Anybody who owns their stadium seems to see renting as a) the inferior club or b) some sort of daylight robbery. They forget that the club loses out of any potential growth in value of the stadium or the land it's on, and often miss out on some of the revenues generated (not to mention not having full control of property).
They also forget that regardless of how a stadium came into existence and the associated costs of all that (i.e. Commonwealth, Olympics, World Cup etc) there comes a point at which there is an empty stadium that either needs to be occupied, or demolished (or the very unlikely option of repurposed somehow). At that point, demolition is often a political and PR disaster, which leaves stadium owners practically begging someone to occupy it. It's a buyer's market right there and then.
Arsenal chose to build their stadium, and good luck to them. They were in full control of their future and did a good job of things. Some other clubs have had an opportunity presented to them, and chosen to take that opportunity (rental). It's not always risk free as clubs forfeit their current stadium and risk losing a number of their fans in the process. It's an opportunity, not a guaranteed success.
However, in the case of white elephant stadia, you cannot blame a club for being fully aware of its upper hand in negotiations and securing a very good deal. Arsenal COULD have stayed at Highbury and decided to see if the future would bring them such an opportunity, but they probably thought that was far too unpredictable and unlikely, so built their own. Tough / good luck depending on your viewpoint.
Timing, opportunity and good fortune are simple facts of life. You win some, you lose some.
Good luck to West Ham I say, and if anybody's now moaning about the cost to the taxpayer, blame the Olympics in the first place, not West Ham.
