West Ham Online

I believe the club have a 99yr lease at a few million a year or something silly.
Other clubs have had to take huge loans with massive interest rates that they have to pay to build a new ground. 
I don’t understand how West Ham can have any money problems whatsoever?
Why would we better off owning the stadium as if its land value, well, your using the land to play football so there is no other use for it.
Plus, clubs like Liverpool & Everton own stadiums in cheap areas of the country so it feels like ownership doesn’t really mean much.

Not sure I get it? (Apart from having the right to tear it down and rebuild something better).
 

It was always a land grab for Sullivan. Owning West Ham was the cost too getting the stadium. Now that ain’t going to happen. We have become a cost hindrance to him. Nobody is buying into a Premiership club which only real value is it’s league status.(Especially more so. When the richest owners on the planet can’t even invest into its squad. Without being told how much it can spend.?) Regardless of what you hear. We are in a World Wide Economic Depression. And even multi billionaire have to tighten their belts. And even the most ardent fan wouldn’t buy the Gold shares. Just too let Sullivan spunk away the money.

Owning the Stadium is important to the club and Sullivan. And the only people now who will buy us. Will only do so when we hit rock bottom. And the next few seasons will be rough. But it’s the medicine we going to have too stomach. To see the back of this ownership.

COYI.

I know it’s old history but we were told the Chicken Run stand couldn’t be redeveloped to enclose the stadium into something like 50,000 capacity because of the bus station behind 
Which then magically disappeared 
If that couldn’t have happened we could have done like Tottenham and moved the footprint given the space between the stadium and Green St
We were done like a kipper by Sullivan & he should never be forgiven 

To get the seats next to the pitch, the playing surface would need lowering in order to add additional seats at a similar rake as the existing lower tiers.  Be interesting to know how many metres the pitch would need to be lowered and how many additional seats would need adding to achieve this.

Fauxstralian wrote: ↑09 Sep 2025, 12:06 If we weren’t allowed to own the stadium … due to Tottenhams interference… we should have turned it down and forced the governments hand 
Tottenham never wanted it and obviously feigned interest to get concessions from Haringey about paying for infrastructure around their rebuild & obviously a pub team like Orient were never getting it
Levy played a blinder & Sullivan was obsessed with selling UP (twice) & not giving a shit about it’s suitability for football 
Sullivan was the one who said he didn’t care about an intimidating end of pitch stand as everyone preferred to sit on the halfway line

 

nychammer wrote: ↑09 Sep 2025, 12:10

Fat, Bald n 50" wrote: ↑09 Sep 2025, 12:08 The poxy athletics track that we can't get rid is a reason we need to own the stadium.

how does that make a difference - event if we own the place we literally need to knock down and rebuild, at least partially

Fat, Bald n 50" wrote: ↑09 Sep 2025, 12:08 The poxy athletics track that we can't get rid is a reason we need to own the stadium.

The poxy athletics track that we can't get rid is a reason we need to own the stadium.

If we weren’t allowed to own the stadium … due to Tottenhams interference… we should have turned it down and forced the governments hand 
Tottenham never wanted it and obviously feigned interest to get concessions from Haringey about paying for infrastructure around their rebuild & obviously a pub team like Orient were never getting it
Levy played a blinder & Sullivan was obsessed with selling UP (twice) & not giving a shit about it’s suitability for football 
Sullivan was the one who said he didn’t care about an intimidating end of pitch stand as everyone preferred to sit on the halfway line

Newcastle and Manchester City do not own their stadiums. But their deals provide exclusive use which allows them naming rights and to generate income from other events.

The West Ham problem (aside from its not purpose built for football) is that it is meant to be multi-use including athletics

For me. Not that important. I just want a decent matchday experience. Which, right now, we don't really get. 

For the club, it depends on objectives. I mean, financially owning the stadium adds value to the club. It Also gives the club another borrowing stream if required. If you want to develop long term then its important. That's not Sullivan's view so the cheap rent is perfect for him. 

zebthecat wrote: ↑09 Sep 2025, 11:38

threesixty wrote: ↑09 Sep 2025, 11:34

Bondholder wrote: ↑09 Sep 2025, 11:23 Very important. Just ask Daniel Levy, who ironically is the reason we don't own the London Stadium

 

But why? Financially speaking.

I imagine they make a tidy sum from staging NFL games for starters.
Then there are other sports such as boxing, concerts etc.

 

threesixty wrote: ↑09 Sep 2025, 11:34

Bondholder wrote: ↑09 Sep 2025, 11:23 Very important. Just ask Daniel Levy, who ironically is the reason we don't own the London Stadium

 

But why? Financially speaking.

threesixty wrote: ↑09 Sep 2025, 11:34

Bondholder wrote: ↑09 Sep 2025, 11:23 Very important. Just ask Daniel Levy, who ironically is the reason we don't own the London Stadium

 

But why? Financially speaking.

Bondholder wrote: ↑09 Sep 2025, 11:23 Very important. Just ask Daniel Levy, who ironically is the reason we don't own the London Stadium

 

Eerie Decent" wrote: ↑09 Sep 2025, 10:51 Sixty, do yourself a favour, get yourself a ticket and actually go to the stadium. 

If we were leasing a football stadium for 99 years, it wouldn't matter so much, when all said and done. The problem is we are leasing an athletics stadium, that we can't do fuck all with.

The match going experience is the worst in the country for fans, you'llknow what i mean if you do go, and we no longer have home advantage for the players. It's a disaster.

 

Very important. Just ask Daniel Levy, who ironically is the reason we don't own the London Stadium

Sixty, do yourself a favour, get yourself a ticket and actually go to the stadium. 

If we were leasing a football stadium for 99 years, it wouldn't matter so much, when all said and done. The problem is we are leasing an athletics stadium, that we can't do fuck all with.

The match going experience is the worst in the country for fans, you'llknow what i mean if you do go, and we no longer have home advantage for the players. It's a disaster.

I wish we had someone running the club who had half the business acumen of Daniel Levy.

Let's not forget, we would own the stadium if it wasn't for Daniel Levy,

I thought the reason Spurs and other clubs were upset with us getting the Olympic Stadium for peanuts was because they all knew that the big burden for each club competing in the league was the stadium they had to build to actually compete. So they all thought it was an unfair advantage.

Which is why it baffles me how this club can have any money problems whatsoever because I sort of dont see that owning a stadium is a useful asset compared to a 99yr lease for peanuts.
Spurs have to pay back 800m or something crazy over the next god knows how many years.

This club is so mismanaged it’s scary.
 

I find this an interesting topic. I presume that we have few fixed assets; Rush Green perhaps? The value in the club must be in its turnover, player contracts, TV rights - others can complete the list. But it strikes me that the value of these can plummet with relegation which is why I was against the move to the new stadium. 

On the plus side, it might make the board more vulnerable protests.

frank marker" wrote: ↑09 Sep 2025, 09:38 I'm guessing because you can borrow against its value which until now since I've been alive has always been increasing in value above inflation. In my humble opinion. Ready to be corrected if someone knows better.
 

It's an asset so the value is added to a sale price for the club.

depends what your goals are.
wanna control costs and survive? then the current set up is perfect for you. less risk - less reward.
wanna invest and grow revenue? then you need the asset to create revenue. higher risk but higher reward.

frank marker" wrote: ↑09 Sep 2025, 09:38 I'm guessing because you can borrow against its value which until now since I've been alive has always been increasing in value above inflation. In my humble opinion. Ready to be corrected if someone knows better.