• 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

The London Taxpayers' Stadium Shambles

Jurgen the German said:
Whilst mentioning the other clubs in the top 4 but not Arsenal.
Click to expand...

Agreed, if he said top five and named only thee clubs, not naming us, that's understandable. But naming everyone of your top five and deliberately leaving us out seems like a poor attempt to humor their supporters and antagonise us.
 
Craig_J said:
Agreed, if he said top five and named only thee clubs, not naming us, that's understandable. But naming everyone of your top five and deliberately leaving us out seems like a poor attempt to humor their supporters and antagonise us.
Click to expand...

It's the fact that he mentioned Southampton as well though i.e. they challenged the top 5 whereas we actually finished above one of the "big 5" but that's lost on him (conveniently).
 
Granted Sunderland and Saudi Sportswashing Machine aren't very successful with relatively big stadiums, but does anyone think West Ham could attract better owners with their bigger stadium? They're a tin pot club, but some rich bloke may decide they are ripe for a takeover and decide the buy them.
 
It's a possibility but i don't see how there's room for another big spending owner in the Premiership tbh
 
billyiddo said:
It's a possibility but i don't see how there's room for another big spending owner in the Premiership tbh
Click to expand...

I was thinking this the other day, I know its defeatist slightly but say I have a 10b in the bank and have no allegiance to a club do I buy one and try and break the stranglehold, or do I think its best to keep my cash in my pocket?

Talking of West Ham, they have so many mid season deals for tickets in their current home, in some big games too, I doubt they are going to fill the new stadium!!!!
 
Grays_1890 said:
I was thinking this the other day, I know its defeatist slightly but say I have a 10b in the bank and have no allegiance to a club do I buy one and try and break the stranglehold, or do I think its best to keep my cash in my pocket?

Talking of West Ham, they have so many mid season deals for tickets in their current home, in some big games too, I doubt they are going to fill the new stadium!!!!
Click to expand...

And yet they say that they sell out most weeks.
 
Yeh maybe they do, by Friday....but they have to work bloody hard to do it.

The fear I share with Orient (as a football man) is at what price do they sell out the Olympic Stadium? £10 a ticket? Costs me the same to watch Grays Athletic....
 
Jurgen the German said:
Granted Sunderland and Saudi Sportswashing Machine aren't very successful with relatively big stadiums, but does anyone think West Ham could attract better owners with their bigger stadium? They're a tin pot club, but some rich bloke may decide they are ripe for a takeover and decide the buy them.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that the current owners plan is to sell once they are in the new stadium but I cannot see them attracting a seriously rich owner because there is so much about the new stadium that they cannot earn any money from. It would stop them being able to spend big and meet FFP.
 
milo said:
I'm sure that the current owners plan is to sell once they are in the new stadium but I cannot see them attracting a seriously rich owner because there is so much about the new stadium that they cannot earn any money from. It would stop them being able to spend big and meet FFP.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong, but Emirates Marketing Project don't own the Etihad, they rent it from the council but still have a ridiculous, over inflated naming rights deal in place for the stadium.
 
Jurgen the German said:
I may be wrong, but Emirates Marketing Project don't own the Etihad, they rent it from the council but still have a ridiculous, over inflated naming rights deal in place for the stadium.
Click to expand...
I suspect a percentage of that goes to the council. In which case the council would obviously let City agree the deal as they had a pet sponsor willing to offer 10x the sponsorship levels their fanbase would demand.

West Ham don't have that and neither are they a particularly attractive team to sponsor (especially with a mostly jobless/low income fanbase). I suspect the athletics types probably fancy their chances of a better deal going direct to the sponsors.
 
Jurgen the German said:
I may be wrong, but Emirates Marketing Project don't own the Etihad, they rent it from the council but still have a ridiculous, over inflated naming rights deal in place for the stadium.
Click to expand...

Different deals under different circumstances. City got the rights to sell the naming rights and to take non-match day revenue included in their deal with the council.

Because of Levy's legal challenge on the original decision to let West Ham have the stadium, they re-ran the competition on different terms.

They do not get any of the proceeds from the sale of naming rights, they don't get any of the proceeds from other events held at the stadium and they only get a share of the proceeds from match day catering/hospitality.
 
milo said:
Different deals under different circumstances. City got the rights to sell the naming rights and to take non-match day revenue included in their deal with the council.

Because of Levy's legal challenge on the original decision to let West Ham have the stadium, they re-ran the competition on different terms.

They do not get any of the proceeds from the sale of naming rights, they don't get any of the proceeds from other events held at the stadium and they only get a share of the proceeds from match day catering/hospitality.
Click to expand...
City got some deal really. Effectively state aid.
 
Rorschach said:
City got some deal really. Effectively state aid.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Probably illegal under EU law. I believe that even the Olympic stadium deal is open to challenge for ten years under the same rule because the government have paid for converting it.
 
scaramanga said:
I suspect a percentage of that goes to the council. In which case the council would obviously let City agree the deal as they had a pet sponsor willing to offer 10x the sponsorship levels their fanbase would demand.

West Ham don't have that and neither are they a particularly attractive team to sponsor (especially with a mostly jobless/low income fanbase). I suspect the athletics types probably fancy their chances of a better deal going direct to the sponsors.
Click to expand...

I see. So no chance they can get farcical deals like the one Emirates Marketing Project got then.
 
milo said:
Different deals under different circumstances. City got the rights to sell the naming rights and to take non-match day revenue included in their deal with the council.

Because of Levy's legal challenge on the original decision to let West Ham have the stadium, they re-ran the competition on different terms.

They do not get any of the proceeds from the sale of naming rights, they don't get any of the proceeds from other events held at the stadium and they only get a share of the proceeds from match day catering/hospitality.
Click to expand...
I love Daniel Levy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back