• 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

Tottenham Hotspur Stadium - Licence To Stand

glorygloryeze said:
Wow I'm astounded with that detail about the Spammers. You have to ask with those conditions why the hell did they decide to go ahead and move? What the hell do they actually get out of it when you look at it like that?
It sounds to me like they are effectively homeless :eek:
Click to expand...

They can't afford other options and I suspect that the dildo brothers will sell up as soon as they are in the ground.
 
glorygloryeze said:
Couldn't they have just stayed at Upton Park? Ok, not as lucrative as some other grounds, but at least it is/was theirs..
Click to expand...
You can't take a dividend on nothing.

The dildo brothers will sell the land, pay it to themselves and then sell the club pocketing a nice chunk.
 
scaramanga said:
You can't take a dividend on nothing.

The dildo brothers will sell the land, pay it to themselves and then sell the club pocketing a nice chunk.
Click to expand...

I see. Aren't there any Spammers that see this? The way some gloat about the Olympic stadium you'd think they really had won the lottery...

I actually feel sorry for them now...
 
glorygloryeze said:
I see. Aren't there any Spammers that see this? The way some gloat about the Olympic stadium you'd think they really had won the lottery...

I actually feel sorry for them now...
Click to expand...

The stadium was only designed as a temporary structure too, so it is unlikely to last for much more than twenty years
 
glorygloryeze said:
Wow I'm astounded with that detail about the Spammers. You have to ask with those conditions why the hell did they decide to go ahead and move? What the hell do they actually get out of it when you look at it like that?
It sounds to me like they are effectively homeless :eek:
Click to expand...

Because they had been declared preferred bidders for the stadium and had already started a massive press propoganda about them moving there. To back out of it would have made them look really bad.

Also, they will see an uplift in revenue with the extra capacity, if they can fill it. It's a good location for transport links and will make them slightly more attractive to investors and sponsors,

Overall though, it's not an ideal situation for a football club and to not own your own stadium is not good.
 
To be clear - it is my understanding that Westham pay £2m per year- they take home all match day revenue? on a 99 year lease.

if so where is the perceived downside? - they can not use it non match day, how many would be going to the Bolyen ground for non-match day, how many events coudl they realistically put on there,

the real bad side for me is a non football stadium that is too big for their capacity - atmosphere and match day experience will be shocking but from a financial side where is the problem.
 
The deal is not a bad one for the club. They get a bigger stadium without the large spending. They can sell the old one to pay of debts, albeit this might just mean the current owners getting reimbursed for paying off the debts.

The questions arise in the far future. What happens at the end of the lease? They will have nothing and will have to buy land and build anew or find somewhere else to lease. What happens if the stadium becomes unusable in 30 or 50 years? Are they bound by the lease to whatever replacement the authorities make, do they have to contribute to a replacement, or does the lease just end early, leaving with the problem of what next?

The leasing system is not necessarily bad, but generally not our tradition. Perhaps clubs like City and West Ham will start a new tradition of authorities helping more with stadium needs of local clubs. We saw how our threat to leave got Haringey more involved. How would Newham react to West Ham moving in the future?
 
as they are paying for the lease and have an agreed term is the onus on the council to provide them with suitable facilities once the stadium starts to deteriorate
 
jts1882 said:
The deal is not a bad one for the club. They get a bigger stadium without the large spending. They can sell the old one to pay of debts, albeit this might just mean the current owners getting reimbursed for paying off the debts.

The questions arise in the far future. What happens at the end of the lease? They will have nothing and will have to buy land and build anew or find somewhere else to lease. What happens if the stadium becomes unusable in 30 or 50 years? Are they bound by the lease to whatever replacement the authorities make, do they have to contribute to a replacement, or does the lease just end early, leaving with the problem of what next?

The leasing system is not necessarily bad, but generally not our tradition. Perhaps clubs like City and West Ham will start a new tradition of authorities helping more with stadium needs of local clubs. We saw how our threat to leave got Haringey more involved. How would Newham react to West Ham moving in the future?
Click to expand...

56578357.jpg
 
r-u-s-x said:
To be clear - it is my understanding that Westham pay £2m per year- they take home all match day revenue? on a 99 year lease.

if so where is the perceived downside? - they can not use it non match day, how many would be going to the Bolyen ground for non-match day, how many events coudl they realistically put on there,

the real bad side for me is a non football stadium that is too big for their capacity - atmosphere and match day experience will be shocking but from a financial side where is the problem.
Click to expand...

It's not so much a perceived downside, it's when you're comparing their situation to others. As in, I don't think their move to the Olympic Stadium will catapult them financially into a different league like Arsenal have been since their move to the Emirates (having paid it off).

As i've stated, they get the increased match-day revenue from larger crowds (providing they don't have to subsidise tickets to an extreme to fill the stadium like Sunderland do. What they won't get is full control over corporate and sponsorship revenues from the stadium and they don't have a big capital asset to borrow against should the need arise.

Their revenues will be a fraction of what they could have potentially generated had they been given the stadium to own. As it is, financially they will struggle to compete with us once we have completed our own stadium project, which was a big reason why I believe Levy dropped the legal action when the government decided to keep the stadium in public ownership.
 
r-u-s-x said:
To be clear - it is my understanding that Westham pay £2m per year- they take home all match day revenue? on a 99 year lease.

if so where is the perceived downside? - they can not use it non match day, how many would be going to the Bolyen ground for non-match day, how many events coudl they realistically put on there,

the real bad side for me is a non football stadium that is too big for their capacity - atmosphere and match day experience will be shocking but from a financial side where is the problem.
Click to expand...

As for example Juventus found out poor atmosphere and match day experience can have severe side effects. They decided to move to a smaller stadium, closer to the city with a better atmosphere. I think they've benefited financially.

If West Ham can catapult themselves up into competing for CLs places or getting into the CL then their fans will keep coming and they can also grow their fan base and the club. A worsened atmosphere and match day experience might have a negligible effect. However if they're struggling with relegation, actually down in the Championship or playing season after season of mid table football I think a worsened atmosphere and match day experience could really hurt attendance.
 
yep I agree the atmosphere will be shocking - they will be lucky to half fill it IMO unless they are giving them away or playing Cat A games. I do not think it will catapult them to the CL but it will be better for them than staying at UP which is only just easier to get to than WHL.

From the lack of sponsorship and corporates - they dont get two bob as it is - take a look at the shirt deal, less than Swansea.
 
Just thinking about how much money West Ham could actually be missing out on by not owning the stadium..

Athletics Events - not that much money to be made here?
Concerts - I believe the Olympic Stadium hasn't currently got a music licence, but the stadium doesn't seem to be in an immediately residential area and wouldn't it be Newham who decides if they get one? Basically for 4-6 weeks every summer Newham could have a string of concerts and make mega dollar?
Rugby World Cup - Didn't realise a few games from the 2015 rugby world cup will be played in the Olympic Stadium.. I guess we'll get to see how good it is as a sporting venue in October.

If we want to host concerts at new WHL we'd be competing directly with Wembley, The Emirates, The Olympic Stadium and Twickenham. I'd suggest they also all have better transport links than us. Plus WHL is in a residential area, which would limit the amount of times a year we could host a concert.

If New WHL had world-class NFL facilities though... $$$
 
The main problem I'd foresee with an NFL link would be the pitch getting fudged up which is the last thing we'd want, are there any stadiums in the US that regularly hold NFL games as well as an MLS team? It's an interesting idea
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back