Olympic Stadium goes to the spammers

[worcestersauce]

Come the year 2022 the history of athletics in the stadium will be Olympics in 2012 and World Championships in 2017 then er, well um, basically fuck all else so when West Ham make the argument that the stadium is no longer an athletics stadium and its about time the taxpayer got their money back who can make a good argument against them.
The solution? well, I don't know but just for kicks how about this one; why don't we (West Ham) take the stadium off the public purse for a substantial but nominal fee and build a purpose built football stadium, we could also sponsor the building of an athletics track to sustain the legacy, where? oh I don't know but maybe, possibly, how about Crystal Palace!!!
Now there's a scenario to conjure with.

 

[SugarRay]

Come the year 2022 the history of athletics in the stadium will be Olympics in 2012 and World Championships in 2017 then er, well um, basically fuck all else so when West Ham make the argument that the stadium is no longer an athletics stadium and its about time the taxpayer got their money back who can make a good argument against them.
The solution? well, I don't know but just for kicks how about this one; why don't we (West Ham) take the stadium off the public purse for a substantial but nominal fee and build a purpose built football stadium, we could also sponsor the building of an athletics track to sustain the legacy, where? oh I don't know but maybe, possibly, how about Crystal Palace!!!
Now there's a scenario to conjure with.

Is this the same 2022 when that very stadium will more than likely just have finished hosting that summers commonwealth games?

Don't forget the diamond league meetings that will almost certainly take place there every year and other competitions such as the European Championships, which they will no doubt successfully bid for in the very near future.

That's not even taking in to account the legal issue ( we were told in no uncertain terms that the track remains no matter what )

I think there is more chance of West Ham playing at a new purpose built football stadium in the next 25 years than them ripping the OS down and going again from scratch, sacking off the track etc

I don't think they will be there long term, for various reasons ( it won't bring them the success they are deluding themselves it will, fans will eventually demand a better stadium for football etc )

 

[worcestersauce]

Is this the same 2022 when that very stadium will more than likely just have finished hosting that summers commonwealth games?

Don't forget the diamond league meetings that will almost certainly take place there every year and other competitions such as the European Championships, which they will no doubt successfully bid for in the very near future.

That's not even taking in to account the legal issue ( we were told in no uncertain terms that the track remains no matter what )

I think there is more chance of West Ham playing at a new purpose built football stadium in the next 25 years than them ripping the OS down and going again from scratch, sacking off the track etc

I don't think they will be there long term, for various reasons ( it won't bring them the success they are deluding themselves it will, fans will eventually demand a better stadium for football etc )

Ah yes the diamond league matches who could forget the diamond league matches, there's one of them in London this year, that's the one where there are more competitors than spectators isn't it, there's one in Birmingham too don't forget, but one a year? really?
That's really my point, only the Olympics and the world's and if you say so the Commonwealth games, if they're still going, count as anything at all and they won't come back; there may even be the all England schools athletics championships if there is such a thing which I reckon would have bigger crowds than the Diamond league anyway. Honestly when West Ham go for the new football stadium option one or two athletics meetings a year will not be an argument against it nor should it be.
Don't forget that West Ham will be able to say if we can't do this we will have to find another site and move out of the stadium thereby turning your cash cow into a white elephant and rendering the sporting legacy defunct, what then would be the opinion of the great British public and those self styled guardians of public finances the great British media?

 

[class of 62]

I think your both wrong!.. i'd lay odds theres a bite on the backside for west ham fans to come yet they don't know about!
& i'd lay odds it will be the first European franchise of the nfl

 

[nightgoat]

That's really my point, only the Olympics and the world's and if you say so the Commonwealth games, if they're still going, count as anything at all and they won't come back; there may even be the all England schools athletics championships if there is such a thing which I reckon would have bigger crowds than the Diamond league anyway. Honestly when West Ham go for the new football stadium option one or two athletics meetings a year will not be an argument against it nor should it be.

The Diamond League meeting this summer being billed as the London Anniversary games will almost certainly have a big crowd, especially if the likes of Bolt, Farah and Ennis appear. Also the Olympic Stadium is shortlisted as one of the venues for the Rugby World Cup, an event which would also act as a showcase for its use for Premiership matches between some of the London clubs like wembley and Twickenham have done.

Actually it's a shame the Spammers aren't moving in a season earlier. That would be quite funny watching them argue their anchor tenant status against a month and a half long World Cup.

 

[worcestersauce]

A rugby or NFL damaged pitch wouldn't bother West Ham while Sam Allardyce is in charge, It'd suit him perfectly.
As for NFL, would that be a good Olympic legacy for British sport? not that it really matters I suppose.

 

[nightgoat]

I highly doubt Allardyce will still be there in four years time.

 

[Murder She]

Apparently they "only" paid £150m for City. I'm sure the final price made the difference. From what is said in these stories both Newcastle and Everton attempted to squeeze as much out of Mansour and his cronies as possible. The stadium is cited as one of the main reasons why they decided on Citeh though.

Remember the stories about Levy wanting £300m+ for us off Roman all them years ago and he went off and bought Chelski instead?

These Arabs are lucky billionaires ( as opposed to Roman who, despite being dodgy was born in to poverty and had to work his way to the top, being ruthless, astute etc...these Arab chaps are born in to fantastic wealth which comes about from their nations natural resources, they aren't exactly renowned businessmen, just happen to have shedloads of dough and resources ) but clearly not stupid.

As I say anyway, the sugar daddy thing is hard to do now. Beyond the FFP rules you also have the added competition of two suar daddy clubs already over here who are far, far down the progression line, United, who don't need a sugar daddy to compete financially, the goons, us, pool etc who are light years ahead. I can't see a sugar daddy rolling up and spunking the best part of £750m to not even get champions league football, which could well be the case at West Ham after the initial purchase price, the amount needed for players and wages etc, with absolutely no certainty they would make the top 4.

The next sugar daddy market in my opinion will be the championship/league one "big" club fallen on hard times. Picked up for relative peanuts. Huge investment not needed. The aim will be the riches and prestige that come with the Premier League football.

I guess you have no idea how Roman accumulated his £bns.

 

[Lilbaz]

Who gives a fuck. It wont buy them a winning team and we got a little perk out of it.

I can't see it working as a football stadium. As a taxpayer the money could have been better spent. But then all my taxes could be better spent.

 

[SugarRay]

I guess you have no idea how Roman accumulated his £bns.

I do. No matter how underhand it was it didn't exactly fall in to his lap. He wasn't plucked from obscurity and given all his assets on a plate. He had to "graft" for it. Underhand or not.

The Arabs at City are completely different. They had their wealth handed to them on a plate. Roman had to earn ( steal, rob etc ) his.

 

[Murder She]

I do. No matter how underhand it was it didn't exactly fall in to his lap. He wasn't plucked from obscurity and given all his assets on a plate. He had to "graft" for it. Underhand or not.

The Arabs at City are completely different. They had their wealth handed to them on a plate. Roman had to earn ( steal, rob etc ) his.

Being born into wealth is seen as more morally abhorrent than someone who was given billions roubles of assets by cronies, with much of it being the proceeds of what are essentially criminal undertakings? Unbelievable.

 

[SugarRay]

Being born into wealth is seen as more morally abhorrent than someone who was given billions roubles of assets by cronies, with much of it being the proceeds of what are essentially criminal undertakings? Unbelievable.

Who said anything about which example could take the moral high ground? I certainly didn't say what you are, dramatically, suggesting.

My point was Roman has demonstrated far more dash, willing and "business acumen" in obtaining his wealth than those born in to wealth ( incidentally, these oil sheikhs are essentially using their nations wealth to fund their own playboy, lavish lifestyles )

 

[Kendall]

Being born into wealth is seen as more morally abhorrent than someone who was given billions roubles of assets by cronies, with much of it being the proceeds of what are essentially criminal undertakings? Unbelievable.

He's not saying anything about morals. He's talking about business smarts, developed over time. That can happen by being dodgy or straight down the line, but it happens through experience. Experience that the rich arabs would largely have never had the need to develop.

 

[Murder She]

He's not saying anything about morals. He's talking about business smarts, developed over time. That can happen by being dodgy or straight down the line, but it happens through experience. Experience that the rich arabs would largely have never had the need to develop.

'Rich Arabs' ? Are you talking about a whole race or just those who own a Prem club?

If you think people like Sheikh Mansour are not business savvy, then may be you should use Google and looking at the killing he made at Barclays.

 

[Murder She]

Who said anything about which example could take the moral high ground? I certainly didn't say what you are, dramatically, suggesting.

My point was Roman has demonstrated far more dash, willing and "business acumen" in obtaining his wealth than those born in to wealth ( incidentally, these oil sheikhs are essentially using their nations wealth to fund their own playboy, lavish lifestyles )

I refer you to the post above.

 

[SugarRay]

I refer you to the post above.

Billionaires making billions is not groundbreaking.

Coming from nothing and working your way to become a multi-billionaire exceeds a savvy Barclays deal, ten times over.

Anyway, nobody is saying Mansour can't hold his own ( however easy that may be when you have a limitless supply of money given to you ) its just Roman is clearly on a different level. Be it above board or not.

 

[Murder She]

Billionaires making billions is not groundbreaking.

Coming from nothing and working your way to become a multi-billionaire exceeds a savvy Barclays deal, ten times over.

Anyway, nobody is saying Mansour can't hold his own ( however easy that may be when you have a limitless supply of money given to you ) its just Roman is clearly on a different level. Be it above board or not.

What business did Roman create? Making toys in his flat? It is a myth that he is/was a businessman. He is a puppet of the CP.

Here's a question for you: Which famous 'businessman' is set to lose millions of Euros as they had been deposited into an account in Cyprus? Now take into account that Cyprus had a credit rating of 'CCC'. Who would honestly think that is a good idea? A great 'businessman'?

 

[hellava_tough]

I think this thread may have lost its focus somewhat

 

[Riandor]

Can someone tell me how this isn't government aided breach of FIFA rules?
I am sure this is just my understanding being the issue here, but Real Madrid are being pulled up for land sold to them at favourable rates, so how does West Ham getting funding from tax money to convert a tax/lottery funded stadium not qualify as a similar breach?

Thanks in advance to those more savy than I (or to anyone patient enough to simply direct me to the part of this thread where it was already explained)

 

[sherbornespurs]

Ok, to bring things back on topic - so much for Seb Coe's 'Olympic legacy'. I spotted this in last weeks Private Eye:

£700,000 - amount of public money spent each year on the Don Valley athletics stadium in Sheffield (where Jess Ennis trained), which makes it 'unsustainable' and means it will shortly be demolished.

£25million - Extra public money announced last week to convert the Olympic stadium in London for use by West Ham Utd, taking the total public (taxpayer) contribution to £60million.