I think I saw that they won't get to keep the catering revenue on matchdays.
West Ham at the London Stadium | Nearly £450k of taxpayers money used to try and find a sponsor
- Thread starter Hammerfell
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
They get to keep 30% of it once it goes over a certain value, not a bad deal seeing as they don't have to buy a frankfurter, tea bag or a mug to put it in, let alone pay for anybody working there. The money they do get from catering they will contribute £0 towards, poor souls.
Well, the 2.5 they're paying right now are just sufficient to pay for the maintenance of the stadium. It's a steal whichever way you look at it.
Very simple question, why are Spurs to be denied using the stadium for one season whilst their new stadium is being built, and in the process forcing Tottenham fans to likely have to travel to MK and back? Plus denying the LLDC the opportunity to put additional funds back in the taxpayers coffers?
The forcing of the agreement to be published clearly shows that West Ham have been openly lying by saying they have the power of veto over Spurs ground sharing for a season, they blatantly don't.
Brady has repeatedly said that they would block Spurs interest in the stadium by exercising their veto, yet there is simply no mention of such a veto against another football club in the contract.
Incidentally Spurs and Chelsea look like having to pay £15m a season upwards ( I believe just for league games) if they apply to use Wembley, and that's with a restricted capacity.
The forcing of the agreement to be published clearly shows that West Ham have been openly lying by saying they have the power of veto over Spurs ground sharing for a season, they blatantly don't.
Brady has repeatedly said that they would block Spurs interest in the stadium by exercising their veto, yet there is simply no mention of such a veto against another football club in the contract.
Incidentally Spurs and Chelsea look like having to pay £15m a season upwards ( I believe just for league games) if they apply to use Wembley, and that's with a restricted capacity.
So it cost £486m, with an extra £272m spent on it, so they're paying 0.3% of it's total cost per year in rent. Not bad.
I fecking hate West Ham.
What's going on there?
What is that blocking those people?
Looks like they built a section of seats closer to the pitch, avoiding the problem of fans complaining of being too far away. And then a couple had one of the shittiest dates imaginable by sitting on seats that were accidentally left there from 4 years ago, but things turned out alright because one them brought along a bottle of Sprite to pass the time.
You'd need binoculars to see anything.
The seats look Mike's away from the pitch. What's that big neon green space round the outside? I thought they had retractable seats over the running track. Looks wank.
That looks a fecking disgrace, 270 million to throw down some green tarp and a few scaffolds?
I don't know why you're dragging Smalling into this.
Lol. Good one.
So they've renamed it London Stadium. Sounds like something PES would do when they can't get the rights to Wembley.
The East London Purples at London Stadium.
East London cnuts at Dodgydeal stadium would be more suitable.
Doesn't moving the stands closer somehow reduce the capacity?
My spatial sense is horrible, mind.
My spatial sense is horrible, mind.
I think you might be right on this one, though I couldnt explain how. I remember reading this about another stadium as well a few years back.
Smaller radii, less seats?
Welfare Wembley
Money been spent well.
The scaffolding isn't even on solid bases, and I can see at least one bit of wood used for packing thereMoney been spent well.
. I wouldn't be surprised if the corrupt owners have found a way to pocket some of that "retrofitting" budget to further screw over taxpayers.Edit: also, building a platform on top of another platform
. I'm guessing that the front bit is only temporary?That looks terrible.
Accident waiting to happen.
What the feck is that?!
It's how they get from the top tier to the bottom tier.
Well, look on the bright side. They managed to take a stadium that was already severely overpriced and restricted to only one use, wasted millions more to retrofit it so that it was still not as effective as building a purpose built football stadium, created a shit looking sticking plaster to solve the "distance from pitch" issue, and the Daily Mail still thinks that the thing looks amazing and that the original Olympic Stadium totally wasn't a complete waste of money from the beginning and the designers totally thought about the legacy of the structure from the get go.
Now wait a minute. Wasn't this thing supposed to be redeveloped into a football stadium, and a hefty sum was quoted for it? These are temporary stands, let alone unwatchable, this looks pretty dangerous if it stays like this.
Photoshop surely?
That is crazy. Scaffolding like that can't surely be deemed safe...
Ya think?
The lack of serious critique from the press is interesting too.
For temporary structures it should be fine, but the main concern surely must be that the supposed retrofitting of the stadium to accommodate football is nothing more than some steel and wood packing - at a cost which could buy you a brand new stadium. When the original stadium was built it was like the Millenium Dome - to me it seemed nothing more than a vanity project with very little thought put into how the thing could be used in future.
Is it temporary if they are hosting a matches in that?
I bet they've used the argument that it'll only be used for football matches a couple of times a week at most and at other times it'll be for other purposes (ie; feck all).
I saw pictures today of players celebrating during last nights game that were taken at pitch level and thought the stadium looked well.
Looks can be deceiving, very deceiving. Those pics above look fecking horrible.
Looks can be deceiving, very deceiving. Those pics above look fecking horrible.
Oh dear, wonder how long it'll take for a fan celebrating a goal gets bumped over the side.