Yes, we should have done that with FIFA too. I think we should accept everything that is corrupt and wrong - then what a fantastic society we will have.
Surprised at those that think it looks good. I can remember all the people moaning about running tracks and being so far from the action. The stadium is basically just an open back bowl, I never liked the design for the Olympics and I don't think it looks good now. Each to their own I guess but I wouldn't be happy to watch football there on a regular basis.
Basically, @nth london addick is right. West Ham - at least if we mean their fans - are not the right target. I am not sure I agree with him that I would be delighted if Charlton had taken a similar taxpayer deal to move to the Peninsula (still less across the river), but our main target are the public 'servants" who cooked up and agreed this shoddy deal which is costing us the earth.
It is also true that there is as yet no evidence of corruption, if by the word we mean public servants accepting money or material benefits in return for certain decisions. While I found the LLDC to be suspiciously defensive about releasing the contract, the fact remains that the current CEO, responsible for that behaviour, was not the guy who cooked up or even signed the contract; he came in only in early 2015. It tends to look like cock-up rather than corruption.
But that said, the ownership of West Ham deserve continued scrutiny. We need to understand the relationship between the deal and Gullivan's payments to and entertainment of the Tory elite, and Brady's otherwise inexplicable Baronness-ship. The aggressiveness with which they have defended the deal (until clearly told by the authorities to shut up, last autumn before the Tribunals), showed me a glimpse of what they were like. Their hilarious attempt to smear me to the ICO as Barry Hearn's Orient supporting mate was a fine example. More sinister is the way they have intimidated West Ham fans who expressed opposition to the deal. The presence of a very aggressive lawyer in our Supporters Summit seminar, demanding to know our "end game", was no coincidence. I can't find his name now, but will post it later in case by chance someone knows of him. A very interesting character.
So West Ham are not per se the target. But I find myself hoping they lose every game they play. That's football.
Surprised at those that think it looks good. I can remember all the people moaning about running tracks and being so far from the action. The stadium is basically just an open back bowl, I never liked the design for the Olympics and I don't think it looks good now. Each to their own I guess but I wouldn't be happy to watch football there on a regular basis.
So it's a stadium built to hold an event over two weeks at the height of summer and catch any breeze to keep the inside temperature down for fans and competitors and it's now going to be used in winter when the wind can be a bit stronger and a tad on the icy side ?
The problem is that nod and a wink corruption is hard to prove. The only evidence that is clear is the outcome. When Qatar won the world cup, we all knew bribes had changed hands without having to see them. But it isn't easy to prove. My view is that West Ham were favoured because Gold and Sullivan were friends of the Conservative party. Wealthy friends who will benefit the party in the future, more so than the modest benefits it gets from them now. The wake will be the support they give the party over the next five to ten years although the scrutiny this stitch up is receiving may affect that. It is the equivalent of the old school tie system.
Now the Tory party is not corrupt. And I do not wish to suggest it is. But there is a politician in all of this who is dishonest and untrustworthy and always does things his way. Labour has them too, I'm not making a party political point. A politician who I would be amazed didn't give a steer to those making the decisions. A mumbled one, but a steer all the same. We could all let it go, but if you have good reason to suspect something, you have a duty to tax payers not to. The truth may never come out, but sometimes it does.
Surprised at those that think it looks good. I can remember all the people moaning about running tracks and being so far from the action. The stadium is basically just an open back bowl, I never liked the design for the Olympics and I don't think it looks good now. Each to their own I guess but I wouldn't be happy to watch football there on a regular basis.
It looks superficially good, and indeed will be a fine venue for the World Athletics next summer, but is flawed for a football stadium, especially when it's replacing a very "English style" ground.
WH have got a disgraceful commercial deal, and a venue perfect for attracting tourists, but will lose their soul as a result, and a lot of what made Upton Park good
The reason the stadium wasn't built for football was because the intention was not for football to be played in it. The value for money argument was adapted later to justify the need for a football club tenant and then the original Olympic bidders (who only bloody won us the Olympics FFS before anybody wants to slag off Coe!) Were criticised by newly created Boris criteria. But the amount of tax payer's money that has gone into it has made that ridiculous so then it is about usage. But the stadium could have been used as the national athletics stadium - Despite hosting the Olympics, we don't have one to inspire future athletes. We have world class velodromes and look at how well we do at cycling! What is wrong with young athletes using it every week and it hosting sporting events and concerts to keep it ticking over - how would that be more expensive than all the extra money that has been spent to accommodate West Ham? A club who had a more than adequate and historic ground already!
The original stadium was designed to have a permanent lower base of 30k and a removable top tier of 50k (with no facilities, so a basic structure)
The plan was then to keep the stadium as a 30k athletics facility, shared with another tenant (football or rugby presumably). Unfortunately, nobody needs a 30k venue in Stratford, too small for West Ham, too large for Orient and too large and in the wrong place for rugby clubs.
I'm not sure why they couldn't have kept it as a 30k athletics venue - it probably comes down to who pays the maintenance bills - but these would have been far less than the extra conversion costs which the taxpayer have largely paid for
The argument against keeping it as an athletics stadium was that - allegedly - a study had shown it would not be profitable but would require a £2m per annum public subsidy. However I don't know of anyone who has even seen, let alone interrogated, this document.
Of course against that, you have to anyway factor in he huge cost to the taxpayer ( £272m, but probably ending up at 300m) of readying it for West Ham, and then it remains to be seen whether the alleged return to the taxpayer via operating profit of E20 is fulfilled
So £2m a year to subsidise athletics...or 150 years worth (yes, I know that's simplistic) of that sub up front to give it to a Premier League football club for 100 years.
Surprised at those that think it looks good. I can remember all the people moaning about running tracks and being so far from the action. The stadium is basically just an open back bowl, I never liked the design for the Olympics and I don't think it looks good now. Each to their own I guess but I wouldn't be happy to watch football there on a regular basis.
It looks superficially good, and indeed will be a fine venue for the World Athletics next summer, but is flawed for a football stadium, especially when it's replacing a very "English style" ground.
WH have got a disgraceful commercial deal, and a venue perfect for attracting tourists, but will lose their soul as a result, and a lot of what made Upton Park good
The WHU fans I know are not 100% happy with their new ground but they're not far off it! They generally have smiles on their faces when discussing it. They don't give much of a shit about the deal the club got and they think any objections are sour grapes. It is early days though.
That is my point. The logical solution was to keep it as a 30k athletics stadium. Something the country is short of.
Ah hang on a minute, do that and the national athletics stadium in Crystal Palace becomes defunct, paving the way for the Stripey Nigels to get a shiny new stadium, and South Norwood gets a nice new Sainsbury's
Any West Ham fan that I have encountered have had any sense of reason swamped by the free largesse from us the taxpayer. It is interesting that recently a charity person connected with lottery funding has said they want the money back, because they are not set up to give a private company a free £300million. This is not a sour grapes football person from a so called rival club either. The attitude of the overwhelming number of West Ham fans I have encountered is one of not giving a chite whilst enthusiastically rubbing their hands together. I don't blame them for laughing at the rest of us as they get into bed with their Tory mates. It is possible that the Tory manipulators of all this are working on the notion that you can indeed fool some of the people all the time. I agree that the issue isn't that West Ham play there, but that we are expected to pay for it. I hear the next project is a garden bridge being built from the New Den to the Olympic Stadium via an airport at Foulness.
On the radio the other day ( Talksport I think) they kept referring to it as The London Stadium, is that what's it's called now?
Indeed it is. West ham's new badge also has "West Ham United" at the top and "London" at the bottom. Presume that will get more money for Gullivan, when they sell.
I went yesterday, as a season ticket holder at work, was on holiday. They were pushing the "London Stadium Tour". I wonder, who gets the money raised from that?
I hadn't been to the stadium before, so can't compare what it is like now, against what it was before, but the West Ham branding is everywhere and looks to be "permanent". There is no way they could "take it down" and "put it back up" again, a day either side of a game. I guess if anyone goes to the next non-football event there, we will see how much gets taken down.
The "Bobby Moore" and "Trevor Broking" Stands were clearly labelled, at each end.
I was in the middle of the upper tier and thought it was way too far from the pitch (I sit in the Covered End, Lower Tier). Lots of people talking about swapping seats, but, how do you do that, if it is sold out and no one wants to move further back? Atmosphere was rubbish. The only noise generated when "Bubbles" was sang at the beginning of each half (and I think this may have been assisted by the tannoy system) and when they scored. Rubbish game though, which didn't help.
I wouldn't pay to go and see a game there but might return, if his freebie ticket is available again.
Comments
Just read some of the Twitter comments. Seems that elsewhere in the stadium people were ejected for standing.
It is also true that there is as yet no evidence of corruption, if by the word we mean public servants accepting money or material benefits in return for certain decisions. While I found the LLDC to be suspiciously defensive about releasing the contract, the fact remains that the current CEO, responsible for that behaviour, was not the guy who cooked up or even signed the contract; he came in only in early 2015. It tends to look like cock-up rather than corruption.
But that said, the ownership of West Ham deserve continued scrutiny. We need to understand the relationship between the deal and Gullivan's payments to and entertainment of the Tory elite, and Brady's otherwise inexplicable Baronness-ship. The aggressiveness with which they have defended the deal (until clearly told by the authorities to shut up, last autumn before the Tribunals), showed me a glimpse of what they were like. Their hilarious attempt to smear me to the ICO as Barry Hearn's Orient supporting mate was a fine example. More sinister is the way they have intimidated West Ham fans who expressed opposition to the deal. The presence of a very aggressive lawyer in our Supporters Summit seminar, demanding to know our "end game", was no coincidence. I can't find his name now, but will post it later in case by chance someone knows of him. A very interesting character.
So West Ham are not per se the target. But I find myself hoping they lose every game they play. That's football.
Now the Tory party is not corrupt. And I do not wish to suggest it is. But there is a politician in all of this who is dishonest and untrustworthy and always does things his way. Labour has them too, I'm not making a party political point. A politician who I would be amazed didn't give a steer to those making the decisions. A mumbled one, but a steer all the same. We could all let it go, but if you have good reason to suspect something, you have a duty to tax payers not to. The truth may never come out, but sometimes it does.
WH have got a disgraceful commercial deal, and a venue perfect for attracting tourists, but will lose their soul as a result, and a lot of what made Upton Park good
The plan was then to keep the stadium as a 30k athletics facility, shared with another tenant (football or rugby presumably). Unfortunately, nobody needs a 30k venue in Stratford, too small for West Ham, too large for Orient and too large and in the wrong place for rugby clubs.
I'm not sure why they couldn't have kept it as a 30k athletics venue - it probably comes down to who pays the maintenance bills - but these would have been far less than the extra conversion costs which the taxpayer have largely paid for
Of course against that, you have to anyway factor in he huge cost to the taxpayer ( £272m, but probably ending up at 300m) of readying it for West Ham, and then it remains to be seen whether the alleged return to the taxpayer via operating profit of E20 is fulfilled
Makes perfect sense...
It is interesting that recently a charity person connected with lottery funding has said they want the money back, because they are not set up to give a private company a free £300million. This is not a sour grapes football person from a so called rival club either.
The attitude of the overwhelming number of West Ham fans I have encountered is one of not giving a chite whilst enthusiastically rubbing their hands together.
I don't blame them for laughing at the rest of us as they get into bed with their Tory mates.
It is possible that the Tory manipulators of all this are working on the notion that you can indeed fool some of the people all the time.
I agree that the issue isn't that West Ham play there, but that we are expected to pay for it.
I hear the next project is a garden bridge being built from the New Den to the Olympic Stadium via an airport at Foulness.
IIRC Karen Brady wants West Ham to be the team that everyone thinks of when you hear the name London, as no other club has London in their name.
From selling bag loads of dildos
To selling out a stadium full of dildos
I went yesterday, as a season ticket holder at work, was on holiday. They were pushing the "London Stadium Tour". I wonder, who gets the money raised from that?
I hadn't been to the stadium before, so can't compare what it is like now, against what it was before, but the West Ham branding is everywhere and looks to be "permanent". There is no way they could "take it down" and "put it back up" again, a day either side of a game. I guess if anyone goes to the next non-football event there, we will see how much gets taken down.
The "Bobby Moore" and "Trevor Broking" Stands were clearly labelled, at each end.
I was in the middle of the upper tier and thought it was way too far from the pitch (I sit in the Covered End, Lower Tier). Lots of people talking about swapping seats, but, how do you do that, if it is sold out and no one wants to move further back? Atmosphere was rubbish. The only noise generated when "Bubbles" was sang at the beginning of each half (and I think this may have been assisted by the tannoy system) and when they scored. Rubbish game though, which didn't help.
I wouldn't pay to go and see a game there but might return, if his freebie ticket is available again.
They have bought West Ham season tickets and reckon it is cheaper than going to Gillingham!
I'm afraid that, as has been their wont for a few years, they laughed when I tentatively mentioned Charlton!
Unless the only run them on match days, it can't be West Ham. I'm sure they insisted that they were only renting the stadium for match days.