| Sullivan Steps Down on 13:46 - Jun 7 with 3595 views | KensalT |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 16:36 - Jun 6 by Northernr |
100%. Moved out of a fantastic stadium that could easily have been worked into a modern ground, into a soulless bowl about which they were made fanciful promises that were never going to be able to be kept. They’re there forever now. Lincoln City at home, in that shthole. The BrewDog DJ Booth, pumping out the hits, for a 1230 kick off against Preston. Brady has been held up as an expert on The Apprentice on the BBC, given a weekly column in The Sun, given a fcking Lordship. and the fans who wanted none of it are left to live with it when these people are long gone (and hopefully locked up).
It’s a v cautionary tale, and it’s why a lot of us hold QPR and the people that run it to account, rather than just accepting what they say and clap along with it.
You sell Loftus Road once, you replace it once, you live with the consequences of it for 150 years. You need people doing that you can trust. People of good character. |
You make some very valid points and I don't disagree with any of it.
But there is some extra context to your suggestion that the Hammers could just have stayed put and redeveloped Upton Park.
Following Hillsborough and the Taylor Report West Ham issued a Bond Scheme in 1991 to help pay for necessary ground redevelopment.
I remember at the time there was a lot of pushback from the Hammers fans on this.
In the end only 808 of the 19,301 issued bonds were sold:
https://www.whufc.com/en/fans/
West Ham fans have made a lot of noise about being moved out of Upton Park, but when the club had asked them to invest in the ground to help fund redevelopment they largely didn't want to know.
Now to be fair and put the other side of the story the fans felt they were being asked to foot the bill for a privately owned asset and that the scheme was going to greatly reduce the capacity of the ground to around 25,500. The club intended to issue 19,301 bonds which would leave only 6,000 tickets for general sale.
https://blowing-bubbles.co.uk/
I guess most QPR fans faced with that sort of offer would have protested just as much as the West Ham fans did. But in hindsight they could have organised themselves to use the Bond issue to get a financial foothold in the club and give themselves a lot more say in the future of the club. [Post edited 7 Jun 13:48]
|  | |  |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 13:37 - Jun 8 with 3015 views | Clive_Anderson |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 13:46 - Jun 7 by KensalT |
You make some very valid points and I don't disagree with any of it.
But there is some extra context to your suggestion that the Hammers could just have stayed put and redeveloped Upton Park.
Following Hillsborough and the Taylor Report West Ham issued a Bond Scheme in 1991 to help pay for necessary ground redevelopment.
I remember at the time there was a lot of pushback from the Hammers fans on this.
In the end only 808 of the 19,301 issued bonds were sold:
https://www.whufc.com/en/fans/
West Ham fans have made a lot of noise about being moved out of Upton Park, but when the club had asked them to invest in the ground to help fund redevelopment they largely didn't want to know.
Now to be fair and put the other side of the story the fans felt they were being asked to foot the bill for a privately owned asset and that the scheme was going to greatly reduce the capacity of the ground to around 25,500. The club intended to issue 19,301 bonds which would leave only 6,000 tickets for general sale.
https://blowing-bubbles.co.uk/
I guess most QPR fans faced with that sort of offer would have protested just as much as the West Ham fans did. But in hindsight they could have organised themselves to use the Bond issue to get a financial foothold in the club and give themselves a lot more say in the future of the club. [Post edited 7 Jun 13:48]
|
But that was years before all the TV money came in that you could use to build a new stadium.
Also they'd already rebuilt three sides of it and just had to rebuild the last stand and it would have been a decent 42k stadium I think.
I suppose the only good thing about the new stadium is the higher capacity which they filled every week in the Premier League. | | | |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 13:51 - Jun 8 with 2976 views | TheChef |
Seems it is being broadcast, 8pm tonight BBC1.
Although I'd assume some of the allegations would be more suited for after the watershed? (if the watershed still exists...) |  |
| |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 13:56 - Jun 8 with 2966 views | nick_hammersmith |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 16:36 - Jun 6 by Northernr |
100%. Moved out of a fantastic stadium that could easily have been worked into a modern ground, into a soulless bowl about which they were made fanciful promises that were never going to be able to be kept. They’re there forever now. Lincoln City at home, in that shthole. The BrewDog DJ Booth, pumping out the hits, for a 1230 kick off against Preston. Brady has been held up as an expert on The Apprentice on the BBC, given a weekly column in The Sun, given a fcking Lordship. and the fans who wanted none of it are left to live with it when these people are long gone (and hopefully locked up).
It’s a v cautionary tale, and it’s why a lot of us hold QPR and the people that run it to account, rather than just accepting what they say and clap along with it.
You sell Loftus Road once, you replace it once, you live with the consequences of it for 150 years. You need people doing that you can trust. People of good character. |
Are they there forever though?
I thought they don't actually own anything anymore (maybe the training ground?)
I'd be worried if I was a West Ham fan, most of their "assets" are the playing squad, who must have devalued after last season, or will be offloaded at a loss if they won't take a wage cut |  | | |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 14:09 - Jun 8 with 2888 views | KensalT |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 13:56 - Jun 8 by nick_hammersmith |
Are they there forever though?
I thought they don't actually own anything anymore (maybe the training ground?)
I'd be worried if I was a West Ham fan, most of their "assets" are the playing squad, who must have devalued after last season, or will be offloaded at a loss if they won't take a wage cut |
They have a 99 year lease.
Apparently in their first season at the London Stadium they made a record £43m profit!
https://www.london.gov.uk/who- | | | |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 14:21 - Jun 8 with 2840 views | KensalT |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 13:37 - Jun 8 by Clive_Anderson |
But that was years before all the TV money came in that you could use to build a new stadium.
Also they'd already rebuilt three sides of it and just had to rebuild the last stand and it would have been a decent 42k stadium I think.
I suppose the only good thing about the new stadium is the higher capacity which they filled every week in the Premier League. |
My point was that West Ham fans plead their undying love for Upton Park but when they were asked to fund redevelopment of the ground they didn't want to know.
So they obviously didn't love it that much :-)
The Bond issue was in 1991 so before the PL began and well before the silly money started rolling into the game.
When West Ham left Upton Park the capacity was 35,016 according to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
You say they could have expanded to 42,000. But even if that's true how much would that have cost?
West Ham's record attendances at the London Stadium are all just under 62,500:
https://www.whufc.com/en/the-c
Would they have had their recent jaunts into Europe without the extra revenues the new stadium generated? Probably not. Especially not if they were paying off redevelopment of Upton Park. [Post edited 8 Jun 14:22]
| | | |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 14:24 - Jun 8 with 2821 views | nick_hammersmith |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 14:09 - Jun 8 by KensalT |
They have a 99 year lease.
Apparently in their first season at the London Stadium they made a record £43m profit!
https://www.london.gov.uk/who- |
Wow!
Thats some mental deal that was done, was this a Boris leftover?
I'd be surprised if many of those new build stadiums last 100 years, but I'm guessing the tenants don't have to pay for the upkeep either | | | |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 14:34 - Jun 8 with 2787 views | Clive_Anderson |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 14:21 - Jun 8 by KensalT |
My point was that West Ham fans plead their undying love for Upton Park but when they were asked to fund redevelopment of the ground they didn't want to know.
So they obviously didn't love it that much :-)
The Bond issue was in 1991 so before the PL began and well before the silly money started rolling into the game.
When West Ham left Upton Park the capacity was 35,016 according to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
You say they could have expanded to 42,000. But even if that's true how much would that have cost?
West Ham's record attendances at the London Stadium are all just under 62,500:
https://www.whufc.com/en/the-c
Would they have had their recent jaunts into Europe without the extra revenues the new stadium generated? Probably not. Especially not if they were paying off redevelopment of Upton Park. [Post edited 8 Jun 14:22]
|
I just looked it up and it was 40k not 42k
https://www.claretandhugh.info
Yes the West Ham fans didn't want to fund redevelopment probably because they couldn't afford the cost of the bond scheme. I knew several season ticket holders who didn't have a spare £750 or whatever it was that "allowed" you to buy a season ticket.
My point was once the TV money came in they could have redeveloped the stadium without a bond scheme and rinsing the supporters, so hardly fair to blame them. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Sullivan Steps Down on 14:35 - Jun 8 with 2789 views | KensalT |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 14:24 - Jun 8 by nick_hammersmith |
Wow!
Thats some mental deal that was done, was this a Boris leftover?
I'd be surprised if many of those new build stadiums last 100 years, but I'm guessing the tenants don't have to pay for the upkeep either |
It was a Boris deal.
As I understand it West Ham only rent the stadium on match days.
So they don't make a penny from any of the non-football events that are staged there.
But it's still a cracking deal for them - at least in financial terms. | | | |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 14:49 - Jun 8 with 2751 views | KensalT |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 14:34 - Jun 8 by Clive_Anderson |
I just looked it up and it was 40k not 42k
https://www.claretandhugh.info
Yes the West Ham fans didn't want to fund redevelopment probably because they couldn't afford the cost of the bond scheme. I knew several season ticket holders who didn't have a spare £750 or whatever it was that "allowed" you to buy a season ticket.
My point was once the TV money came in they could have redeveloped the stadium without a bond scheme and rinsing the supporters, so hardly fair to blame them. |
I get why West Ham fans didn't like the deal that was put to them in 1991.
But I think it's a bit harsh to say West Ham were rinsing the supporters. The redevelopment was being forced on them by the Taylor Report and was something they had to do to comply.
But at that moment in time the club desperately needed the fans.
Instead of organising to protest the redevelopment they could have looked at other ways to raise funds such as a share issue that guaranteed fan groups a share of ownership of the club.
And if they had stayed and redeveloped Upton Park the capacity would have been around two-thirds the capacity of their current ground. So for all that they grumble there's up to an extra 22,000 fans getting to see every home game than would have been the case if they had stayed where they were.
I think what West Ham fans miss more than anything is the cross-generational connections to the old area. The matchday routines, seeing the same familiar faces, going into the pubs their dad's and grandad's drank in. The soul of the club.
It is a lot for them to have to give up. I do get that. But there's also a lot of big advantages for them from playing at the London Stadium. | | | |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 19:41 - Jun 8 with 2471 views | KensalT |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 14:49 - Jun 8 by KensalT |
I get why West Ham fans didn't like the deal that was put to them in 1991.
But I think it's a bit harsh to say West Ham were rinsing the supporters. The redevelopment was being forced on them by the Taylor Report and was something they had to do to comply.
But at that moment in time the club desperately needed the fans.
Instead of organising to protest the redevelopment they could have looked at other ways to raise funds such as a share issue that guaranteed fan groups a share of ownership of the club.
And if they had stayed and redeveloped Upton Park the capacity would have been around two-thirds the capacity of their current ground. So for all that they grumble there's up to an extra 22,000 fans getting to see every home game than would have been the case if they had stayed where they were.
I think what West Ham fans miss more than anything is the cross-generational connections to the old area. The matchday routines, seeing the same familiar faces, going into the pubs their dad's and grandad's drank in. The soul of the club.
It is a lot for them to have to give up. I do get that. But there's also a lot of big advantages for them from playing at the London Stadium. |
For anyone who doesn't want to sit through Panorama this evening, Sullivan is accused of preying on young women for sex:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art
These allegations against an unnamed PL boss have been bouncing around Twitter for a very long time but until recently Sullivan's name was protected by a super injunction.
Despite the anonymity I don't think there were many doubts about who was likely to be in the frame. | | | |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 19:42 - Jun 8 with 2466 views | derbyhoop |
I was told that, because they are no longer a PL club, the rent is being increased. Dramatically.
As to their ex Chairman, is it significant that he.made his initial money from the port industry? Its hard to believe that he could possibly be involved in anything to do with inappropriate behaviour, isn't it? |  |
| "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one's lifetime." (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop and now on Bluesky |
| |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 19:47 - Jun 8 with 2448 views | KensalT |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 19:42 - Jun 8 by derbyhoop |
I was told that, because they are no longer a PL club, the rent is being increased. Dramatically.
As to their ex Chairman, is it significant that he.made his initial money from the port industry? Its hard to believe that he could possibly be involved in anything to do with inappropriate behaviour, isn't it? |
Unfortunately the opposite is true about the rent.
In the event of relegation from the PL their rent is halved for next season. London taxpayers get to make up the shortfall - around £2.5m:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo | | | |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 21:23 - Jun 8 with 2300 views | HAMRanger |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 16:03 - Jun 6 by NoDiddley |
Blokes a porn baron do you reckon he’s asked a young lady to do something?
That should stick in court. |
oh OK. He's in porn! Nothing to see here then? |  | | |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 16:47 - Jun 9 with 1834 views | francisbowles |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 14:49 - Jun 8 by KensalT |
I get why West Ham fans didn't like the deal that was put to them in 1991.
But I think it's a bit harsh to say West Ham were rinsing the supporters. The redevelopment was being forced on them by the Taylor Report and was something they had to do to comply.
But at that moment in time the club desperately needed the fans.
Instead of organising to protest the redevelopment they could have looked at other ways to raise funds such as a share issue that guaranteed fan groups a share of ownership of the club.
And if they had stayed and redeveloped Upton Park the capacity would have been around two-thirds the capacity of their current ground. So for all that they grumble there's up to an extra 22,000 fans getting to see every home game than would have been the case if they had stayed where they were.
I think what West Ham fans miss more than anything is the cross-generational connections to the old area. The matchday routines, seeing the same familiar faces, going into the pubs their dad's and grandad's drank in. The soul of the club.
It is a lot for them to have to give up. I do get that. But there's also a lot of big advantages for them from playing at the London Stadium. |
One huge disadvantage, it's totally unsuited for football. | | | |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 17:30 - Jun 9 with 1772 views | Paddyhoops |
Tony Livesy the 5 live presenter is being dragged into it . Pretty certain he was editor for the Sunday sport back in the day .
Always thought it was strange he ended up on BBC but having said that thought he was excellent and had the common touch . Big Burnley fan . | | | |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 17:39 - Jun 9 with 1760 views | KensalT |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 17:30 - Jun 9 by Paddyhoops |
Tony Livesy the 5 live presenter is being dragged into it . Pretty certain he was editor for the Sunday sport back in the day .
Always thought it was strange he ended up on BBC but having said that thought he was excellent and had the common touch . Big Burnley fan . |
It has been claimed that Livesey introduced young girls to Sullivan when he worked at the Sport.
He is also credited with inventing the "Countdown to 16", and if you don't know what that is:
https://www.theguardian.com/me | | | |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 00:56 - Jun 10 with 1433 views | numptydumpty |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 17:39 - Jun 9 by KensalT |
It has been claimed that Livesey introduced young girls to Sullivan when he worked at the Sport.
He is also credited with inventing the "Countdown to 16", and if you don't know what that is:
https://www.theguardian.com/me |
I read this article today.
Quite unbelievable when you consider the world today.
But being a similar age to this at the time, most people weren't that shocked. Today though a national newspaper building up a girl under the age of consent, in such a sexual way, Sullivan as proprietor would have been facing criminal charges.
But with how the internet has turned into the world wide west, sexploitation happens in a million different ways now. [Post edited 10 Jun 0:59]
|  |
| |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 06:24 - Jun 10 with 1282 views | stowmarketrange |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 14:34 - Jun 8 by Clive_Anderson |
I just looked it up and it was 40k not 42k
https://www.claretandhugh.info
Yes the West Ham fans didn't want to fund redevelopment probably because they couldn't afford the cost of the bond scheme. I knew several season ticket holders who didn't have a spare £750 or whatever it was that "allowed" you to buy a season ticket.
My point was once the TV money came in they could have redeveloped the stadium without a bond scheme and rinsing the supporters, so hardly fair to blame them. |
The away end at Upton Park was a potential death trap,as anyone who went there for our 1-1 draw in the premier league in 2012-13 would agree.The concourse was cramped and way overcrowded for the amount of fans they allowed in.
I can’t remember whether that stand had already been redeveloped or was the last one to be redeveloped,but it certainly wasn’t the greatest away day,which is probably similar to our own school end.
And the queue for the tube was almost as bad as the shuffle back to Stratford in January this year. |  | | |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 10:06 - Jun 10 with 1059 views | wombat |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 06:24 - Jun 10 by stowmarketrange |
The away end at Upton Park was a potential death trap,as anyone who went there for our 1-1 draw in the premier league in 2012-13 would agree.The concourse was cramped and way overcrowded for the amount of fans they allowed in.
I can’t remember whether that stand had already been redeveloped or was the last one to be redeveloped,but it certainly wasn’t the greatest away day,which is probably similar to our own school end.
And the queue for the tube was almost as bad as the shuffle back to Stratford in January this year. |
id say portsmouth and watford were equally as dangerous in recent years , im amazed portsmouth get a safety cert to be honest thats a death trap at half time and the end of the game , st marys used to be worse as well esp if you was in the seats for the away fans |  |
| |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 10:09 - Jun 10 with 1054 views | Northernr |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 10:06 - Jun 10 by wombat |
id say portsmouth and watford were equally as dangerous in recent years , im amazed portsmouth get a safety cert to be honest thats a death trap at half time and the end of the game , st marys used to be worse as well esp if you was in the seats for the away fans |
Yeh if I'm ever told to evacuate from that away end at Portsmouth I shall be going forwards towards the grass, not backwards towards the exit. |  | | |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 10:36 - Jun 10 with 958 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
EDIT: Spack. [Post edited 10 Jun 10:36]
|  | | |
| Sullivan Steps Down on 11:08 - Jun 10 with 915 views | E17hoop |
West Ham knew he was a risk:
David Sullivan banned from contact with West Ham women's and youth teams since 2023
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art
He was even banned from attending games. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.