Good & Bad OS

First of all lets congratulate West Ham on becoming one of the tenants of the OS. It might in most people's eyes be a Pyrrhic victory in the long term!

As a life long Spurs fan I did not want us to move out of the Haringey/Enfield area, even though economically the OS move would have saved the club £200m or so & the taxpayer would have recouped a large chunk of its outlay on the OS.

The key elements going forward for me are as follows:

What return will LLDC get in regard to WHU's turnover & income at the OS. It makes commercial sense to tie any rental agreement in with commercial success and attendances.

Is the £40m invested by Newham Council subject to audit? Would it constitute a breach of EU Regulations? This is not a regeneration investment, it is an investment in a private concern.

What impact on West Ham will there be if they get relegated in the next two years?

How much is the Boleyn worth? Especially as West Ham do not apparently own the land it is built on?

What sell on clauses have LLDC put into place, as the OS will obviously make the club a more attractive proposition going forward. The interesting thing is that it will be the OS making WHU more attractive, not the football!

The benefit to a move to the Olympic Stadium is simple and mostly financial at its root. The amenities, facilities, and surrounding areas of the stadium will supposedly gather a larger following for any occupants it houses. Furthermore, the larger physical size of the stadium will allow for greater advertising and marketing capacities. In short, the overarching driver behind any move to the Olympic Stadium is that it will guarantee more yearly income.

Where are WHU going to to get the additional supporters required to fill a 60,000 seater stadium? They have averaged roughly just over 34,000 in the past 5 PL seasons,Again, very respectable indeed, but still around 1,000 below its maximum capacity. Given this, Gold and Sullivan had better be absolutely certain that West Ham will be able to immediately draw significantly larger crowds in a 60,000 seater Olympic Stadium. At the very least, the added attendance would have to be substantial enough to justify an added yearly rental expense of some £2.5 million

It begs the question - if Upton Park was not able to fill 35,016 seats consistently over the past 5 years, will a very expensive move to the Olympic Stadium guarantee enough of an immediate and large enough attendance hike to justify the great costs?

Furthermore, while increased advertising and marketing can be cited as reasons to offset the rental expenses, the attendance question still plays a part. As other clubs in Europe, and more recently the World Cup in South Africa has shown in its Stadia, sponsors are ultimately attracted through the popularity and attendance of a club, rather than simply more blank boards being available. Again, supply and demand is the key.

At its current state, sponsors compete with one another to secure their advertising space in a stadium like Upton Park. As a result, each advertising board in Upton Park will bring in more through this competition.

In the hypothetical scenario that West Ham United in the Olympic Stadium averages about 45,000 in attendance out of 60,000 (subjectively speaking, a generous estimated hike of 10,000), will sponsors still compete for that space and drive up the revenue per board? Again, the assumption that sponsorship revenue will definitely increase requires second thought given the massive financial ramifications of the move.

GOOD LUCK WEST HAM!!!!!!!!!!