Friday, 11 November 2011

Pathetic PR Release in Response to 2017 Announcement

Dear God, they are scraping the bottom of the barrel now! In response to my thread "Another Nail in the Olympic Stadium Bid" and KUMB's "London Wins 2017 bid", the OS has rushed out a statement pretending delight at London winning the World Championships for 2017.

Now I've already set out why this represents a major problem to Sullivan & Gold (
so I will now quote from KUMB's article to show that I am not alone in reading this as a kick in the bollocks of our planned move to the Olympic Stadium. According to KUMB,

"Although it remains unclear what impact this will have on West Ham United's bid to rent the stadium from the Government, what is certain is that the stadium's current configuration - which is suited to athletics and not football - will now remain in place until the 2017 games have finished, at the very least."

So, Sullivan and Gold are delighted that the reconfiguration plans must now be put on hold are they? It seems so, because according to the Official Site, "West Ham United are delighted the 2017 World Athletics Championships are coming to our borough." Yep and all the turkeys on Bernard Mathews' farm are delighted that Christmas is just around the corner; and Man Utd's next opponents are cock a hoop that Howard Webb has been appointed to referee the next game at Old Trafford.

There is one "giveaway" word in the press release, when the "staff writer" says that West Ham "HOPE" to form a great partnership with UK Athletics. But let's put to one side what Sullivan and Gold hope for and look at what this means for the fans and the club.

1) The running track will remain.
2) There will be NO retractable seating until after 2017 at the earliest.
3) Sight lines will remain exactly as they are until 2017 at least.
4) Home games will be played in a half empty soulless bowl, utterly unsuited to football.

Now SUGO will still pocket the dosh from selling the Boleyn of course - which is great news for them. And they won't have to pay for reconfiguring the stadium of course - which is great news for them. And they won't have to buy the lease either - which is great news for them. And who knows, some mug investor may believe the promises and buy the club, minus a stadium - which is great news for them too. So who are the winners and who are the losers here?

If you don't back the campaign to stay at the Boleyn now, your head must be so far up your own arse that the turds are curling up your nostrils!


B4V4R14N_H4MM3R said...

It's just the formal nonsense you have to say in such a situation when something hits you out of the blue. It's not good to wait too long with a response but it's clearly not good to act too soon with such a pathetic announcement. Now you might think the bid is off the table, but I have a strange feeling in my guts it won't.
Well, should you ever consider to start a campaign to stay at the Boleyn I'd definitely support you.

Anonymous said...

"SUGO will still pocket the dosh from selling the Boleyn of course - which is great news for them."

Er, won't West Ham football club trouser the dosh?

Anonymous said...

I wanna move to the OS as do most of my boys

Deane said...

Does anyone know the truth When awarding his company the contract to build the West Stand Terry Brown stated that everything was ratified and accepted regarding the development of the East stand (only relegation prevented it happening) but SuGo say we can't develop the East stand
So who's lying?

Hammersfan said...

Are you really that stupid 2245? Sullivan ang Gold own 66% of the club, they therefore trouser 66% of the dosh and 66% of the sell on value if that is what they CHOOSE to do. And we are totally powerless to stop them. But you keep your head up your arse eh? Muttering, "I can smell shit. Can anybody else smell shit? It must be on the beautiful claret and blue roses in the Sullivan and Gold planted rose garden!"

Who will ever know Deane as they are now in bed together. Who gets first dibs on Karren I wonder and who has to make do with sloppy seconds? I'm talking about her cooking of course!

Stani said...

There will be no retractable seating full stop! I've been saying from the beginning, it's not possible. Yet people still fall for Gold's 'we're exploring possibilities' bullshit.

Even the colour of the seats will remain white. You think these cnuts are gonna bother with the sight lines? I have that artist's impression image that Brady keeps using as propaganda in her Sun columns, where fans are much closer to the pitch and the track seems to have disappeared. When the OS opens, I'm gonna take a pic from a similar seat and go and shove it up her arse so she can see the difference.

Anonymous said...

Oh no, are you saying that the men who paid 66% of the cost of West Ham will trouser 66% of the profits of selling the ground? the men who took on 100% of the £100m debt? the men who are forking out £3m a month to bail the club out? the men who get slagged off for ticket prices despite the fact that the previous owners had spent up to 2012 season ticket money in advance? Get a grip on reality mate. The club as a land assest is only worth £35m thats all - its not Highbury. The stands may have cost a fortune but they are not a resaleable asset.

Take all that into account and they can trouser 66% of £35m hmmmmm.. what about the rest of their money? don't be silly.

I don't know what our owners will do.... and nor do you.

Anonymous said...

Get a girfriend.....drip

Anonymous said...

Maybe they can put deckchairs around the running track and rename it the Titanic Stadium.

spyinthesky said...

Well strangely enough Gold said this last few days that agreement depends on agreement over the seating arrangements so clearly he thinks there are options and our moving there is reliant on those options being put in place. What the precise nature of those options are we don't know yet but unless on here you are a civil engineer or architect I suggest you refrain from using the word 'impossible' .

The transformation of the ground is to be done as always plan after 2012 so in theory this makes no difference to the layout planned after 2012 as we were always going for the 2017 games and if that failed games thereafter. Only when we see the formal tender documents will we see the practicality of the move and as yet the club haven't seen those so what exactly do you want them to say?

Anyone who thinks that staying at the Boleyn isn't a slow and sad death for the club are the ones who are living a deluded existence and it doesn't even represent a fearful place for the opposition anymore as this seasons results make clear to the open minded.

We had a chance to move to Stratford 20 years ago and the fans voted against it then a disaster as its turned out i dont want the fans to be allowed to dictate another disasterous and short sighted decision to stay at Upton Park.

Hammersfan said...

As usual, the compliants rush to the defence of Sullivan and Gold! If Comrade Gold says it, then it must be true!

I love the way people pluck out figures for the value of the Boleyn and state them as if they are gospel. There isn't even a planning application in place yet! Commercial, residential, a combination of the two? Who knows?

One glaring factual error is that S&G have taken on 100% of the debt. A certain bank still "owns" at least 33% of the liability of that debt.

The trouble with 0627 is that he was almost certainly defending Duxbury and the previous regime, just as he is now defending Sullivan and Gold. If you want to understand the mentality of this guy and so many like him, read Animal Farm.

The West Ham I support is not dying a slow death. The West Ham I support is, in Gold's words, "the eigth best supported club in the country". It is a special club, with a special place in football. It is the club of Greenwood, Lyall, Moore, Hurst, Brooking, Peters, Bonds and their successors. It is a club that belongs at the Boleyn.

Anonymous said...

23:31 listen you twit = they may own 66% but they can't go around willy nilly doing what they like with the money... the same way that I can't take all the profits out of the company that I own.

The owners cannot trouser the dosh from the sale when the company is so much in debt - it would be illegal.

I have in the past attributed you with having some intelligence, I now realise that I had been too generous in making that assumption.

Hammersfan said...

Silly, silly man. They sell the club for what they paid for it and trouser the profit from the sale of the Boleyn. Why do you think they floated the West Ham Olympic name? For the good of the club? For the good of the fans? Wake up!

Dagenham Dave said...

Hammersfan if S&G pocket the cash from the sale of the Boleyn Ground then it's called embezzlement and they can end up before the beak.

The only way that they'd be allowed to do it legally is by paying out dividends of which they would only get a third and of that third they'd have to pay 21% tax on it

That would equate to around £7 million each, they must be really desperate for that cash seeing as they're pumping in £3 million between them a month to keep the Club afloat

Why does the OS bother you and some of your lemmings on this site, it's not as if you ho to games anyway

Deane said...

It's quite simple really move to the OS and say goodbye to West Ham Utd Thats the be all and end all

Deane said...

PS does anyone have an answer for my original question please?

TudsOut! said...

Sorry HF you're wrong on this one, that's impossible. You're moving in to tabloid territory, pure scaremongering. It's impossible to separate and sell off a company asset in the way you describe, mainly because any debt West Ham have would be secured against the physical assets of the club.

Hammersfan said...

DD, a new company will be formed. Boleyn Developments or some such name. It isn't as difficult as you seem to think!

Hammersfan said...

TO, the debt is cleared when you sell the brand.

Hammersfan said...

Or other assets - like the players!

Anonymous said...

You can secure debt against staff, Jesus are you completely mad?

TurdsOut! said...

12:07 the debt isn't cleared when you sell a business. Someone just paid £2 for comet but the debt is still there. No one would clear all the debt and then let the previous owners retrospectively sell the business's main asset. No one would clear the debt and then sell the biggest asset as the investment wouldn't be worth what you've just paid for it.

Hammersfan said...

Look, stage one, you do a Brown and sell the assets in terms of players and use the money raised to pay down debt. Perfectly legal.

Stage two, you form a company Boleyn Holdings for example, and make it a wholly owned asset of the club, just like they did with West Ham Holdings before S&G arrived. Perfectly legal.

Then you negotiate the sale of the brand / club, minus Boleyn Holdings, which does not form part of the deal, but including any outstanding debt. Perfectly legal.

What's so hard to understand exactly? How much did S&G pay for the club? They have reduced the debt by £20m already, despite relegation, and increased their ownership at a knock down price, giving them a 60% stake between them. They will sell for what they paid, and even if they only make £35m from the sale of the ground, will show a fantastic return for their investment!

Tell me, does anybody out there really believe these guys are in it for love?

Anonymous said...

As far as I know they have billions between them - £35m less some outrageous amount in tax, bank fees, accountancy fees, brokerages, surveyors, estate agents and corporation tax they'd have to pay on dividends would leave no more than loose change to them.

Your argument is at best seriously flawed.

Hammersfan said...

You speak as somebody who knows nothing about business. Do you think S&G pay tax like we do? Do you know how much tax Green paid on a £6billion pound profit in a single year? Look it up!

Anonymous said...

HF 10:52
'I love the way people pluck out figures for the value of the Boleyn and state them as if they are gospel. There isn't even a planning application in place yet! Commercial, residential, a combination of the two? Who knows?'

It wasn't plucked out of the air - it was common knowledge after being all over the press some time ago. eg

Hammersfan said...

So if The Standard says it, it must be true! My money is on a mix of residential and commercial and on the site realising a heck of a lot more than £35m. When you have a piece of land for redevelopment, you find an interested party as use them as your safety net. Over £50m and probably closer to £60m in my book. And what did they pay for the club?