West Ham - Olympic Stadium

[robf]

Would Charlton have turned it down if they had been offered the stadium in the same/equivalent terms? Ok it would be too big for them but in principle would they turn it down..I don't think so.

 

That's not really the point though is it. The point is that one club has been offered a significant advantage over the others. It doesn't matter what the identity of the club is - but rather whether the process of effectively gifting one club a new stadium and them not even having to pay for it to be converted from athletics to a football stadium - is fair. If they are having a new ground done up for them then they should foot the bill - regardless of whether it's West Ham, Charlton or Leyton Orient...

[JOHNNYAITCH]

That's not really the point though is it. The point is that one club has been offered a significant advantage over the others. It doesn't matter what the identity of the club is - but rather whether the process of effectively gifting one club a new stadium and them not even having to pay for it to be converted from athletics to a football stadium - is fair. If they are having a new ground done up for them then they should foot the bill - regardless of whether it's West Ham, Charlton or Leyton Orient...

 

I don't claim that it is....the post that I was responding to was concerned with the reaction of Charlton and a Charlton fan/fans..my point was I don't think that they would have turned it down if it was offered to them.

 

There are clearly wider issues and the fairness of it is one...that's not Wet Ham's problem though

 

Plenty of examples where public money has (to some) unfairly benefitted a club..although this is an example at the extreme end of things the principle is well established whether it be SCFC, vale, Man City and so on

 

The FA and the guardians of tax payers' money should be all over such deals

[robf]

But that's my whole point in a nutshell, I don't think anyone else is claiming it's West Ham's fault, so saying it's "not West Ham's problem" is missing the point isn't it?

 

I'm sure the Charlton supporters groups are not blaming West Ham either - but rather the unfairness of the process.

 

As you say, the crux of the matter is - how on earth did the various bodies thought this was fair and a good thing to do?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

But that's my whole point in a nutshell, I don't think anyone else is claiming it's West Ham's fault, so saying it's "not West Ham's problem" is missing the point isn't it?

 

That's why I posted "good luck to them" (West Ham) and isn't my point...merely a statement..that they have simply taken advantage of a tremendous opportunity that has come their way

 

I'm sure the Charlton supporters groups are not blaming West Ham either - but rather the unfairness of the process.

 

Not saying they are but if they are going on about the unfairness when they would not turn it down that to me isn't right...either you think it's Ok or you don't regardless of who is the beneficiary.

 

As you say, the crux of the matter is - how on earth did the various bodies thought this was fair and a good thing to do?

 

Indeed..all this seems to be to avoid a white elephant in Stratford and to avoid that they've not asked West ham to pay the 'going rate' and indeed have bent over backwards to get West Ham to take it on....if that's the case then that simply isn't right.

[davidatpreston]

 

re west ham

 

 

If you supported them, they'd be furious.

 

 

You've posted some rubbish in your time, but I have to admit that was genuinely funny and made me laugh.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Only 'some' rubbish!!!??! I've posted a lot more rubbish than that..I'm quite upset

[Santa]

I was given a flyer which says says "our campaign [...] is directed at politicians, not at West Ham".

 

The main issues for them are why an already wealthy FAPL club is being given a huge leg-up, at taxpayers' expense, and that it is unfair on all clubs who compete with West Ham, obviously Charlton and Orient are threatened most directly.

 

Anyway, I can't speak for them as well as they can speak for themselves. If you really want to have a good read about it, I suggest you have a good read of their website linked further up the thread.

[Warren]

The sale of Upton Park is not relevant. West Ham could do that anyway. They would have many options.

 

Those people representing the Olympic Stadium and public funds should get the best deal they can in the circumstances. At the present moment and subject to the residual contractual conditions created with the award of the Olympics to London.

 

There is well known legal case that defines reasonableness in public decision making. Associated Picture House v Wednesbury Council 1947. Did those representing public funds and undertaking public administration in this case in their decision making:

1. Take anything in to account that was irrelevant?

2. Not take something in to account that was relevant?

3. In overall terms reach a decision that the members of the public would be likely to see as wholly disproportionate to the circumstances in exercise of their powers such that no reasonable authority could ever have reached it?

 

If they had a reasonable bidding process, regulated post tender negotiations properly and fulfilled prior obligations, the above case suggests there would be no basis for legal challenge in the use of public funds.

 

But I await for new facts to emerge??

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

West Ham seem to be favoured by the authorities at the expense of other clubs e.g.over Tevez at the expense of Sheffield United and over the Olympic Stadium at the expense of Tottenham and Leyton Orient. the London Olympics were supposed to benefit the whole country and have a legacy of improved participation in sport for the whole country, particularly the young, not just one small area of London.

 

maybe the authorities may seem to favour them because of the 66 world cup connection. after all any west ham fan will tell you if moore,peters and hurst had not played that day west germany would have won that day. then also we have sir trevor brooking high up there in the fa too.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

The sale of Upton Park is not relevant. West Ham could do that anyway.

 

But it could be argued that it should be..that they should be putting money received from that sale into the work being done on the Olympic stadium (if they are not)

 

It's a different matter regarding whether any rules have been broken rather than is it right to do what's being done.

[Tone]

From Santa's link to the Charlton campaign:

 

West Ham do not pay extra for:

- utilities

- costs related to the pitch, both capital and maintenance (a spanking new pitch is being provided for West Ham, free of charge. Compare that to the £1m that Roland Duchatelet had to invest to make our pitch playable)

- operational and admin staff

- match day staff including ticket office, catering and stewarding

 

Unbelievable.

[LancyTony]

 

...The Conservative peer Karren Brady is presiding over a staggering waste of taxpayers' money... http://www.castrust.org

 

INDEED - a completely unnecessary new stadium - ORGANIZED BY Labour!!!

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Where would we have held the Olympics without it...Northwood stadium?

[Santa]

INDEED - a completely unnecessary new stadium - ORGANIZED BY Labour!!!

Not the point. It's 2015 now. When they want to give something to themselves on the cheap, all of a sudden they find a way.

[Warren]

Where would we have held the Olympics without it...Northwood stadium?

 

Your point is a reasonable argument in terms of how amateur sport has gradually become professional and highly commercial whilst in the case of athletics being 99% of the time only justifying a Northwood level stadium in terms of spectators. For example, club level athletics.

 

I went to the Olympic Stadium in Helsinki. It is about the size of Vale Park. That is stadium level facilities for 1950's amateur athletics. By 1960s this had become the Olympic stadium in Rome etc. I accept the Olympics in Berlin were bigger in the 1930s because of Hitler and in London where the UK had large facilities. But Helsinki was realistic in terms of cost to the public purse for minor sport holding little enduring spectator appeal.