I have never seen the issue with a ground share, even a short term one.

TKoT :

Ground share with WHU and the Os.
Could get interesting long-term if competitive parity is reached.

Spurs : is all about the pound signs to the OS owners.

That aside, the Spanners have their 2014 vanity target.
Spurs would also want to get the new WHL built ASAP.

What the overlap is on takeover/completion dates is another story (1 yr after the Paralympics to get all the amenities into the OS etc ?? ) .

However, WHU hold very few cards in this new scenario.
They do however very much need to unlock the land asset at Upton Park ASAP. How long can they wait before their current debt obligations reach the point of no return ??

Whatever.
All that we do know is that THFC PLC is a far bigger animal than all the OS bid tender politniks could ever hope to take a bite out of and kill.

How big ?? I suspect we shall know starting on Oct 18th ...

Will the court date on the 18th still go ahead now?

Also I was given to understand that the value of the Boleyn Ground as land was not that great and the move was more to do with long term revenue than short term selling off of land, but like so much in this entire thing that may not be true.

As for the debt reaching the point of no return, well that depends on the two Davids, at the moment the law has not come in to prevent them bailing out the hammers with their own money, something they are rich enough to do, the question is would they?

Anyway that's me for now, oh and this conversation has been way to sensible and sane.

You just can't get the abuse these days.

"Will the court date on the 18th still go ahead now?"

I assume so, otherwise Spurs cannot ask for their bid money back (they must show in court the process was inherently flawed and stacked against them) .

The original premise (state aid) is surely now just icing on the cake.


"Also I was given to understand that the value of the Boleyn Ground as land was not that great and the move was more to do with long term revenue than short term selling off of land, but like so much in this entire thing that may not be true."

It is not recurring revenue, but it must be of use to the club (creditors, player buying etc) .


"As for the debt reaching the point of no return, well that depends on the two Davids, at the moment the law has not come in to prevent them bailing out the hammers with their own money, something they are rich enough to do, the question is would they?"

My understanding is that they have stated they are not going to inject significantly more into the club, beyond what they have to date.

Addendum :

Is there the possibility that if the JR goes against the OLPC, the Newham bid cannot recover their costs for the OS bid because they will be deemed to have acted illegally, and therefore have not lost money in an act of "good faith" ??

Joe Hart

s' Dancing Instructor.

If I could make a non wumming point, I would like to see Newham Council decide that they can after all grant West Ham planning permission to redevelop the East Stand at the BG. If it were built to the same specs as the West it would increase capacity to 45,000 (the West is 15,000 at the moment the East 5000), maybe more once the corners were filled in.

Then both Spurs and West Ham can tell the OPLC where to stick their ill thought out white elephant. Who is for that idea?

T K o T

I'm sure ive read that exact same statement on another article.

TKoT :

If planning permission were granted, can the Spanners afford to do it ??

Remember, this a business who had to collude with a cash-stricken local council to get a loan 40m at (TBC by the JR next week) % for another stadium.

RDBD, the loan was all done in the open, the issue is whether is counts as state aid. I see know reason Newham could not help out with a new stand in the same way.

Is this not aftrer allwhat Levy was asking Spurs local council to do, on threat of moving away?

stupid phone spell check sure you get the idea

TKoT :

I am asking whether the Spanners can afford to build a new stand, alone, if it is in the region of 40m in costs.

The events of the OS suggest not.

Re a new "partnership" in the event the JR decrees state aid.
Newham could still try it on with such a "loan" .

But they would have to put a bid tender out declaring their interest in getting some ownership/ROI on a football club in return for a "loan" .

And at the rates they (might - allegedly) offer, Newham could quickly find themselves with a Dragons Den scenario on their hands.

A loan would be for the good of the community, was not Levy asking for "special considerations" with his new stadium for the same reason?

I imagine Levy has far more valuable assets to back up the security of the loan compared to West Ham.

Maybe thats the difference.

Levy was telling politniks not to attempt to ponce off the PLC when the new stadium is already going to bring in far greater revenues to them (business rates etc) and local business (custom etc) than is currently the case.

That was the "special consideration" (ie don't bite the hand that feeds you) . Not a loan from the Peoples Republic of Haringey.

Chicken :

And a greater ROI (share issue to the value of the loan, dividends etc) .

My point is that spurs argued to be given £17 million to help their new project as it is good for the community, so could not West Ham expect the same for a stand rebuild?

RDBD

So all he wented was special tax breaks, well that will not reduce the public purse will it?

Remember I'm not "m-or-m" and I honestly don't for a second believe there is any way to get planning permission at the Boleyn, there is a whacking great tower block in the way.

My point was really how great it would be to wee on Seb Coe's chips.

TKoT :

The projected cost was N million.
The cost after the politnik ponces put their snouts in : N + 50.

Nearly all of the increases being something that govt (local and national) should provide themselves. And ironically, another politnik mistake that led to the OS bid.

They say if you give someone enough rope they will hang themselves. Many of these politniks re the new WHL are even more moronic than that, and built their own gallows too.

I do get your point and Levy has legally done nothing wrong, however it's really a question of the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion, one is legal the other not, they both mean less money in the public purse. It could be argued (and it is by me ) that just asking for a loan is more open and also as it is to be paid back not as draining on the tax payer.

TKoT :

The wee would only run off his chips and down the taxpayers back.

No, the mistake was made getting the PLC involved as as a "stalking horse" on the OS. Once the Spurs proposal was made, they should have done a "S-T-F-U" on Sebbie et al, and some 'good' corruption in ensuring the final vote was a bit closer than 14-0.

Cannot run businesses.
Came up with a botched stitch-up in the grand IOC tradition.

WHU seeking such a loan is fine.
Even the 50:50 aspect is fine (in hedge fund terms, the council is "going long" on a risky market, but another story) .

But at (TBC) laughably low interest rates ??

And with a cash-stricken council taking on the debt burden (a "too important too fail" variation on the banking crisis theme ?? ) in case of default ??