Search results

Spurs were in the bidding process for what to do with the stadium. Who said anything about renting. WTF? You asked me to show you were you got your facts wrong, so I did. Again, WTF has that got to do with anything? That is after the first bid. Spurs were one of the options for the stadium.

Here: So you asked what we propose is a financially viable alternative, and when you get an answer you say Spurs didn't bid, but then you accept that they actually did bid - and suddenly you must have been talking about 2nd bids, which wasn't relevant to the conversation.

I wasn't talking about the 2nd bids. Spurs did bid for the stadium, and their bid was better for the taxpayer than West Ham's bid. That's what we're talking about here. The govt. etc turned Spurs down to save face, but that was not necessarily the best decision for the taxpayer. All you seem to...

I think you've said enough.

That is a bid. They planned to develop Crystal Palace. So who were the 4 bids - given that you've just stated that Spurs didn't bid.

:lol: You're so biased and blinkered it's unbelievable. So West Ham only get the stadium for 28 days: so there can be a concert or athletics meet the day before and after, and West Ham will move all the seats etc on the Saturday morning before their game, and put it all back as it was after the...

Yes, but you'd rent it out at a fair rate to yourselves - ie, it's worth some money now, plus the £60m you're spending on it - you're not then going to rent it out for £2.5m / year (ie, just 4% of the cost of the bathroom). I'm having deja vu here.

According to a bunch of halfwits, you are quite correct.

Down in their book as £70m+ I think. But is any of that money that they owe themselves - ie, West Ham could owe it's owners a lot of money? Could that not have been as they paid their way to the premiership? And taking into account the legal costs for getting the olympic stadium? They might not...

Indeed, they can put some moveable stands on the tracks, but surely that'll only be one tier. They can't move the top tiers, so if it's to take 60k, many fans will have to sit on the existing seats. The whole thing just looks like a money grab.

Likewise, somebody please explain this to me: Sure we want someone to use the stadium, but not at a cost to the taxpayer of £60m. And if (when) the cost of conversion turns out to be more than £75m - does West Ham pay the extra, or the tax payer? Shall we guess.

Because... It won't happen overnight, but if West Ham become a successful club again (and why shouldn't they), then anyone growing up nearby would be more likely to go and see them, than pay more to go and see Orient. No, if you built a new stadium I wouldn't expect it to take so many fans, I...