Spiteful and ridiculous.... really?!?!?!
Now, I'm not saying that some of what Carlton Cole said is not accurate but part of that is down to the players as much as the manger AND it's neither here nor there. I think Grant's tactics against Pool were flawed but, as Ray Winstone said, the players were mainly to blame for the manner of that defeat (Cole high on that list, showing little enthusiasm for the task). IF Grant is to stay and retain the respect of the dressing room, assuming its not lost already, he almost certainly has to bench him or drop him from the team. My view is that CC is no longer interested in playing for us and is agitating for a move ahead of the window.

Hoping for a 3-0 (easy on the nerves), but would settle for 3 points with a goal deflected in off Obinna's backside!

As an aside, I'm hoping the DD's can persuade Paolo, whilst he's visiting, to get involved in some capacity.

Parcelforce site could be used for a 10,000 seat athletics stadium. After all, UK Athletics cant afford the upkeep on a big stadium anyway.

I believe that, if they get the OS, G&S will do exactly as they are doing now - lowering prices to get attendance up. Admittedly, we wont fill 80,000 and its a fine balancing act between lowering prices and raising income (but they will manage it).

I don't doubt what Red Ken told you, Iain. But if the IOC and the WAF really had any kind of contractual power in the matter they would not be continually quizzing Lord Coe about the 'legacy'? After all, what have the stadium plans (other than being a pig to renovate for football purposes) got to do with it's long term use? I doubt very much that, given that the UK taxpayer/govt is paying for it to be built (NOT IOC nor WAF), we would have negotiated in a clause that effectively ensured a white elephant. If WE did, then someone is going to have to find out who the WE were that agreed to it, line them up against a wall, and shoot the lot of them. I expect that any 'clause' is vaguely worded along the lines of 'having an athletics legacy', but not stating categorically that this venue would be 'the legacy'.

We will have to wait and see who else puts forward proposals for use/tenancy after the games, but I will be very surprised if any of them are more lucrative for the taxpayer than WHU. Make no mistake, this will be decided on money by the next govt (which Tessa Jowell will not be part of unless she switches sides!). The Tories will not want to step in an O2 sized t*rd!

He's just saying what he needs to say to make sure we keep the games. He has no real say over how it is used afterwards. I very much doubt he will be stumping up the several million per year that it costs to maintain such a facility after the games and neither will UK Athletics - they just don't have the money! The only people who can decide it are the OPLC and they will be led, nose first, by the government. No Govt, Labour or Conservative, can afford another white elephant like the O2 so it will be decided on the most commercially affordable grounds.

Simply put, I can't see anyone bringing in more revenue than a PL club! Especially if we can rent out the stadium for concerts in the off-season.

CH, some very good points - all of which I would like answered, but we may need to compromise on some to get the best result on others. I would hope that, if we paid for CP to be renovated AND the extra work required to adjust the olympic stadium (govts fault that they didnt think fwd enough for running costs etc to include conversion to footy stadium and dont now want to be stuck with a white elephant), we would be able to get some kind of stake in the ground. Maybe 25% and then rent the rest from them on an agreed schedule of costs. Whether that would be just for the footy season or year round would dictate whether we could get other income from the stadium. I would suggect that additional non-footy income could be a useful revenue stream. We may also be able to agree some schedule for taking over ownership gradually.

I share yr concerns about filling a massive stadium, but feel that this could be mitigated by selling seats off in concentric circles going out/up and thereby ensuring fans are kept packed in and close to the pitch (worked fairly well at a Sao Paolo game I once attended - no lack of atmosphere there!).

I guess we'll have to wait and see what D&D can negotiate with the OPLC. My view is that WE are in a strong position in that, it would help us to move but it would help the OPLC/Govt more if we took over the stadium. The existing plan calls for them to reduce the size of the stadium to 20-30,000 at a cost of £50-100m? They would then be liable for continued running costs ad nauseum ad infinitum..... ££££££££££££££££££££££

Whereas, if we moved in we COULD leave all the seats in place (just not use the outer ring) and cover (somehow) the athletics track with seats. Running costs would be more than UP (covered by us), but I can't see there being a massive differential between the two. OPLC could spend their re-dev money on fixing crystal palace and our 'investment' in making the ground work for us could be seen as a part-payment on ownership. FYI - the Dome cost over £20m in one year to keep empty!!! It cost, overall, £850m to build/run and was eventually 'sold' on a buy now pay later scheme for what COULD amount to £550m. So, based on that model, how much would we have to pay to get the OS???

I think that we should let him go. He has been largely ineffective and I have seen very little to make me believe that we should be looking to make the deal permanent in the summer, so what's the point in keeping him? Unless we suffer a midfield injury crisis I think we are better served playing some of the kids than Jimenez.

As for 'borrowing' Jack Wilshere from Arsenal, I think he's dropped down their pecking order after the emergence of wotsit. If he's a hammer then why not take him on loan, if for no other reason than we can get to know him before he signs for us permanently. I would then pick from the youth (including him) as appropriate based on the needs of the sub bench and the quality they show in training.

Agreed - we NEED a right back!

All very interesting people, but can we get back on topic and talk about how we are going to help Iain make this share thing fly?

I'm waiting on my bro-in-law for a pointer on who to get advice from (for the whole project - legal/financial).

That's great news, Iain. A guy on KUMB came up with a good idea for drumming up interest. He created a facebook group - mywhufc

But we need a centralised point of contact - someone to really start rallying the various groups. I know KUMB have been running a seperate thread on the same subject.

... continued....
What makes you think that an elected member from a fans stakeholding would not be capable of voting sensibly in a boardroom? It would be difficult to meddle with only a 10% stake but we would at least know that we have some say over policy.

Leave it to the people who have the money and the will to get on with it. We all love West Ham - lets agree on that and accept that partial ownership by the fans couldn't really be a bad thing.

COYI

Phippsy - what exactly do you think the club NEEDS? Other than a sheikh benefactor with a seemingly bottomless pit of cash instead of a wallet (soon to be banned from Euro comps when Blatter/Platini have their way). If by that you mean, pump in the equivalent again in cash then you are going to be sadly disappointed with how Messrs Gold & Sullivan run the club. There may be an injection of cash from them but I doubt that it will be more than 50% of their stake, ie £25m.

As to what else we could need, I would expect that we all know the answer to that - sensible business management. Sadly, as we know, we haven't had this in years. The Football Project is a good start (work with the kids - traditional strength & encourages more to join us) and then blend in talent/experience with a few shrewd purchases.