by handbags_harris »
12 Dec 2009 19:48
Ideal handbags_harris Surely it's not a question of whether the stadium is "better", it's a question of the value of the land that the stadium sits on yada yada yada
Of course it is a question of the stadium being better.
Do you think it is easy to get permission to build a new stadium? Look at Everton, they are having all sorts of problems, Liverpool as well.
West Ham would never gain permission to build a new stadium at the present location, NEVER, and they would NEVER find a suitable spot of land to do so in ANY nearby location. Hence MK Dons moving to Milton Keynes.
We do however have a reasonably new stadium, and provisions are in place to easily expand it to a reasonably high capacity.
If we expanded our stadium it would be possible to sustain a top-10 premiership team on that capacity.
West Ham do not have that option.
Same thing with training facilities. We have a good spot of land, and the facilities could also even furthermore be improved without difficulties. Not so for West Ham.
Clearly we have better infrastructure and are better set for the future than they are, particularly since they are nearly £100M in debt, and losing £35-50M on a yearly basis now with their excessive wages.
Well no, not really. West Ham's value will not be altered by the fact they may or may not be unable to find a suitable location for a new stadium. Likewise Everton. The value will still be the same. The circumstances surrounding development potential may deter potential buyers, but the value of a business is the value of a business and any sane businessman would be unwise to shed a business at a cut cost unless it was a loss-making enterprise.