West Ham 2016/17

[aguero93:20]

3M a year lease and 8m a year in retractable seating, not to mention the government paying for stewards, cleaning and maintenence lol. Sling on top of that a 50 loan they won't pay back. The government will be over 5 billion out of pocket in that 100 years. Oh well its the taxpayers who fork out!!

It's alright though, in 100 years time inflation will probably mean £5bn is the monthly minimum wage.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Camel gob has his say on the Payet situation.
You'll never guess what!
Heaven forbid he should ever deliberately miss a drugs test by climbing out of a training ground window and fucking off. Hell want a hanging!

 

[Yates]

Camel gob has his say on the Payet situation.
You'll never guess what!
Heaven forbid he should ever deliberately miss a drugs test by climbing out of a training ground window and fucking off. Hell want a hanging!

Has it ever come out, what Rio had been taking?

 

[Vienna_70]

Has it ever come out, what Rio had been taking?

With his punditry, the piss?

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

Retractable seating? That's a laugh.

They just use this as a venue for the Worlds Strongest Man, when it needs retracting.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Retractable seating? That's a laugh.

Good thing they're called the Hammers, they're going to need em.

 

[SpiritofBurnden]

Watched BBC London news last night - they had a few people on there talking about the ever rising cost to the public of maintaining their stadium. There are genuine calls for it to knocked down and for them to start again with a new stadium for West Ham.

A more sensible solution would be for West Ham to buy a controlling interest in the stadium. They would then be responsible for a percentage of the maintenance costs but they would be able to recoup some of that outlay by hiring it out for commercial events. They would also be able to adapt the stadium to meet their needs, since they would then be owners rather than tenants.

 

[aguero93:20]

A more sensible solution would be for West Ham to buy a controlling interest in the stadium. They would then be responsible for a percentage of the maintenance costs but they would be able to recoup some of that outlay by hiring it out for commercial events. They would also be able to adapt the stadium to meet their needs, since they would then be owners rather than tenants.

That should have been a requirement of any team bidding to be fair.

 

[hawkhurst]

A more sensible solution would be for West Ham to buy a controlling interest in the stadium. They would then be responsible for a percentage of the maintenance costs but they would be able to recoup some of that outlay by hiring it out for commercial events. They would also be able to adapt the stadium to meet their needs, since they would then be owners rather than tenants.

Agreed, don't but they have absolutely no incentive to do that. For them it's the dream but the tax payer is getting shafted. Should have just turned it into a smaller athletics stadium

 

[SpiritofBurnden]

Agreed, don't but they have absolutely no incentive to do that. For them it's the dream but the tax payer is getting shafted. Should have just turned it into a smaller athletics stadium

I don't think that the current arrangement will really benefit either party in the long term to be honest. Any future investment in the stadium would need to come from the taxpayer but that's just not going to happen and without that investment, West Ham are stuck with what they've currently got. Remember this is a very long lease and over the course of the next few decades, other clubs will develop and expand their corporate facilities, etc. but West Ham can't do this under the current arrangement. They don't get any of the income from non-football events either and they have to hand over a percentage of all future stadium naming rights. If the club is sold, the taxpayer gets a sizeable piece of the profit.