What's new

New Stadium Details And Discussions

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
I think the two main reasons were:
1. Legacy, the idea that it remain the home of UK athletics.
2. The underhand dealings of the Dildo bros.
The West Ham directors had nothing to do with it. It was the underhand dealings of the government and the Olympic legacy committee, who ran the bid. The terms of the offer were that the stadium had to be retained as an athletics venue with a running track. The result was that West Ham were the only plausible bidders. The legacy committee (and the government) were so worried that the bid would appear to be a non-competitive fix that they spoke privately to Levy and encouraged THFC to spend millions on a competing bid that would relocate the athletics to an improved Crystal Palace and rebuild the OS as a football venue. They did this knowing it would be unacceptable and that THFC's bid would have to be rejected. When they found this out, Levy & THFC were furious and threatened to sue, but it didn't go anywhere, for reasons I do not know.

As for why we made a serious bid at all: at the time, we had no viable option in N17, for reasons related to the financial crisis that I have set out in details several times in this thread.
 

SuperSpuds

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2013
51
726
Yes but they’d be no more of a transport link strain than any other midweek match, whether it’s the first, fifth or 17th match at the new ground.

Not sure I follow this argument. My understanding of the incremental test events is that you start with small, easily managed events to test key functions (like transport links) while gradually building towards the real thing. It seems reasonable that key stakeholders wouldn’t want/allow the first match to be midweek, or a NLD, or a UCL quarter ‘just because’ it will subsequently host one.
 

ToDarrenIsToDo

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2017
1,665
6,291
If there's some kind of hiccup at the first game it could delay people getting home. If you do that for a weekend game they end up having a late dinner. If it happens at a midweek game people could end up missing the last train home.

And yes, three or four days between games allows you to fix things, or at the very least it allows you to warn the public about potential issues.

Noted but I still struggle to see how it can be justified at a huge expense to the club with the renting of Wembley and the cost of running the new stadium whilst we are yet to be playing in it.

If it's a midweek game we should still be able to. Delays can happen a week, month, a year after moving in it shouldn't be a critical reason behind a decision making process as to the opening of it. The stadium has been built, the issues we could face on the opening day would still exist once we start playing midweek games so I see it as a flimsy suggestion to say the club should not be allowed to open with an evening game and that the club needs to keep forking out to use a 2/3rds empty stadium
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
Noted but I still struggle to see how it can be justified at a huge expense to the club with the renting of Wembley and the cost of running the new stadium whilst we are yet to be playing in it.

If it's a midweek game we should still be able to. Delays can happen a week, month, a year after moving in it shouldn't be a critical reason behind a decision making process as to the opening of it. The stadium has been built, the issues we could face on the opening day would still exist once we start playing midweek games so I see it as a flimsy suggestion to say the club should not be allowed to open with an evening game and that the club needs to keep forking out to use a 2/3rds empty stadium

But there's more chance of things going wrong at the first match when it gets put to full use for the first time. It's a safety issue, our rental costs for Wembley don't really come into it.
And again issues that we face on the opening day might be able to be fixed in days, or might be prevented at the next match by simply warning the public about specific concerns.

We have plenty of weekend games coming up, so it wouldn't be a massive delay to wait until for an afternoon game.
 

marion52

Well-Known Member
Dec 10, 2006
1,583
2,200
We all know the area though, it’s not like we’re somewhere completely unfamiliar.
Should just be allowed to play there at the earliest opportunity.
 

Bulletspur

The Reasonable Advocate
Match Thread Admin
Oct 17, 2006
10,690
25,246
I have just realised that I’ve been using tourist fan incorrectly. I didn’t realise it meant non spurs fans who were just there to watch football. Then I don’t mind, I quite like them in fact.

I thought it was a new fangled term for glory hunter and referred to those who couldn’t care less when we were poor but now we’re suddenly super fans who know everything. Then I can’t stand, as I believe that if you don’t support the club equally (or even more so) in tough times, you don’t deserve to enjoy the good times. It’s not about attendance or anything like that, I get that paying x amount to watch us play badly is less justifiable than paying it to watch us play well, it’s just the fickleness inherent in fans like that, because the fans who weren’t willing to take the rough are the same fans pretty much who turn on the players when it goes badly, mocked Sissoko, castigate Lloris continuously, deride Winks and now Skipp for not being Iniesta, etc.... and then leave on the 80th minute when the game is still tight.
In my world they are called "Waggonists". In other words those so called fans that jump on the band wagon when things are good, but cannot be found when things are not
 

ToDarrenIsToDo

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2017
1,665
6,291
But there's more chance of things going wrong at the first match when it gets put to full use for the first time. It's a safety issue, our rental costs for Wembley don't really come into it.
And again issues that we face on the opening day might be able to be fixed in days, or might be prevented at the next match by simply warning the public about specific concerns.

We have plenty of weekend games coming up, so it wouldn't be a massive delay to wait until for an afternoon game.

Agreed that there is more chance something goes wrong at the first game but should it come at the expense of renting Wembley for yet another game if the stadium is ready to open?

For me the risk isn't huge compared to the cost to the club not moving in earlier. A few train delays, potential hold ups or another couple of weeks/ months of seeing money thrown away having to rent when we have something ready to go I just don't see how the issues are being justified for us to prolong the move so it's a weekend game etc
 

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
For fuck sake at this point I’d hazard a guess that the FA have used heated balls to do their best to screw us over. Still bitter about when Sugar went legal on them and got our fa cup ban overturned and league points deduction revoked I see.
 

marion52

Well-Known Member
Dec 10, 2006
1,583
2,200
Seems to be it’s looking to the Huddersfield game as possibly the first game at new stadium, Palace has to be rearranged, and Brighton whether or not they make the semi will have to be moved as SF at Wembley that weekend.
Looking like a massive fixture pile up?
 

Flashspur

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2012
6,882
9,068
I still cannot believe we did bid for the olympic stadium seriously. The worst stadium in the country

We were going to knockdown and rebuild dude. Old history. Keep up ???

Edit: I see others have explained in detail including how we got sucked in to bid
 
Last edited:

Hoopspur

You have insufficient privileges to reply here!
Jun 28, 2012
6,332
9,703
Seems to be it’s looking to the Huddersfield game as possibly the first game at new stadium, Palace has to be rearranged, and Brighton whether or not they make the semi will have to be moved as SF at Wembley that weekend.
Looking like a massive fixture pile up?
As it happens the two midweeks following the Brighton game (9+10th and 16+17th) are earmarked for CL quarter finals.
 

nickspurs

SC Supporter
May 13, 2005
1,608
1,389
Seems to be it’s looking to the Huddersfield game as possibly the first game at new stadium, Palace has to be rearranged, and Brighton whether or not they make the semi will have to be moved as SF at Wembley that weekend.
Looking like a massive fixture pile up?
Thank you for that. I was scared the first game at NWHL was going to be Brighton. I was already looking at flying back with the boy for a day during a 5 day skiing holiday!
 

JamieSpursCommunityUser

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2011
1,870
9,860
As it happens the two midweeks following the Brighton game (9+10th and 16+17th) are earmarked for CL quarter finals.

If we make it past the Quarter finals there won't be enough slots in the calendar to fulfil our fixtures before the end of the PL season.

It will mean us playing 4 games in a week for the 2nd time this season.

We'll also have just ONE game in 31 days between Southampton on the 9th March - Liverpool on the 31st March - and the CL QF (if we make it) on the 9th/10th April.

All this talk about the integrity of the PL being besmirched by us playing in two stadia.

How is this not a massive advantage to City and Liverpool, even if we are outsiders?

No games for a month, then a fixture pile up, and 4 games a week?

The FA and PL between them really are inept at co-ordinating the fixture calendar.

It's hardly surprising that English teams don't win the CL anymore. In Germany and Spain they'd never allow this to happen.
 

Yid121

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2008
3,463
3,139
I think Palace progressing was a good thing. Really doubt we’d have the stadium all set post test events in under 4 weeks time given the lack of an announcement.

As for the Brighton conundrum, come on Milwall!!!!
 
Top