Cat Fish
New member
Horrible supporter base? Sleazy owners? Long ball tactics?
HA well apaart from that
Horrible supporter base? Sleazy owners? Long ball tactics?
Spurs were in the bidding process for what to do with the stadium. Who said anything about renting.
WTF? You asked me to show you were you got your facts wrong, so I did.
Again, WTF has that got to do with anything? That is after the first bid. Spurs were one of the options for the stadium.
as nice as this back and forth is, this is as i recall it. bids were invited to take over the whole site lock, stock and barrel. several bids went in, including a mischeivious one from Spurs which involved knocking it all down (mischievous because they were also negotiating planing and a deal for WHL extension, you can judge for yourself which plan was the serious one). West Ham became the prefered bidder because they wanted to at least keep the stadium mostly as is. Hearn (and others?) objected and called for a judicial review, the bid process was founf to be flawed. then, they reopened the bidding, with change in terms in order to ensure a "athletic legacy", which was overlooked by all the bidders first time round and the winner would only be a tenant. funnily enough Spurs, who by now had their local dispute with Haringey resolved, didnt enter the bidding. West Ham offered the only credible use, so won. im sure this isnt a complete and accurate account, but thats the gists of it.
its odd how i dont recall this fuss being made over Man City aquiring their stadium, where the local council bent over backwards to pay for changes to make it suitable for them.
Why would that help?
HAhahah Are you serous!
I have come to this thread late, so haven't read it all, so apologoes if it has already been mentioned, but, isn't it againt league rules to move a club to within a certain distance of another league club.
Well if the Olympic Stadium & park was realistically ever gonna go to an organisition who reside in Newham, I wish Newham & Essex Beagles had got use of the damned thing. I'd have been more in favour of reducing the size of the joint after the Olympics & using it as the National Athletics stadium - even if it did cost more money to do. At least the legacy would've been fully in keeping with the sports that took place there so successfully last Summer & would provide a fantastic full-time facility for local kids & athletes from all over the country. God knows why the OLC decided that bunch of spivs from a Premier Division Football Club should be the preferred knights in shining armour to save their sorry arses. Hey bleedin' ho.
That article is spot on. Football was the only sport capable of providing a suitable post-games tenant for the stadium and should have been planned from the beginning which would have of course made the whole thing a lot cheaper for the taxpayer.
At least now we are not left with a white elephant, but a venue that earns rental income and is big enough to host MAJOR athletic events as well as lucrative concerts etc. Without a football tenant it would an empty husk, a monument to the vanity of those who planned it in the first place.
Its interesting as I think if anyone is going to break it Leyton Orient will because....
Leyton Orient reside in Waltham Forrest
West Ham reside in Newham
The Olympic Stadium is in Newham
West Ham move to the Olympic Stadium they stay in their borough
Orient move to The Olympic Stadium then they are moving into another clubs borough
Just to follow up, the league rules on grounds are
13.6 Each Club shall register its ground with the Executive and no Club shall remove to another ground without first obtaining the written consent of the Board, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld
13.7 In considering whether to give any such consent, the Board shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and shall not grant consent unless it is reasonably satisfied that such consent
13.7.1 would be consistent with the objects of The League as set out in the Memorandum of Association;
13.7.2 would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the locality with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is traditionally associated and that in which such Club proposes to establish its ground
13.7.3 would not adversely affect such Club's Officials, players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors and others having an interest in its activities;
13.7.4 would not have an adverse effect on visiting Clubs;
13.7.5 would not adversely affect Clubs having their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location;
-----------------------------
13.7.5 could be relevant ?