and the winner is................West Ham!

Beefy78

Paully D wrote: »

It's a disgusting decision.

Again, what was the alternative??? West Ham getting the ground seems to be the only thing which makes sense.

greendom

Why were movable stands not considered, such as in the Stade de France where the stand can cover the athletics track when football is being played ?

ironbluedun

west ham will have the biggest athletics stadium in the championship. they will get about 10000 at it for a game against millwall or someone like that.

Beefy78

ironbluedun wrote: »

west ham will have the biggest athletics stadium in the championship. they will get about 10000 at it for a game against millwall or someone like that.

Millwall seems a strange example as they're massive rivals of West Ham's

greendom wrote: »

Why were movable stands not considered, such as in the Stade de France where the stand can cover the athletics track when football is being played ?

Absolutely. This whole process should have been sorted out years ago with the ground with it's legacy as a football stadium in mind as it was being designed & built.

CiaranC

Beefy78 wrote: »

Again, what was the alternative??? West Ham getting the ground seems to be the only thing which makes sense.

The alternative was neither club moving surely?

Het-Field

CiaranC wrote: »

The alternative was neither club moving surely?

Not really.

Although WHL and UP have nostalgic reasons to stay, and a level of character, neither stadium is fit for purpose anymore. The redevelopment jobs which took place on both stadia, especially UP, were done incrementally, and without a solid centralised plan. Redevelopment was done on a case by case basis, as and when maintenance was required. Unlike Old Trafford or Croke Park (notwithstanding complaints about Hill 16), the finished product never looked right, and was tacky. This has given rise to unprofessional looking stadia, which have no place in modern day football.

Beefy78

Well yeah, both Clubs really need to move, and building huge, and expensive, grounds in that part of London when one was being built down the road meant that someone using the Olympic Stadium for football made sense. I meant more what was the alternative for the Stadium itself. If neither Spurs nor West Ham moved there then what happens to it?

Het-Field

Beefy78 wrote: »

Well yeah, both Clubs really need to move, and building huge, and expensive, grounds in that part of London when one was being built down the road meant that someone using the Olympic Stadium for football made sense. I meant more what was the alternative for the Stadium itself. If neither Spurs nor West Ham moved there then what happens to it?

It would be a White Elephant Project.

In reality, England should have put forward Wembley Stadium, which could have furnished an Olympic Games if the planning for the redeveloped stadium was correctly considered.

There is no need for an extra stadium in London. However, the powers that be seem not to mind the creation of extra national debt for "a legacy".

CiaranC

Het-Field wrote: »

Not really.

Although WHL and UP have nostalgic reasons to stay, and a level of character, neither stadium is fit for purpose anymore. The redevelopment jobs which took place on both stadia, especially UP, were done incrementally, and without a solid centralised plan. Redevelopment was done on a case by case basis, as and when maintenance was required. Unlike Old Trafford or Croke Park (notwithstanding complaints about Hill 16), the finished product never looked right, and was tacky. This has given rise to unprofessional looking stadia, which have no place in modern day football.

Unprofessional looking stadia? What does that even mean? You think aesthetics are a reason for WHU to move from their home of over a hundred years to some horrible soulless bowl where the fans are a hundred metres from the pitch?

It must really suck to be an English football fan, all this "progress" is destroying the game.

therecklessone

I predict within five years of moving into the stadium West Ham will go cap in hand looking for public money to help them remove the running track.

I'm delighted we "lost" out, and sad for Orient who will be the real losers in all of this.

Beefy78

I don't think it's possible to remove the running track later on. The foundations of the stands are where they are and can't be moved, hence Spurs planning to knock the whole thing down and start again.

I still don't see Orient losing out. West Ham aren't moving 40 miles, they're moving a 40 minute walk. There's the possibility of Orient losing fans to West Ham giving away free tickets but that would be exactly the same if West Ham had redeveloped the Boleyn Ground and made it bigger.

EDIT - Plus Leyton Orient actually moved right next to West Ham (a historically much bigger Club than themselves) in the first place.

Paully D

Fantastic read from Dan Roan:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/33214058

NIMAN

Some deal for the Hammers.

This move has the potential to catapult them into the big time, attracting a different class of player. They are a potential sleeping giant.

Not bad for a total cost of 15 mill.

Stroke of genius for West Ham.

How do their match going fans feel about the move I wonder?

brianregan09

If West Ham were relegated would that have any bearing on any deal ?

monkey9

I've no doubt that West Ham will be the next billionaire club.

Hammer Archer

rarnes1 wrote: »

Stroke of genius for West Ham.

How do their match going fans feel about the move I wonder?

Love The Boleyn. But the area it's in means there is absolutely zero prospect of expanding the stadium so the OS move is necessary in my view.
The atmosphere will almost certainly die off but to be honest the atmosphere in Upton Park hasn't been great for years.

The likes of Gold, Sullivan and Brady may not be the nicest people but you can't deny they know their stuff business wise. Look at how far Birmingham have fallen since they left.

Hammer Archer

Hammer Archer wrote: »

Love The Boleyn. But the area it's in means there is absolutely zero prospect of expanding the stadium so the OS move is necessary in my view.
The atmosphere will almost certainly die off but to be honest the atmosphere in Upton Park hasn't been great for years.

The likes of Gold, Sullivan and Brady may not be the nicest people but you can't deny they know their stuff business wise. Look at how far Birmingham have fallen since they left.

Same story for the majority of clubs.

Unreal the difference politics makes. United spend years renovating,Arsenal struggle for nearly a decade to make their new stadium worthwhile.City and West Ham get handed theirs for basically nothing. Financial Fair Play my arse

LuckyLloyd

Paully D wrote: »

Fantastic read from Dan Roan:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/33214058

As a football fan who isn't British, it's all blah, blah as far as I'm concerned. It's a great move for West Ham; it secures Britain a top class venue for World Cup Bids / Athletics Championships for a long time to come.

There should have been more foresight before 2005 when the original bid was being proposed, but Olympic Bids are intensely political and legacy is a minor concern in a 'can we even do this to begin with?' discussion. But the waste of money; the sweet deal West Ham have achieved; the future of an underused Athletics track in South London are irrelevant from my perspective.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

NIMAN wrote: »

Some deal for the Hammers.

This move has the potential to catapult them into the big time, attracting a different class of player. They are a potential sleeping giant.

Not bad for a total cost of 15 mill.

Stadium similar in size to St James' Park.

Paully D

monkey9 wrote: »

I've no doubt that West Ham will be the next billionaire club.

I don't think it'll make much of a difference even if they are.

Financial Fair Play has killed off the chances of an owner coming in, splashing the cash and pushing a mid-table club to the next level. A Manchester City situation will never happen again unless the Financial Fair Play rules are seriously relaxed, but they are getting more stringent if anything.

Guy:Incognito

THFC wrote: »

Stadium similar in size to St James' Park.

With the distinct advantage of not being in Newcastle though.

eagle eye

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

With the distinct advantage of not being in Newcastle though.

Yeah, in London with easy access to the Stadium too. It's going to be so accessible to big crowds and become a must visit stadium for Premier league games.

Knex*

Paully D wrote: »

I don't think it'll make much of a difference even if they are.

Financial Fair Play has killed off the chances of an owner coming in, splashing the cash and pushing a mid-table club to the next level. A Manchester City situation will never happen again unless the Financial Fair Play rules are seriously relaxed, but they are getting more stringent if anything.

I thought after the lawsuits this year taken against FFP, that they have been relaxed again?

Hence us seeing City willing to spend 50m on Sterling.

Could be wrong though.

Paully D

Paully D wrote: »

I don't think it'll make much of a difference even if they are.

Financial Fair Play has killed off the chances of an owner coming in, splashing the cash and pushing a mid-table club to the next level. A Manchester City situation will never happen again unless the Financial Fair Play rules are seriously relaxed, but they are getting more stringent if anything.

Nah FFP is a crock. All of the academy and training costs West Ham currently have can be expanded and written off. Being in London will mean even more of a blind eye being turned to ridiculous "sponsorship" deals than the kind in Manchester. West Ham already are 21st in the entire world in terms of revenue. Add 20 million a year through creative book-keeping and another 20 for "sponsorship" and they' be 15th behind Atletico Madrid. That's before the losses that are allowed to be made and before the bump in PL money coming in. Time would be the only obstacle.

Paully D

Deleted User wrote: »

Nah FFP is a crock. All of the academy and training costs West Ham currently have can be expanded and written off. Being in London will mean even more of a blind eye being turned to ridiculous "sponsorship" deals than the kind in Manchester. West Ham already are 21st in the entire world in terms of revenue. Add 20 million a year through creative book-keeping and another 20 for "sponsorship" and they' be 15th behind Atletico Madrid. That's before the losses that are allowed to be made and before the bump in PL money coming in. Time would be the only obstacle.

I agree with the vast majority of that mate but under Premier League FFP rules, a club can't increase their wage bill by more than £4m a season and subsequently can't make a combined loss of more than £105m from 2013-2016 (then from 2016-2019, then from 2019-2021, though the amount of loss allowed may be increased). If they do, the Premier League do seem serious about shooting for the points deduction punishment.

From The Independent:

Any club breaching the rules will face tough sanctions - and Scudamore said they would be pushing for points deductions.

Scudamore told reporters: "As all things in our rulebook you will subject to a disciplinary commission.

"The clubs understand that if people break the £105m we will look for the top-end ultimate sanction range - a points deduction.

"Normally we stay silent on sanctions as the commission has a free range but clearly if there is a material breach of that rule we will be asking the commission to consider top-end sanctions."

Scudamore said there would be an "absolute prohibition" on clubs reporting losses of more than £105million over the next three years with the first sanctions possible in 2016.

Despite the obvious limitations of FFP, I don't think it allows anywhere near enough wiggle room for a West Ham or similar to truly reach that next level.

AdamD

I'm pretty sure there are rules in place which allow a club like West Ham to increase their wage bill by more than that to reach the next level. FFP is only for clubs in European competitions anyway..

Paully D

AdamD wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there are rules in place which allow a club like West Ham to increase their wage bill by more than that to reach the next level. FFP is only for clubs in European competitions anyway..

The Premier League introduced their own form of FFP which began in 2013/2014.

NIMAN

AdamD wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there are rules in place which allow a club like West Ham to increase their wage bill by more than that to reach the next level. FFP is only for clubs in European competitions anyway..

The Hammers are in the Europa League.

Paully D

Paully D wrote: »

I agree with the vast majority of that mate but under Premier League FFP rules, a club can't increase their wage bill by more than £4m a season and subsequently can't make a combined loss of more than £105m from 2013-2016 (then from 2016-2019, then from 2019-2021, though the amount of loss allowed may be increased). If they do, the Premier League do seem serious about shooting for the points deduction punishment.

From The Independent:



Despite the obvious limitations of FFP, I don't think it allows anywhere near enough wiggle room for a West Ham or similar to truly reach that next level.

£35million per year is easy. Sponsored events and dinners would go part-way. :P
Is there not something about it being alright to increase the wage bill more with a corresponding rise in some income streams.
Worst case scenario they could get top quality players to whore themselves as ambassadors for questionable regimes outside of West Ham's time.

LuckyLloyd

Where there's a will there's a way.

Beefy78

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Where there's a will there's a way.

Where there's a lawyer there's a way.

FFP which tries to prevent businesses from getting into debt through tradigin losses is one thing. Any FFP which prevents owners from being able to invest their own money as capital into the business won't, and doesn't stand up to any legal challenge whatsoever.

If someone wants to buy and bankroll West Ham with thir own billions they will do.

Captain Havoc

West Ham are already a big club, just one that's never reached it's potential or never will. Like turning Cardiff red or calling Hull the Tigers, it's all marketing bull**** that someone getting paid feels the need to justify their salary (I'm referring to the change of crest coinciding with the move to the Olympic stadium). West Ham will always be a midtable, occasionally championship team who may win the FA cup some day.

Beefy78

The point is that the move to the new stadium gives them the potential to become a powerhouse way above whatever they've achieved in the past (even winning the World Cup )

I'm from that part of the World and West Ham are just massive. I grew up 35 miles from Upton Park but they were still by far the biggest club in terms of support where I was. They've a massive catchment area and a huge amount of potential. When (not if IMO) someone notices that potential and that free state-of-the-art monster stadium and puts his money behind them then they could certainly shift the power-base in London.

SantryRed

Captain Havoc wrote: »

West Ham are already a big club, just one that's never reached it's potential or never will. Like turning Cardiff red or calling Hull the Tigers, it's all marketing bull**** that someone getting paid feels the need to justify their salary (I'm referring to the change of crest coinciding with the move to the Olympic stadium). West Ham will always be a midtable, occasionally championship team who may win the FA cup some day.

But City were like that, if not worse, before they were bought by the Sheikhs. West Ham certainly look a lot healthier now than City did at that time. The owners have set them up very well and will make a considerable profit if they are still a Premier League club in the next 2/3 seasons.

LuckyLloyd

Captain Havoc wrote: »

West Ham are already a big club, just one that's never reached it's potential or never will. Like turning Cardiff red or calling Hull the Tigers, it's all marketing bull**** that someone getting paid feels the need to justify their salary (I'm referring to the change of crest coinciding with the move to the Olympic stadium). West Ham will always be a midtable, occasionally championship team who may win the FA cup some day.

A move to this stadium can only help them reach their theoretical potential.

Skylinehead

Beefy78 wrote: »

Where there's a lawyer there's a way.

FFP which tries to prevent businesses from getting into debt through tradigin losses is one thing. Any FFP which prevents owners from being able to invest their own money as capital into the business won't, and doesn't stand up to any legal challenge whatsoever.

You'd be surprised. Look at Barcelona's transfer ban, FIFA can't actually stop them buying players as it contravenes freedom of movement, employment laws etc. What they can do, however, is ban the club from registering those players in a FIFA competition. FFP can work the same way.