What do you Think of a Groundshare?

Tribal Football reports that West Ham have been approached by Spurs to allow them to play home matches at Upton Park in 2009 while their new stadium is developed. This would apparently coin us £20 million. What do you reckon? Worth it? I can’t see why not, particularly if it gives us the money to buy a world class player.

I know this is blasphemy, but you could also make an argument for West Ham and Spurs to build a single stadium and share it. I did say COULD, not SHOULD…

[battens down hatch]

Vote in my Groundshare poll HERE.


38 Responses to What do you Think of a Groundshare?

  1. robbery says:

    The only worry is idiots looking for trouble close to the ground. But i guess this would die down after a few weeks and it will only be the first few matches that would be trouble. Of course going into the away end for an away/home match against spurs would be odd.

    10 million a year doesnt sound bad now does it and they can hardly go to arsenal now can they?!?!?

    Remember if it was us needing a temporary home then there isnt many places better suited than white heart lane and we would be gratefull for such help.

    That isnt to say i dont hate spurs with my entire body and mind!!!

  2. Kevin D says:

    It’s Also in the D Mail, not to comfortable with it.

  3. robbery says:

    o and i forgot to say, nice joke about the ground share, you make me laugh sometimes.

    But seriously If you ever mention this again we will kill you

  4. West Ham Fan no 32 says:

    I think we should share our ground for a season if it can raise us some extra cash but in terms of long term sharing of a new single stadium I would be vehemently opposed to it ! Lets just get the parcelforce site developed get our 60,000 seater ( supposedly ) built and move on to becoming a regular to six side over the next 5 years.

    On the subject of a 60,000 seater stadium do you think we could regularly fill it ? I know we have the massive support but what about the cost of attending games ? I used to attend about a third of our home games in the halcion days of the terraces and affordable tickets but now its a few select games a season due to the price of tickets.

  5. Steve Pulvernis says:

    Share with Tottscum

    i’m appalled!!!!! anyone but them, I would feel very aggrieved to share my seat with a Spurs fan, and I think the trouble caused will outweigh the paultry £20m

  6. Steve says:

    It’s a big no-no. Anyway, any money we received would go to relieving the short-term debt burden or towards any new stadium, not towards players.

    Having been going to U.P. since the late 70’s I for one would not be happy with them swanning around Plaistow drinking in our pubs. Whilst some of the pub owners would welcome the extra trade, there are one or two places where they would not be welcome.

    Don’t even mention us being the away side at Upton Park. With the money I’ve put into the club over the years helping finance the various new stands why should I have to sit in the away end and watch some Spud chump sitting in my seat?

    Charlton ground sharing is one thing, Spurs is another!

  7. vdm says:

    Short term for 20 million – maybe – but when it comes to ‘rivals’ sharing grounds in this country it doesn’t usually happen – our football culture can’t cope with it – even though in terms of economics etc. it’s probably sensible. To be honest in Europe it’s only really in Italy (I think ) where it happens to any significant degree.
    Up here in Scotland it was tried with Hibs and Hearts – too much rivalry, heritage, history even though at the time they were both in dire financial straits.
    Has anyone been to Dundee? – the two grounds are directly across the road from each other and they have still never got round to sharing

  8. hammerron says:

    No way!!!!!!!!!!!!
    By the way, merry christmas Iain

  9. new york says:

    think as a short term situation, it makes sense for west ham to go ahead with it. 20 million is a lot of money ,and could allow us to bring in 1 or 2 outstanding players that cud make a big difference. i can understand the potential policing issues ,but you wud think the police wud be able to cope with those. it s true that some or maybe even most of the money cud end up being used to pay down debt ,but that could put us in a better position down the road to buy the right player when he comes along.

  10. Ian the Hammer says:

    How very, very dare you!!!!!!

  11. peter says:

    i cant believe we are even considering this. they keep telling me that football is a business so in what business environment would you assist a competitor ? its like mcdonalds letting burger king use one of their restaurants whilst the burger king restaurant is refurbished and made larger enabling them to generate larger profits and out sell the competition. if we are going to compete with our north london “deluded big club” neighbours the last thing we want to do is help them – £20m is a drop in the ocean if the long term view is taken . i suppose its the first real test for the new owners as to whether all the niose about us becoming a top 6 club is just wind or whether they will take the money. oh and one more thing – i have sat in the same seat in the CR since it was changed from a standing area to all seating and that is my seat – if they tell me i have to share my seat with a spud then they can poke their season ticket … and i am sure i wont be the only person with that view.

  12. Plaistow54 says:

    Well, we may as well cut to the chase. That’s a No & a Dead Body vote. 20 mill sounds great but Spurs are better off to build a complete new ground as we are doing, more expensive but…. What ! No money ? The yid’s have run out of money ? Shouldn’t have paid 18 mill for Bent then.

  13. The Headmaster says:

    Happy Christmas everyone. Groundshare with Spurs – not over keen meself.
    Won’e.t matter a toss what any of us think tho, when push comes to shov

  14. Biffo the bear says:

    speechless, absolutely f**kin speechless!

    ‘we could use the money to buy top players’
    we’ve got money, we’ve got plans to build a new ground and….
    it’s spurs
    are you all completely barking?
    have I said no?

  15. JackHammer says:

    Unworkable, too many head bangers on both sides!!

  16. RDUBBBBB says:

    anyone but spurs. spurs fans are among the most irritating and deluded in the land.

    20 mills not enough. hold them to ransom i say, 20 million for half their home games.. they can try and get in at the emirates/bridge/madjeski/cottage or even borrow Layer Road.. Colchester are building a new ground soon!

  17. Tabrez says:

    Could this be why EGGERT left? an argument over groundshare…EGGY said no and GUDMUNDSSON said yes? mmmmmm

    I think we should agree, then as soon as Spurs start pulling down their old stadium we should say sorry, we’ve changed our minds ha…hahahaha.haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

  18. Hammers & Zvezda says:

    20 Million – not enough! That must be Spurs starting price so there would have to be at least another 10 million we could bargain up to…I’ll do for 30 million.

    As for ground-share…you’ve been drinking again!

  19. nr2iron says:

    As Steve put it earlier Charlton and Spurs are two different kettles of fish and could you imagine us playing an away game at the boleyn???????? no of course not.

  20. Chris says:

    biffo, ‘we’ (the club) dont have money, the owner does. Wheter or not he wants to use it on the club or not is a different thing. The groundshare to me sounds like it could be good for us but should be more than 20mil as Spurs are very likely to vandalise the place atleast a few times so we’ll need money to repair that as well as enough incentive to go through with it to begin with.

  21. Plaistow54 says:

    Yes, there are two ways to look at it. Some see the money & the business side of of it, sensible of course. I am though just a fan, as Frank says, & i see this from an emotional stance. I do not despise Spurs, it is just rivalry, they are a club with much history & have had some fine players eg. Lineker, who from memory was never booked in his entire career. To me the Boleyn is hallowed ground. There walks the ghosts of West Ham gods. Unfortunately business takes no such thing into account & if the club were to decide to share then que sera sera, but i would hope that they use the money wisely. I doubt that it would be a popular decision though.

  22. bazhammer says:

    I can’t bear the thought of moving from Upton Park, let alone hosting Tottenham for 2 years and then GROUNDSHARE!!!!!??? Every home game there is a passionate crowd of supporters, cheering on the hammers, and look what happened only a few weeks ago when Defoe dived in the box for a spud penalty!!! There was some passion then I can tell you, and thank god they didn’t score from it, otherwise there would have been Hammers fans camping outside the ground waiting for the Totts to appear. Moneys nice but far too much history between us. It’s got to be NO!!!

  23. alan says:

    no, “west ham johnny”, we don t “all no that yids are tight.”

    what we do know is that the moderator has zero credibility.

    the moderator either consciously allows racist drivel like that on here,or it was a bad oversight. but seeing as he chose not to delete this racist crap even retrosepctively,it s safe to assume the former is the truth.

    good riddance to your poxy site

  24. new york says:

    they re not “yids” plaistow. they re called jews or jewish people. and they re no more or less tight than you “west ham johnny” ,or church of englanders,or hindus,muslims or anglo-saxon protestants.

    if that s what you condoine dale, then you shove your blog up yoor prostate,dale

  25. Iain Dale says:

    Apologies for inadvertantly allowing a racist comment through. I have now deleted it. I try to read every word of every comment, but when there are so many, some slip through.

  26. Plaistow54 says:

    Hey, wait a minute, i’ve only just seen this. What happened here ? I have never interpreted the use of that term as derogatry, nor did i intend it that way. It is a language. The Spurs fans even use that term about themselves.
    I did not mean to offend anyone & if i did, which i obviously have, i apologise. Sorry Iain as it looks like i have caused you some grief. I have no problems with Spurs supporters despite my views on groundshare, i have mates who are Spurs boys & i have yet to upset them. New York, this is not intentional, i thought times had changed. Don’t blame Iain. If you do not reply or you reply to the negative, this is the last time i say anything here or elsewhere. Pity, It’s a good blog. As i said, i don’t intend that term in a racist way. I didn’t mind it here so punished myself.

  27. new york says:

    “yids ” is a slur. it is racist ,derogatory term, like any other racist term. the fact that some tottenham supporters choose to use the word, in theory “to get their own back” makes the use of it no better. Just like the use of a well -known slur word by african-americans ,does not make the use of that word justifiable.

    what difference does it make,in any case ,what the religion of a portion of spurs support is?

    The responsibility may initially rest with contributors, but it is ultimately down to the blog owner to ensure that this sort of thing does not go on. And as a journalist, the owner of this blog should lnow full well ,what is racist,or derogatory. or perjorative,without having to be reminded.

    and it is not the first time that the moderator has been found wanting in this regard. and being “too busy” ,or “missing it by mistake” is no excuse.

    try using using the word “yids” to mate sof yours who are NOT tottenham supporters ,and see how good a response you get . Spurs supporters choosing to use this term are in the minority on this one. by a country mile.

    and the inability of the owner of this blog to get this issue right, despite other venues getting it right ,is why i keep my participation on it somewhere betwene the bare minimum and nil. thanks for your reply plaistow

  28. Iain Dale says:

    New York, that is an incredibly biased view of what has happened. Yes, I do moderate, but if someone writes a comment which is several paras lomg and I miss a racist term then I rely on people to let me know about it. I cannot read every word of every comment on this site. I will not tolerate racism on this site, but I will tolerate offensiveness. It is not yet a crime to offend someone. If it was, I would have brough a few dozen cases from this blog by now!

    Just for the avoidance of doubt, Yids is not a word I will allow on this blog and if anyone sees it they should email me.

  29. new york says:

    stop making excuses ,and just admit you got it wrong.

    “biased ” , IN YOUR OPINION.

    trying to justify the incident by claiming use of the term is merely offensive ,rather than racist is third division nonsense. the term ,as you now admit it ,shouldn t have been on there in the first place. and it isn t the first time i ve brought it to your attention. but it will be the last

  30. Iain Dale says:

    New York, You are just the sort of pedant who makes blogging a pain in the arse. I never said it was merely offensive. You are twisting my words.

    Please feel free to bugger off to another blog.

  31. that s EXACTLY the point ,dale.

    the use of this term,in conjunction with a blatantly obvious racial sterotype in the same sentence about spending habits of people of a certain religion ,crosses the line from the merely offensive to the racist .

    biased? not even close. realistic and honest .

    yes it s agreed ,you can t legislate for moderating out every offensive ,or potentially offensive comment on a blog,and as you imply , at times ,one may even have to include certain comments that some might view as offensive. but there is and should be a clear distinction between what is merely annoying,mildly or tolerably offensive,and that which crosses that line into the abyss of racism

  32. new york says:

    feel free? that decision was made from the moment this happened on dec 24. but because i take the underlying issue seriously enough ,i chose to respond to plaistow s comment on the issue ,before abandoning the blog altogether. and if you choose to throw toys out of the pram ,i m not bothered. because some people will have thought about the issue more than they had previously. like plaistow . and if that s a pain in your arse, then so be it. glad to hear it

  33. What makes blogging a pain in the arse is to have to put up with the periodic appearance of racially offensive, or inappropriate terminology in order to get to some insightful comments. an end user should not be put in the position of having to make that sort of trade-off. There are not that many comments to sift through on the blog from the point of view of moderation, nor are they that lengthly. If the number of comments was really so large on a regular basis,then surely some sort of automation in the moderation process might be worthy of consideration. as for the twisting of words,i don t buy it. The discussion was ,from the beginning , not about offensive,or merely offensive words or comments. It was specifically about comments perceived to be , or comments that actually were racist. There is a significant difference. So injecting into the discussion a comment about choosing to not omit the merely offensive, did not add any clarity at all- it only increased the misunderstanding. Finally,it strikes as a bit weak for the moderator to whinge about what makes blogging a pain in the arse. nobody forces you to start or maintain a blog- that is your choice. and if the blog expands in popularity ,part and parcel of that will invariably be difference of opinion, and at times heated difference of opinion. if you run a blog you have to be prepared to manage that,otherwise why bother? and to hurl an insult at an end user because the reader was displeased with what appeared in the site(and rightfully so IMHO) does not reflect well on the moderator.or the blog. shame really. but that s how it goes sometimes.

  34. rick says:

    You would not allow racist language on your political blog, which you claim is the biggest in the UK. so if you can keep racist comments off there ,why should there have been any trouble doing the same on here? pretty lame excuse , that there were so many responses,because there weren t . especially in comparison to that worldbeating politico-blog of yours. fraid you got this one wrong mate,and lashing out doesn t help. it makes it worse

  35. here's hopin..... says:

    New York buggering off to another blog would do just nicely.

    Participation somewhere between the bare minimum and nil, eh. hmmnn

  36. Iain Dale says:

    How very strange that New York, Rick, North London Hammer and Additional Point all have the same IP Address. In fact they are one and the same person, trying to pretend that their viewpoint commands widespread support.

    You are now banned. Piss off.

  37. Rooster says:

    Iain, Banning a person is not right, even if he is tri schizo. As New York he was a fair commentor.
    Everybody is entitled there opinion as long as it is withing reason, and does not hurt or cause distress to others.
    I think you will find his comments quite interesting and actualy made the Post one of the best on here so far, so as for for banning him, makes us all feel that maybe we better not express an opinion even if we use 3 different names, did you stop to think he may be running 3 different WordPress blogs in different names?.
    New York, i created & ran a cartoon on my blog about the ground share, it never offended anybody, and if it did, then all i would do is let them speak there mind and let it blow over, but i would never ban you or delete the cartoon.
    Anyway fuck the spuds, they aint sharing my manor!!

  38. Rooster says:

    BTW, good luck to the Hammers on Saturday. Im taking my little girl, so no swearing please guys. 🙂 Joke

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: