West Ham

[jamboinglasgow]

Of all the major clubs in world football, Chelsea's record in bringing young players through is probably the worst; embarrassingly so, in fact. Chelsea have just had the biggest wallet in the world - that's it.

 

its curious to see that Chelsea are not buying at the moment, they must be confident of their appeal being succesful. Sadly I think they will get off on a technicality, but I agree with the FIFA ruling (not often i say that.) There are some clubs that are hovering up the best young talent without so much as a penny paid in compensation being paid to the clubs they effectively steal from. Though to be fair to Chelsea they are simply doing what Manchester United have been doing for years. Football needs a level playing field and I think a ban on player movement (between countries) before the age of 18 is a good idea (though unsure how it will be regulated.)

[shaun.lawson]

Hardly surprising given that Chelsea is a mega-club in world terms. They have fans throughout the length and breadth of the UK - they always have done given their attractive play - including many people from this board who attend their games.

 

Blue is the colour.

 

Chelsea haven't been known for attractive play since Hoddle and Gullit were managers. More recently, they've been known for anti-football: incredible given the money they've spent.

 

As for West Ham: are they treated as a bigger club than they actually are? Yes, undoubtedly: essentially because a generation of journalists saw England win the World Cup, and concluded West Ham must be a major club to have produced three key players. However - take a look at the England side now. Ferdinand, Joe Cole, Lampard, Carrick, Johnson... very reminiscent of the core of players Hearts provided for the Scotland team under Jim Jefferies, but weren't able to hold on to.

 

Why? Because we didn't have the financial power to do so; just like West Ham don't. But Chelsea have kept hold of a number of them not because you're an especially big club (one league title before Abramovich appeared, and the worst title win on record at that); but because you've had the owner with the deepest pockets in world football. Quite how anybody is supposed to compete with this is beyond me. Quite how Chelsea fans take pleasure in buying all their silverware, and worse, at wanting clubs not as fortunate to go bust, is equally beyond me.

[boabyarsebiscuit]

Of all the major clubs in world football, Chelsea's record in bringing young players through is probably the worst; embarrassingly so, in fact. Chelsea have just had the biggest wallet in the world - that's it.

 

Shaun - you're missing the point. Do you or don't you feel there is a flairesque myth peddled about West Ham, in a very similar way to the myth peddled about Hibs' flair football?

 

It's obvious - especially to me as I had to suffer it for the 8 years I lived in Essex.

 

Even when West Ham were reduced to playing duds like a geriatric David Speedie, and were losing to Southend United, it was all "Flair" this, "Academy" that, total bollocks. I thought as a wannabe sports journo you'd also wholeheartedly agree garbage like that spouted about Hibs/West Ham should be debunked. West Ham play no better football than Fulham or Aston Villa, or any of the teams above them in the League. Let's put the "Academy" lie to bed.

 

And "Academy" doesn't mean "Academy" in this context - I thought you'd know this.

[boabyarsebiscuit]

One thing you can count on from Shaun. He'll turn anything into a Chelsea hating thread. You'll NEVER make a journalist, son. You haven't got it in you. Sorry, but it's the truth.

[shaun.lawson]

Shaun - you're missing the point. Do you or don't you feel there is a flairesque myth peddled about West Ham, in a very similar way to the myth peddled about Hibs' flair football?

 

It's obvious - especially to me as I had to suffer it for the 8 years I lived in Essex.

 

Even when West Ham were reduced to playing duds like a geriatric David Speedie, and were losing to Southend United, it was all "Flair" this, "Academy" that, total bollocks. I thought as a wannabe sports journo you'd also wholeheartedly agree garbage like that spouted about Hibs/West Ham should be debunked. West Ham play no better football than Fulham or Aston Villa, or any of the teams above them in the League. Let's put the "Academy" lie to bed.

 

And "Academy" doesn't mean "Academy" in this context - I thought you'd know this.

 

I think it's often been a myth, but not as frequently as you think. Quite a number of clubs are less likely to win things because the style of play their fans want mitigates against it. Chelsea, for example, and in contrast to a past which you'll know about and I remember well, are now the most pragmatic club in the land: it's about winning for them and nothing else.

 

I never saw this exemplified better than in the magnificent FA Cup quarter-final with Tottenham in 2007. Chelsea fought back because of pure mental strength and the bloody mindedness instilled by their extraordinary manager, whereas Spurs, dominant for long periods, simply choked. Tottenham will never win the league precisely for this reason; and both Redknapp and Jol are heirs to a certain slapdash tradition which has them destroying teams one week, losing to relegation strugglers the next. Chelsea win 2-0 all the time, and you know they've got the game locked up at 2-0 as well; Spurs are more likely to win 5-2, then lose 0-1.

 

I tend to see West Ham as, in terms of mentality if not always style of play, a smaller version of Tottenham. Finance means they don't contend for Cups as often as Spurs do; the style their fans want means they often under-achieve beyond that. That isn't to deny that quite often, they've simply been crap - but their fans don't view themselves as that big a club, and when the Icelandic regime talked about reaching the CL, a West Ham-supporting mate wasn't at all happy. It just isn't them.

[shaun.lawson]

One thing you can count on from Shaun. He'll turn anything into a Chelsea hating thread. You'll NEVER make a journalist, son. You haven't got it in you. Sorry, but it's the truth.

 

One thing you can count on from boaby. He'll turn anything into a paranoid "everyone hates Chelsea" thread, but refuse point blank to even acknowledge his club's immense good fortune, or financial doping which has had disastrous repercussions for anyone trying to keep up. And for some reason, he also thinks Chelsea being useless in the late 70s and early 80s makes buying all their silverware now some sort of glorious achievement.

 

You'll NEVER make an objective or reasonable commentator, son. You haven't got it in you. Sorry, but it's the truth.

[Tiberius Stinkfinger]

One thing you can count on from Shaun. He'll turn anything into a Chelsea hating thread. You'll NEVER make a journalist, son. You haven't got it in you. Sorry, but it's the truth.

 

One thing you can count on from boaby. He'll turn anything into a paranoid "everyone hates Chelsea" thread, but refuse point blank to even acknowledge his club's immense good fortune, or financial doping which has had disastrous repercussions for anyone trying to keep up. And for some reason, he also thinks Chelsea being useless in the late 70s and early 80s makes buying all their silverware now some sort of glorious achievement.

 

You'll NEVER make an objective or reasonable commentator, son. You haven't got it in you. Sorry, but it's the truth.

 

 

 

Good stuff lads, keep up the good work.

 

[Therapist]

Chelsea haven't been known for attractive play since Hoddle and Gullit were managers. More recently, they've been known for anti-football: incredible given the money they've spent.

 

 

Which of your internerd football sites supplied that nugget?

[shaun.lawson]

 

Which of your internerd football sites supplied that nugget?

 

Chelsea have played largely pragmatically for many years now, light years from the style of Man Utd or Arsenal - with the exception of 2004/5, when Duff and Robben made you excellent to watch. There's been something very comical in your inability to match the style of United, Real Madrid or Barcelona; something which cost Mourinho his job.

[stew mc]

When have they ever played the beautiful game? The fact of the matter is that West Ham fans like their football played a certain way, that aint a myth. We put up with winning very little on the off chance that we produce or sign the odd diamond before they move on to bigger things. Fat Frank, Rio, Joey Cole, Glen Johnson et al and established dudes like Di Canio and Tevez flourish with us cos the fans love their passion. Are Chelsea bigger than us? Yes. Are they better? Are they f*&k. And as for Millwall......

 

Still hurting??

[shaun.lawson]

Still hurting??

 

When Millwall reached the FA Cup Final, they didn't even get out of their own half. They've also spent two seasons in the top flight in their entire history. West Ham is your Cup final. Case closed.

[IronJambo]

When Millwall reached the FA Cup Final, they didn't even get out of their own half. They've also spent two seasons in the top flight in their entire history. West Ham is your Cup final. Case closed.

 

for this statement shaun, i applaud you. i couldn't have put it better

[gorgie_rebel]

Jesus!! have I read some rot on this thread.

 

West Ham = The hibs of London??

Selective and insular over race and creed??

No support from the surrounding district??

 

What complete arse gravy!!

 

Classy and well respected club driven to provide an identity to what is a huge spectrum of a multi-cultural community in East London.

Provides arguably the best youth and scouting network in the country.

A youth policy that in recent times (and beyond) has produced some of the top players in English football.

 

Miss-run by the Icelandic owners of late and not to sure about Sullivan and Gold either if i'm honest but time will tell I suppose.

Great club. Great Set up. Great support. And lots more similarities to Hearts than maybe some on here would care to admit.

[IronJambo]

Jesus!! have I read some rot on this thread.

 

West Ham = The hibs of London??

Selective and insular over race and creed??

No support from the surrounding district??

 

What complete arse gravy!!

 

Classy and well respected club driven to provide an identity to what is a huge spectrum of a multi-cultural community in East London.

Provides arguably the best youth and scouting network in the country.

A youth policy that in recent times (and beyond) has produced some of the top players in English football.

 

Miss-run by the Icelandic owners of late and not to sure about Sullivan and Gold either if i'm honest but time will tell I suppose.

Great club. Great Set up. Great support. And lots more similarities to Hearts than maybe some on here would care to admit.

 

underacheiving and often very frustrating on the park. never manage to hold onto their best players....they could easily be confused with Hearts. got to say, i love west ham

[stew mc]

When Millwall reached the FA Cup Final, they didn't even get out of their own half.(Slight exaggeration) They've also spent two seasons in the top flight in their entire history.(And your point is? Maybe i should have picked a big team like Norwich.) West Ham is your Cup final.(Have won a lot of Cup finals then) Case closed.

 

Never ever thought for 1 min we would beat Man U on the day, maybe should na have bothered going.

V good coming from a norwich fan, how many FA CUP Finals you been to with Norwich?? ..... its less than 1!(case closed, never opened.)

 

If beating the spammers was our cup final, we would be the most successful

FA cup winning team ever!

[shaun.lawson]

Never ever thought for 1 min we would beat Man U on the day, maybe should na have bothered going.

V good coming from a norwich fan, how many FA CUP Finals you been to with Norwich?? ..... its less than 1!(case closed, never opened.)

 

If beating the spammers was our cup final, we would be the most successful

FA cup winning team ever!

 

I don't think I've ever seen a more craven, pathetic attitude exhibited by FA Cup finalists than Millwall that day. It was embarrassing: your whole approach was purely to keep the score down. Norwich are a woefully under-achieving club, but there's no comparison between us and Millwall at all.

 

Sorry, but you started it by comparing yourselves to West Ham in the first place. To paraphrase Harry Enfield: Millwall fans! Know your place!

[shaun.lawson]

Jesus!! have I read some rot on this thread.

 

West Ham = The hibs of London??

Selective and insular over race and creed??

No support from the surrounding district??

 

What complete arse gravy!!

 

Classy and well respected club driven to provide an identity to what is a huge spectrum of a multi-cultural community in East London.

Provides arguably the best youth and scouting network in the country.

A youth policy that in recent times (and beyond) has produced some of the top players in English football.

 

Miss-run by the Icelandic owners of late and not to sure about Sullivan and Gold either if i'm honest but time will tell I suppose.

Great club. Great Set up. Great support. And lots more similarities to Hearts than maybe some on here would care to admit.

 

I strongly agree with this. And the parallels with Hearts are very apparent to me.

[gorgie_rebel]

And lots more similarities to Hearts than maybe some on here would care to admit

 

underacheiving and often very frustrating on the park. never manage to hold onto their best players....they could easily be confused with Hearts. got to say, i love west ham

 

Well not quite what I meant but..........Yeah! You're spot on

[stew mc]

I don't think I've ever seen a more craven, pathetic attitude exhibited by FA Cup finalists than Millwall that day It was embarrassing: your whole approach was purely to keep the score down.( correct, but minus your top scorer and a few injured and suspened players, what should they have done??).

Norwich are a woefully under-achieving club, but there's no comparison .between us and Millwall at all.( Thanks fek for that!)

 

Sorry, but you started it by comparing yourselves to West Ham in the first place.Wrong! wasn't me(i know you'll check) To paraphrase Harry Enfield: Millwall fans! Know your place!

 

Think you missed this point,

How many FA Cup finals?

Where are you, where are you ,C mon lets be havin you.........

[stew mc]

for this statement shaun, i applaud you. i couldn't have put it better

 

Licker!

[CJGJ]

As usual the twosome over exaggerate the debt to make themselves look good.

 

Fact ?50 million is not debt -- it is money which will be paid to the bank who owned the club and still own 50% -- the 50 million is to pay for the 50% of the club still not owned by the east end barrow boys.

 

 

We then come to the supposed ?40 million owed to other clubs within the football world -- this is in part due to the payment of ?20 million still due to Sheffield United -- due over the next 4 years at ?5 million a year.

 

So yes the debt is large but not quite what it would seem and of course the club has assets in the form of their ground and training facilities.

 

So good luck to them and their fans but please lets not let this develop as a sob story about a poor club.

They are businessmen who may well be fans but will not splash the cash in pursuit of the dream -- ask Birmingham fans.

[Dot Cotton]

Phil and Grant Mitchell support the 'Ammers so thats good enough for me.

[shaun.lawson]

Think you missed this point,

How many FA Cup finals?

Where are you, where are you ,C mon lets be havin you.........

 

Ooohh, you've reached one FA Cup final (beating a grand total of no Premier League clubs and two Championship clubs en route: surely the softest draw in the history of the competition) and we haven't. Whoop whoop! All hail the mighty Lions.

 

Millwall: two seasons in the top flight. Norwich: twenty-one.

 

Millwall: one major final in your history. Norwich: four.

 

Millwall: no major trophies. Norwich: two.

 

Millwall: best finish of 10th in the top flight. Norwich: best finish of 3rd.

 

Millwall: reached the UEFA Cup once. Eliminated by your first opponents. Norwich: reached the UEFA Cup once. Knocked out Bayern Munich, narrowly eliminated by Internazionale.

 

Millwall: gates of 9000. Norwich: gates of 25000.

 

Millwall: 17 points behind a Norwich side playing at our lowest level in half a century.

 

And I repeat: Norwich are a chronically, embarrassingly underachieving football club. What that makes Millwall, heaven only knows - and in comparison to West Ham, we both pale. That's my point.

 

Tottenham>West Ham>Norwich>>>>>>Millwall.

[gorgie_rebel]

underacheiving and often very frustrating on the park. never manage to hold onto their best players....they could easily be confused with Hearts. got to say, i love west ham

 

Phil and Grant Mitchell support the 'Ammers so thats good enough for me.

 

And the Danny (bridge of doom) Dyer

 

"Pwoppa Nawty"

[Tazio]

 

 

 

Tottenham>>>West Ham>Norwich>>>>>>Millwall.

 

I've fixed that for you

[stew mc]

Ooohh, you've reached one FA Cup final (beating a grand total of no Premier League clubs and two Championship clubs en route: surely the softest draw in the history of the competition) and we haven't. Whoop whoop! All hail the mighty Lions.

 

Millwall: two seasons in the top flight. Norwich: twenty-one. Well Done

 

Millwall: one major final in your history. Norwich: four. Well done

 

Millwall: no major trophies. Norwich: two. Well Done

 

Millwall: best finish of 10th in the top flight. Norwich: best finish of 3rd.Well Done

Millwall: reached the UEFA Cup once. Eliminated by your first opponents. Norwich: reached the UEFA Cup once. Knocked out Bayern Munich, narrowly eliminated by Internazionale. Well Done

 

Millwall: gates of 9000. Norwich: gates of 25000. Well Done

 

Millwall: 17 points behind a Norwich side playing at our lowest level in half a century.Well Done

 

And I repeat: Norwich are a chronically, embarrassingly underachieving football club. What that makes Millwall, heaven only knows - and in comparison to West Ham, we both pale. That's my point. It is now!

 

Tottenham>West Ham>Norwich>>>>>>Millwall.

 

As i said previous, i never compared Millwall to anyone, be it wet spam or Norwich!

Small team ,small support, lower league football but at least we accept it.

Maybe living off past glories a little if you think you are closer to Spurs and wet spam than you are to us/we are to you!

Get used to it, as i think Norwich are underachieving alot more than millwall.

[boabyarsebiscuit]

So we're all agreed that the Hibs flair myth and the West Ham flair myth are both complete codswallop?

 

Good.

 

West Ham = London Hibs. You knows it!

[269miles]

When used in connection with West Ham's supposed flair football, the term "Academy" should not be taken literally. It's used in a more flairey, flowing football fantasy, 1966 type of context. Ask one of the London Hibs fans for an explanation. Also ask them how many times London Hibs have managed to win their national League Championship ;-)

 

 

Boaby

 

Why are you so touchy about W Ham ?

 

The term 'academy' was associated with the club long before acadamies became a reality . There was a reason for that.

 

Why are you so disparaging about W Ham in terms of their success(or lack of , in your eyes) : didn't Chelsea go 50 years before getting only their 2nd league title ever ? If it wasn't for Russian money do you really think Chelsea would be a 'big' club ?

[boabyarsebiscuit]

Boaby

 

Why are you so touchy about W Ham ?

 

The term 'academy' was associated with the club long before acadamies became a reality . There was a reason for that.

 

Why are you so disparaging about W Ham in terms of their success(or lack of , in your eyes) : didn't Chelsea go 50 years before getting only their 2nd league title ever ? If it wasn't for Russian money do you really think Chelsea would be a 'big' club ?

 

I don't care about being a "big club". If anyone came on here trying to say the Hibs flair routine is all true, they'd be rounded on, and rightly so. West Ham may have built a passing game in the 60s (remind where Ron Greenwood got his one and only League Champions medal by the way) but played pish non-football for many many years, particularly in the late 80s and most of the 90s and 00s. It's exactly the same thing as the Hibs flair myth. And it's about time, people snapped out of lazy journalist mode and accepted it.

 

We're not discussing Chelsea. We're discussing West Ham. And I suppose now, myths and taboos in British football.

 

Hearts = big physical team. Hibs = flair. West Ham = flair.

 

Chelsea = supported only by fans in the home counties. West Ham = supported by pie and mash jellied eel eating Eastenders.

 

But we can't discuss West Ham's crapness, the mythology surrounding that **** team, and so on, without a celebrity JKB-er turning it into a Chelsea hate thread.

 

So I give up.

[shaun.lawson]

I don't care about being a "big club". If anyone came on here trying to say the Hibs flair routine is all true, they'd be rounded on, and rightly so. West Ham may have built a passing game in the 60s (remind where Ron Greenwood got his one and only League Champions medal by the way) but played pish non-football for many many years, particularly in the late 80s and most of the 90s and 00s. It's exactly the same thing as the Hibs flair myth. And it's about time, people snapped out of lazy journalist mode and accepted it.

 

We're not discussing Chelsea. We're discussing West Ham. And I suppose now, myths and taboos in British football.

 

Hearts = big physical team. Hibs = flair. West Ham = flair.

 

Chelsea = supported only by fans in the home counties. West Ham = supported by pie and mash jellied eel eating Eastenders.

 

But we can't discuss West Ham's crapness, the mythology surrounding that **** team, and so on, without a celebrity JKB-er turning it into a Chelsea hate thread.

 

So I give up.

 

 

I'd suggest it turned into a discussion on Chelsea because you, a Chelsea fan, were incapable of being in any way objective about West Ham, and stated you hoped they went bust. West Ham played good football under John Lyall, at least tried to play good football but were pish when yo-yoing for a few years, started to play good football under Harry Redknapp (all Redknapp's sides have), were pish under Glenn Roeder, and played good football under Alan Pardew for a time too. And their record with young players has been outstanding for ages now.

 

As for Chelsea: as I never tire of saying, I don't even hate Chelsea. I certainly prefer them to Man Utd, for example (who for the record, I don't hate either). But when pointing out their financial doping, catastrophic economic impact on many, many clubs, that without Abramovich, they'd barely be winning anything, and bought the league (twice), I'm stating pretty obvious fact. That their style of play is far more pragmatic (and hence, much more effective) than Tottenham or West Ham is pretty bloody obvious too.

 

Yet apparently, when someone says this, they "hate Chelsea". Pretty comical if you ask me.

[shaun.lawson]

I've fixed that for you

 

Fair enough. But whereas 20 years ago, Arsenal <> Tottenham, nowadays, Arsenal >> Tottenham.

[colinmaroon]

One thing you can count on from Shaun. He'll turn anything into a Chelsea hating thread. You'll NEVER make a journalist, son. You haven't got it in you. Sorry, but it's the truth.

 

 

 

Are you suggesting that Shaun won't make a journalist because he's biased???

 

 

That's a prerequisite going by just about every hack in the country, doubly especially up here!!!

 

 

 

 

.....................

[shaun.lawson]

Are you suggesting that Shaun won't make a journalist because he's biased???

 

 

That's a prerequisite going by just about every hack in the country, doubly especially up here!!!

 

 

 

 

.....................

 

We all have our prejudices: it's human nature. But no Chelsea hater would've had a soft spot for them in the mid- to late-90s, been genuinely thrilled when they won the FA Cup in 1997 and ECWC in 1998, been as big a fan as you can imagine of Jose Mourinho, or would like Stamford Bridge: which I do. It's surprisingly intimate for such a modern stadium. I've also defended Chelsea very often, on here and other fora: I did so pretty vehemently when everyone was delighted at them being robbed by Barcelona in the CL semis, for example.

 

Unfortunately, this just goes right over boaby's head - but in the case of football fans, it pretty much always does. Meanwhile, I get all manner of stick on here for trying to be objective at all: it just isn't the done thing, in all too many cases. Example of Kickback's lack of objectivity: Michel Platini being called a "French, Jew hating bigot" (oh, the irony) by, er, boabyarsebiscuit. It's a conspiracy!

[londonjambo]

Just catching up with this thread.

 

I cant pretend to be a huge expert on this but I will set out my credentials (ooh matron) and you can judge for yourself.

 

Hearts is my club and is in my blood. Nothing else comes close. When I moved to London, I adopted a club supported by a mate of mine, West Ham. That was in 1989 and I have been a regular at Upton Park for the last 20 years. I have had a season ticket at Upton Park for the last 10 years.

 

I can categorically state that there is no flair myth at West Ham. You are confusing "flair" with "academy". West Ham were called the "academy" because they had home-grown players who played successfully in the first team. Today, although the "academy" word is still used, it is not used to mean "flair". I dont know a single West Ham fan who wouldnt take a scrappy 1-0 off someone's backside as opposed to a flair-filled 3-3 draw. Its absolute nonsense and what's more, any regular at Upton Park will tell you that its something (amongst many things) for which Irons fans constantly criticise Spurs - that the game has to be played in a beautiful way. Nonsense.

 

 

So if boaby wants to think that West Ham are London's equivalent of Hibs, let him continue to delude himself. I personally agree with other posters that they have much more in common with Hearts.

 

GC

[The Treasurer]

Reading over the posts on this thread it's obvious that, even if they are not actual fans a great deal more people prefer West Ham than Chelski.

 

Boaby and The rapist and the others can peddle all their 'look at what we've won' stuff all they like but if they go back to pre-Abramovic (when they were still fans of course ) then they're record over the years is not one of a genuinely top class club.

 

West Ham have been badly run recently, no argument there, but if you just look back over the years and see which club has consistently produced the better players, there's no contest.

[Rizla]

May the fleas of a thousand camels infest the arse of anyone who ****s with the Gorgie Hammers and may their arms be too short to scratch it.

[Therapist]

I adopted a club supported by a mate of mine, West Ham. That was in 1989

 

Thinly veiled "I'm an ICF face" alert. Pwoppa nawtee.

 

The rapist and the others can peddle all their 'look at what we've won' stuff all they like

 

No need for that.

[londonjambo]

Thinly veiled "I'm an ICF face" alert. Pwoppa nawtee.

 

 

 

.

 

Only if ICF stands for Ice Cream Fan

 

GC

[jamboinglasgow]

I am amazed to see that the new owners want the Olympic Park with the running track removed. If they do get that then it is disgraceful. Part of the point of the new stadium is to provide an athletics stadium for the UK so they can have future competitions in the future.

 

The London Legacy Board will not let this happen, Upton Park is fine stadium anyway.

[troonjambo]

I am amazed to see that the new owners want the Olympic Park with the running track removed. If they do get that then it is disgraceful. Part of the point of the new stadium is to provide an athletics stadium for the UK so they can have future competitions in the future.

 

The London Legacy Board will not let this happen, Upton Park is fine stadium anyway.

 

any other use for it apart from west ham is ridiculous

[gorgie_rebel]

I am amazed to see that the new owners want the Olympic Park with the running track removed. If they do get that then it is disgraceful. Part of the point of the new stadium is to provide an athletics stadium for the UK so they can have future competitions in the future.

 

The London Legacy Board will not let this happen, Upton Park is fine stadium anyway.

 

Not strictly true M8.

After the Olympics the stadium is up for grabs.

 

Current negotiations to offers have already been held with several rugby union and rugby league clubs.

 

I think IIRC a cricket club was mooted for residency, and there has also been talk of some London based American Football team setting up home and playing in some sort of god awful Euro/American system.

 

The likelihood of West Ham being successful in their claim is pretty good IMO as the stadium will no doubt be held up as a functioning football stadium that will be used to strengthen England's 2018 World Cup bid.

 

Never heard any mention of it being used for athletics after the games???

[Tazio]

The Olympic Stadium thing all of a sudden makes sense in terms of Gold and Sullivan taking them over. Take over, keep them ticking over for a few years and then sell them on at a huge profit. After all would the current owners of Man City found them so attractive as a large club if they were still at Maine Road?

[jamboinglasgow]

Not strictly true M8.

After the Olympics the stadium is up for grabs.

 

Current negotiations to offers have already been held with several rugby union and rugby league clubs.

 

I think IIRC a cricket club was mooted for residency, and there has also been talk of some London based American Football team setting up home and playing in some sort of god awful Euro/American system.

 

The likelihood of West Ham being successful in their claim is pretty good IMO as the stadium will no doubt be held up as a functioning football stadium that will be used to strengthen England's 2018 World Cup bid.

 

Never heard any mention of it being used for athletics after the games???

 

didn't realise that.

 

But I find it sad that we just seem to hand stadiums like these to top football teams rather than use them to build up other sports.

[gorgie_rebel]

didn't realise that.

 

But I find it sad that we just seem to hand stadiums like these to top football teams rather than use them to build up other sports.

 

M8 could be i'm due you an apology. and forced to admit i'm talkin p!sh

 

just googled the official Olympic 2012 website and read this -

 

After the Games

After the Games, the Stadium can be scaled back to 25,000 seats as required. It will be a venue for athletics and host other sporting, cultural and community events.

 

Also read the bit about the stadiums temporary 55,000 seats???

 

A Stadium that might have to be cut back to 25,000 can't really be much use to West Ham can it?

 

http://www.london2012.com/games/venues/olympic-stadium.php

 

I'm pretty sure that there have been pretty well documented talks with the clubs/sports I mentioned earlier though????

[Therapist]

After the Olympics the stadium is up for grabs.

 

It's not. As part of their bid, the organisers had to guarantee that the stadium would continue to be an athletics venue after the Olympics. So if the running track has to stay, the only way to get it up to 55,000 and use it for athletics would be to have some costly and complex engineering similar to the Stade de France.

 

But the bottom line is that West Ham are a bunch of snivelling opportunists who do not deserve to benefit from the Olympic bid.

[Peebo]

World Cup, we ****ing won the World Cup.

 

That is all.

[troonjambo]

M8 could be i'm due you an apology. and forced to admit i'm talkin p!sh

 

just googled the official Olympic 2012 website and read this -

 

After the Games

After the Games, the Stadium can be scaled back to 25,000 seats as required. It will be a venue for athletics and host other sporting, cultural and community events.

 

Also read the bit about the stadiums temporary 55,000 seats???

 

A Stadium that might have to be cut back to 25,000 can't really be much use to West Ham can it?

 

http://www.london2012.com/games/venues/olympic-stadium.php

 

I'm pretty sure that there have been pretty well documented talks with the clubs/sports I mentioned earlier though????

 

both boris johnston the mayor and the council are said to be for west ham having it me thinks there opinion will carry more weight as for the 25000 there is no need to remove the seats as far as i can tell that was just being done to make it less of a barn for the inevitable **** poor athletics /rugby crowds

[The Treasurer]

No need for that.

 

Slip of the key board, sorry

[boabyarsebiscuit]

Reading over the posts on this thread it's obvious that, even if they are not actual fans a great deal more people prefer West Ham than Chelski.

 

Boaby and The rapist and the others can peddle all their 'look at what we've won' stuff all they like but if they go back to pre-Abramovic (when they were still fans of course ) then they're record over the years is not one of a genuinely top class club.

 

West Ham have been badly run recently, no argument there, but if you just look back over the years and see which club has consistently produced the better players, there's no contest.

 

I don't peddle any "look what we won" stuff on here. Ever.

 

Seeing you raised it, "pre-Abramovic" Chelsea won a League Title, 3 FA Cups, 2 Cup Winners Cups (I suppose if I was going all Aberdeen, I'd mention the Super Cup in 1998!), and a couple of League Cups. But so what. If I cared about Trophy hauls I'd pick an English team like Man Utd or Liverpool.

 

West Ham have never won their national championship (incredible for a supposed big team, Christ you lot get a hard-on about finishing 3rd 25 years ago, LOL). And the last time they actually won anything was 1980, if I remember correctly.

 

West Ham are crap. And have been for 30 years. Why am I not allowed to say that?