Well it's Landan, mite. What do you expect? Centre of the fackin universe, innit?The government / London council and West Ham have only themselves to blame.
All three had the perfect blue print of what to do successfully by following Manchester's plan for the 2002 Commonwealth Games.
It was the greatest cockney rip off.....
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.
Snodgrass? Really? He looks good because he's the best player in a Championship squad, but he's really not all that.
Pleased with this, creative, deadly left foot and can take set pieces - No one is going to replace Payet, but if we can get a few additions like this out of his fee i'll be happy.
i dont think we'll be needing to expand, its a lush 60,000 seater... far more than we can of dreamed of than had we stayed at Upton Park
The government / London council and West Ham have only themselves to blame. All three had the perfect blue print of what to do successfully by following Manchester's plan for the 2002 Commonwealth Games.
I wasn't talking about expanding the capacity, more the corporate facilities, stadium infrastructure, etc. When you look at what Spurs are planning with their new stadium it shows how much stadium design has moved on even since the last new ground was built.
Though they could have agreed what to do with it afterwards, before they actually built it. If retractable seating was the chosen option, it would have been fitted out very differently.That would have meant getting rid of the running track though, which was never an option with the Olympic Stadium.
Not often you see clubs publishing figures for transfer fees, usually undiclosed & in our case left to the inflation of Sky & the BBC!
Though they could have agreed what to do with it afterwards, before they actually built it. If retractable seating was the chosen option, it would have been fitted out very differently.
Im not quite sure what more facility's we would require
I don't think anyone's disputing that but i seem to remember that West Ham originally agreed to use the stadium as it was and then decided they wanted the seats nearer the pitch.
You claim to be a Bolton fan but almost all your posts are about West Ham and in the past you have been quick to strongly defend them. Even making petty insults. Why pretend?
Is he wrong then?You certainly sound tedious enough to categorize all the individual posts i've ever made.
Is he wrong then?
Have you borrowed his tin foil hat? The clue is in the username.