What's new

West Ham Olympic Bid Collapses

Bobby Zero

All times are GMT +7
Sep 28, 2011
57
16
I'm I the only one worried that this will weaken our hand in the negotiations for the NLD? or has the government money already been rubber stamped?
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
According to westhamonline. West ham approached newham about funding the full 80m. Newham told them to fuck off and the deal collapsed. So after dodgy deals with the gov they came up with this idea.
 

Andy

Staff
Mar 21, 2005
7,833
418
I reckon the AEG concert promoters might look into taking a gamble on it after the games, they would definitely sell out concert and the fee is low enough for them.
 

haslemereyid

captain caveman
Jun 6, 2010
1,486
2,057
I'm not sure without ownership that anyone will want to take it on. The running track and fianancial ramifications of non ownership (naming rights etc) make it a no no for us. For West Ham the big draw was being able to own a prime asset on the cheap and then sell the club - again non ownership negates much of that argument. Orient couldnt afford the rent. So where it leaves the whole process i dont know
 

Adam456

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2005
4,458
3,124
According to westhamonline. West ham approached newham about funding the full 80m. Newham told them to fuck off and the deal collapsed. So after dodgy deals with the gov they came up with this idea.

if that's true then just shows what muppets they are and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it. Sure DL would have had this as one of a number of possible outcomes
 

Spurs1960

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2011
2,424
1,220
whether they do apply again or not is up to them but i imagine that they'll have similar issues with Orient and i can't imagine Levy letting this be the end of it, he'll chase them over the original decision and get as much as he possibly can out of it.

i'm betting their fans are going nuts right now though!

Their fans don't want the stadium, they see it as a noose round their neck.
 

Spurs1960

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2011
2,424
1,220
According to westhamonline. West ham approached newham about funding the full 80m. Newham told them to fuck off and the deal collapsed. So after dodgy deals with the gov they came up with this idea.

As far as i am aware West Ham did get the £80 million and that £40 million had to be payed back from the sale of the Boleyn ground which leaves the £40 loan everyone refers to.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,630
If it's an annual lease then the tendering process must be repeated each year? Surely it wouldn't be viable for a Football team to rent a stadium not knowing where they'll be playing the following season? For one thing it would make it almost impossible to know how much you could afford to pay the players.

The worry with this is if they stick to this leasing scheme for five years then put the stadium up for sale again after Tottenham have built our new stadium.
 

$hoguN

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2005
26,661
34,801
It means they will never have ownership though, and will never be able to rip up the track. Job done.

Yep, plus less commercial rights as they will never be able to name the stadium. That track will make it the poxiest place in the UK to watch football... Triffic.

r

It has also destroyed any plans that Brady and the dildo daves had of selling west ham a couple years after they get the stadium for a sickening amount of money to a sheik. Basically West Ham now are worth 25% of what they would have been :lol:
 

talkshowhost86

Mod-Moose
Staff
Oct 2, 2004
48,252
47,307
This does rather suggest that we were right to question how the original process had been run.

I'm not quite sure what happens with our judicial review now but this ends any suggestion that we'll be moving into the OS. There have to be serious moves towards getting the NDP sorted now.
 

felmani26

SC Supporter
Jan 1, 2008
24,547
43,454
So am I right in saying the judicial review is now dead in the water by virute of this ruling or is their still an incentive to continue the legal fight?

I have to say, I can't see it necessarily strengthening our hand as surely our leverage has been curtailed somewhat and why should this decision help raise us any further funding for the NDP which now seems the only viable long term solution now.
 

Booney

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2004
2,837
3,481
Wonder who picks up our fees for the original process then? If the whole process was a shambles then certainly all parties should be compensated.
 

FITZ

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2004
2,020
1,525
The jd must still happen as it's to do with the selection process and the money spent on it.

My thoughts are that we must have some solid gold evidence on the OC and west ham. First west ham were going to sue us - then that goes quiet and now this. They are running scared of the JD.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
Accept the deal with Johnson. Agree to drop the Jr if they pay all the costs of bidding. Build NDP.
 

felmani26

SC Supporter
Jan 1, 2008
24,547
43,454
Accept the deal with Johnson. Agree to drop the Jr if they pay all the costs of bidding. Build NDP.

If only it was that simple but I fear there is still a huge gaping financial hole to fill between making the cost of the NDP financially viable and I can't honestly see this paltry offer from Boris Johnson rectifiying things - not in the immediate term.
 

SpurSince57

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2006
45,213
8,229
If only it was that simple but I fear there is still a huge gaping financial hole to fill between making the cost of the NDP financially viable and I can't honestly see this paltry offer from Boris Johnson rectifiying things - not in the immediate term.

Maybe someone did their sums wrong.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
Can see a few mps going mental today about the 50m conversion costs. At 2m rent a year that's 25 years before they start getting any of their costs back, unless they sell naming rights.
 
Top