West Ham Gave Bribes To......

Paully D

.....an official connected to the Olympic Stadium bid to make sure they won the race to use the Olympic Stadium, according to The Sunday Times.

Chucky the tree

Bet they wished they bribed him not to win it now.

parker kent

Sullivan and Gold in dodgy dealings. Well I never.

Mr. Denton

Unusual to hear of a team bribing officials so that they can leave their 35000 seat stadium (and all its tradition & history) just to move into a 25000 seat one.

Paully D

Mr. Denton wrote: »

Unusual to hear of a team bribing officials so that they can leave their 35000 seat stadium (and all its tradition & history) just to move into a 25000 seat one.

The capacity of the Olympic Stadium is 80,000.

aidan24326

Mr. Denton wrote: »

Unusual to hear of a team bribing officials so that they can leave their 35000 seat stadium (and all its tradition & history) just to move into a 25000 seat one.

Where on earth are you getting that figure from? The Olympic Stadium holds 80,000 at present, and apparently West Ham are planning to use it as a 60,000 seater venue (not sure exactly how that will work).

Anyway does anyone know exactly on what basis West Ham were chosen over Tottenham? Like what wss the official reason given?

Mr. Denton

Paully D wrote: »

The capacity of the Olympic Stadium is 80,000.

aidan24326 wrote: »

Where on earth are you getting that figure from? The Olympic Stadium holds 80,000 at present,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Stadium_(London)

As a "unique 80,000 seat stadium, it will be the centrepiece for the 2012 Games, hosting the opening and closing ceremonies and the athletics events, converting down to a 25,000 seat permanent stadium after the Games, when it will become the new home for West Ham United F.C,

aidan24326 wrote: »

and apparently West Ham are planning to use it as a 60,000 seater venue (not sure exactly how that will work).

oh ok!

Paully D

aidan24326 wrote: »

Where on earth are you getting that figure from? The Olympic Stadium holds 80,000 at present, and apparently West Ham are planning to use it as a 60,000 seater venue (not sure exactly how that will work).

Anyway does anyone know exactly on what basis West Ham were chosen over Tottenham? Like what wss the official reason given?

I think they were able to cover it up fairly easily as Spurs wanted to knock it down and turn it into a proper 60,000 seater football stadium so they just said ''Tottenham's proposal is not what we want for the Olympic Stadium, blah, blah, blah''.

It turns out that there have been two people suspended over this and one of them, Ian Tompkins, is a director at West Ham who's partner was on the board that selected West Ham. The committee are now trying to say the woman had no part in the selection, whilst The Sunday Times claim she did. I know who I'd believe!

Mr. Guappa

This is the last thing I needed to see as a Spurs fan. We don't want to move to the Olympic stadium but this story will give Levy something new to fight with. Best case scenario is that we leverage this into getting funding for the redevelopment at the current WHL site.

Zebra3

Paully D wrote: »

.....an official connected to the Olympic Stadium bid to make sure they won the race to use the Olympic Stadium, according to The Sunday Times.

The Times. The part of Murdoch's empire that brought you the Hitler Diaries.

One of the other parts of his media empire brought you Scousers pissing on their dead.

I'll reserve judgement for the time being if youse don't mind.

me89

West Ham are now taking legal action against spurs and the times.
http://www.whufc.com/articles/20110703/west-ham-united-statement_2236884_2385579

Hammer Archer

Paully D wrote: »

.....an official connected to the Olympic Stadium bid to make sure they won the race to use the Olympic Stadium, according to The Sunday Times.

No. No they didnt. The woman in question had nothing to do with the Olympic stadium decision.

Edit: Just reading more about it now. Seems a pretty sleazy thing Tottenham have done. Hiring a private investigation firm to dig up dirt on all the members involved in making the decision. Staking out the house of the director and her 14 year old daughter. Getting hold of bank statements of the people involved. Shows how low they're willing to stoop. Hopefully Gold and Sullivan never do any transfer dealings with them again.

mike65

Blimey if Spurs are making West Ham owners look good its a bad day.

gimmick

Hammer Archer wrote: »

Staking out the house of the director and her 14 year old daughter.

Is she hot?

That_Guy

gimmick wrote: »

Is she hot?

Paully D

Zebra3 wrote: »

The Times. The part of Murdoch's empire that brought you the Hitler Diaries.

One of the other parts of his media empire brought you Scousers pissing on their dead.

I'll reserve judgement for the time being if youse don't mind.

I take it you don't watch, or believe anything reported on Sky then either.

Wooden Jesus

It seems that Spurs are more in the wrong with their last gasp attempts at trying to win the Olympic Stadium, they hired a private investigator and acquired information illegally.
If West Ham had been buying votes with back handers it would have taken more than 1 bribe as they won by majority vote anyway.

I still don't understand fully whats going on but it seems that a member of the Olympic Stadium committee had a relationship with a member of the West Ham board and Spurs attempted to exploit it

Lukker-

Paully D wrote: »

I take it you don't watch, or believe anything reported on Sky then either.

If you had any sense you wouldn't.

Paully D

Lukker- wrote: »

If you had any sense you wouldn't.

Never had a Sky subscription in my life and haven't purchased a newspaper in years, there's no need now when everything is available with the click of a mouse on the internet.

However, on here it seems that anything in the papers isn't to be believed, unless of course it's something that they want to here. For instance, if say Liverpool were reported to be making a signing by The Sunday Times they'd be used as a reputable source, but if they were reporting that one of their key players was to be sold then it'd be "no, Murdoch owns this paper and The Sun told lies years ago so this can't be true".

Fair enough, The Sun, The Star, The Mirror etc are to be taken with a massive pinch of salt, but The Sunday Times are a reputable source compared to the aforementioned newspapers and people can't have it both ways.

astrofool

Mr. Denton wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Stadium_(London)

oh ok!

And from further in the same article:

Post-Olympics

On 12 November 2010, it was announced that two bids had been shortlisted for the stadium post-Olympics. They are a joint bid from Tottenham Hotspur F.C. and Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), with the second bid from West Ham United F.C. and Newham Council.[16] The former bid would maintain the 80,000 capacity, while the latter would reduce it to 60,000.

Don't base your argument off wikipedia * 10

Mr. Denton

astrofool wrote: »

And from further in the same article:

Post-Olympics



Don't base your argument off wikipedia * 10

^^ And what did you just do?

I said that they'll be moving from a 35k stadium into a 25k one, which is is a fact. The 60k conversion is a proposal. If every proposed stadium was actually built or built to proposal then we'd never have a downturn in the construction industry as they'd be so busy. That goes doubly so for football clubs who want to build a 60k stadium after just being relegated to the Championship.

Hammer Archer

Mr. Denton wrote: »

^^ And what did you just do?

I said that they'll be moving from a 35k stadium into a 25k one, which is is a fact. The 60k conversion is a proposal. If every proposed stadium was actually built or built to proposal then we'd never have a downturn in the construction industry as they'd be so busy. That goes doubly so for football clubs who want to build a 60k stadium after just being relegated to the Championship.

It won't be a 25k stadium. I can't see why you would think that we would move to a reduced capacity stadium.

From the Beeb:

West Ham plan to retain the running track after moving into the stadium and create a 60,000-capacity arena for football, athletics, concerts and community use.

astrofool

*bangs head off wall*

The fact that the same article mentions two different figures means that the entire article cannot be taken as fact, I hoped I wouldn't have to spell that out, but fine. Wikipedia cannot be used for facts, and should not be used as a line of argument to prove someone wrong*.

West Ham will not move from a 35,000 seater stadium to a 25,000 seater stadium, that it blindingly obvious, by the time of the move the olympic stadium will hold more than Upton park did, otherwise, the move will not occur.

*other then to prove that someone should not use Wikipedia for facts

vicwatson

If West Ham had been buying votes with back handers it would have taken more than 1 bribe as they won by majority vote anyway.

Infact the vote was 14-0 in favour of West Ham United.

I still don't understand fully whats going on but it seems that a member of the Olympic Stadium committee had a relationship with a member of the West Ham board and Spurs attempted to exploit it

Exactly

Edit: Just reading more about it now. Seems a pretty sleazy thing Tottenham have done. Hiring a private investigation firm to dig up dirt on all the members involved in making the decision. Staking out the house of the director and her 14 year old daughter. Getting hold of bank statements of the people involved. Shows how low they're willing to stoop. Hopefully Gold and Sullivan never do any transfer dealings with them again.

Here here. Also an illegal thing to do. It's a non issue.

It will be a 60k seater stadium with a running track, it will be used for concerts, cricket and athletics also. It will cost 95mill stg to convert and they board are looking into using retractable seating to cover the track which will cost an extra 10mill stg.

Interesting article here -

Let Tottenham be Tottenham in Tottenham

By Tony McNulty
I wonder how parents in New York felt in 1958 when it was announced that the Dodgers were leaving for Los Angeles. The Dodgers had been playing baseball in Brooklyn, under a range of different names, since 1883. Up until then, New York had three baseball teams. The borough of Queens had the Mets, and still does; the Yankees were based in the Bronx, and still are – but the Dodgers left and relocated thousands of miles away in Los Angeles. How did parents tell their children that their local team was being ripped out of the local community and would no longer exist – no doubt for sound commercial reasons, but without any regard for the feelings of the local community in Brooklyn.
We have come to accept that the mighty dollar is king in American sports and that teams aren’t community entities rich in culture, heritage and history – but franchises that rely totally on their success as economic entities. The local market fails, the entire franchise simply moves to another local market – regardless of community or history. I know that English football is becoming much more commercial and that money matters more and more – but I hope that we haven’t reached the US position quiet yet, and that community and history still matters.
Tottenham Hotspur FC has played at White Hart Lane since it was built in 1899 and this should matter to all Londoners. London history and sporting legacy is part of what makes London tick. No-one wants to support Stratford Hotspur; they want to support Tottenham Hotspur – based in Tottenham. I don’t support Tottenham, I don’t even like it much, but I fully support those that want the team to stay at White Hart Lane and I hope that they do.
Tottenham doesn’t belong at the Olympic stadium in Stratford, West Ham does. It is to the credit of the Olympic authorities that they recognise this and see it as a key part of a lasting sporting legacy for the East End. The club needs to make sure that it returns to the Premiership as quickly as possible to grace the new Stadium with the football that it and the East End deserves.
Thames Ironworks FC played at Hermit Road in Canning Town in 1895-96, moved to Browning Road in East Ham for a brief while and then played at the Memorial Grounds (roughly where West Ham tube station is now) from 1896 until 1900. Thames Ironworks became West Ham United in 1900 and continued to play at the Memorial Grounds until moving to its current home at the Boleyn Ground at Upton Park in 1904. So throughout its history West Ham has played within close proximity to the new Olympic Stadium at Stratford. This will be the real legacy of the Olympics for the East End.
I confess to being a West Londoner, but one who has supported West Ham since the mid-60s. I am a season ticket holder too, but this is bigger than one club. We should let Tottenham be Tottenham in Tottenham and let the East End have the sporting legacy that its communities deserve – West Ham in the Olympic Stadium. London should be very proud of its football clubs – but unless they are rooted in the communities they have sprung from and serve, then they will become as nomadic as the franchises in American sport – and what sort of legacy will that be for anyone?
Tony McNulty was a minister in the last Labour government.


OP - Your thread title is an unproven allegation and that's it.