What's new

Let's All Laugh At... Let's All Laugh At West Ham

Sweech

Sweech

Ruh Roh Ressegnon
Jun 27, 2013
6,752
16,378
stokesy said:
The referee completely missed one of West Hams thugs stand on Herrera's foot a few seconds before. And completely ignores Caroll just throwing himself around and pushing defenders all the time. How that guy doesn't get sent off every match is a complete mystery to me. Mind you same could be said for Fellaini.
Click to expand...
It seems there's lots of players like that.

Sergio Ramos has won shitloads in his life and constantly I wonder how that guy makes it to even half time without getting sent off let alone going the entire match.
 
LSUY

LSUY

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2005
24,038
66,930
13000208_585379608287381_6319415585628850594_n.png


:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: Why is this clause even in the contract?
 
Cornpattbuck

Cornpattbuck

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2013
6,942
16,070
talkshowhost86 said:
I simply don't see any justification for the taxpayer contributing anything towards what West Ham should be paying for.

Yes there will be some taxpayer money going in because there is a public element to the stadium, but the balance is all wrong, particularly when you consider how much the naming rights are likely to be.

Basically shows what a complete shambles the management of the stadium was (i.e. they had no idea what they were doing with it) and West Ham simply had them over a barrel.
Click to expand...

One of the strangest parts seems to be the 'why should we pay the bills when we're only tenants for 25 days a year' line, which seems to suddenly go very quiet when naming rights are mentioned etc...
 
talkshowhost86

talkshowhost86

Mod-Moose
Staff
Oct 2, 2004
48,332
47,588
nailsy said:
Which will be like paying £200 a month by then.

And I don't buy this either, "Someone renting the stadium for 25 days a year cannot be responsible for 365 days' running costs." If they weren't converting the stadium to their specific use they might have a point, but as it is the stadium has been converted at a massive cost and is going to be decked out in West Ham colours all year and they aren't paying running costs. I wonder how many high street shops get a discount on their rent if they don't open on a Sunday? They should pay a fee based on them renting the stadium every day during the football stadium. If there are other events scheduled there during the season they should get a refund.
Click to expand...

Yup that argument doesn't hold water at all, unless they are saying that they only get the equivalent amount of income out of it all (7%).

But I'm prepared to bet that if they are getting everything over 4m for sponsorship/naming rights etc then they taking a huge amount more than 7% of the income out.

To be honest fair play to West Ham for getting the deal done. It's great for them and will probably help them get much closer to the other financial behemoths in the league than they would have been able to staying at Upton Park.

But whoever brokered the deal on behalf of Newham should be publically hung out to dry to be honest. Ludicrous subsidisation of a rich organisation by the public purse.
 
Cornpattbuck

Cornpattbuck

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2013
6,942
16,070
As a few people have said, I'm pleased we're growing WHL in the end but it's annoying that, while we were jumping through hoops, West Ham seem to have been given a fast track leg up.
 
G01

G01

Member
Jan 21, 2008
22
46
nailsy said:
Which will be like paying £200 a month by then.

And I don't buy this either, "Someone renting the stadium for 25 days a year cannot be responsible for 365 days' running costs." If they weren't converting the stadium to their specific use they might have a point, but as it is the stadium has been converted at a massive cost and is going to be decked out in West Ham colours all year and they aren't paying running costs. I wonder how many high street shops get a discount on their rent if they don't open on a Sunday? They should pay a fee based on them renting the stadium every day during the football stadium. If there are other events scheduled there during the season they should get a refund.
Click to expand...
When they put it like that it makes them sound like a club without a real 'home' unlike what we have to look forward to. Its just somewhere they play a match 25 days a year, like me and my work-pals blockbooking Thursday nights at the five a side pitches!.
 
nailsy

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,630
talkshowhost86 said:
Yup that argument doesn't hold water at all, unless they are saying that they only get the equivalent amount of income out of it all (7%).

But I'm prepared to bet that if they are getting everything over 4m for sponsorship/naming rights etc then they taking a huge amount more than 7% of the income out.

To be honest fair play to West Ham for getting the deal done. It's great for them and will probably help them get much closer to the other financial behemoths in the league than they would have been able to staying at Upton Park.

But whoever brokered the deal on behalf of Newham should be publically hung out to dry to be honest. Ludicrous subsidisation of a rich organisation by the public purse.
Click to expand...

I think they have to share anything above £4m with the LLDC and Newham borough. Personally I don't think they should get any of that money.
 
Lilbaz

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
nailsy said:
I think they have to share anything above £4m with the LLDC and Newham borough. Personally I don't think they should get any of that money.
Click to expand...

No the other way round. The lldc get the first £4m of naming rights.
 
Lilbaz

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
G01 said:
When they put it like that it makes them sound like a club without a real 'home' unlike what we have to look forward to. Its just somewhere they play a match 25 days a year, like me and my work-pals blockbooking Thursday nights at the five a side pitches!.
Click to expand...

They live in a council stadium.
 
nailsy

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,630
Lilbaz said:
No the other way round. The lldc get the first £4m of naming rights.
Click to expand...

The LLDC get the first £4m, but then it's split. According to the BBC anyway...

"The first £4m of any naming rights deal will go to the LLDC and Newham borough, with anything above that between the two bodies and West Ham, although the amount is capped."
 
Lilbaz

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
nailsy said:
The LLDC get the first £4m, but then it's split. According to the BBC anyway...

"The first £4m of any naming rights deal will go to the LLDC and Newham borough, with anything above that between the two bodies and West Ham, although the amount is capped."
Click to expand...

That's what i said. ;) Your post implied west ham got the first £4m.
 
dagraham

dagraham

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2005
19,153
46,148
In principle I don't think West Ham should receive a penny in naming rights considering the ridiculously small amount they are paying.

However, I would imagine that any naming rights procured with West Ham using the stadium would dwarf the amount it could attract with no one there. Better for the LLDC to have a slice of a bigger pie than the whole of virtually nothing, so I can how see how West Ham managed to push it through.

They've got the LLDC over a barrel basically.

Annoying as fuck really and without doubt an unfair competitive advantage, but just goes to prove so much in this life is being in the right place at the right time.
 
nailsy

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,630
Lilbaz said:
That's what i said. ;) Your post implied west ham got the first £4m.
Click to expand...

We didn't mention anything about the first four million. I was quoting a post that said they got everything over the £4m which doesn't seem to be the case.
 
nailsy

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,630
Genuine question here, why do West Ham get naming rights? If a band like One Direction took over the venue for a month they wouldn't be allowed to rename the stadium so why do West Ham get to do it?
 
dagraham

dagraham

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2005
19,153
46,148
nailsy said:
Genuine question here, why do West Ham get naming rights? If a band like One Direction took over the venue for a month they wouldn't be allowed to rename the stadium so why do West Ham get to do it?
Click to expand...

See my post above. Just my opinion mind.
 
Lou3000

Lou3000

£
May 28, 2014
861
2,525
In a perfect world, where FFP was worth the paper it was printed on, this would be classified as outside investment or debt owed by the club and would not be justified by West Ham's revenue numbers.

Why even go through the hoops of sponsorship shell companies? If Leicester's big money owner wants to help the club, build a massive new stadium and lease it to the club for a £1m a year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mawspurs
Ange believes Spurs ‘heading in right direction’ despite dropping points against West Ham
Replies
0
Views
186
mawspurs
mawspurs
mawspurs
Spurs 2-3 West Ham United - Pre-Season Friendly
Replies
15
Views
2K
JimmyG2
J
bomberH
Let’s All Laugh At Sky/TNT
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
8K
spursfan77
spursfan77
Top