Possibly. Though some games for West Ham will probably reach 40,000+. The worry for me is that with the new stadium West Ham will get a billionaire benefactor and in time we could sink to being the 4th London club. I'll probably be dead by then, but I pity the younger ones if we end up in West Ham Chelsea and Woolwich's shadow.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
To be fair I am more about supporting the team on something like an honest playing field rather than us being in a race to be owned by the richest and most corrupt bastards in the world. Would happily have West Ham be owned by billionaires and us be the 4th London club (Whatever that means. Pretty short-term view if you're saying a season or two of bought success means anything) if it came to that.
May be in the minority on that one though, heh.
May be in the minority on that one though, heh.
:kaboullol:
That was Thaksin Shinawatra pumping millions in, then Sheik Mansour, and now 7 years later they have fallen foul of FFP after the initial years of mega investment. They got a free pass for the millions spent early on
Would never happen to another club again.
And it's a 54000 seat stadium that West Ham will rent and share with Rugby, Athletics and whatever else makes money for it, not them.
It's like saying that you have a mate who is a big shot because he rents a posh house
Can't tell you how much I agree with this post.. I've been shouting it from the rooftops for months, all these people who think Spam will over take us etc are Nuts..
Well, we'll see how it all turns out. If Chelsea and City can overtake us, why can't West Ham?
I'm not saying they will, but if they get new billionaire owners on top of their stadium, then the chance gets real.
A season or two of bought success means a hell of a lot to the club's fans, and West Ham fans would lap it up, and absolutely give it large to us . But the reason City and Chelsea have overtaken us, is it hasn't been a season or two. In Chelsea's case it's been about twenty years, with the last ten being the decider. In City's case it's been four years now, with this season being the decider. We're still ahead of them on the trophy table, but they are without doubt bigger than us now, and in time we'll fall to them as we fell to Chelsea unless something changes on the ownership front.
I'm not saying they will, but if they get new billionaire owners on top of their stadium, then the chance gets real.
A season or two of bought success means a hell of a lot to the club's fans, and West Ham fans would lap it up, and absolutely give it large to us . But the reason City and Chelsea have overtaken us, is it hasn't been a season or two. In Chelsea's case it's been about twenty years, with the last ten being the decider. In City's case it's been four years now, with this season being the decider. We're still ahead of them on the trophy table, but they are without doubt bigger than us now, and in time we'll fall to them as we fell to Chelsea unless something changes on the ownership front.
As I mentioned above, Man City started buying players 7 years ago, they bought Robinho for £32 million in Sept 2008 - the same day Mansour bought them, and had bought Kompany and Zabaleta before then.
Man City only this season have shown that they are close to being a superior team in the league, and it's cost them around £561,470,000 in transfer fees to do that in the 7 seasons that they've been benefactored by Sinwatra and Mounsour.
Chelsea? After 11 seasons, £814,159,000 approx in transfer fees and 11 managers including arguably one of the best in charge now, they still can't win the league and are set to spent another wedge in the summer.
If anyone genuinely thinks there's any danger of West Ham being a force then I don't think you need to worry about that in this decade, that's for sure!
(source for transfer fees: http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/chelsea-transfers.html, http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/manchester-city-transfers.html)
We can read about compulsory purchase orders, See a new Sainburys, look at thr hoardings outside WHL, Argue about steatford, but the fact we still play in a stadium smaller than the likes of Sunderland, Everton, Newcastle and Leeds is a fucking disgraceful indictment of the ENIC ownership in my opinion. Scandelous. And theres still no dates or bricks or fuck all. Just bullshit and false dawns.
It's very simple why they can't "overtake" us financially in the Olympic Stadium.
IT'S NOT THERE'S, and never will be.
Simples.
I lived in Avenons Road just down the road from the bow legged stadium in the late 90s to 2002. Make no mistake, they are well supported locally and could easily fill a 40,000/45,000 stadium. I don't think their heart will be in it once they see how far from the action they are going to be. I think a couple of seasons will confirm this, if they get relegated, forget it. It's a shame really, because the locals are/ were alright. Every club has its darker element and we are no exception.
West Ham, just like Tottenham don't rely on the local population for its core support. As far as West Ham are concerned they don't have a Joe Lewis/Daniel Levy to look after them, just a couple of porn barons and a hard faced feminist.
How the fuck does that set up work. I guess we will find out when the OS debacle goe's tits up.
Who the fuck are you to say shh? The man has an opinion. Give us yours. And 'simples'? Get a grip.Wow.
It's taken 10 years to get where we are with Archway, still not resolved. ENIC have been in the seat since 2001. That leaves 3 years of relative inactivity. The other 10 have been spent trying to get the stadium built as well as compete in the toughest league in the world. Have another look at John Thomas's post and you will realise that I have every right to tell him to shh. He has not given an opinion based on facts, he has blurted a ridiculous argument based on his own frustration.
There's my opinion, sorry facts, where's yours.
I don't need to get a grip !
10 years to buy a small company with a CPO hanging over it, and you still buy that? You also say that WH would easily get 45,000? how do you arrive at this figure?
The same season ticket waiting list questionaire that we use.
Seriously, do your homework before embarrassing yourself on the net.
#schoolboyerror
What season ticket waiting list questionnaire?
You missed the key part of my argument, namely them getting a billionaire benefactor in.
...that we have regularly outperformed these teams. (except for Everton this season)
John Thomas said:
So, despite reading about why the thing is delayed and acknowledging that the supermarket is done and the building site ready to go and that we have essentially done everything we can right up to the point of actually building the thing...because we can't do that yet for reasons you have read, it's all bullshit?
Like when the Icelandic's came in, and they "bought" Tevez and Mascherano, and were a bigger club, and would get CL football before us and win the PL within 5 years.......etc.......etc...............................
So we're waiting on Eric Pickles to make a decision?
Perhaps we should re present our case in the form of a menu then maybe he'll move away from dealing with his big pressing issues like
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-for-darkness-overruled-on-street-lights.html
Based on that I won't hold my breath for any kind of quick conclusion. I mean it's been "on his desk" for what, a year now?
Perhaps we should re present our case in the form of a menu then maybe he'll move away from dealing with his big pressing issues like
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-for-darkness-overruled-on-street-lights.html
Based on that I won't hold my breath for any kind of quick conclusion. I mean it's been "on his desk" for what, a year now?