WHUL.

Then they can get evicted and disappear up their own arseholes.
 
Top