Turkish

Like you this clown seems to think West Ham are being given the stadium, they aren't, they are tenants. The stadium will be used for many other things as well.

Where do you think the £13m went? The club shares were worth nothing so there was no one to buy it off, it was well documented Leon Crouch and Michael Wilde lost their money. The £13m went to the debts that the administrator had restructured.

No they haven't, they are renting council property and paying a reasonable annual fee to do that. If it was that easy to build on renting council property whilst getting a huge financial boost most clubs will never see why are Coventry In L1 and facing admin?

Isn't it about shots at goal?

So why do you keep whining about the money coming out of the public purse then? Council uses council money to pay for council owned stadium. Meanwhile securing £2m a year into the public purse by renting it out to local football club, smart move by the council, yes?

And that money from the public purse is paying for the council owned stadium which can be used for any event the council sees fit, which includes renting that stadium to a football club to use. The council own the stadium, not the club, the club are tennants.

We could have but luckily for us it worked out well. As it may or may not do for West Ham.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5088457/Southampton-Football-Club-owner-in-crisis-as-shares-suspended.html http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4481187.Swiss_Saints_deal_completed/ our debts were £27m in 2008, up from £19m the year before, they paid £13m to buy us and clear them.

Yes it does. As i've explained. You may not agree but both clubs have benefited from the circumstances they are in. You may not like it because West Ham have benefitted from theirs but thats how it is.

They aren't building their own stadium, they are renting one. I'm not sure why people are struggling to grasp this.

and we've benefited hugely from it.

Correct, as where we. The stadium cost £30m, we were brought for c£13m, we didn't pay the full value of it and have benefited from this by having billionaire owners. We were a better proposition for an investor because of this. You've admitted yourself that we would have been less attractive to a buyer if we were still at the Dell. West Ham might not be in admin but they are taking advantage of their circumstances, much as the liebherrs did of ours.

How so? You were bleating they will be attractive to a sugar daddy because of their stadium, ealier you admitted if we didn't have SMS, which we didn't pay for fully, then we we wouldn't have been as attractive to potential investors. We didn't pay for our stadium, they aren't paying for thiers, whats the difference?

They are. They are giving away 100k tickets a season to kids, paying £2m a year for the right to use it and £15m for stadium alterations. hardly f*ck all.

It's costing them £105k per game based on £2m a year for a premier league season. They will only use it 19 times a year, a maxium of say, 30 if they get into Europe and have good domestic cup runs. It isn't that cheap.

I dont get why people are claiming it is so wrong. They are becoming council tenants, they aren't being given a stadium, they are just in the right place at the right time.

So you'd refuse to pay off your debts and move to a bigger stadium?

I see you are struggling to grasp the principle so i'll make it simple. Both clubs were in circumsatnces which they have used and turned to their advantage, one you are declaring as wrong and disgraceful, the other you seem to think it totally fine and no problem at all. It's very much double standards.

What makes it so wrong? They are paying £2m a year to RENT the stadium. That works out at £105k for every league game. I dont think that is particularly low amount it seems about right. Why is it so wrong for them yet fine for Man City to do exactly the same thing?

Dell days MLG

So did Franco for a while.

You wouldn't take it? You'd stay at SMS, keep the debt and the struggles to pay it and refuse the chance for the far bigger, brand new stadium?

not that disimilar at all. one club is in loads of debt, has the opportunity to clear their debt in full by moving stadium, the other club was in loads of debt and went into admininstration to clear their debt, which was a 1/3 of what they actually owed and then soared throught the leagues with debts gone owned by billionaires who funded their success out of their own wealth. arguably our circumstances were far more "wrong"

So you'd bite their hand off, yes?

Yes, p*ss taking, not shouting racist and offensive stuff angrily.