So Dan Roan’s well publicised programme – ‘The Olympic Stadium’ – shown on BBC London last night turned out ,as most expected, to be a Hammers hatchet job with a few threats thrown in for good measure.
I’ll leave Sean – who appeared in the show – to pick the bones pout of all that later.
However, Mr Roan managed – in reviewing the World Cup of ’66- to dub the club’s greatest legend Mooro “Sir Bobby Moore.” If he gets something so basic entirely wrong how much else was incorrect.
For such and error to find its way through the BBC’s network of sub editors is pretty extraordinary but then the Corporation was so busy producing an entirely unbalanced documentary that such small details are easily overlooked I guess!!!
Barry Hearn of course made his appearance for the prosecution but claimed that West Ham will eventually be worth hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds.
But he admitted – as we have regularly argued: “The buck on this stops with Boris Johnson.”
Quite right so why were the Hammers in the shape of the two Davids made the fall guys by the BBC?
It’s almost as if people can’t actually believe he never received a knighthood, and so assume he must have done.
Silly people
Amazes me the BBC have been fleecing the public for years without recorse for decades…
I missed it. If anyone knows where it can be seen please say. I want to rip it to peices. I’m sure it was a pack of lies.
If the two Davids read this blog, I request that you please make an effort get airtime to expose all lies and misrepresentations in that programe. Take legal advice to Sue them if possible.
I would’nt beleive anything that a paedophile harbouring organisation that have lied and made cover ups for 30 years ever said to be honest. Just to show how stupid this whole thing is, just look at manchester city and how they obtained their stadium in the same way after the common wealth games but nothing was ever mentioned? thats because manchester city didnt have other surrounding clubs like tottenham and leyton orient stiring the news with their jelousy fuled rage, not to mention law suits
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0676crf/the-olympic-stadium-how-the-hammers-struck-gold
there you go m8
i now hope there is a public enquiry this rubbish has gone on long enough if it only shuts that mouthpiece HEARN up. there is nothing to hide as has been the case at every turn
Just watched it. Lot of rubbish in there, obviously – but;
Increase in valuation of club from £110m to £400m is based entirely on stadium according to programme. Premier League TV deals have been renewed twice in that time. So the 300% increase is down to massive increase in TV money – not solely the stadium.
London “brand”. Many will agree this is happening – but football revolving around “brands” and money is an issue for the sport. If West Ham do not move in the same direction we will disappear. Not saying it is right – but it is football’s problem, not just West Ham’s.
West Ham get criticised for reducing ticket prices?! That does not deserve any response frankly – and is the only current antidote to the point above. Is £65 a game sustainable, anywhere?
EU State aid ********. That has no legs whatsoever. It applies where there is “another commercial player”. West Ham were the only viable tenant once the decision was made to keep the track. So who was the “commercial player” we got an advantage over? No-one. Case closed.
I don’t personally think the two Davids intend to sell – which rights off about 50% of what the programme moans about.
Long winded way of saying – the programme was ********.
The claim that WHU will get the stadium effectively rent free is the real lie to all this. By the same standards you could equally argue Man City are getting theirs at a 6mill profit each year when you take naming rights into account. Its far to easy to compare apples with oranges and those with a subjective view are only too keen to jump on that opportunity to mislead the gullible.
Yes the company who run the stadium will be responsible (unlike Man City) for looking after the pitch ect, but as this is a multi use stadium I am not sure how West ham can look after a pitch that will no doubt potentially suffer damage by javelins, hammers, rugby, cricket use and the feet of gig goers as Blackpool suffered last week. Of this West Ham gain not a penny as far as we know. So what is presented as West Ham getting an exclusive benefit is simply a necessity which no doubt is balanced by the loss of merchandising rights that others have. Of course there is no way of making an exact comparison and it is that that the critics exploit maliciously.
I watched it last night – a horrendously biased piece if you’re a West ham fan. However, if you’re not one of us, the whole deal does look a bit iffy. We’ve made the most of a strong position, bargained hard and got a great deal. It doesn’t really bear comparison wit Man City or Arsenal; those were different times, places and business models.
It seems to me that everyone misses the key point – we will be paying £1,000 a minute when we use it. Whether that’s the market rate can’t really be defined, since there’s nothing to compare it with. If we don’t got here it will just crumble away and cost even more. If we do go, it stimulates the local area and brings in further investment.
As for the allegations that it’s all a bit underhand, we have to face the fact that when the only documents produced under Freedom of Information Requests are covered in black felt pen redactions, no one is going to be happy. So we don’t pay for the grass? So what? It’s not ‘our’ grass. When the Rugby World Cup plays on it, would anyone be happy if we got a backhander as the core tenant? Of course not.
Roan et al miss the point that it was a competitively bid tenancy. We got a good deal because we worked with the local authority to offer a legacy solution, because we stuck to the 2012 requirements to keep the track, because whatever you may think of her, Karren Brady’s a smart operator and because – unlike Tottenham – we didn’t offer to demolish it and build something else while tapping the opposition’s phones. We will fill it twenty times a year and no one else will. Supporters of other clubs might not like it, but we were just lucky enough to have the right location, a smart board and a supportive council. The fact that it was originally designed and built so wrong isn’t our fault. ‘Luxuries’ such as inside toilets, a roof and catering, and the need to cover the track aren’t related to West Ham, they’re needed by any venue that wants to attract spectator events in the 21st century. The OS is in competition with Wembley and the Emirates, not Brisbane Road or The Valley.
At the end of the day, whatever anyone says or does, in twelve months time I will be sitting in Stratford for the start of the season. The place will be sold out (without dumping tickets) and if another club or commercially entity feels they have a case, they can take it to Europe and wait ten years for them to loo at it.
50,000 of us will be too busy to care.