PDA

View Full Version : NHC The London Stadium



Hermit Crab
15-12-2016, 04:30 PM
How bad is this view from inside West Hams ground. Shocking if you're in the upper tier. They should never have moved there.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161215/ddd92b6edb51f696c3a4923049704b4e.png

MWHIBBIES
15-12-2016, 04:43 PM
Few folk with a bad view for a free 60k seater stadium? I'm sure their owners will be absolutely delighted with that. Took Arsenal 10 years to pay off their ground and they suffered on the park for it. West Ham got the deal of the century.

Moulin Yarns
15-12-2016, 04:43 PM
How bad is this view from inside West Hams ground. Shocking if you're in the upper tier. They should never have moved there.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161215/ddd92b6edb51f696c3a4923049704b4e.png

My brother in law is a Hammers supporter, lives in Chelmsford and tried, and failed to get a season ticket. The distribution would have had Hibs.net in melt down.

A £10 reservation fee put you on a list, and then you were invited, on a first come basis to choose your seats, but there was no limit so wide boys were buying blocks of seats, to resell on a match by match basis.

Itsnoteasy
15-12-2016, 04:45 PM
Few folk with a bad view for a free 60k seater stadium? I'm sure their owners will be absolutely delighted with that. Took Arsenal 10 years to pay off their ground and they suffered on the park for it. West Ham got the deal of the century.

That sounds the same as 2 teams fi Edinbirgh

Keith_M
15-12-2016, 04:46 PM
Few folk with a bad view for a free 60k seater stadium? I'm sure their owners will be absolutely delighted with that. Took Arsenal 10 years to pay off their ground and they suffered on the park for it. West Ham got the deal of the century.


Must be more than a few, surely.


Basically anybody in the upper tiers behind each goals. I'd imagine that amounts to well into five figures.

Michael
15-12-2016, 04:47 PM
Few folk with a bad view for a free 60k seater stadium? I'm sure their owners will be absolutely delighted with that. Took Arsenal 10 years to pay off their ground and they suffered on the park for it. West Ham got the deal of the century.

Disagree, it'll come back to bite them if/when the TV deal goes or they get stuck in the second tier. Arsenal did it the right way.

MWHIBBIES
15-12-2016, 04:50 PM
Disagree, it'll come back to bite them if/when the TV deal goes or they get stuck in the second tier. Arsenal did it the right way.What is there to suggest the TV deal is going anywhere?

Hermit Crab
15-12-2016, 04:51 PM
Few folk with a bad view for a free 60k seater stadium? I'm sure their owners will be absolutely delighted with that. Took Arsenal 10 years to pay off their ground and they suffered on the park for it. West Ham got the deal of the century.


Most away fans are up there plus a large percentage of the home support, hardly a few. It's shocking view for a "new" stadium.

Hermit Crab
15-12-2016, 04:53 PM
My brother in law is a Hammers supporter, lives in Chelmsford and tried, and failed to get a season ticket. The distribution would have had Hibs.net in melt down.

A £10 reservation fee put you on a list, and then you were invited, on a first come basis to choose your seats, but there was no limit so wide boys were buying blocks of seats, to resell on a match by match basis.


Thats just a joke, what away to treat fans.

Smartie
15-12-2016, 05:08 PM
Is it just me that thinks that view isn't that bad?

It's not a premium seat, I'm sure that will be reflected in the price.


That said, I loved the Boleyn. The fact that West Ham felt the need to move from a cracking ground at their spiritual home says a lot about modern football.

I suspect they'll be at a new ground within 30 years and this move -which on paper looks a good one - will have cost them a fortune.

ClewsHibs
15-12-2016, 05:12 PM
Apart from the massive gap between the tiers, the view isnt that different from the view from behind the goals at Hampden.
Which is crap

Hermit Crab
15-12-2016, 05:12 PM
Is it just me that thinks that view isn't that bad?

It's not a premium seat, I'm sure that will be reflected in the price.


That said, I loved the Boleyn. The fact that West Ham felt the need to move from a cracking ground at their spiritual home says a lot about modern football.

I suspect they'll be at a new ground within 30 years and this move -which on paper looks a good one - will have cost them a fortune.



Prices for Saturdays game V Hull city AdultO65U21U16Accessibility1966£40£40£40£40£40Band 1£35£17.50£17.50£17.50£17.50Band 2£30£15£15£15£15Band 3£27£13.50£13.50£13.50£13.50Band 4£27£13.50£13.50£13.50£13.50Band 5£25£12.50£12.50£12.50£12.50
Read more at http://www.whufc.com/tickets/match-tickets/home-matches/west-ham-united-v-hull-city#hTlKvcJCDAbhqAL7.99

Smartie
15-12-2016, 05:19 PM
Premier League football in London for £25?

Not that unreasonable imo.

Especially not when compared to the view one of our own chaps got of a Championship game in Dundee the other week.

Billy Whizz
15-12-2016, 05:20 PM
Premier League football in London for £25?

Not that unreasonable imo.

Especially not when compared to the view one of our own chaps got of a Championship game in Dundee the other week.

But he got to see Hibs play😄

Michael
15-12-2016, 05:29 PM
What is there to suggest the TV deal is going anywhere?

What goes up must come down. People will get sick of it or someone will massively overpay for it. It'll happen eventually.

Viva_Palmeiras
15-12-2016, 05:44 PM
But he got to see Hibs play😄

Paid that to see Spurs (with world class Kinsmann) V QPR (wth not-so world class Les Ferdinand and Sinclair) in 1994

BoomtownHibees
15-12-2016, 05:51 PM
What goes up must come down. People will get sick of it or someone will massively overpay for it. It'll happen eventually.

If someone massively overpaid for it then it wouldn't go anywhere would it?

NAE NOOKIE
15-12-2016, 06:33 PM
When you look at Upton Park its pretty clear there was little prospect of making the stadium bigger, so you can see why they moved. The London authorities have spent a fortune mostly from public funds making the stadium fit for football, the extended roof cost more than most clubs will spend on a whole new stadium. For all of this West Ham pay what for an EPL club is a peppercorn rent ..... its a fantastic deal for them commercially.

But what they have is a rubbish football venue, no thought was given to segregation of fans inside or especially outside of the stadium when it was built and according to West Ham fans I've heard on the radio its a policing nightmare. No matter what they do with the seats the fans are miles from the action and it doesn't look like they will ever recapture the atmosphere they had at the old stadium.

Whoever had a hand in building the City of Manchester stadium should have been heavily involved in the London stadium, the Etihad looks like its a superb football stadium and all because they recognised that the only way to prevent it becoming a white Elephant was to agree a deal with Man City before it was built and design the stadium to make it easily convertible after the Commonwealth games.
The only prospect for the financial future of the London stadium was a football club moving in, but no thought was given to the design to take that into account, which is why they had to outlay something like, at a conservative estimate, 50 million quid just to put on the new roof.

By the looks of the amount of money they have spent on the stadium since the Olympics it would have been cheaper and probably more sensible to knock it down and build a proper ground, in fact I'm sure I heard a stadium expert say that's exactly what they should have done.

jgl07
15-12-2016, 06:49 PM
Spurs had the right idea. Bulldoze the whole thing and build a proper football stadium on the site!

Pete
15-12-2016, 06:59 PM
How bad is this view from inside West Hams ground. Shocking if you're in the upper tier. They should never have moved there.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161215/ddd92b6edb51f696c3a4923049704b4e.png

The view from the seats below the walkway must be even worse.

Michael
15-12-2016, 07:03 PM
If someone massively overpaid for it then it wouldn't go anywhere would it?

Well if the company can't pay the bill...

EDIT: Ah, bad wording in my first post. Was talking about if a bidding war drove up the cost.

jacomo
15-12-2016, 07:21 PM
When you look at Upton Park its pretty clear there was little prospect of making the stadium bigger, so you can see why they moved. The London authorities have spent a fortune mostly from public funds making the stadium fit for football, the extended roof cost more than most clubs will spend on a whole new stadium. For all of this West Ham pay what for an EPL club is a peppercorn rent ..... its a fantastic deal for them commercially.

But what they have is a rubbish football venue, no thought was given to segregation of fans inside or especially outside of the stadium when it was built and according to West Ham fans I've heard on the radio its a policing nightmare. No matter what they do with the seats the fans are miles from the action and it doesn't look like they will ever recapture the atmosphere they had at the old stadium.

Whoever had a hand in building the City of Manchester stadium should have been heavily involved in the London stadium, the Etihad looks like its a superb football stadium and all because they recognised that the only way to prevent it becoming a white Elephant was to agree a deal with Man City before it was built and design the stadium to make it easily convertible after the Commonwealth games.
The only prospect for the financial future of the London stadium was a football club moving in, but no thought was given to the design to take that into account, which is why they had to outlay something like, at a conservative estimate, 50 million quid just to put on the new roof.

By the looks of the amount of money they have spent on the stadium since the Olympics it would have been cheaper and probably more sensible to knock it down and build a proper ground, in fact I'm sure I heard a stadium expert say that's exactly what they should have done.

It wasn't design but politics. The only realistic use for the stadium post 2012 was for football, so it should have designed with that in mind - as the Manchester stadium was.

But Seb Coe objected, so £500m spent on an ugly stadium that wasn't fit for purpose for 'legacy' use. Scandalous decision, but easy when you are spending other people's money.

West Ham's owners have got a great deal, and pocket the profits from selling the Boleyn Ground. The fans? Not so much.

Dashing Bob S
15-12-2016, 07:29 PM
It wasn't design but politics. The only realistic use for the stadium post 2012 was for football, so it should have designed with that in mind - as the Manchester stadium was.

But Seb Coe objected, so £500m spent on an ugly stadium that wasn't fit for purpose for 'legacy' use. Scandalous decision, but easy when you are spending other people's money.

West Ham's owners have got a great deal, and pocket the profits from selling the Boleyn Ground. The fans? Not so much.

A self-seving, pompous little twat.

GreenOnions
15-12-2016, 07:30 PM
I understand that the most expensive seats in the new Tynecastle stand are to face away from the pitch That's what I call "putting fans first".

jacomo
15-12-2016, 07:35 PM
A self-seving, pompous little twat.

I don't disagree, whatever seving means (I bet it's sordid, though)

:wink:

jgl07
15-12-2016, 08:31 PM
A self-seving, pompous little twat.
I believe that Coe moaned like hell when the running track was taken away from the City of Manchester Stadium. He would have preferred a fly bourne dump rotting away and used once every five years.

That was never going to happen as the City Council would never have built the lace in the first place without the legacy use being finalised first. Manchester City would never have agreed to move in without the running track going.

Bristolhibby
15-12-2016, 09:00 PM
Regarding legacy, the fact of the matter is nobody gives two hoots about athletics.

Possibly once every four years, then is forgotten again. It's just boring to watch, and no amount of legacy will change that.

Future Olympics need to be sensible.

The only one that has worked well was the Sydney stadium, but they knew that it would be a multi sports stadium as soon as the torch was extinguished.

J

Lago
15-12-2016, 09:05 PM
Few folk with a bad view for a free 60k seater stadium? I'm sure their owners will be absolutely delighted with that. Took Arsenal 10 years to pay off their ground and they suffered on the park for it. West Ham got the deal of the century.
But they are suffering on the park, total lack of atmosphere at their new home.

MWHIBBIES
15-12-2016, 09:08 PM
But they are suffering on the park, total lack of atmosphere at their new home.Little more to do with West Ham having absolutely nothing up front.

Alex Trager
15-12-2016, 09:27 PM
The view from the seats below the walkway must be even worse.

Haha that's exactly what I am thinking

NadeAteMyLunch!
15-12-2016, 10:29 PM
When you look at Upton Park its pretty clear there was little prospect of making the stadium bigger, so you can see why they moved. The London authorities have spent a fortune mostly from public funds making the stadium fit for football, the extended roof cost more than most clubs will spend on a whole new stadium. For all of this West Ham pay what for an EPL club is a peppercorn rent ..... its a fantastic deal for them commercially.

But what they have is a rubbish football venue, no thought was given to segregation of fans inside or especially outside of the stadium when it was built and according to West Ham fans I've heard on the radio its a policing nightmare. No matter what they do with the seats the fans are miles from the action and it doesn't look like they will ever recapture the atmosphere they had at the old stadium.

Whoever had a hand in building the City of Manchester stadium should have been heavily involved in the London stadium, the Etihad looks like its a superb football stadium and all because they recognised that the only way to prevent it becoming a white Elephant was to agree a deal with Man City before it was built and design the stadium to make it easily convertible after the Commonwealth games.
The only prospect for the financial future of the London stadium was a football club moving in, but no thought was given to the design to take that into account, which is why they had to outlay something like, at a conservative estimate, 50 million quid just to put on the new roof.

By the looks of the amount of money they have spent on the stadium since the Olympics it would have been cheaper and probably more sensible to knock it down and build a proper ground, in fact I'm sure I heard a stadium expert say that's exactly what they should have done.

Excellent post [emoji1360]

Criswell
15-12-2016, 10:33 PM
Looks like a total dog's dinner of a stadium.

ozhibs
15-12-2016, 10:58 PM
When you look at Upton Park its pretty clear there was little prospect of making the stadium bigger, so you can see why they moved. The London authorities have spent a fortune mostly from public funds making the stadium fit for football, the extended roof cost more than most clubs will spend on a whole new stadium. For all of this West Ham pay what for an EPL club is a peppercorn rent ..... its a fantastic deal for them commercially.

But what they have is a rubbish football venue, no thought was given to segregation of fans inside or especially outside of the stadium when it was built and according to West Ham fans I've heard on the radio its a policing nightmare. No matter what they do with the seats the fans are miles from the action and it doesn't look like they will ever recapture the atmosphere they had at the old stadium.

Whoever had a hand in building the City of Manchester stadium should have been heavily involved in the London stadium, the Etihad looks like its a superb football stadium and all because they recognised that the only way to prevent it becoming a white Elephant was to agree a deal with Man City before it was built and design the stadium to make it easily convertible after the Commonwealth games.
The only prospect for the financial future of the London stadium was a football club moving in, but no thought was given to the design to take that into account, which is why they had to outlay something like, at a conservative estimate, 50 million quid just to put on the new roof.

By the looks of the amount of money they have spent on the stadium since the Olympics it would have been cheaper and probably more sensible to knock it down and build a proper ground, in fact I'm sure I heard a stadium expert say that's exactly what they should have done.

I agree, I thought it was scandalous to Pay 50 million quid to "convert" the stadium just the same as we should have bulldozed Hampden and built a new one like the Millennium stadium instead of patching up the old Hampden.

pacorosssco
16-12-2016, 12:52 AM
Most away fans are up there plus a large percentage of the home support, hardly a few. It's shocking view for a "new" stadium.

as crazy having a single row of seats up the away stand? stade de france, a monster if your up back you watch the big screen as players pitch are dots

pacorosssco
16-12-2016, 12:58 AM
I agree, I thought it was scandalous to Pay 50 million quid to "convert" the stadium just the same as we should have bulldozed Hampden and built a new one like the Millennium stadium instead of patching up the old Hampden.

Handed West Ham for a small rent right. Millennium tax payer. Hampden put SFA debt as had to pay. Was elite stadia as per Uefa till recently. Needs blitzed. Not sure we need cost new one. Holland Spain etc no national stadia.

Keith_M
16-12-2016, 10:07 AM
Handed West Ham for a small rent right. Millennium tax payer. Hampden put SFA debt as had to pay. Was elite stadia as per Uefa till recently. Needs blitzed. Not sure we need cost new one. Holland Spain etc no national stadia.



Could you possibly translate that into English?


:confused:

hibsdaft
16-12-2016, 07:09 PM
Entirely predictable - several Italian clubs (Juve, Udinese and Cagliari off the top of my head) have spent a small fortune doing the exact opposite in recent years. Juve built a brand new ground because of their daft running track design, Udinese built over theirs and Cagliari did the same at two end. Athletics tracks and football don't go. End of.

And to think clubs were fighting over the place.

ancient hibee
16-12-2016, 10:11 PM
Could you possibly translate that into English?


:confused:


Is is that you Malky?

jgl07
16-12-2016, 11:49 PM
Entirely predictable - several Italian clubs (Juve, Udinese and Cagliari off the top of my head) have spent a small fortune doing the exact opposite in recent years. Juve built a brand new ground because of their daft running track design, Udinese built over theirs and Cagliari did the same at two end. Athletics tracks and football don't go. End of.

And to think clubs were fighting over the place.
Yes but Spurs would have flattened the whole thing and built a proper football stadium.

The other applicant were Orient. They were trying to make a point as the London Stadium is in their patch.

Haymaker
17-12-2016, 03:03 AM
All my mates who have STs at The Olympic Park love it. Apart from the poor segregation which is a serious problem.

Dashing Bob S
17-12-2016, 03:19 AM
When you look at Upton Park its pretty clear there was little prospect of making the stadium bigger, so you can see why they moved. The London authorities have spent a fortune mostly from public funds making the stadium fit for football, the extended roof cost more than most clubs will spend on a whole new stadium. For all of this West Ham pay what for an EPL club is a peppercorn rent ..... its a fantastic deal for them commercially.

But what they have is a rubbish football venue, no thought was given to segregation of fans inside or especially outside of the stadium when it was built and according to West Ham fans I've heard on the radio its a policing nightmare. No matter what they do with the seats the fans are miles from the action and it doesn't look like they will ever recapture the atmosphere they had at the old stadium.

Whoever had a hand in building the City of Manchester stadium should have been heavily involved in the London stadium, the Etihad looks like its a superb football stadium and all because they recognised that the only way to prevent it becoming a white Elephant was to agree a deal with Man City before it was built and design the stadium to make it easily convertible after the Commonwealth games.
The only prospect for the financial future of the London stadium was a football club moving in, but no thought was given to the design to take that into account, which is why they had to outlay something like, at a conservative estimate, 50 million quid just to put on the new roof.

By the looks of the amount of money they have spent on the stadium since the Olympics it would have been cheaper and probably more sensible to knock it down and build a proper ground, in fact I'm sure I heard a stadium expert say that's exactly what they should have done.

On the contrary, making Upton Park bigger would have been straightforward. There was room to move the pitch closer to the main stand, demolish the small stand opposite, and build a bigger stand there. It would have meant adjustments to the two stands behind the goals. It was certainly doable and plans had been drawn up for this.

The move to the Olympic Stadium was political, yet another shabby tale of corruption and opportunism by government and business interests at the expense of football supporters and the tax payer.

JimBHibees
17-12-2016, 10:48 AM
All my mates who have STs at The Olympic Park love it. Apart from the poor segregation which is a serious problem.

Bet some West Ham fans love that aspect as well. :take that :greengrin

Haymaker
17-12-2016, 11:33 AM
Bet some West Ham fans love that aspect as well. :take that :greengrin

One or two!

NAE NOOKIE
17-12-2016, 02:50 PM
On the contrary, making Upton Park bigger would have been straightforward. There was room to move the pitch closer to the main stand, demolish the small stand opposite, and build a bigger stand there. It would have meant adjustments to the two stands behind the goals. It was certainly doable and plans had been drawn up for this.

The move to the Olympic Stadium was political, yet another shabby tale of corruption and opportunism by government and business interests at the expense of football supporters and the tax payer.

Looking at Google earth I did notice there was a big area behind the main stand, I presumed there was some reason they couldn't expand into that area. As you say, the decision to move was probably taken without giving much thought to the fans and the traditions of the club. Expanding Upton park with the need to adjust both end stands was probably an expense the owners weren't prepared to face when a ready built stadium was available about 4 miles away.

Your last paragraph is what gets my goat about the whole thing ..... I don't know if any of the money spent just getting West Ham into the place came out of UK taxes, but so far as I'm aware a lot of money did come out of London public money that should have been earmarked for common good projects, I stand to be corrected if that's wrong.
However it was done, I find it incredibly annoying that a mega rich EPL club is allowed to benefit so hugely from public money when bare arsed skint Scottish clubs get sod all support and have to play in what are by and large crumbling relics.

On that note ....... I pointed out a year or so ago on here that it had been made public that £3,000,000 ( that's three million pounds ) of UK taxpayers money had been given to the Chinese to promote coaching, and I quote "to help promote awareness of the English premier league"

That's right ..... 3 million quid of our money gifted to a country that is giving state cash to clubs so that they can pay fading and now not so fading world football stars contracts worth half a million quid a week and to 'promote awareness' of the richest and most widely covered football league on earth.

And yet if the SFA went to Westminster tomorrow to ask for a 3 million quid bung to help improve our stadiums, raise awareness of the Scottish premier league and pay coaches we would be told to get stuffed. Why the SFA didn't jump all over this at the time I simply cant understand ... what a chance it was to shame the powers that be into parting with some cash.

As revealed by the Mirror at the time:

George Osborne has pumped £3million of taxpayers’ money into grassroots football – thousands of miles away in China.The Tory (http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/conservative-party) Chancellor boasted he will fund 5,000 new coaches in the world’s second-richest nation to raise awareness of the English Premier League.

You couldn't make it up ................. As I say, why the **** weren't we all over this at the time :grr: