• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Chairman's message

Gazza said:
It will be some time before they can buy the stadium outright if that's their ambition. Can't see them getting a loan to refurb the stadium as they will more than likely have to return it as they found it or go through a lot of paperwork to get it approved if not purchased.

They may not want to host an nfl team but can make it an amazing venue for concerts and other events.

But as you said they will struggle in todays financial climate but once things settle they may pursue it or sell up to a consortium and accelerate the process. All ifs and buts, currently we sit at the top of the pile in regards to stadium and infrastructure.
Click to expand...

The daves will sell the club. Already have a good chunk.
 
Grays_1890 said:
O'Sullivan already owns some of the land around the ground now, so basically he will continue to own the concessions on the F&B which is astronomical. Trying to sell that into a new owner might be why that Czech fella already pulled out of one deal to buy the club. Tried ripping the bloke off
Click to expand...

Surprised the saudis didn't buy them. Don't they buy a huge pact of land there when it was built?
 
Bedfordspurs said:
No
They brought it after the Olympics
I didn’t know the dildo twins owner any of the land there
Click to expand...

Thats what I was told, might even own one of the pubs or the land the pubs on in the area around it, don't quote me on that but seem to remember being told something about that too but was a while back

Sullivan was a silent partner in a consortium looking to buy Birmingham a year or so ago, blokes always looking for bits and bobs to wet his beak with.

I don't see any foresight or focus at West Ham currently that makes me think they are going to reinvent themselves any time soon TBH
 
Last edited:
Grays_1890 said:
Thats what I was told, might even own one of the pubs or the land the pubs on in the area around it, don't quote me on that but seem to remember being told something about that too but was a while back

Sullivan was a silent partner in a consortium looking to buy Birmingham a year or so ago, blokes always looking for bits and bobs to wet his beak with.

I don't see any foresight or focus at West Ham currently that makes me think they are going to reinvent themselves any time soon TBH
Click to expand...
Didn’t they already own Birmingham before West Ham?
 
Yiddo said:
Didn’t they already own Birmingham before West Ham?
Click to expand...

Yeh but then sold up and left...but last year when they were in trouble he was putting up the money for a consortium to go in and buy up the club again.

Opportunist actions from what it read like, their fans didn't want it, especially after the ground they built on the cheap started falling apart at the seams because of shoddy building standards
 
Grays_1890 said:
Thats what I was told, might even own one of the pubs or the land the pubs on in the area around it, don't quote me on that but seem to remember being told something about that too but was a while back

Sullivan was a silent partner in a consortium looking to buy Birmingham a year or so ago, blokes always looking for bits and bobs to wet his beak with.

I don't see any foresight or focus at West Ham currently that makes me think they are going to reinvent themselves any time soon TBH
Click to expand...
They are business men
Money is what matters
 
Grays_1890 said:
The other issue is the current owners are over inflating the value they place on the club when currently they do not own the ground and have two fixed assets at Rush green which are frankly dump holes. So there would need to be some guarentees that they could own the ground for anything to happen. IF that happens which is a big IF IMO, they would have to knock it down and build it again to make it viable for multipurpose activities, also to add any kind of decent hospitality.

Its all abit pie in the sky as it is, so add to that the timescales, other clubs will be long gone with their activities before they have a chance to even start to catch up.
Click to expand...
Not owning the ground is actually better for them and they have a very long lease. West Ham have hardly any operational costs at all at present. It wouldn't surprise me if they end up getting the site for next to nothing as their 99 year lease means that the taxpayer is in for a huge outlay over the next 90 odd years and I think it will eventually (under a different government) transfer to West Ham to do what they want with so that the tax payer no longer has any liability.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Not owning the ground is actually better for them and they have a very long lease. West Ham have hardly any operational costs at all at present. It wouldn't surprise me if they end up getting the site for next to nothing as their 99 year lease means that the taxpayer is in for a huge outlay over the next 90 odd years and I think it will eventually (under a different government) transfer to West Ham to do what they want with so that the tax payer no longer has any liability.
Click to expand...

Its not a great tax payer burden though is it? Was 500m as part of a larger Olympic fund over 10 years ago, so the cost to the tax payer is surely minimal now. Also with GB athletics having designs on future London Olympics and Europeans I can't see them giving up the stadium IMO. Would be a major area of public discourse to have the 2012 Olympic legacy sold off. Anything is possible, just not sure I see that one, could well be proven wrong though
 
Grays_1890 said:
Its not a great tax payer burden though is it? Was 500m as part of a larger Olympic fund over 10 years ago, so the cost to the tax payer is surely minimal now. Also with GB athletics having designs on future London Olympics and Europeans I can't see them giving up the stadium IMO. Would be a major area of public discourse to have the 2012 Olympic legacy sold off. Anything is possible, just not sure I see that one, could well be proven wrong though
Click to expand...
The burden is the upkeep
West Ham should be paying around 15m a year for what they currently pay 2…
That means the tax payer has the burden of the gap
A ground like that costs a lot to run and upkeep which west Han contribute next to nothing
 
Bedfordspurs said:
The burden is the upkeep
West Ham should be paying around 15m a year for what they currently pay 2…
That means the tax payer has the burden of the gap
A ground like that costs a lot to run and upkeep which west Han contribute next to nothing
Click to expand...

Interesting but again the tax payer burden on stadia owned by the public would always be there, West Ham or no West Ham, thats how they end up. I just don't see them selling it outright after paying the additional for multiuse and also with designs on hosting future events in the Olympic calendars. Not within 20 years of what was view as a legacy Olympics. Again I could be majorly wrong there, but the public uproar would be outweigh the perceived tax burden IMO
 
Grays_1890 said:
Interesting but again the tax payer burden on stadia owned by the public would always be there, West Ham or no West Ham, thats how they end up. I just don't see them selling it outright after paying the additional for multiuse and also with designs on hosting future events in the Olympic calendars. Not within 20 years of what was view as a legacy Olympics. Again I could be majorly wrong there, but the public uproar would be outweigh the perceived tax burden IMO
Click to expand...
The upkeep would be less if West Ham wasn't there. The clean up alone after a game isn't going to be cheap.
 
DubSpur said:
The upkeep would be less if West Ham wasn't there. The clean up alone after a game isn't going to be cheap.
Click to expand...

Of course but Governments especially now will care more about the perception value over the fiscal one IMO. Labour would not sell off a public asset thats already had 900m of the tax payers money put in to build. The look would be terrible. The 100k a match figure put on the tax payers recently is virtually nothing to a government and tax payer budget in reality.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Interesting but again the tax payer burden on stadia owned by the public would always be there, West Ham or no West Ham, thats how they end up. I just don't see them selling it outright after paying the additional for multiuse and also with designs on hosting future events in the Olympic calendars. Not within 20 years of what was view as a legacy Olympics. Again I could be majorly wrong there, but the public uproar would be outweigh the perceived tax burden IMO
Click to expand...
I agree
 
Finney Is Back said:
Not owning the ground is actually better for them and they have a very long lease. West Ham have hardly any operational costs at all at present. It wouldn't surprise me if they end up getting the site for next to nothing as their 99 year lease means that the taxpayer is in for a huge outlay over the next 90 odd years and I think it will eventually (under a different government) transfer to West Ham to do what they want with so that the tax payer no longer has any liability.
Click to expand...
What a poor job they're doing with so little outlay.:rolleyes:

Fwiw, I don't think their current owners will attempt to buy it, don't have the vision.

Isn't there some legal covenants on the use and ownership, resulting from the original hoo ha when they were looking to sell it to West Ham post Olympics? eg you're stuck with the lease arrangement.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back