Shocking waste of public money. Couldn't give a rats arse about whether their fans think they could fill it, but paying to help West Ham is not something I want my taxes to go towards, not just because it's West Ham but especially because it's West Ham.
So West Ham United moving closer to West Ham is abandoning our roots? Are you.....you know.....alright?
4 years ago we finished on level points with you. The year before that we finished above you. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest the 2 clubs were in similar shape back then. It doesn't matter that we advertise tickets for sale. The fact is, we have been getting close to capacity and in many cases, selling out games this season. Right now, our ground is of adequate size. If we want to emulate the kind of success you have enjoyed over recent seasons, a bigger ground will be needed and the OS is just that. Gold and Sullivan want to get West Ham into a bigger ground. They have said the OS isn't perfect but they have seen an opportunity and they have gone for it. They would be stupid not to. And given all the benefits it brings, it gives West Ham the opportunity to grow and perhaps eventually compete with the top teams.
It's far more reasonable to point out that this coincided with Juande Ramos' time at the club and that the years either side of this period reflect badly on him. Spurs finished 5th in the two season prior to those and 4th and 5th in the two following seasons. West Ham finished 9th, 15th, 17th and 20th in those campaigns and spent the two either side of those in the 2nd tier. Time will tell whether the move to Stratford is a good or a necessary one, but it does seem relatively risk free.
White Hart Lane has a capacity of just 1,224 more than the Boleyn Ground, Spurs seem to do quite well with a ground just 3.5% bigger than West Ham - let's not get carried away thinking that size is everything! White Hart Lane - 36,240 Boleyn Ground - 35,016 Difference - 1,224 (3.5% smaller) As a point of interest is "getting close to capacity" the same as not being able to fill the ground?
No this isn't true. Only a few selected games each season are kids for a quid. The ones that attendances are likely to be lower? Why? Do you think it is a bad idea to make it affordable to take your kids to football then?
We were level with you for 2 seasons running. The difference was, we appointed Zola and Grant and you appointed Redknapp. We were also the subject of another takeover.
Sorry I didn't make myself clear. Our ground is of adequate size for where we are right now and it would be easily big enough to meet our aims in the short/medium term and get to somewhere near to where you are now. I'm talking about beyond that level. A bigger ground is then needed which is why you are also looking at a bigger stadium. Of course I am getting ahead of myself here. It will be a long time before West Ham are anywhere near the top four but this stadium allows growth and planning for the long term.
Yeah, you've said that already. My point, which I'm sure you didn't miss, was that it required us to have two poor seasons and you to have two very good ones. The seasons surrounding those two campaigns are far more illustrative of how things normally go. Plus we picked up a trophy, so it wasn't all bad.
Yes trixter im a big horrible man that wants to see kids priced out of football..... ....I asked as listening to 606 on the way home there where a ton of callers angry about west ham and the OS and one of the callers mentioned the kids for quid and tickets for big games on general sale. Intrestingly the producer of your main fanzine called up and made the claim 90% of fans don't want this move and at first there is going to be a struggle to attract/convince fans this is the right move for the club. only time will tell whos correct.
Yeah I think that for West Ham to catch/overtake spurs, it will take you slipping back as well us us improving. We certainly won't be challenging for the top 4 any time soon. Without wishing to sound like I'm trolling, if you don't make the top 4 this season and a few of your best players jump ship, there is surely a very real chance that you would become an upper midtable side like Liverpool have done with finishes around 5th-8th. I don't see why West Ham shouldn't be aiming for those kind of finishes also, especially if our move to the OS does attract a buyer so that we can invest in the team at the level you have done over the last 5 years or so.
There is a greater chance of west ham being relegated then being turned into this new force based on their stadium attractimg a billionaire who will transform the club. Although i have no issue with some hammers feeling excitement, i do find it rather comical they have set their sights on us and are having fantasies about us losing our top players, its all fantasy talk.
There are threads on the Arsenal and Chelsea boards discussing whether or not West Ham could potentially overtake Spurs now that we are moving into a bigger ground. It is a topic that fans are interested in that's all. No harm in discussing what might or might not be. Yeah this could easily all go wrong and we could go the way of Coventry. Spurs. May well finish in the top 4, keep Bale and become an established top 4 side, with the gulf between our sides becoming bigger than ever. Or it may go the other way. Maybe a billionaire investor will see us as an ideal purchase with our big fan base and our shiny new stadium in the Olympic village with Londons business district close by. No one knows. But if a thread is created on a Tottenham board branding our move "disgusting", the debate was always going to end with comparisons between our clubs.
The threads on the arsenal and the chelsea board are trying to wind up spurs fans and failing, mainly the chelsea one as the creator of that thead is a saddo whos obsessed with trying to wind up fans! I caught him once posting on each of our opposition forums asking if we sang at matches, just so he could try and wind us up! But yes of course you're welcome to discuss whats possible, yet you're thinking far too ahead of your current situation. first you have to prove yourself as a premier league club again and the owners have to show this move is in the best interests of the fans/clubs future. As for us, If bale goes then the team will adapt and find a way to play for a top four finish. We have lost Berba, Modric and VDV, failed to replace their quality but still remain up there, so it would take a massive (unrealistic) level of player departures for us to become some midtable team again.
We've heard this every time one of our best players was poached for the last 6 or 7 years, at least. Probably started with Carrick and has continued through the likes of Berbatov, Keane, Modric, van der Vaart, King's retirement and now it's Bale. There's no denying that it could happen, but Levy seems to find a way to bring in decent replacements for less money, so it hasn't happened yet. The same could be said of Arsenal, despite their superior finances. It hasn't stopped them from having their top players picked off, either. What investment? We've had a negative net spend and our wage bill is balanced. Roughly £1m a week less than the Goons, for example.
Defoe cost a toal of £13m (£7 million from you we then sold him for £9m and bought him back for £15m) Adebayor cost £5; Bale cost £5 lennon cost £1.5m; Dembele cost £15m and parker cost £6m; Freidal was a free; Lloris cost £9m; sandro cost £8m; Dawson was £4m; Gallas free; Vertongen cost £10; Ekotto cost £6; siggy cost £7m and Dempsey cost £5m; Huddlestone was £2m and Kaboul was £7m...that's approx £95m We do have Bentley on loan who cost £16m...and will be a loss. We lost some money on a couple other players but have made way more on others and broke even on a lot including Darren Bent. We made a profit on Berbatov (£20m) Keane; (bought for £7m sold for £20m bought for £12m sold for £4) £5m; Modric £16m; Carrick £16m; Corluka £2m, Kranchjar £5m; Crouch £1m; VDV £2m; We also made money on Chimbonda; Mendes; Robinson; Tanio; Danny Murphy; Peneaar; Routledge; that comes to over £70m That hardly equates to massive spending... the balance is approx £30m max...considering how much our squad is worth now ... Bale being worth a minimum of £35m, Lennon,£12-15m, Defoe £10m, Lloris £9m, Dawson £10m etc....I think we've been sensible...in fact many fans and journalists criticise the club for not signing a mstriker for £30m which they think has cost us.
Have a look on www.transferleague.co.uk . I accept it isn't entirely accurate but it's good as a rough guide. Your net spend over the last twenty years is over 167m whereas ours is about 24m. Your spending power is light years ahead of ours and that is what we are hoping will change.
In terms of net spends if you go by Transfermarkt(for the sake of it) then in the 4 seasons since we raised our wage bill to better suit a team competing for CL places then we've spent £3mill net. Before that yeah we spent a lot and badly at times but that's sort of beside the point and if anything highlights the problems in trying to spend your way up the table in transfer fees. Yeah, we could miss out on the CL, lose Bale and others or you could be taken over by a billionaire looking to write blank cheques but as things stand it's difficult to see a reasonable argument for you overtaking us in the next 10 years, especially since this talk has only come about with you getting a new stadium which by your own admission is bigger than the club need at the moment. As for the move being braded at "disgusting", it's not a slight at your club but that a large amount tax payer's money is going towards paying to help West Ham get a new stadium when there were other offers that wouldn't require government funding.
