Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.3K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 28 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 355 Fun & Games
- 80 BA Predictor Threads
- 27 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 277 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 105 Current West Ham
- 196 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 10 PL2 & Academy
- 31 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 22 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 375 Match Threads
- 50 MOTM
- 8 West Ham Nostalgia
- 34 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 34 Transfers
- 45 Transfer Speculation
- 85 Completed Transfers
- 51 Internationals
- 44 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 103 Football Chatter
- 41 Football Chatter
- 257 Other Teams & Matches
- 23 Other Players & Staff
Comments
Stand up tall, deep breath and shout out from the bottom of your lungs
"DID YOU MISLEAD US ABOUT THE OLYMPIC STADIUM!!!!"
"It would therefore be impossible to accommodate the fixtures of another Premier League club without West Ham agreeing - a position which was fully supported at today's hearing."
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/35406023
I've read what the LLDC say, what KB says and what the club spokesperson says, and they are all in agreement: no groundshare unless West Ham gives it the ;ok
As far as I am concerned, there's no question to be answered.
Slizzy
Not sure what bit of that isn't clear enough, tbh.
Pretty sure that is all available atm.
The appeal is the LLDC trying to avoid revealing certain financial aspects of the contract; the club have no objection to the whole deal being made public, and are not appealing the case.
Seems to me that if the club can show a ground-share would be detrimental to our tenancy, it can't be done.
If it isn't detrimental to our tenancy, can't see why we'd be bothered.
All this opened up, as in not just the veto piece about ground sharing but on that subject the exact details if any.
PL yes I know....clubs and league would probably have to agree.
My point is, I don't think WHU get the final say, even though we may voice our disproval to anything the LLDC may want to do.
;ok
Not sure how you work that out, given what both the club and LLDC have said about it, but lets agree to disagree and see what happens.
Sorry, thought that bit was clear.
I don't believe the club get the final say, do they get a chance to voice their concerns, yes, but not the final say.
Brady was quoted as saying that WHU would probably say "no" to any ground sharing. It doesn't sound to me like they even need to be asked?
Why say that, if it doesn't require our cooperation?
"It would therefore be impossible to accommodate the fixtures of another Premier League club without West Ham agreeing - a position which was fully supported at today's hearing."
You seem to feel that our spokesperson yesterday is either misinformed or lying... ;hmm
The club have made it clear that if a ground-share materially impacts on our tenancy, they can block it.
If a ground-share doesn't materially impact on our tenancy, then why is anyone bothered if we have one?
www.thfclatest.com/2014/11/04/spurs-to-play-in-olympic-stadium/
"Speaking on Sky Sports News, David Sullivan admitted that West Ham can only prevent another club using the Olympic Stadium during the Hammers inaugural season of 2016/17".
Probably won't ever be a ground share, but I think the point could be that the board may have over stated their "power" in all this, should a share ever be proposed or considered and that's my point.
;ok
I think the point could be that the board may have properly stated their "power" in all this, should a share ever be proposed or considered and that's my point.
;ok
a) a ground-share was proposed
b) West Ham objected, but were overruled
and
c) launched an appeal with whoever the relevant authorities might be.
My personal feeling is that the comment from the LLDC yesterday was an ill-advised attempt by a body under fire to show that they have not been given the run-around by the club, and the caveat of 'if the teams co-operate and the Premier League co-operates' shows that.
To me it really seems as if you are trying to find something where there is nothing.
The club have the ability to stop anything which has a direct impact on them being able to fulfill their sporting obligations.
If someone can come and prove that there will be no distruption to that they get to groundshare.
E.g. West Ham and Spurs are both in the FA cup/League Cup. We both get drawn to play at home. The FA cup people/Spurs/West Ham ALL have to agree and co-operate to find a solution.
I also believe that we have the final say.
I'm trying to find something where there is nothing?
Sorry bud.....but there appears to be a slight descrepency here.......
Son let's get this straight....I've presented a direct quote that Sully said in 2014, unless you want me to personally knock on his door and ask him again, not much more I can do.
Secondly I don't actually think there will be a share, but if it does come up ITS MY OPINION that the club haven't quite been 100% with their comments, I.e Brady in her Sun Column.
Why would she say anything else? I mean if she says "actually there could be a share, we would be consulted but powerless to stop it" then it's hardly going to go down well with getting the fans onboard in the last 2 years is it?
Juat because they're our owners and they've done a fantastic job in the main in the last 6 years doesn't mean they don't spin stuff or come out with statements in order to appease fans from time to time.
;ok
Respectfully disagree with the second bit.
Because I would guess a significant number wouldn't.
Just my opinion of course.
;ok
It would have no impact on the stadium branding, nor on the match day experience, so I don't see that it would have had any impact on season ticket sales.