Entirely up to each of you, but here is a link to a petition asking for a public enquiry to be set up to investigate the West ham stadium deal which appears to be costing taxpayers. The link is from the BBC News website. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106355
The pitch gonna be like a thousand miles away from the stands......WHFC shall be amongst the 1st to complain
Whilst the deal isn't ideal its nothing to do with West Ham, they took advantage of a monumental cock up and fair play to them. The blame lies with the Olympic committee who had no plan for the stadium after the games.
It's the "monumental cock-up" that needs to be investigated - hence the petition for a public enquiry to be held. The taxpayer is getting a poor deal here but as usual no-one is to blame!
I can see no other practical use for the stadium, so it's making the best of a bad job. It's a bigger loss to the tax payer if we've spent hundreds of millions on an stadium that nobody uses. A public enquiry would simply be an additional waste of tax players money.
Fine - don't vote for one then. Fortunately, members of the Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal Supporters Trusts are amongst the 12,000 who have signed the petition so far.
You can add The Supporters Trusts of Charlton, Crystal Palace, Fulham, Leyton Orient and QPR to that list. Isn't the HCST considering supporting their colleagues in this official stance?
You've named eight clubs and they're all in London, isn't anyone outside London supporting it? HCST haven't discussed the issue at all, nor has any trust or supporters organisation contacted us about it, if that changes I'll let you know.
OK. West Ham aren't a direct league competitor this year, but may well be next year when they take possession of their tax-payer funded stadium. The subsidy is far more than the equivalent of Hull Council handing over the KC Stadium directly to the club for free. The whole thing stinks of incompetence at least & should be investigated.
I've not really paid much attention, so I don't know enough about it all to know if it's good or bad, but presumably they're getting the stadium for below market value? If that's the case and they're gaining a financial advantage, and it's seemingly within the rules, but how does that fit with the spirit of ffp?
They're effectively getting a free stadium, they're paying £2.5m a year in rent, but haven't had to fund it's construction and there's a lot of people who think the new stadium will give them a competitive advantage. There's also a lot who think that the money from the sale of their existing ground, to a property developer, should be thrown into the kitty.
West Ham are currently doing a kids for a quid offer, only you have to pay £45 for an adult ticket to take them. I'd sign a petition against that.
if that were the case nearly all Italian clubs and a fair few German clubs would have cause forbconcern. Not to mention Portugese, Greek clubs who had their stadiums redeveloped for tournaments by their government courtesynof the other taxpayers in the EU.
There is a difference. When we moved to the KC we didn't own BP so we never had the benefit of the proceeds of any sale. I assume, WHU own (either directly or via a holding company) Upton Park. Any sale of which will generate millions which can used to strengthen the team, pay down debt or pay a dividend to the owners. It's a huge short term cash boost to WHU yet in the long term (and I mean decades) they will probably pay more in rent at the Olympic Park then they will generate from the sale.
