West Ham

[Five to One]

First time I'd seen them at the Olympic Stadium on MOTD last night. Fans miles away from the pitch compared to Upton Park. Can understand the increased capacity, but as a fan I'd be gutted if we were to move to an athletics stadium.

 

Why move to a stadium not designed for football spectators?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Irufushi]

Because it's good business.

[Amoruso_lets_it_run]

Think you answered your own question with the increased capacity comment

[kila]

It's not a football ground.

 

While it looks impressive some certain angles when full, the fans on one side of the pitch are like 25 yards or so away from the touchline and the ones behind the goals are like Hampden.

 

[MacDonald Jardine]

It's not a football ground.

 

While it looks impressive some certain angles when full, the fans on one side of the pitch are like 25 yards or so away from the touchline and the ones behind the goals are like Hampden.

 

It's a real shame. Upton Park was a great ground.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Rudolf's Mate]

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=160650

[Tazio]

And it appears as it isn't a stadium designed for football the segregation isn't good enough and there has been trouble at pretty much every match so far.

[12XU]

Can you buy the 3rd strip with no sponsor ?

[Yoda]

I wonder what Man City did with their ground.  It was an athletics stadium and doesn't seem to have the problem of big gaps between the fans and the pitch.

[MacDonald Jardine]

I wonder what Man City did with their ground. It was an athletics stadium and doesn't seem to have the problem of big gaps between the fans and the pitch.

There was a fair amount of money spent on converting it before City moved in.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Rudolf's Mate]

I wonder what Man City did with their ground. It was an athletics stadium and doesn't seem to have the problem of big gaps between the fans and the pitch.

I might be wrong but wasn't their stadium designed with them in mind as it was known they'd be taking it over? Obviously this wasn't the case with the Olympic Stadium. Could be wrong.

[Jamborossco]

I wonder what Man City did with their ground.  It was an athletics stadium and doesn't seem to have the problem of big gaps between the fans and the pitch.

 

from what I'm led to believe they lowered the pitch level at the Etihad, so they can add another tier and also make the stands closer to the pitch.

[Yoda]

from what I'm led to believe they lowered the pitch level at the Etihad, so they can add another tier and also make the stands closer to the pitch.

Cheers.  They certainly did a good job.  Maybe West Ham need to do something similar.

[CJGJ]

from what I'm led to believe they lowered the pitch level at the Etihad, so they can add another tier and also make the stands closer to the pitch.

It's a bit more simple than that.............They didn't need to keep the stadium as an atletics arena unlike West Ham who have to as part of their generous tax -payer funded deal..yep we are paying for a rich football club to move home and give the owners a killing....disgrace.

[IronJambo]

There was a fair amount of money spent on converting it before City moved in.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

I'm sure there was, whilst there was only ?270m+ spent converting the Olympic stadium.

[dc-jambo]

I'm sure there was, whilst there was only ?270m+ spent converting the Olympic stadium.

 

it is truly stunning that they've done this to such little effect

[Rudolf's Mate]

It's a bit more simple than that.............They didn't need to keep the stadium as an atletics arena unlike West Ham who have to as part of their generous tax -payer funded deal

Completely forgot about that fact.

[joseywales]

Can understand why west ham moved they had to be able to compete with the big boys financially plus they got a great deal although upton park for me. I also think that arsenal did exactly the same with moving from highbury but the old stadiums are the best.

[Nelly Terraces]

Sold their soul.

 

Hopefully get relegated.

[Maroon Sailor]

And it appears as it isn't a stadium designed for football the segregation isn't good enough and there has been trouble at pretty much every match so far.

Hopefully sort out these issues before Chelsea and Spurs pitch up

[glynnlondon]

Hopefully sort out these issues before Chelsea and Spurs pitch up

Been offered out by Bournemouth and Watford took the piss apparently.

As a previous poster said they've sold their soul.

The porno twins and Brady won't be spending no big money rectifying it either.

[The Treasurer]

There was a fair amount of money spent on converting it before City moved in.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Correct,

Huge amounts of tax payers money spent on a stadium that is only benefiting the Manchester branch of a global franchise.

The London Stadium, although costing a similar amount, is at least still accessible to other sports and to the community.

It's far from perfect, but the alternative was to stand still and then inevitably go backwards.

The fans were fully consulted before any move was made and although the preference would obviously have been to stay at the Boleyn, the fans realised that they needed to move in order to grow.

There has been issues with security and the club have arranged urgent talks with the stadium management as it is them, not West Ham, who are responsible for stewarding etc

[We_are_the_Hearts]

West Ham have sold their soul like a few other English clubs, Upton park made them the team they were, proper ground and atmosphere, looks like that's gone now. Makes you even more glad the Vlad and Budge stepped in before the Pieman sold ours.

[kila]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/sep/11/west-ham-london-stadium-upton-park

[Section Q]

Because it's good business.

Yeah for the porno twins...

[dc-jambo]

Can understand why west ham moved they had to be able to compete with the big boys financially plus they got a great deal although upton park for me. I also think that arsenal did exactly the same with moving from highbury but the old stadiums are the best.

 

The difference is that the Emirates is much better than Highbury (which was notoriously quiet), whereas the 'London Stadium" is clearly pants compared with Upton Park

[We_are_the_Hearts]

The difference is that the Emirates is much better than Highbury (which was notoriously quiet), whereas the 'London Stadium" is clearly pants compared with Upton Park

Was at an Arsenal V Stoke game at the Emirates and the atmosphere was brutal. 

[the general]

Correct,

Huge amounts of tax payers money spent on a stadium that is only benefiting the Manchester branch of a global franchise.

The London Stadium, although costing a similar amount, is at least still accessible to other sports and to the community.

It's far from perfect, but the alternative was to stand still and then inevitably go backwards.

The fans were fully consulted before any move was made and although the preference would obviously have been to stay at the Boleyn, the fans realised that they needed to move in order to grow.

There has been issues with security and the club have arranged urgent talks with the stadium management as it is them, not West Ham, who are responsible for stewarding etc

 

 

more ill informed tosh from you

the area around the Etihad has been completely rejuvenated and is in daily use by the community

this info is only a Google away :-)

 

oh and any idea why the fans were fighting amongst themselves?  

[Nightwing]

Thought this thread was about their brutal coupon busting result on Saturday.

 

 

[The Treasurer]

more ill informed tosh from you

the area around the Etihad has been completely rejuvenated and is in daily use by the community

this info is only a Google away :-)

 

oh and any idea why the fans were fighting amongst themselves?  

This thread was about the stadium, not the surrounding area.

The Empty-had is only used by the Manchester franchise despite being paid for by the tax payer.

As for the trouble at the London Stadium, it would appear poor stewarding contributed to this, hence the reason the club are being pro-active in seeking urgent talks with the people responsible for security and stating that life bans will be issued to anyone found guilty of causing the disturbances.

[the general]

This thread was about the stadium, not the surrounding area.

The Empty-had is only used by the Manchester franchise despite being paid for by the tax payer.

As for the trouble at the London Stadium, it would appear poor stewarding contributed to this, hence the reason the club are being pro-active in seeking urgent talks with the people responsible for security and stating that life bans will be issued to anyone found guilty of causing the disturbances.

 

 

Stadium conversion[edit]

The Commonwealth Games configuration had two tiers of seats

During conversion, the athletics track was excavated and the stadium pitch level reduced to create three tiers

 

Sections of the track were removed and relaid at other athletics venues,^[34] and the internal ground level was lowered to make way for an additional tier of seating, on terracing already constructed then buried for the original configuration. The two temporary stands with a total capacity of 16,000 were dismantled, and replaced with a permanent structure of similar design to the existing one at the southern end. This work took nearly a year to complete^[35] and added 23,000 permanent seats, increasing the capacity of the converted stadium by 7,000^[36] to approximately 48,000.^[10] Manchester City F.C. moved to the ground in time for the start of the 2003?04 season.^[12] The total cost of this conversion was in excess of ?40 million, with the track, pitch and seating conversion being funded by the city council at a cost of ?22 million;^[11][13] and the installation of bars, restaurants and corporate entertainment areas throughout the stadium being funded by the football club at a cost of ?20 million.^[11][13] The Games had made a small operating surplus, and Sport England agreed that this could be reinvested in converting the athletics warm-up track adjacent to the main stadium into the 6,000 seat Manchester Regional Arena at a cost of ?3.5m.

Stadium expansion[edit]

 

South Stand after expansion in 2015

The stadium is owned by Manchester City Council and leased by the football club. The 2008 takeover made the football club one of the wealthiest in the world,^[37] prompting suggestions that it could consider buying the stadium outright.^[38] Manchester City signed an agreement with Manchester City Council in March 2010 to allow a ?1 billion redevelopment led by architect Rafael Vi?oly.^[39]

During the 2010 closed season the football pitch and hospitality areas were renovated, with a ?1 million investment being made in the playing surface so that it is better able to tolerate concerts and other events without damage.^[40] In October 2010, Manchester City renegotiated the stadium lease, obtaining the naming rights to the stadium in return for agreeing to now pay the City Council an annual fixed sum of ?3 million where previously it had only paid half of the ticket sales revenue from match attendances exceeding 35,000.^[41] This new agreement occurred as part of a standard 5-year review of the original lease and it amounts to an approximate ?1 million annual increase in council revenues from the stadium.^[41] During 2011-14 the club sold all 36,000 of its allocated season tickets each season^[42] and experienced an average match attendance that is very close to its maximum seating capacity (see table in previous section). Consequently, during the 2014-15 season an expansion of the stadium was undertaken. The South Stand was extended with the addition of a third tier which, in conjunction with an additional three rows of pitch side seating, increased stadium capacity to approximately 55,000.^[43] Construction commenced on the South Stand in April 2014 and was completed for the start of the 2015-16 season.^[44]

A final phase of expansion, that received planning approval at the same time as the others but which remains unscheduled, will add a matching third tier of seats to the North Stand. Once this last phase is completed it will bring the stadium's total seating capacity up to approximately 61,000, making the Etihad Stadium the nation's second largest capacity club ground

[TheBigO]

It's not a football ground.

 

While it looks impressive some certain angles when full, the fans on one side of the pitch are like 25 yards or so away from the touchline and the ones behind the goals are like Hampden.

 

Hampden IS a football ground!!  We designed it like that.  For football!!

 

Don't get me wrong I kinda love the ol lady, but how the hell do Scotland have distant stands.  Suits us so little it's unbelievable.

 

Same goes for West Ham, I think of them as a passionate in your face "real" London support.  Doesn't suit anyone but the money men.

[the general]

looks like the banned fans might be the lucky ones - 

 

It is fair to say that West Ham?s move to the London Stadium has yet to go to plan. Both on and off the pitch the relocation has been beset by problems. The question remains, however, as to how much the club can do to fix them.

Events came to a head on Saturday when Hammers fans set upon each other in apparent disagreement as to whether they should be sitting in their seats. Social media were full of dispiriting footage, with trouble carrying on outside the ground after the match.

Much was made of the deal West Ham got for the stadium, with the club paying just ?15m of the ?272m required to adapt it for football. And while they pay ?2.5m in annual rent, the club are not obliged to cover the costs of police, stewarding, heating, pitch maintenance or even corner flags. But the club?s ability to adapt the stadium to their needs has proven limited, with the seating arrangements and the continued existence of an athletics track around the pitch only the most visible of difficulties.

 

 

Earlier matches have also seen altercations and there have been reports of fans finding it difficult to access the ground or without a seat when they got there. On Saturday there were other, smaller, gripes that were immediately apparent to anyone watching the match. Some seats are an eye-straining distance from the pitch and other, lower, sections of retractable seating offer very little perspective on the play. Indeed such is the view for many in the ground that it took more than one replay of Dimitri Payet?s rabona assist before they actually saw it.

[The Treasurer]

Stadium conversion[edit]

The Commonwealth Games configuration had two tiers of seats

During conversion, the athletics track was excavated and the stadium pitch level reduced to create three tiers

 

Sections of the track were removed and relaid at other athletics venues,^[34] and the internal ground level was lowered to make way for an additional tier of seating, on terracing already constructed then buried for the original configuration. The two temporary stands with a total capacity of 16,000 were dismantled, and replaced with a permanent structure of similar design to the existing one at the southern end. This work took nearly a year to complete^[35] and added 23,000 permanent seats, increasing the capacity of the converted stadium by 7,000^[36] to approximately 48,000.^[10] Manchester City F.C. moved to the ground in time for the start of the 2003?04 season.^[12] The total cost of this conversion was in excess of ?40 million, with the track, pitch and seating conversion being funded by the city council at a cost of ?22 million;^[11][13] and the installation of bars, restaurants and corporate entertainment areas throughout the stadium being funded by the football club at a cost of ?20 million.^[11][13] The Games had made a small operating surplus, and Sport England agreed that this could be reinvested in converting the athletics warm-up track adjacent to the main stadium into the 6,000 seat Manchester Regional Arena at a cost of ?3.5m.

Stadium expansion[edit]

 

South Stand after expansion in 2015

The stadium is owned by Manchester City Council and leased by the football club. The 2008 takeover made the football club one of the wealthiest in the world,^[37] prompting suggestions that it could consider buying the stadium outright.^[38] Manchester City signed an agreement with Manchester City Council in March 2010 to allow a ?1 billion redevelopment led by architect Rafael Vi?oly.^[39]

During the 2010 closed season the football pitch and hospitality areas were renovated, with a ?1 million investment being made in the playing surface so that it is better able to tolerate concerts and other events without damage.^[40] In October 2010, Manchester City renegotiated the stadium lease, obtaining the naming rights to the stadium in return for agreeing to now pay the City Council an annual fixed sum of ?3 million where previously it had only paid half of the ticket sales revenue from match attendances exceeding 35,000.^[41] This new agreement occurred as part of a standard 5-year review of the original lease and it amounts to an approximate ?1 million annual increase in council revenues from the stadium.^[41] During 2011-14 the club sold all 36,000 of its allocated season tickets each season^[42] and experienced an average match attendance that is very close to its maximum seating capacity (see table in previous section). Consequently, during the 2014-15 season an expansion of the stadium was undertaken. The South Stand was extended with the addition of a third tier which, in conjunction with an additional three rows of pitch side seating, increased stadium capacity to approximately 55,000.^[43] Construction commenced on the South Stand in April 2014 and was completed for the start of the 2015-16 season.^[44]

A final phase of expansion, that received planning approval at the same time as the others but which remains unscheduled, will add a matching third tier of seats to the North Stand. Once this last phase is completed it will bring the stadium's total seating capacity up to approximately 61,000, making the Etihad Stadium the nation's second largest capacity club ground

 

So basically in a long winded way, you are saying:

the Empty-had was converted with the Council (taxpayer) and the franchise both paying a share of the bill, the same as West Ham.

The franchise now pay the council a rental for the stadium, the same as West Ham, but no doubt make a huge profit by selling the naming rights to a stadium they don't own.

The surrounding area has been redeveloped for use by outside parties, but this is where things start to differ, the beneficiary of this is the franchise whereas in West Ham's case all profits go the the owners (taxpayer).

The use of the stadium for "other purposes" such as concerts will again no doubt see profits going to the franchise unlike the London Stadium where these profits will, quite rightly, go to the actual owners of the stadium.

 

I find it quite sad that Citeh still peddle the myth of being a "peoples club" when they have clearly become part of a faceless global franchise that attracts fanboys from all over the country that, a few years ago, would struggle to tell you where Manchester was.

[Dalstonjambo]

It's a bit more simple than that.............They didn't need to keep the stadium as an atletics arena unlike West Ham who have to as part of their generous tax -payer funded deal..yep we are paying for a rich football club to move home and give the owners a killing....disgrace.

As opposed to paying for a white elephant to sit empty bar 1 or 2 athletics events which will be attended by 5,000 people max. I am no west ham sympathiser but the alternative was far worse. 

[The Treasurer]

looks like the banned fans might be the lucky ones - 

 

It is fair to say that West Ham?s move to the London Stadium has yet to go to plan. Both on and off the pitch the relocation has been beset by problems. The question remains, however, as to how much the club can do to fix them.

Events came to a head on Saturday when Hammers fans set upon each other in apparent disagreement as to whether they should be sitting in their seats. Social media were full of dispiriting footage, with trouble carrying on outside the ground after the match.

Much was made of the deal West Ham got for the stadium, with the club paying just ?15m of the ?272m required to adapt it for football. And while they pay ?2.5m in annual rent, the club are not obliged to cover the costs of police, stewarding, heating, pitch maintenance or even corner flags. But the club?s ability to adapt the stadium to their needs has proven limited, with the seating arrangements and the continued existence of an athletics track around the pitch only the most visible of difficulties.

 

 

Earlier matches have also seen altercations and there have been reports of fans finding it difficult to access the ground or without a seat when they got there. On Saturday there were other, smaller, gripes that were immediately apparent to anyone watching the match. Some seats are an eye-straining distance from the pitch and other, lower, sections of retractable seating offer very little perspective on the play. Indeed such is the view for many in the ground that it took more than one replay of Dimitri Payet?s rabona assist before they actually saw it.

Yes there are "teething problems" no doubt about that.

This was always likely to happen when catering for such large crowds of actual "football fans" as opposed to glory hunting fan boys who's only concern is how much their "team" cost to put on the pitch

[The Treasurer]

As opposed to paying for a white elephant to sit empty bar 1 or 2 athletics events which will be attended by 5,000 people max. I am no west ham sympathiser but the alternative was far worse. 

A point that too many people choose to ignore as it doesn't suit their agenda

[Locky]

I wonder what Man City did with their ground. It was an athletics stadium and doesn't seem to have the problem of big gaps between the fans and the pitch.

Just big gaps between seats.

[SE16 3LN]

A point that too many people choose to ignore as it doesn't suit their agenda

A point but a pile of bollocks. It was used every day by Londoners, and indeed people all over the UK, for a variety of sports. There were 17 applications for regular use as well as the West Ham bid. Unfortunately those organisations weren't owned by two member of the Tory Party, or indeed prepared to make large donations to the Tory party (coincidentally the day before Boris made the decision). This is another Tory Tax theft, transferring money from the ordinary tax payer to rich tory party members. It stinks and no amount of lying from Gold and his Westfield buddies will cover that smell.

[Shanks]

So basically in a long winded way, you are saying:

the Empty-had was converted with the Council (taxpayer) and the franchise both paying a share of the bill, the same as West Ham.

The franchise now pay the council a rental for the stadium, the same as West Ham, but no doubt make a huge profit by selling the naming rights to a stadium they don't own.

The surrounding area has been redeveloped for use by outside parties, but this is where things start to differ, the beneficiary of this is the franchise whereas in West Ham's case all profits go the the owners (taxpayer).

The use of the stadium for "other purposes" such as concerts will again no doubt see profits going to the franchise unlike the London Stadium where these profits will, quite rightly, go to the actual owners of the stadium.

 

I find it quite sad that Citeh still peddle the myth of being a "peoples club" when they have clearly become part of a faceless global franchise that attracts fanboys from all over the country that, a few years ago, would struggle to tell you where Manchester was.

Why do you keep calling them 'the franchise' is it some kind of shan insult? What EPL franchise do you 'support' out of curiosity.

[Dalstonjambo]

A point but a pile of bollocks. It was used every day by Londoners, and indeed people all over the UK, for a variety of sports. 

That's interesting. What was it used for? I've been to the velodrome and swimming pool myself, but didn't know about the stadium. Would have been amazing to use it.

[The Treasurer]

Why do you keep calling them 'the franchise' is it some kind of shan insult? What EPL franchise do you 'support' out of curiosity.

No insult intended, it's simply because they are one part of a global franchise with branches in New York, Australia and the Far East.

I don't "support" any club other than Hearts as I believe you can only genuinely support one club.

However I have always looked out for West Ham's results and enjoy watching them when they are on TV, this goes back years to the days of Moore, Hurst etc and also due to the fact that I have family who are West Ham ST holders.

[The Treasurer]

A point but a pile of bollocks. It was used every day by Londoners, and indeed people all over the UK, for a variety of sports. There were 17 applications for regular use as well as the West Ham bid. Unfortunately those organisations weren't owned by two member of the Tory Party, or indeed prepared to make large donations to the Tory party (coincidentally the day before Boris made the decision). This is another Tory Tax theft, transferring money from the ordinary tax payer to rich tory party members. It stinks and no amount of lying from Gold and his Westfield buddies will cover that smell.

As I said, people with an agenda.

Genuine questions, do you think that using it as a very large public sports club would have generated the monies that are expected from the deal with West Ham ?

Also I was under the impression that the facilities are still open for use to all (apart from the stadium on match days of course), is this not still the case ?

[Maroon Sailor]

I'll be daan saaf next week so might go to the West Ham v Accrington Stanley match to tick the new stadium off.

 

What are they doing with the Boleyn as a matter of interest ?

[SE16 3LN]

As I said, people with an agenda.

Genuine questions, do you think that using it as a very large public sports club would have generated the monies that are expected from the deal with West Ham ?

Also I was under the impression that the facilities are still open for use to all (apart from the stadium on match days of course), is this not still the case ?

If campaigning against the misuse of public money equals "an agenda" then I'm happy to have an agenda. The "monies that are expected from the deal with West Ham". What the **** are you on about? All monies generated go to the owners of West Ham who, incidentally, put nearly all their income off shore to avoid paying UK tax. The rent after the tax payer has paid for the up keep of the stadium is 700k. That's it, from a club that will get  minimum of 120 million from the TV deal this season. FFS Barnet and Saracens would have been a better deal. Orient would have given more back. These examples of course were examples of well structured bids that took into account the Olympic Legacy, the needs of the local community and the burden on the taxpayer. West Ham was all about the corporate greed that is modern football. Yes, on a few designated days a year the stadium is open for use by other sports, but not as a community resource. West Ham United RIP. Long live Westfield franchise.

[The Treasurer]

If campaigning against the misuse of public money equals "an agenda" then I'm happy to have an agenda. The "monies that are expected from the deal with West Ham". What the **** are you on about? All monies generated go to the owners of West Ham who, incidentally, put nearly all their income off shore to avoid paying UK tax. The rent after the tax payer has paid for the up keep of the stadium is 700k. That's it, from a club that will get  minimum of 120 million from the TV deal this season. FFS Barnet and Saracens would have been a better deal. Orient would have given more back. These examples of course were examples of well structured bids that took into account the Olympic Legacy, the needs of the local community and the burden on the taxpayer. West Ham was all about the corporate greed that is modern football. Yes, on a few designated days a year the stadium is open for use by other sports, but not as a community resource. West Ham United RIP. Long live Westfield franchise.

Not having a go because you obviously seem to know a bit about this, but when you say "a few designated days a year" what do you mean, because unless I'm mistaken, West Ham only have use of the stadium on match days leaving it available for all but around 20-25 days a year.

In order for Orient, Barnet or anyone else to use the stadium for football (or Rugby) it would still have required a refit (granted maybe not to the extent it has been) but do you honestly believe the taxpayer would have got a better return on a regular basis from a club with say 10k fans in the stadium rather than a club that fills it every week.?

West Ham have taken a gamble on moving and it may back-fire, but staying where they were and stagnating was not an option.

Time will tell if their gamble pays off or not.

[Jammy T]

I'll be daan saaf next week so might go to the West Ham v Accrington Stanley match to tick the new stadium off.

 

What are they doing with the Boleyn as a matter of interest ?

?10 to get in I believe

[SE16 3LN]

Not having a go because you obviously seem to know a bit about this, but when you say "a few designated days a year" what do you mean, because unless I'm mistaken, West Ham only have use of the stadium on match days leaving it available for all but around 20-25 days a year.

In order for Orient, Barnet or anyone else to use the stadium for football (or Rugby) it would still have required a refit (granted maybe not to the extent it has been) but do you honestly believe the taxpayer would have got a better return on a regular basis from a club with say 10k fans in the stadium rather than a club that fills it every week.?

West Ham have taken a gamble on moving and it may back-fire, but staying where they were and stagnating was not an option.

Time will tell if their gamble pays off or not.

It would appear West Ham have all use rights between August and the end of May. For one month in the summer (end of June to the end of July), Athletics have exclusive use for events like the anniversary games. Essex may be playing 20:20 competitions there at some point in the summer, but that hasn't been announced as far as I know. There has been talk of some gigs and American sports for one off events, but this is hardly shared usage. Nobody has seen the fine print, commercially sensitive apparently, but apart from a few weeks in the summer West Ham can do what the **** they want with it.

 

They will of course make a fortune out of conferences, corporate events etc. etc. etc. I expect some tokenism from Gold and Sullivan, one off community events and so on but they are not going to let anyone on the pitch unless they pay through the nose. Gold announced that there is a clause that will return a percentage to the tax payer should he decide to sell in the future, but he won't say what that percentage is. As I say, the whole thing stinks. There is no gamble involved, its win win for the owners and presumably the modern football club. The "old" fans and the old club can go and **** themselves.

[Jamhammer]

I've heard different opinions from different mates who have been. It'll come good, it'll have to. As will the team

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[benny]

So basically in a long winded way, you are saying:

the Empty-had was converted with the Council (taxpayer) and the franchise both paying a share of the bill, the same as West Ham.

The franchise now pay the council a rental for the stadium, the same as West Ham, but no doubt make a huge profit by selling the naming rights to a stadium they don't own.

The surrounding area has been redeveloped for use by outside parties, but this is where things start to differ, the beneficiary of this is the franchise whereas in West Ham's case all profits go the the owners (taxpayer).

The use of the stadium for "other purposes" such as concerts will again no doubt see profits going to the franchise unlike the London Stadium where these profits will, quite rightly, go to the actual owners of the stadium.

 

 

 

 

I find it quite sad that Citeh still peddle the myth of being a "peoples club" when they have clearly become part of a faceless global franchise that

The so called franchise as you call it was nowhere in sight when City moved into the City of Manchester Stadium.