West Ham... Olympic Stadium

[Tooting Gull]

West Ham fans seemed very slow to realise how crap it would be IMHO. Maybe this was tied up in the fact that it was initially about winning a 'war' with Spurs, and they forgot to actually consider what it would be like.

The board have taken the view that it is better to save about £300million than have a proper football ground designed for atmosphere etc. It's a reasonable argument, but maybe not the winning one. If there was one club where the atmosphere, and the intimidating environment has historically won them loads of extra points, I'd say it was West Ham.

 

[Mike's Small]

It's not QUITE the same though, is it? We effectively had no stadium, and were barely a 'proper' football club for a decade.

West Ham would be going from a great, traditional football stadium to a big stadium not designed for football.

I wasn't saying it's the same, Wozza, merely pointing out that whenever a club get a new stadium it attracts new supporters, which in turn often boosts attendances

 

[Mike's Small]

Definitely a terrible move in my opinion. Upton Park is a fantastic stadium, only let down by the fact it's in an area that closely resembles downtown Kabul. If they could do something with the stand opposite the main side they would have a top 40,000-seat arena that would be perfect for their fanbase. The Olympic Stadium will have a novelty value for a couple of years, but after that people will realise that no matter where they sit, their seats just aren't designed for football.

You are right on many points there, Badger. However the reason there is one stand left in the 60s is because there is a bus depot and a load of flats behind (council) that means there isn't room to go back from the East Stand and it's not man enough to build up from. If it were possible I agree it would be the perfect answer to boosting capacity as 40000 would be sufficient for the time being.

 

[Mike's Small]

West Ham fans seemed very slow to realise how crap it would be IMHO. Maybe this was tied up in the fact that it was initially about winning a 'war' with Spurs, and they forgot to actually consider what it would be like.

The board have taken the view that it is better to save about £300million than have a proper football ground designed for atmosphere etc. It's a reasonable argument, but maybe not the winning one. If there was one club where the atmosphere, and the intimidating environment has historically won them loads of extra points, I'd say it was West Ham.

Historically, yes, especially under the lights. However recently fans have changed, and not just at UP. Unrealistic expectations, knee-jerk reactions and too much money involved has seen the home fans turn far too quickly on individuals they should be 'supporting'.

 

[Triggaaar]

Bounce

So this is back in the news today, with the preferred bidder being announced. This is probably old news to everyone else, but I've just heard that West Ham's plans (including seats on the track, roof [no idea why]) are estimated to cost between £160 & £200 million - fine I'm thinking, fill your boots - but West Ham have only offered to pay for £15m of that, expecting London Legacy to pay the rest. WTF? Why should anyone else be paying for West Ham to have a new ground?

 

[DIFFBROOK]

My thoughts exactly. Although there is some discussion around the current owners having to share out some of the money from selling West Ham in the future (I guesss West Hams value would go up overnight with a new stadium), however I bet that comes to diddly squat.

I wonder what the rent will be?

I still think that West Ham are bonkers.

Bounce

So this is back in the news today, with the preferred bidder being announced. This is probably old news to everyone else, but I've just heard that West Ham's plans (including seats on the track, roof [no idea why]) are estimated to cost between £160 & £200 million - fine I'm thinking, fill your boots - but West Ham have only offered to pay for £15m of that, expecting London Legacy to pay the rest. WTF? Why should anyone else be paying for West Ham to have a new ground?

 

[beorhthelm]

Why should anyone else be paying for West Ham to have a new ground?

i dont understand the mental cost, but the alternative to having West Ham in there is that the stadium sits empty for 50 weeks a year. Didn't the public purse pay for modifications to make the City of Manchester Stadium suitable (lowering the pitch?)

 

[maltaseagull]

i dont understand the mental cost, but the alternative to having West Ham in there is that the stadium sits empty for 50 weeks a year. Didn't the public purse pay for modifications to make the City of Manchester Stadium suitable (lowering the pitch?)

I was going to ask how much City spent on the stadium for which they sold the naming rights for a fortune.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Im just glad Spurs havent won the bid.

Withdean was bad enough

 

[Doc Lynam]

Bounce

So this is back in the news today, with the preferred bidder being announced. This is probably old news to everyone else, but I've just heard that West Ham's plans (including seats on the track, roof [no idea why]) are estimated to cost between £160 & £200 million - fine I'm thinking, fill your boots - but West Ham have only offered to pay for £15m of that, expecting London Legacy to pay the rest. WTF? Why should anyone else be paying for West Ham to have a new ground?

Exactly, maybe West Ham got the nod after the recent Nazi chanting. Someone must be a fan of the 1936 Olympics.

 

[Wozza]

Interesting article: West Ham's Olympic Stadium move can create a super club in east London - Telegraph

 

[Curious Orange]

So, its going to cost more to convert the Olympic Stadium than it cost to build the Amex. Someone needs to have a word.

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Bounce

So this is back in the news today, with the preferred bidder being announced. This is probably old news to everyone else, but I've just heard that West Ham's plans (including seats on the track, roof [no idea why]) are estimated to cost between £160 & £200 million - fine I'm thinking, fill your boots - but West Ham have only offered to pay for £15m of that, expecting London Legacy to pay the rest. WTF? Why should anyone else be paying for West Ham to have a new ground?

If the conversion costs are up to £200m and WHU are expected to foot the bill themselves then surely it would better for them to build a new footie stadium rather than adapt the Olympic stadium, which isn't really fit for the purpose. Especially if all sorts of conditions are placed on its use in the short/medium term eg until the World Athletics championships are held there in 2017. Goodness knows how those costs would escalate in the meantime and if WHU go out on a limb financially then lose their Premiership status would they risk being stuffed?

On the other hand if they can get the Olympic stadium for £15m then good luck to them. Personally I suspect that is WHU's cheeky opening offer and the final outcome will be somewhere well north of that, otherwise there would be public outcry. Equally it would be a huge embarrasment if WHU pull out and the stadium is allowed to rot without generating any significant return on the public money that built it. Surely the authorities need WHU more than WHU need the Olympic Stadium so I imagine WHU feel they have the authorities over a barrel. I can see a lot more wheeling and dealing before the end game.

Around the time of the Olympics I was surprised by the numbers of positive posts on the WHU 'KUMB' forum from their fans who attended the 2012 games and thought the stadium would be ok (but not brilliant) for footie. I recall thinking it was probably their local feel good factor around the games and suspected that once reality sinks in that they would feel lumbered with a white elephant?

Given our experience at Withdean I would be disappointed to make a permanent move to an athletics stadium. OK they will get a 60k stadium but would WHU really expect to fill that? I would have thought something around 45k would be tops for them. Yes the transport links to Stratford are excellent and a huge improvement over Upton Park but if I were WHU I would rather stay put.

 

[Triggaaar]

My thoughts exactly. Although there is some discussion around the current owners having to share out some of the money from selling West Ham in the future (I guesss West Hams value would go up overnight with a new stadium), however I bet that comes to diddly squat.

Indeed. The people working for west sham are smart money grabbing bastards, whereas those working in the public interest are probably clueless, and will end up with nothing.

I still think that West Ham are bonkers.

Presumably you're thinking it's bonkers for the fans, but this isn't about the fans, it's about the owners making money.

i dont understand the mental cost, but the alternative to having West Ham in there is that the stadium sits empty for 50 weeks a year.

So if you don't want somewhere empty, you make it available to others, but I don't see why you'd pay any money towards it. Brighton have been allowed the use of land at Falmer, but the club still had to raise the £100m+ to build the stadium, why should it be any different with the Olympic stadium?

Didn't the public purse pay for modifications to make the City of Manchester Stadium suitable (lowering the pitch?)

If they did, then why - what does the public get in return?

 

[Triggaaar]

If the conversion costs are up to £200m and WHU are expected to foot the bill themselves then surely it would better for them to build a new footie stadium rather than adapt the Olympic stadium, which isn't really fit for the purpose.

Then so be it. If using the olympic stadium costs more and results in less than starting from scratch (ie, the existing stadium is worthless to west ham), then that's what should be done.

On the other hand if they can get the Olympic stadium for £15m then good luck to them.

No, not good luck to them, the public (that's us) will be paying.

Personally I suspect that is WHU's cheeky opening offer and the final outcome will be somewhere well north of that

They're opening offer was £10m.

otherwise there would be public outcry.

This is my outcry, before it's too late.

Equally it would be a huge embarrasment if WHU pull out and the stadium is allowed to rot without generating any significant return on the public money that built it.

Hold on... if it got dismantled now, and provided no further return on its cost, that would be a shame, but - how is the public spending another £160m a better option? I don't suppose west ham would be paying £10m rent/year.

Given our experience at Withdean I would be disappointed to make a permanent move to an athletics stadium.

It wouldn't be the same, as they'd put seats on the track (which is what Spurs said was needed, and what west ham said they wouldn't do with their initial bid).

OK they will get a 60k stadium but would WHU really expect to fill that? I would have thought something around 45k would be tops for them.

If the stadium was good enough, I don't see why not. They have history and the catchment area there is huge.

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Then so be it. If using the olympic stadium costs more and results in less than starting from scratch (ie, the existing stadium is worthless to west ham), then that's what should be done.

No, not good luck to them, the public (that's us) will be paying.
They're opening offer was £10m.
This is my outcry, before it's too late.
Hold on... if it got dismantled now, and provided no further return on its cost, that would be a shame, but - how is the public spending another £160m a better option? I don't suppose west ham would be paying £10m rent/year.
It wouldn't be the same, as they'd put seats on the track (which is what Spurs said was needed, and what west ham said they wouldn't do with their initial bid).

If the stadium was good enough, I don't see why not. They have history and the catchment area there is huge.

I share your outcry, most of my comments were tongue in cheek as I am rather cheesed off with the whole saga and think the WHU preferred bid is far from being an acceptable solution. I don't for a minute believe WHU should get the Olympic stadium for £15m but I fear they may get it for substantially less than they should - and/or be made to pay a realistic rent too. The cynic in me suspects the outcome will be a fudge (on top of the existing fudge which didn't build a stadium that was more viable in the first place, without having a legacy partner in place, especially given all the hype about 'legacy' in the bid).

They may well put seats on the track but I'm thinking of the view for punters at the back of the upper tiers who will need binoculars to see the action and no doubt be expected to pay premium prices for the privilege. I read an article suggesting they will be at best around 90 metres from the near touchline and at least 150 metres from the opposite touchline, worse than Wembley which at least has steeply raked seating.

Will the finished stadium be 'good enough'? Ok it might - but the sad thing is that it will probably take another huge sum to make it so or be a further fudge. I wouldn't rule out the demolition option at this stage. I would bite the bullet and accept the PR disaster as a lesser evil if it saved the public purse any further embarrasment.

I could see WHU walking away if the costs escalate because a fair price and rent is probably (my guess!) around £100m (For sale: one slightly used Olympic stadium, nearly new but needs major overhaul. Serious bidders only). Once you get to that price there would be dangerously close being better value to build their own stadium. Of course that assumes they have £100m which they probably don't so potential for yet another creative fudge.

 

[yxee]

I wonder what happened to the legal objection from Leyton Orient? In terms of a council subsidy directly favouring one football club at the obvious expense of another.


And does anyone know the details of the plan? Are they going to dig down and create a new lower tier, and remove the upper tier? If they don't do this is would be absolutely atrocious. Just strikes me as a business decision without any regard for the fans.

 

[Triggaaar]

I don't for a minute believe WHU should get the Olympic stadium for £15m but I fear they may get it for substantially less than they should

But being pedantic (as is my role in life), we're not even talking about them getting it for £15m, we're talking about paying them £160m to take it. While it could be sold to the highest bidder, if letting it go free is better than having it empty then fair enough, but if the public are paying £160m ish to prepare it for football, what are the public getting back?

The cynic in me suspects the outcome will be a fudge

You're not even being cynical, you're likely to be right.

I wouldn't rule out the demolition option at this stage. I would bite the bullet and accept the PR disaster as a lesser evil if it saved the public purse any further embarrasment.

I'm with you. The park itself is great, it's a great location for a football stadium. I can't see why they can't sell the location (sell the land) to a club, so the public get money rather than lose money.

Just strikes me as a business decision without any regard for the fans.

And your point is? What else would we expect from Sullivan, Gold and Brady?

 

[Bob!]

If West Ham are taking over the Olympic Stadium, what happens to The Boleyn Ground?

Surely that should be handed over in compensation for taking the OS, and then profit from developing that goes back to the public purse.
Or is that too sensible?