I'm not saying any of you wanted it. I'm saying look at you all getting bitter and twisted about us getting a nice new stadium funded by the tax payer.
Once converted, it's gonna be the nuts.
Shame there will be no one in it!
I'm not saying any of you wanted it. I'm saying look at you all getting bitter and twisted about us getting a nice new stadium funded by the tax payer.
Once converted, it's gonna be the nuts.
If you wanted a better example of night and day reporting, the take on the same story by the BBC "News" and BBC London News couldn't be more different.
The BBC "News" take on it was a sickening example of toeing the party line, as it wasn't a news report but a PR campaign: it's a wonderful stadium, it will be fantastic for the Olympic legacy, how it will regenerate the area, and all the other hollow platitudes people were saying about that corporate jolly masquerading as a glorified sports day that kicked the crap out of the local, regional and national economy...in other words, the same amount of coverage than the BBC gave to the story about the BBC pissing away £80m of license payers' money on the sale of Lonely Planet this week.
BBC London News, on the other hand, actually reported on the story - they had Richard Caborn voicing his doubts about the transparency of the deal, they had West Ham fans saying they'd never go to a game there and how The Pornographers show no interest in anything but themselves when running the club, and actually reported the figures of public money that were being spent on it. They also had Boris and Brady mouthing statements that ring about as true as Oscar Pistorius' defence.
Typically, though, the former was the version of the story reported in the Standard, with a two-page interview with Allardyce saying...well, if I lacked any self-respect I would have bothered reading it.
If the experience here with stadiums, especially baseball stadiums, is relevant, everyone will lose, including the taxpayers and especially West Ham fans. Everything depends on providing a great experience for fans going to the game. I don't like baseball, and the Pirates have now gone longer without a winning season than any baseball team in history. But I'm happy to go to occasional games because they have a beautiful stadium that's enjoyable to spend time in.
A stadium that's in the wrong place, too big and created for another sport is reminiscient of the all-sports soulless horrors that went the way of the dinosaur in the eighties. No doubt the conversion will help, but it's hard to see it doing enough to make the stadium a plus rather than a minus for the fans.
Conversion costs = £170,000,000
West Ham are paying: 15m + (99 x 2m) = £213,000,000.
You should all be thanking West Ham for preventing another "white elephant".
You are all very welcome.![]()
Conversion costs = £170,000,000
West Ham are paying: 15m + (99 x 2m) = £213,000,000.
You should all be thanking West Ham for preventing another "white elephant".
You are all very welcome.![]()
If we moved in right now then no, of course not.
But we are consistently selling out at the Boleyn and that is with the disastrous 7 years we have just endured. I think it's fair to say that we are close to outgrowing our current ground.
The Olympic stadium will be 54k. Just 19,000 more than what we have now.
If we can attract some investment, buy better players, achieve some top 6 finishes, the odd cup run and generally enjoy a bit of success (by our standards), I see no reason why we can't fill the ground in the long term can you? Especially with the better access to the ground and the cheap tickets for kids and OAP's.
We want to progress and as much as we would love to stay at the Boleyn, the Olympic Stadium offers us the chance to do just that.
If you believe the hot air from the 3 buffoons that run your club then fine...there's demo's outside your current home against it...why?
You're doing an Arsenal rejecting your roots as far as I'm concerned...West Ham in Stratford!
If we moved in right now then no, of course not.
But we are consistently selling out at the Boleyn and that is with the disastrous 7 years we have just endured. I think it's fair to say that we are close to outgrowing our current ground.
The Olympic stadium will be 54k. Just 19,000 more than what we have now.
If we can attract some investment, buy better players, achieve some top 6 finishes, the odd cup run and generally enjoy a bit of success (by our standards), I see no reason why we can't fill the ground in the long term can you? Especially with the better access to the ground and the cheap tickets for kids and OAP's.
We want to progress and as much as we would love to stay at the Boleyn, the Olympic Stadium offers us the chance to do just that.
We have been selling out and and getting close to selling out every game this season.
If we want to go up a level we will need a bigger stadium.
54,000, for a club of West Ham's stature sounds about right if we can improve on the pitch.
As I said on another thread, it was only a few years ago we finished level on points with you. We have had a bad few years and you have done well. There is no reason why we can't get to the level you are at now in the short to medium term, and if we do, we will have the stadium in place to cope with the extra demand.
We wouldn't fill it right now, but the stadium gives us the growing room we will hopefully need.
As for the comment about soulless arenas in the wrong place...Wembley ring a bell?
What a strange thing to say?
A quick look on Google Maps shows that Stratford is actually closer to West Ham than Upton Park is.
Ah yes, I saw the one woman demo on sky sports yesterday.