Ground sharing the OS or Wembley [yes they can / no they can't]

13

Comments

  • Slaven_Cups_His_BeardSlaven_Cups_His_Beard
    Grey I'm sorry but we'll have to disagree on this.

    I can't for the life of me have seen a positive reaction from the fan base if the board tell the fans that "there could be a ground share with any club and we're really powerless to stop it"

    By the way it's nothing to do with Twitterland

    ;ok
  • eskimokingeskimoking
    Don't think asking KB tonight will be an option. Rumours she's not attending tonight.
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    eski

    I can't see what there is to ask her.

    Her view is in the public domain.

    What can someone say: 'Were you lying?'
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Presumably the same question can be asked over and over ad infinitum, in the vain hope that after a couple of dozen times, she'll give a different answer.


    ;puzzled
  • OutcastLondonerOutcastLondoner
    I guess KB could be asked to clarify the LLDC statement about co-operation between two clubs and whether a lack of it is definitely a barrier to ground-sharing. Whether some people understand it or not, it might make sense for them to clarify to clear any confusion (if there's any beyond this forum).

  • Colchester_IronColchester_Iron
    I wouldn't be very happy about ground sharing with Spurs. ;angry

    However, I have never understood the animosity towards ground sharing with the O's.
  • HamstewHamstew
    Riots
  • MoojorMoojor
    Slaven_Cups_His_Beard said:

    Moojor said:

    Slaven_Cups_His_Beard said:

    Depends grey, doesn't seem as cut and dried as that though does it, especially when Sully said this in 2014.

    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".

    Where is the link to the actual comments on Sky Sports in which Sully made this comment?

    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.


    What?

    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
    Firstly, tone down the condescending manner.

    Secondly, you didn't provide a direct quote to what Sully said, you provided a link to a spurs pages which had the comment about something Sully said on Sky sports.

    Which is why I asked for a direct link to the actual sky sports report not some page which just references its.

    Thirdly you are trying to find something in nothing, IN MY OPINION, you can see the comments from the club and if you want to go back to the exact wording of something which was said 2 years ago and pick it apart word for word and see how that may mean something else if you ignore bits of what is being said now then you are looking for something which isn't there, in this case, IN MY OPINION, that they club deliberately misled the fans on a groundshare.
  • eskimokingeskimoking
    grey_til_I_dye said:

    eski

    I can't see what there is to ask her.

    Her view is in the public domain.

    What can someone say: 'Were you lying?'

    I agree with your interpretation Grey, having seen the conversation, but it doesn't hurt to ask the question once now, does it? If I was there, I would ask her to just clarify her understanding of the process if Chelsea/Spurs were to put in an official request to ground share.

    And anyway, my point wasn't really that there was a question to ask, my post was merely to inform the board that she wasn't going to be present as Suz mentioned asking her.
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    eski

    ;ok

    Sorry if it came across as a pop;that certainly isn't how it was meant.
  • OutcastLondonerOutcastLondoner
    Would the likes of Newham Council, the police, Westfield have a say in another PL team coming? Increases security costs and other things. Right now, we're moving within the borough so I guess resource re-allocation isn't a major thing. Tottenham ground-sharing would be. Also, having a PL game there basically every week would be a big change to any agreements that might've been made.
  • eskimokingeskimoking
    Did a little Grey, no harm though ;biggrin thanks.
  • SuzanneClaretSuzanneClaret
    KB was not at the meeting she had to leave to catch a plane on 'club business'.

    However;

    No approach has been made to West Ham by either Spurs or Chelsea to share the OS. They have asked the FA to use Wembley. Whilst West Ham do not have a 'veto' we do have to give our permission for another Prem league club to use the OS. We won't give it.

    Message ends.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Good work agent Claret ;ok
  • billybondsbeardbillybondsbeard
    edited January 2016
    I don't want to ground share with any other team- it's our new home, and I don't want it to be a kind of ' casual' arrangement.
    Levy is the sort of devious so and so to take us to court just to test the water and make trouble. Once lawyers get involved and test the ' agreement ' I don't trust anything I've read.
    Am I being paranoid? ?
  • SuzanneClaretSuzanneClaret
    Yes.

    Levy can do what he wants unless he wants to use the OS then he can't do what he wants.
  • Slaven_Cups_His_BeardSlaven_Cups_His_Beard
    edited January 2016
    Moojor said:

    Slaven_Cups_His_Beard said:

    Moojor said:

    Slaven_Cups_His_Beard said:

    Depends grey, doesn't seem as cut and dried as that though does it, especially when Sully said this in 2014.

    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".

    Where is the link to the actual comments on Sky Sports in which Sully made this comment?

    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.


    What?

    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
    Firstly, tone down the condescending manner.

    Secondly, you didn't provide a direct quote to what Sully said, you provided a link to a spurs pages which had the comment about something Sully said on Sky sports.

    Which is why I asked for a direct link to the actual sky sports report not some page which just references its.

    Thirdly you are trying to find something in nothing, IN MY OPINION, you can see the comments from the club and if you want to go back to the exact wording of something which was said 2 years ago and pick it apart word for word and see how that may mean something else if you ignore bits of what is being said now then you are looking for something which isn't there, in this case, IN MY OPINION, that they club deliberately misled the fans on a groundshare.
    For the record...just read it back....

    It wasn't supposed to be "Son" that was a typo (normally reserved for Ham) it was supposed to be "So" for that I apologise but was a genuine mistake.

    Secondly it's funny that you mentioned condescending manner (not you personally)

    Sorry I didn't dig deeper to get your original quote link, not something I would've worried to much about. I'm fairly certain it's what he said.

    Lastly I'm not trying to find something in nothing. I'm trying to establish whether the wording Brady used surrounding our power over ground sharing was actually correct.

    And I don't think it was.

    ;thumbsup
  • Slaven_Cups_His_BeardSlaven_Cups_His_Beard
    SuzanneClaret said:

    KB was not at the meeting she had to leave to catch a plane on 'club business'.

    However;

    No approach has been made to West Ham by either Spurs or Chelsea to share the OS. They have asked the FA to use Wembley. Whilst West Ham do not have a 'veto' we do have to give our permission for another Prem league club to use the OS. We won't give it.

    Message ends.

    Thanks for sharing that Suze.

    So we don't have a veto but we do have to agree to it, which we won't do, under any circumstances (I can only assume in this case - CFC or THFC)
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited January 2016
    So you still think this, as stated - again - at tonight's meeting

    Whilst West Ham do not have a 'veto' we do have to give our permission for another Prem league club to use the OS. We won't give it.
    is a lie?
  • SuzanneClaretSuzanneClaret
    edited January 2016
    No ground share with any Prem club under any circumstances.

  • Slaven_Cups_His_BeardSlaven_Cups_His_Beard
    No I don't think that's a lie.....because Suz has just quoted what was said tonight, why would I think that was a lie?

    I do think we can't veto, as confirmed.

    I do think we'd be consulted, if it ever came up. (probably unlikely with PL club)

    Whether we would agree or not, for me depends on the possible deal on offer from the club asking to share, the LLDC and us. All those factors.

    Lets say CFC offered the LLDC 15 or 20m to play at the OS for one season and agree to work round all our fixtures as long as the PL agreed. What is the LLDC going to do?

    I'd say they would look at it long and hard, don't they have a responsibility to try and bring in as much income as possible from the OS to offset the tax payer funded cost?

  • MunichHammerMunichHammer
    So if Chelsea get relegated and ask us ... ;wahoo
  • SuzanneClaretSuzanneClaret
    ;lol


    No.


    Still no.

    That's not official by the way.

    But I say no.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    But any Prem ground share request would have to go to the PL first as their permission would be needed prior to any arrangements. IMO that would mean the LLDC would be the last to be asked.
  • SuzanneClaretSuzanneClaret
    edited January 2016
    It's what the FA would like.

    £££££££££££££££££
  • SuzanneClaretSuzanneClaret
    It's what the journos are talking about.
  • Slaven_Cups_His_BeardSlaven_Cups_His_Beard
    Dimi1964 said:

    It makes a lot more sense for Chelsea and Spurs to ground share Wembley anyway.

    Limit to how many 50,000 + games they can have?

    Not sure, just asking.
  • Slaven_Cups_His_BeardSlaven_Cups_His_Beard
    SuzanneClaret said:

    No ground share with any Prem club under any circumstances.

    Was this your opinion or what was said tonight? Just so I'm clear.

    Ta

    ;ok
  • woosiewoosie
    Money talks ;whistle
  • billybondsbeardbillybondsbeard
    MrsGrey said:

    So you still think this, as stated - again - at tonight's meeting


    Whilst West Ham do not have a 'veto' we do have to give our permission for another Prem league club to use the OS. We won't give it.
    is a lie?

    If we don't have a veto, but refuse to give permission, that's er a veto isn't it ??
    I hate tautology me ;wink
Sign In or Register to comment.