West Ham ground share news...

[BoringOldFan]

First off, the BBC has confirmed that Eggert Magnusson has resigned as Spammer chairman. Now on a West Ham fan site there is this:

West Ham are thought to be ready to agree to plans to ground share with London neighbours Tottenham.
News of the proposals were generally laughed off when the plans first emerged last month.

But it is now believed that United's new board are ready to sanction the move - a decision likely to disappoint thousands of Hammers fans angry at the prospect of sharing The Boleyn Ground with their local rivals.

It is unknown whether or not the plans to ground share with Tottenham was partly responsible for the departure of Eggert Magnusson, whose shock departure from the club today has stunned supporters.

I really think it would be a bad idea for us to share a ground with West Ham. Too much bad blood between supporters. Recipe for trouble imo.

 

[thfcsuperyid]

Too much bad blood between supporters. Recipe for trouble imo.

agree

 

[Daredevil]

Let me get my pistol

 

[Kendall]

Agreed, even sharing with Arsenal would be better than sharing with West Ham. There is less violent history

 

[DC_Boy]

I've said time and again on here that I don't think any of the ground share options are a good/feasible idea -

but looks like it's gonna happen - if we end up homeless with an overruning new stadium - you read it here first

I am notoriously neurotic and nervous about many things and this ground share malarkey is one of them

graudual expansion and stay at the lane - or stay at the lane till we build a new stadium elsewhere - preferably in Essex/Herts- that's what I'd like

 

[C0YS]

Well we have to share a ground, whether we like it or not

 

[justfookinhitit]

Well we have to share a ground, whether we like it or not

Agreed if we are going to redevelop on the existing site rather than relocate. If we don't ground share it will take forever to grow the capacity of the existing stadium and cost more in the long run. Far better to get Bob the Builder on the job uninterrupted and with none of the restrictions that are imposed when redeveloping a stadium still in use.

 

[DC_Boy]

Well we have to share a ground, whether we like it or not

Hi COYS - this is what I don't accept - of course I may be completely over-doing the nervous/neurotic thing here, but I just don't like the idea of ground share at all

Arsenal didn't do it - Sunderland didn't do it - Bolton didn't do it etc etc

famously Wimbledon did do it - and where are they now?

I just don't like it at all

 

[yanno]

famously Wimbledon did do it - and where are they now?

In Milton Keynes, I believe. :lol:

Which merely underlines your point, DC_Boy!

 

[Pedro]

the other option is wembley, i heard we would use it for the big games if WHL was redeveloped, how about using it for all our games? maybe a lot of empty seats, but since we sell out pretty much every match it shouldnt be too bad. Better than playing on spammers turf surely - or would it be finacial unfeasible or would the fa not aprove so many extra games played there?

 

[justfookinhitit]

Hi COYS - this is what I don't accept - of course I may be completely over-doing the nervous/neurotic thing here, but I just don't like the idea of ground share at all

Arsenal didn't do it - Sunderland didn't do it - Bolton didn't do it etc etc

famously Wimbledon did do it - and where are they now?

I just don't like it at all

Arsenal built on a completely different site so could continue playing at the Library while Cashburton was being built.

None of us would particularly want to ground share but I'd rather do that for a season or two than we play in a building site for 4-5 years with a much reduced capacity and therefore income to the club during that time.

 

[justfookinhitit]

the other option is wembley, i heard we would use it for the big games if WHL was redeveloped, how about using it for all our games? maybe a lot of empty seats, but since we sell out pretty much every match it shouldnt be too bad. Better than playing on spammers turf surely - or would it be finacial unfeasible or would the fa not aprove so many extra games played there?

Wembley's licence only allows for a certain number of events in a year, which with their current obligations means we wouldn't be able to play all our home games there. We might be able to have a select few games there each season but I wonder if it is better to just use one ground rather than two different ones in a season.

 

[Defsta]

Wouldn't go there without pepperspray and tactical baton :think:

 

[Pedro]

Wembley's licence only allows for a certain number of events in a year, which with their current obligations means we wouldn't be able to play all our home games there. We might be able to have a select few games there each season but I wonder if it is better to just use one ground rather than two different ones in a season.

Any idea why that is? Is there no room to change that on a temporary basis?

 

[Stoof]

Any idea why that is? Is there no room to change that on a temporary basis?

Just the terms of the licence.

The Council will have in mind the impact that Wembley has on it's area. An influx of people - and plus it can pack in more people for a concert or two and extract more money from NFL games etc. than a Spurs crowd plodding along every fortnight.

But the former is more likely the main reason, with the latter being a more cynical view.

 

[Northernspurs]

One has to do what one has to do

 

[Pedro]

Just the terms of the licence.

The Council will have in mind the impact that Wembley has on it's area. An influx of people - and plus it can pack in more people for a concert or two and extract more money from NFL games etc. than a Spurs crowd plodding along every fortnight.

But the former is more likely the main reason, with the latter being a more cynical view.

you would have thought they would welcome us to help pay back the huge build cost. And we are used to paying high ticket prices anyway. But i suppose having us there would limit the other events it could hold.

 

[Stoof]

For what it's worth, I think it'll be a disaster. Can you imagine West Ham fans to stay away from their pubs on a Saturday/Sunday? Because Spurs are in town?

No fucking way.

The 3 times I've been to Upton Park I've felt uneasy, even though I was sitting with West Ham fans at a non-Spurs related game. It doesn't feel safe, and it's just poo.

Boooooooo. West Ham.

 

[DC_Boy]

In Milton Keynes, I believe. :lol:

Which merely underlines your point, DC_Boy!

yanno
I was of course being rhetorical

I also realise i'm overdoing the fear thing - but i'm sorry i'm genuinely frightened for the well being of the club if we ground share

 

[llamafarmer]

Hi COYS - this is what I don't accept - of course I may be completely over-doing the nervous/neurotic thing here, but I just don't like the idea of ground share at all

Arsenal didn't do it - Sunderland didn't do it - Bolton didn't do it etc etc

famously Wimbledon did do it - and where are they now?

I just don't like it at all

If the plans south london spur has shared are the ones we're going with, we'll have no choice. It's a new stadium on the current site, so there's no way you could do it piecemeal - you demolish the old and build the new in its place.

Any idea why that is? Is there no room to change that on a temporary basis?

I'm pretty sure that's an agreement with the residents built into the planning permission. Think the scum had something similar.