Quite an interesting watch. London Stadium landlord is running at a loss each year. In part caused by the 99 year lease West Ham negotiated (which was seen as a good deal for West Ham) isn't covering the running costs for the landlord (future repairs etc.). Sounds like a looming problem.
I've not been there but considered to be a poor stadium to watch footie at?
I watched that over the weekend.
The bit I didn’t know and take him at face value is that parts of the stadium were only meant to be temporary and it was originally planned to be reduced to 20 odd thousand capacity after the games.
My mates West Ham old school hasn’t set foot in the new ground he’s not on his own.
They are getting 60k each week, I don’t think they are missing him
It’s crazy the gates they get tbf, never really thought of them being so big. Must be the best attended in London?
My Blue HeavenThey are getting 60k each week, I don’t think they are missing him
😂 Definitely seems like a futile protest.
They get a lot of tourist fans, that was their aim and what has been talked about for us getting students at Birmingham Uni etc coming to our games. They get people going to wtach Man City, Man Utd etc not West Ham.
CharcyMy Blue HeavenThey are getting 60k each week, I don’t think they are missing him
😂 Definitely seems like a futile protest.
Old school West Ham fan almost certainly means a long term resident of Belmarsh or Wormwood Scrubs and banned for life from football.
I've been once. You're a hell of a long way from the pitch. Needless to say, the bubble machine is annoying.
My Blue HeavenIt’s crazy the gates they get tbf, never really thought of them being so big. Must be the best attended in London?
Tottenham have a 62,650 capacity, West Ham are restricted to 62,500 for football, Arsenal's capacity is 60,704.
The London Stadium capacity could be increased to 80,000.
There's no way West Ham would give up the stadium. If necessary they will buy out the stadium owner or the rights. Probably in exchange for the right to increase capacity.
West ham are currently being subsidised for the running costs. They'd lose some money, but not that much in context if they lost the subsidy.
Yep I know the capacity I think West Ham are slightly above spurs on average gates which is some going really.
Aren’t the lease company responsible for the kiosks etc as well?
West Ham are having their cake and eating it a bit
Shabby GrifterIt's pretty poor to watch athletics at. The rake is way too shallow. The only newbuild which got that right was the Millennium in Cardiff.I've not been there but considered to be a poor stadium to watch footie at?
Yes, it’s incredible. We are subsidising West Ham to play football there. It’s bananas:
My Blue HeavenYep I know the capacity I think West Ham are slightly above spurs on average gates which is some going really.
Aren’t the lease company responsible for the kiosks etc as well?
West Ham are having their cake and eating it a bit
It's Seb Coe's fault.
It was obvious that the only ongoing use for a massive stadium is for football, but he did two things which massively raised the cost to the taxpayer.
The stadium was built without agreeing it's long term use and without input from either Spurs or West Ham. When Spurs decided to stay at WHL the only plausible bidder was West Ham and Sullivan took full advantage to get the conversion paid for and sign a very favourable lease.
The planning for the stadium was embarrassingly bad. Verging on negligent.
I agree although not sure it's all Seb Coe's fault a lot of people were involved in that process.
The post use should absolutely have been part of the planning.