• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Canning Town Bingo Club

Well, they have a replacement for the Payet mural :


West-Ham-United-v-Manchester-City-Premier-League.jpg


I'm surprised they've left any trace of Bobby Moore after the TV show.
 
Some of the statements coming from Gold and co in the last few days are clearly preparing the ground :
The manager is happy with the strikers available to him.
The manager decided it was best to send Oxford out on loan
The manager is happy to not spend more in January and save it for the summer.

It's only going to end one way for Bilic.
 
Indeed and they included a £1 million loyalty bonus apparently-for playing one season. Who wouldn't sign. Honestly feel that west ham have done themselves no favours over this.
Loyalty bonuses do not work like that....

A player's "loyalty bonus" is simply another name for his signing on fee.... Typically when a player signs for a club his reported weekly wage will be split something like 70/30 between wages and signing on fee. To protect both parties the signing on fee is not paid in one instalment up front, but is instead split over the length of the contract and paid in instalments (often quarterly or bi-annually). In Payet's instance the quoted £125k a week wages would probably be split as an £85k a week wages and a £10 million signing on fee (which over 5 years would be £2 million a year). The £1 million loyalty bonus that Payet was due would simply have been the instalment of his signing on fee for the previous six months that he had been at the club.

If Payet put in a written transfer request that was granted by the club and they sold him, then the club aren't liable to pay the remaining instalments of the "loyalty bonus". If the club sell Payet without him having put in a written transfer request then they have to pay him the remaining instalments of the loyalty bonus. That is why clubs often ask players to put in an official transfer request if they want to leave.
 
Do they have to take stuff like that down for the 340 days a year when the stadium isn't theirs?

I am guessing so by the shoddy design of it, you can see partitions down the middle of the thing. If you were going to do a mural you would do it properly. I hate to say it but the ones I have seen at Arsenal and Chelsea have a class look about the design of them at least. But then they both own their grounds so can do as they please. I would be tinkled if we put up something with partitions down the middle. I like good design and that is not it.
 
I am guessing so by the shoddy design of it, you can see partitions down the middle of the thing. If you were going to do a mural you would do it properly. I hate to say it but the ones I have seen at Arsenal and Chelsea have a class look about the design of them at least. But then they both own their grounds so can do as they please. I would be tinkled if we put up something with partitions down the middle. I like good design and that is not it.
Er, you've seen the huge concrete blocks for the new stadium, right? The blocks where the c.ockerel is on one block, and the ball is on the other block, with a big partition betwixt the twain?
 
Er, you've seen the huge concrete blocks for the new stadium, right? The blocks where the c.ockerel is on one block, and the ball is on the other block, with a big partition betwixt the twain?

I imagine and I do not say this because I am biased but when our stadium is finished it will look classy, they may go for a different style to what I would like. But it will not have the temporary look that West Ham have. Two huge concrete blocks is also a way of stopping terrorists like the ones they have outside train stations.
 
I know that we like to clam him off but he was spot on here

Much as it rankles me to say it Lampard was a top (top) player. Triffic even. I swear 50% of Lampard's goals were deflected shots but there is no doubt he put a ton of them away. His passing was a bit underrated too. He was an excellent passer but strangely got little credit for it (oddly a little bit like Roy Keane who barely misplaced a pass in his entire man utd career but was remembered for tackling). Redknap was bang on, on this one.

Harry was no master tactician but he could put the jigsaw pieces together well. I'll give him that. The big piles of money moving around in front of him was his weakness.
 
I know that we like to clam him off but he was spot on here


whilst he was (proved) right that Lampard was destined for the very top Im not sure that was much comfort to West Ham fans, the club effectively developed him for Chelsea and perhaps in the clubs supporters POV in those seasons where he was learning his trade there the team might have benefited from playing some of the more experienced players he was picked in front of that the supporter mentioned?
 
I know that we like to clam him off but he was spot on here


I imagine it would be a similar outcome if some of his critics on here were to sit in front of him and question him, he would make complete mugs of them too.

Completely agree with Lemonade Money, he wasn't a master tactician and he's sketchy to say the least but the football we played under him was brilliant, by far the most exciting, enteratining football of my lifetime supporting Spurs. Yeah of course we underachieved in his last season but he broke the duck of Spurs not qualiftying for the CL and ended our long winless streaks at two bogey grounds Arsenal and Liverpool.
 
Back