I think West Ham fans who think their presence has a major influence on the revenues that can be gained from the naming rights to the stadium are bit too far their own backsides. West Ham have been in the premiership a few years with their games shown in USA and China and nobody of any significance has wanted to put their name to Upton Park. In some ways the associations with West Ham has the potential to detract sponsors in the future - hooligan incidents etc... We are talking about 99 years here.
Having seen WHU recent player acquisitions it seems clear to me they have money to spend, despite moving to a new ground. For a few years Arsenal restricted their spending on new players because of the financial cost of a new stadium, which is something WHU don't seem to be worried about. To me, this is another pointer to them getting a very good deal and will probably continue to spend more, partly due to the new Premiership deal but also aware of extra revenue from moving to the OS.
I think it makes a massive difference to the USA and Asian markets. The OS has a different aura and stature due to the Olympics. But the Olympics are over. Now it'll be mainly Premier League football. That's where West Ham come into the picture. It is the combination of those that'll drive the price for the naming rights.
From my knowledge of USA and americans in general it will make no difference whatsoever ! Sorry to burst that bubble (just realised what I'd typed ;-)
Hooligan incidents, really ? You know this is no longer the Seventies, right ? And that this is real life, not The film Green Street Hooligans ? The only major issues in the recent past occurred when West Ham were playing Millwall. Apart from that hooliganism is no longer an issue at the club. And it may be true that West Ham at the Boleyn was not an attractive proposition to sponsors or investors, West Ham in the OS very much are. And why are Chelsea and Tottenham building new stadiums if they could have applied for anchor tenancy in the OS instead ? The OS is not ideal for football, even after conversion. That's why the LLDC had to offer the terms they did to find a club moving in.
Hooligan incidents, really ? You know this is no longer the Seventies, right ? And that this is real life, not The film Green Street Hooligans ? The only major issues in the recent past occurred when West Ham were playing Millwall. Apart from that hooliganism is no longer an issue at the club. And it may be true that West Ham at the Boleyn was not an attractive proposition to sponsors or investors, West Ham in the OS very much are. And why are Chelsea and Tottenham building new stadiums if they could have applied for anchor tenancy in the OS instead ? The OS is not ideal for football, even after conversion. That's why the LLDC had to offer the terms they did to find a club moving in.
Just because hooliganism isn’t such a big issue now, it doesn’t mean it won’t be in the future. I was just commenting on the possibility (and that is all it is) as a risk to the prestige of the stadium. Your posts carry far more assumptions (cherry picked ones) about a few thousand hotdogs contributing to 5 million pound profits and West Ham, who have difficulty naming their current stadium, becoming this major drawer for companies wishing to associate themselves with them!! Cloud cuckoo land thinking basically. My point has always been that it is because the OS is not suitable for football, that it should not be used for football given the massive costs to make it so. It is not cost effective in any way making it fit for football, even a panel of village idiots could tell you that, and that is a major part of this scandal as tax payers money is being used.
Fair enough if you say I cover old ground and make cherry picking assumptions. Thing is the conversion is nearly done and West Ham are moving in next season. The government have explained why they won't release certain parts of the deal. You may not like it, but the stadium will be run by Vinci and they have been given incentives to maximise the income from renting out the OS, for their own profit and that of the taxpayers. So they are protecting their investment. Which you obviously do not believe as it's all foul play and a big conspiracy. The government is not willing to give you the information you want, no matter how much you want it. The European Commission (by admission from the government) has seen the deal in full and they found nothing wrong with it, no state aid, no conspiracy. So, who will help you now getting the information you want ? And even if you had the information, what does it help you ? You will think in any instance the deal is bad for the taxpayer, but I reckon your chances of changing the terms of this deal are somewhere between slim and non existent. But whatever floats your boat.
I am bothered because it affects my club. Come to think of it though, it looks after all that your petition may not have that much of an effect on the deal struck. You are running out of options, same as Hearn did.
I am bothered because it affects my our club. Come to think of it though, it looks after all that your petition may not have that much of an effect on the deal struck. You are running out of options, same as Hearn did.
If you take a look at any of the petitions on the website which have received a Government response you will see that every single response is a defence of the government's existing position. In our petition's case, every single aspect of their argument has been circulated previously by the LLDC or West Ham itself. I could have written that response myself just by cutting and pasting.
Do you really think we expected a response such as "Hmm yes, you guys have a point, maybe we had better look at this deal again" ?
Hooligan incidents, really ? You know this is no longer the Seventies, right ? And that this is real life, not The film Green Street Hooligans ? The only major issues in the recent past occurred when West Ham were playing Millwall. Apart from that hooliganism is no longer an issue at the club. And it may be true that West Ham at the Boleyn was not an attractive proposition to sponsors or investors, West Ham in the OS very much are. And why are Chelsea and Tottenham building new stadiums if they could have applied for anchor tenancy in the OS instead ? The OS is not ideal for football, even after conversion. That's why the LLDC had to offer the terms they did to find a club moving in.
Nonsense! Every club has a hooliganism issue, it's a question of degree.
West Ham are my number one club. The 5th division side is the one I watch locally because I am based in Hamburg and because it's good value for money. And of the bigger Hamburg sides I prefer St.Pauli to Hamburg SV. So, you expected this answer from the government ? Good, as you will not be too disappointed then. I still wonder what your next action could possibly be in order to get the terms of the deal released against the wishes of the government and the LLDC. The European Commission ain't bothered either, but you still have that secret weapon in the form of two Daily Mail investigative reporters and maybe Roan from the BBC who will surely manage to bring down the government, the LLDC and West Ham too in the process. I'm looking forward to watching that.
Fair enough if you say I cover old ground and make cherry picking assumptions. Thing is the conversion is nearly done and West Ham are moving in next season. The government have explained why they won't release certain parts of the deal. You may not like it, but the stadium will be run by Vinci and they have been given incentives to maximise the income from renting out the OS, for their own profit and that of the taxpayers. So they are protecting their investment. Which you obviously do not believe as it's all foul play and a big conspiracy. The government is not willing to give you the information you want, no matter how much you want it. The European Commission (by admission from the government) has seen the deal in full and they found nothing wrong with it, no state aid, no conspiracy. So, who will help you now getting the information you want ? And even if you had the information, what does it help you ? You will think in any instance the deal is bad for the taxpayer, but I reckon your chances of changing the terms of this deal are somewhere between slim and non existent. But whatever floats your boat.
So rather than justify your feeble attempts of the benefits, you decide to take the stance that there is pretty much nothing anybody can do about it now – na na na na na!. It only exposes the weakness of your position and to be fair mirrors the half-baked cherry picked defence the West Ham board have put forwards to date. That they have suggests they are worried about something! The fact is, and everybody knows it, the taxpayer has been mightily ripped off here. You can take the stance, well that is not the fault of West Ham who have merely secured a fantastic deal for their club at the taxpayers expense. But it is also perfectly valid, even if you don’t want to be critical of West Ham, to accept that it is right to be critical of somebody. Given the sums involved, critical seems too meek a word. If we are being told it is a good deal for taxpayers, all we are asking is for greater explanation as all the numbers we have suggest the exact opposite to be the case!
West Ham are my number one club. The 5th division side is the one I watch locally because I am based in Hamburg and because it's good value for money. And of the bigger Hamburg sides I prefer St.Pauli to Hamburg SV. So, you expected this answer from the government ? Good, as you will not be too disappointed then. I still wonder what your next action could possibly be in order to get the terms of the deal released against the wishes of the government and the LLDC. The European Commission ain't bothered either, but you still have that secret weapon in the form of two Daily Mail investigative reporters and maybe Roan from the BBC who will surely manage to bring down the government, the LLDC and West Ham too in the process. I'm looking forward to watching that.
pity there is such a lot of arrogance in your last few posts, it's starting to read like 'we've won, tough on you' ... playground stuff.
You've proved you are better than that in earlier posts, why not get back to rational discussion?
West Ham are my number one club. The 5th division side is the one I watch locally because I am based in Hamburg and because it's good value for money. And of the bigger Hamburg sides I prefer St.Pauli to Hamburg SV. So, you expected this answer from the government ? Good, as you will not be too disappointed then. I still wonder what your next action could possibly be in order to get the terms of the deal released against the wishes of the government and the LLDC. The European Commission ain't bothered either, but you still have that secret weapon in the form of two Daily Mail investigative reporters and maybe Roan from the BBC who will surely manage to bring down the government, the LLDC and West Ham too in the process. I'm looking forward to watching that.
You are both a football fan and a human being. Do you care about human rights abuses of workers in Qatar building the World Cup stadia, etc?
Does it bother you that Vinci, who will be operating the stadium on behalf of LLDC whenever WHU play there, have been accused through the French legal system of using forced labour in Qatar? It doesn't seem to bother your club, WHU, who have said it's nothing to do with them. Does it bother you?
The matter has not been settled in the French legal system. Attempts by Vinci to have the complaint thrown out at the first stage have been rejected by a French judge.
Don't you feel that the image of "London's" team may be tarnished by association with Vinci?
West Ham are my number one club. The 5th division side is the one I watch locally because I am based in Hamburg and because it's good value for money. And of the bigger Hamburg sides I prefer St.Pauli to Hamburg SV. So, you expected this answer from the government ? Good, as you will not be too disappointed then. I still wonder what your next action could possibly be in order to get the terms of the deal released against the wishes of the government and the LLDC. The European Commission ain't bothered either, but you still have that secret weapon in the form of two Daily Mail investigative reporters and maybe Roan from the BBC who will surely manage to bring down the government, the LLDC and West Ham too in the process. I'm looking forward to watching that.
You are both a football fan and a human being. Do you care about human rights abuses of workers in Qatar building the World Cup stadia, etc?
Does it bother you that Vinci, who will be operating the stadium on behalf of LLDC whenever WHU play there, have been accused through the French legal system of using forced labour in Qatar? It doesn't seem to bother your club, WHU, who have said it's nothing to do with them. Does it bother you?
The matter has not been settled in the French legal system. Attempts by Vinci to have the complaint thrown out at the first stage have been rejected by a French judge.
Don't you feel that the image of "London's" team may be tarnished by association with Vinci?
Let's just stick to the issue of mis-use taxpayers money.
Given the sweatshop mentality of many multinationals that we all use...I'm sure we are pretty much all party to this kind of issue to a degree.
West Ham are my number one club. The 5th division side is the one I watch locally because I am based in Hamburg and because it's good value for money. And of the bigger Hamburg sides I prefer St.Pauli to Hamburg SV. So, you expected this answer from the government ? Good, as you will not be too disappointed then. I still wonder what your next action could possibly be in order to get the terms of the deal released against the wishes of the government and the LLDC. The European Commission ain't bothered either, but you still have that secret weapon in the form of two Daily Mail investigative reporters and maybe Roan from the BBC who will surely manage to bring down the government, the LLDC and West Ham too in the process. I'm looking forward to watching that.
You are both a football fan and a human being. Do you care about human rights abuses of workers in Qatar building the World Cup stadia, etc?
Does it bother you that Vinci, who will be operating the stadium on behalf of LLDC whenever WHU play there, have been accused through the French legal system of using forced labour in Qatar? It doesn't seem to bother your club, WHU, who have said it's nothing to do with them. Does it bother you?
The matter has not been settled in the French legal system. Attempts by Vinci to have the complaint thrown out at the first stage have been rejected by a French judge.
Don't you feel that the image of "London's" team may be tarnished by association with Vinci?
Let's just stick to the issue of mis-use taxpayers money.
Given the sweatshop mentality of many multinationals that we all use...I'm sure we are pretty much all party to this kind of issue to a degree.
Speak for yourself. To my knowledge, I don't buy from any company of that type. I think this is a perfectly valid issue and worth pointing out to WHU fans and anyone else who is interested in the Olympic legacy. I wonder if UK Athletics would be happy with the association, for example?
It's not just about directly buying from them though is it? Companies like Vinci are huge and will be responsible for construction and management of infrastructure that we use almost daily.
Fair play to you though for shopping ethically. I must admit that it's not something that I consciously think of when buying stuff.
It's not just about directly buying from them though is it? Companies like Vinci are huge and will be responsible for construction and management of infrastructure that we use almost daily.
Fair play to you though for shopping ethically. I must admit that it's not something that I consciously think of when buying stuff.
To be honest, I'm an old fart and have a dislike of the hype and excessive prices associated with designer labels and similar; that's my starting point. I concede that I've no idea about how ethically the Chinese keyboard I'm typing on was made, for example. (It has a Swiss-American company badge.) In any case, sweatshop working has been shown to be a complex issue.
However, I think that is different to an accusation against a company that, having employed a migrant worker, you fail to return their passport when they want to leave your employment, so they are obliged to go on working for you or be unable to pay for food, etc.
Trying to calculate anything over a 99 year period is kind of pointless. Inflation will have a massive effect, as will the popularity of the game. 99 years ago were different to now, 70-80 years ago attendances were higher, 30 years ago much much lower (Man Utd average under 25 thousand for much of the 80s for example). Then you have to take into account the relative position of West Ham too. We're probably at peak numbers for attendances, 2 years ago clubs saw falls in numbers for the first time in a decade. If West Ham got relegated there is a reasonable chance of them tumbling down to league 1 (as we, Wolves, Southampton, Norwich, Wigan, and others have found). West Ham could easily be looking at crowds under 10k in those circumstances. There's simply no way they'd come close to meeting the running costs of that stadium in those circumstances.
We, the taxpayers, then would be left actually paying West Ham to play there in effect, as the running costs, which LLDC have included for the entire length of the deal, would massively outstrip possible income.
We are bombarded with so much cheap stuff that if we looked at more closely we would probably feel bad – but realising it is difficult to avoid we don’t dig too far as feeling bad isn’t a nice experience. I certainly try to avoid high profile bad eggs like Amazon (who I used to use a lot) and Starbucks who don’t pay their fair share in tax. But I probably could and should do more to know how my shoes, electrical devices etc… are made.
(Man Utd average under 25 thousand for much of the 80s for example).
Don't wanna go off topic but I'm pretty sure Man Utd have averaged above 25k since the thirties. And though they were in a slump during the 80s they didnt average below 35k.
Some further historical context. No East London or South London club has ever been top-tier champions, Charlton coming closest as runners-up in 1937. It's true West Ham, Charlton and Wimbledon have won the FA Cup, and WHU have won the European Cup Winners Cup, but all told it's not much of a roll of honour for an entire half of the capital city. Arsenal and Charlton (twice) abandoned their local roots. North of the Thames Millwall hopped across the water in 1910; Thames at West Ham Stadium lasted two years 1930-1932 before extinction (on the way posting the lowest-ever FL attendance of 469), Orient (Clapton, Leyton and plain Orient) have remained themselves, but Dagenham & Redbridge are a composite of no fewer than four senior amateur clubs : Leytonstone, Ilford, Walthamstow Forest and Dagenham.
Charlton's golden age, arguably 1935-1957, took place during a period when West Ham were a 2nd division fixture (1932-1958). WHU have returned to Div 2 five times in the past 37 years.
Of the big(ger) London clubs West Ham have always been the poor relation, not least because attendances were constricted by the tribalism of their support and the confines of their cramped stadium, street-bound on all four sides. Just look up the highest-ever attendances - Upton Park is well down the list. To escape their past (exemplified by the still-raw Edwardian dockers' rivalry with Millwall) West Ham had to move but they could never manage it by their own efforts. The chance to join the aristocracy only came when the IOC's seduction and one-night stand with poor, plain Stratford left an abandoned bride weeping at the altar - not the most attractive of partners for the next century but, wow, what a dowry she could offer ....
Ethical shopping is a tough issue. Vinci are known to be tough negotiators, maximizing profit (which should be in your interest as they will be trying to maximize income from the OS), but I doubt they will be angels ina business sense. Most companies aren't and most customers only care about cheap products, not bothered too much about asking questions. Even those trying to shop in an ethical manner will struggle at some point (clothing, food, drink, local infrastructure etc.) Yes, I still feel for a majority of those signing your petition it is not about fair competition or proper use of taxpayers' money, but about keeping a rival club from benefitting from a great deal. If it was you could start numerous petitions on all kinds of projects (locally and internationally) where public money is being wasted on a regular basis. Like I said, the government and the European Commission don't appear to be a big help for your cause. So, who will you be pinning your hope on next ?
Comments
To me, this is another pointer to them getting a very good deal and will probably continue to spend more, partly due to the new Premiership deal but also aware of extra revenue from moving to the OS.
Apart from that hooliganism is no longer an issue at the club.
And it may be true that West Ham at the Boleyn was not an attractive proposition to sponsors or investors, West Ham in the OS very much are.
And why are Chelsea and Tottenham building new stadiums if they could have applied for anchor tenancy in the OS instead ? The OS is not ideal for football, even after conversion.
That's why the LLDC had to offer the terms they did to find a club moving in.
So they are protecting their investment. Which you obviously do not believe as it's all foul play and a big conspiracy.
The government is not willing to give you the information you want, no matter how much you want it.
The European Commission (by admission from the government) has seen the deal in full and they found nothing wrong with it, no state aid, no conspiracy.
So, who will help you now getting the information you want ? And even if you had the information, what does it help you ? You will think in any instance the deal is bad for the taxpayer, but I reckon your chances of changing the terms of this deal are somewhere between slim and non existent. But whatever floats your boat.
If you take a look at any of the petitions on the website which have received a Government response you will see that every single response is a defence of the government's existing position. In our petition's case, every single aspect of their argument has been circulated previously by the LLDC or West Ham itself. I could have written that response myself just by cutting and pasting.
Do you really think we expected a response such as "Hmm yes, you guys have a point, maybe we had better look at this deal again" ?
Your club the 5th division German team where you can chat to the manager during the match?
I'm not sure how these are negatively affected by someone challenging the deal between the LLDC and West Ham
So, you expected this answer from the government ? Good, as you will not be too disappointed then.
I still wonder what your next action could possibly be in order to get the terms of the deal released against the wishes of the government and the LLDC.
The European Commission ain't bothered either, but you still have that secret weapon in the form of two Daily Mail investigative reporters and maybe Roan from the BBC who will surely manage to bring down the government, the LLDC and West Ham too in the process. I'm looking forward to watching that.
You've proved you are better than that in earlier posts, why not get back to rational discussion?
Does it bother you that Vinci, who will be operating the stadium on behalf of LLDC whenever WHU play there, have been accused through the French legal system of using forced labour in Qatar? It doesn't seem to bother your club, WHU, who have said it's nothing to do with them. Does it bother you?
The matter has not been settled in the French legal system. Attempts by Vinci to have the complaint thrown out at the first stage have been rejected by a French judge.
Don't you feel that the image of "London's" team may be tarnished by association with Vinci?
Given the sweatshop mentality of many multinationals that we all use...I'm sure we are pretty much all party to this kind of issue to a degree.
Fair play to you though for shopping ethically. I must admit that it's not something that I consciously think of when buying stuff.
West Ham were relegated five times between 1978 and 2011, so on average any time from 2017 is on the cards.
However, I think that is different to an accusation against a company that, having employed a migrant worker, you fail to return their passport when they want to leave your employment, so they are obliged to go on working for you or be unable to pay for food, etc.
99 years ago were different to now, 70-80 years ago attendances were higher, 30 years ago much much lower (Man Utd average under 25 thousand for much of the 80s for example). Then you have to take into account the relative position of West Ham too. We're probably at peak numbers for attendances, 2 years ago clubs saw falls in numbers for the first time in a decade. If West Ham got relegated there is a reasonable chance of them tumbling down to league 1 (as we, Wolves, Southampton, Norwich, Wigan, and others have found). West Ham could easily be looking at crowds under 10k in those circumstances. There's simply no way they'd come close to meeting the running costs of that stadium in those circumstances.
We, the taxpayers, then would be left actually paying West Ham to play there in effect, as the running costs, which LLDC have included for the entire length of the deal, would massively outstrip possible income.
Charlton's golden age, arguably 1935-1957, took place during a period when West Ham were a 2nd division fixture (1932-1958). WHU have returned to Div 2 five times in the past 37 years.
Of the big(ger) London clubs West Ham have always been the poor relation, not least because attendances were constricted by the tribalism of their support and the confines of their cramped stadium, street-bound on all four sides. Just look up the highest-ever attendances - Upton Park is well down the list. To escape their past (exemplified by the still-raw Edwardian dockers' rivalry with Millwall) West Ham had to move but they could never manage it by their own efforts. The chance to join the aristocracy only came when the IOC's seduction and one-night stand with poor, plain Stratford left an abandoned bride weeping at the altar - not the most attractive of partners for the next century but, wow, what a dowry she could offer ....
Even those trying to shop in an ethical manner will struggle at some point (clothing, food, drink, local infrastructure etc.)
Yes, I still feel for a majority of those signing your petition it is not about fair competition or proper use of taxpayers' money, but about keeping a rival club from benefitting from a great deal.
If it was you could start numerous petitions on all kinds of projects (locally and internationally) where public money is being wasted on a regular basis. Like I said, the government and the European Commission don't appear to be a big help for your cause. So, who will you be pinning your hope on next ?