The Times- West Ham open to sharing Olympic Stadium

philip

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
1,070
As I argued at the time, London is pretty much unique in the world for not having a city-branded team. It is inevitable, given the commercialisation of football, that there will arise a London team - London Gunners, London Blues, something like that. Around the world, London is an icon, a city brand equalled only by New York, and possibly San Francisco. It could have been London Hotspur, now it never will be us.

The next big club to build a new stadium will have a chance - Chelsea probably. There'll be protests, and some fans will threaten to walk away from London Blues (or whatever). It won't stop it happening. Sky would cream themselves, the Premier League would change any rules necessary to make it happen. An oligarch will buy however much London real estate is neccessary. That club will join United, Barca and Real at a top table that we can never aspire to, however well we succeed on the pitch.

I'm sure some will think we dodged a bullet. I don't.
Arsenal would have been the obvious one as their name isn't linked to a borough and they don't reside anywhere near the Woolwich arsenal.

I can't see any club dropping their name. West Ham have added London to their badge. At best (or worst), Chelsea would add London into their name as well.
 

pook

Active Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
330
As I argued at the time, London is pretty much unique in the world for not having a city-branded team. It is inevitable, given the commercialisation of football, that there will arise a London team - London Gunners, London Blues, something like that. Around the world, London is an icon, a city brand equalled only by New York, and possibly San Francisco. It could have been London Hotspur, now it never will be us ...
thank fuck.
 

Roynie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
2,823
A BBC article well worth a read. A stadium expert, Paul Fletcher, has said the ground should be knocked down and rebuilt. I seem to recall that is exactly what THFC said in their bid and that was why it wasn't successful. The mind boggles at the potential law suits that would arise if it were to be knocked down and Wet Spam remained tenants at the current price!

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/37842354
 

neilp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,334
A BBC article well worth a read. A stadium expert, Paul Fletcher, has said the ground should be knocked down and rebuilt. I seem to recall that is exactly what THFC said in their bid and that was why it wasn't successful. The mind boggles at the potential law suits that would arise if it were to be knocked down and Wet Spam remained tenants at the current price!

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/37842354
I'm not necessarily a stadium expert, but it may be cheaper to build a decent fence to segregate them...
 

Roynie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
2,823
I'm not necessarily a stadium expert, but it may be cheaper to build a decent fence to segregate them...
This guy, Paul Fletcher is an expert who has apparently built or advised on more than 30 new grounds. Here is an article atributing quotes to him, or from an interview with him:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/37828905

Personally I'd go with his view as he obviously knows more than me, surprisingly! :whistle: :D:D:D
 

philip

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
1,070
This guy, Paul Fletcher is an expert who has apparently built or advised on more than 30 new grounds. Here is an article atributing quotes to him, or from an interview with him:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/37828905

Personally I'd go with his view as he obviously knows more than me, surprisingly! :whistle: :D:D:D
I heard his interview with 5 live and it really infuriated me.

He went on about how the stadium should have been built originally for football with just a temporary solution for the Olympic games. That there should have been discussions with West Ham before it was built as they were only ever going to be the anchor tenants of the stadium.

What infuriated me was this.

1. We only won the Olympics because of the commitment to legacy - keeping the track.

2. Why does he assume west ham were the only tenants. Spurs wanted the site as well and bid for it.

3. Spurs offed to build the stadium for free if they could have it afterwards.

4. Spurs offered to rebuild Crystal Palace into a purpose built athletics faculty 365 days a year if they could have the Olympic site to build their own stadium.

5. West Ham only got the stadium ahead of spurs cos they agreed to keep the athletics track. Had they not, Spurs bid, which was far higher and offered more, would have had to win as it's a public facility.


Therefore, there's no use crying over spilt milk.
The country paid for an athletics stadium and won the Olympics because of that. That legacy is paramount. West Ham are secondary.
The stadium cannot spend a penny more on covering it. It is perfectly usable as a football stadium with the lower tier in athletic mode. There shouldn't be a single athletics meet, concert or the like which cannot take place because West Ham need the lower tier brought forward.

If West Ham want to spend their own money redoing the lower tier, they should be able to, again, providing it doesn't interfere with the other facilities the stadium was built for.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
17,452
I heard his interview with 5 live and it really infuriated me.

He went on about how the stadium should have been built originally for football with just a temporary solution for the Olympic games. That there should have been discussions with West Ham before it was built as they were only ever going to be the anchor tenants of the stadium.

What infuriated me was this.

1. We only won the Olympics because of the commitment to legacy - keeping the track.

2. Why does he assume west ham were the only tenants. Spurs wanted the site as well and bid for it.

3. Spurs offed to build the stadium for free if they could have it afterwards.

4. Spurs offered to rebuild Crystal Palace into a purpose built athletics faculty 365 days a year if they could have the Olympic site to build their own stadium.

5. West Ham only got the stadium ahead of spurs cos they agreed to keep the athletics track. Had they not, Spurs bid, which was far higher and offered more, would have had to win as it's a public facility.


Therefore, there's no use crying over spilt milk.
The country paid for an athletics stadium and won the Olympics because of that. That legacy is paramount. West Ham are secondary.
The stadium cannot spend a penny more on covering it. It is perfectly usable as a football stadium with the lower tier in athletic mode. There shouldn't be a single athletics meet, concert or the like which cannot take place because West Ham need the lower tier brought forward.

If West Ham want to spend their own money redoing the lower tier, they should be able to, again, providing it doesn't interfere with the other facilities the stadium was built for.
Ah yes but it isn't fit for football purposes and there won't be another olympics there and after next year there won't be another big athletics meeting and the taxpayer money is being wasted and isn't it about time the government stopped wasting our money and let West ham redevelop, maybe with another purpose built athletics centre somewhere else, south London perhaps.
It's a white elephant.
All these things are being said and the momentum will build mark my words.
 

Drink!Drink!

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2014
Messages
717
West ham's owners donated lots of money to the Tories, meanwhile Tory mayor boris Johnson in turn gifted them a fat public subsidy for their new stadium - meanwhile Tory peer Seb Coe loudly protested that the track must stay, and did his bit to make sure West Ham got their subsidy, at the same time as he was heading up the international athletics federation which has since been revealed to have been knee deep in corruption during this period

Would at least one journalist please spend some time following the money on this one
 

Roynie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
2,823
I'm not necessarily a stadium expert, but it may be cheaper to build a decent fence to segregate them...
Well in order to just segregate the fans, you are right. However, that wouldn't improve the closeness of the fans to the game, and if they can't see it very well they will get distracted and cause trouble in other ways, pull down the fences etc. All that said, I don't give a rat's arse about Wet Spam, they've got what they bid for. My concern is the consequences should the stadium actually be rebuilt. Wet Spam would then get a first class stadium at the cost of the tax payer for nil cost. They would get what THFC said they would do, but pay nothing for it. Under those circumstances, I would have thought that DL et al would have a very strong civil case against those who made the decision.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
18,549
Does anyone have the latest cost estimate for our new stadium? Just so we can compare the prices.
 

Roynie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
2,823
I heard his interview with 5 live and it really infuriated me.

He went on about how the stadium should have been built originally for football with just a temporary solution for the Olympic games. That there should have been discussions with West Ham before it was built as they were only ever going to be the anchor tenants of the stadium.

What infuriated me was this.

1. We only won the Olympics because of the commitment to legacy - keeping the track.

2. Why does he assume west ham were the only tenants. Spurs wanted the site as well and bid for it.

3. Spurs offed to build the stadium for free if they could have it afterwards.

4. Spurs offered to rebuild Crystal Palace into a purpose built athletics faculty 365 days a year if they could have the Olympic site to build their own stadium.

5. West Ham only got the stadium ahead of spurs cos they agreed to keep the athletics track. Had they not, Spurs bid, which was far higher and offered more, would have had to win as it's a public facility.


Therefore, there's no use crying over spilt milk.
The country paid for an athletics stadium and won the Olympics because of that. That legacy is paramount. West Ham are secondary.
The stadium cannot spend a penny more on covering it. It is perfectly usable as a football stadium with the lower tier in athletic mode. There shouldn't be a single athletics meet, concert or the like which cannot take place because West Ham need the lower tier brought forward.

If West Ham want to spend their own money redoing the lower tier, they should be able to, again, providing it doesn't interfere with the other facilities the stadium was built for.
I totally agree with what you say, especially as what Spurs offered is exactly what has now been said. I would be bloody furious if they now decided to pull the stadium down and build another one at the cost of the tax payer. Wet Spam should be made to pay in full for any works that may take place in the future.
 

Led's Zeppelin

Flaccid Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,616
I totally agree with what you say, especially as what Spurs offered is exactly what has now been said. I would be bloody furious if they now decided to pull the stadium down and build another one at the cost of the tax payer. Wet Spam should be made to pay in full for any works that may take place in the future.
Apart from using "Wet Spam" - please stop it - I agree 100%.

It is staggering that an additional £300m+ of public money has been spent over and above the £400m+ cost of the original stadium to convert it, very poorly indeed, to a football stadium when Spurs' proposal to do a better job at their own expense was rejected.

I hope the review is more than a whitewash. There really ought to be consequences not only for the perpetrators but for the beneficiaries, as you say.
 

Roynie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
2,823
Apart from using "Wet Spam" - please stop it - I agree 100%.

It is staggering that an additional £300m+ of public money has been spent over and above the £400m+ cost of the original stadium to convert it, very poorly indeed, to a football stadium when Spurs' proposal to do a better job at their own expense was rejected.

I hope the review is more than a whitewash. There really ought to be consequences not only for the perpetrators but for the beneficiaries, as you say.
Bloody auto correct! :whistle::D

As far as the additional costs, I am concerned as to the current contract between the owners and tenants as regards the costs of any alterations. I just hope that it is either not covered or can be changed can be if necessary.
 

thebenjamin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
4,960
Does anyone have the latest cost estimate for our new stadium? Just so we can compare the prices.
It was £750M for the whole development I think. But with Brexit, the plummeting pound and inflation, I'd imagine there will be at least another £100M on top of that, probably more.
 
Top