davieG Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 Much of what the two Premier League clubs are proposing has been kept confidential, including the potentially pivotal details of the financial dividend for the public purse should they be chosen as tenants. But they have to satisfy five criteria laid down by the OPLC at the start of this process: 1. To achieve a viable long-term solution for the Olympic Stadium that is deliverable and provides value for money; 2. To secure a partner with the capability to deliver and operate a legacy solution for a venue of the stadium's size and complexity; 3. To re-open the stadium for operational use as rapidly as possible once the 2012 Gameshave finished; 4. To ensure that the stadium remains a distinctive physical symbol supporting the economic, physical and social regeneration of the surrounding area; 5. To allow flexible usage of the stadium, accommodating a vibrant programme of events that allows year-round access for schools, the local community, the wider public and elite sport. Along with those criteria, a prerequisite for making the shortlist was to satisfy the demand for "a stadium solution that supports the intent of the London 2012 bid commitments for athletics, or proposes a credible alternative". It is on this point that the proposals of both West Ham and Spurs fundamentally divide. West Ham will keep the running track, retaining the possibility for the stadium to be used as the centrepiece of an anticipated bid for the World Athletics Championships in 2017. Tottenham's interpretation of the "credible alternative" is to get rid of the track at the stadium and instead propose a substantial refurbishment of the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace, home of London's international athletics events. As almost everyone will have now noticed, the proposal is proving to be highly controversial. It is the elephant in the sitting room but let's just ignore it for a moment. Whatever the board of the OPLC decides, the Olympic Stadium will not become just another large football venue, animated only once a fortnight for home games, with the occasional bit of public access to the club's trophy room or museum. It must be at the heart of the local community and have ready a "vibrant programme of events". Spurs have bid partners AEG to bring their expertise to bear on the events side. Running entertainment arena The O2 certainly ought to mean that AEG are well up to speed. West Ham have involved Live Nation, who are equally credible concert and event specialists. Both clubs will modify the stadium, reducing its 80,000 capacity at Games-time to 60,000 and making the changes they need to better fit the profile of a football ground, including such vital revenue generators as corporate entertainment areas. What they spend on that is their own prerogative but they will have to convince the OPLC that they have got the money and can pay the rent as long-term anchor tenants. There will be £35m available from the Olympic Delivery Authority's budget for the site, set aside for the legacy use refurbishment of the stadium. Both West Ham and Spurs would be expected to take advantage of that money - West Ham as part of their plans at the Olympic Park, Spurs to spruce up Crystal Palace. Both will have to demonstrate a multi-sport capability. West Ham have been talking to Essex County Cricket Club as part of their plans to satisfy that requirement, with an eye on Twenty20. So, back to the athletics legacy. For each bid, satisfying that demand requires a compromise. For West Ham, it means accepting that the stadium is not configured exclusively with football in mind - and that means there is an impact on sightlines, atmosphere and the fan experience. That is a compromise the club will bear and is asking its fans to accept. For Spurs, it is others who must be prepared to accept compromise. There has been a disorderly queue of people keen to say that scrapping the Olympic Stadium track is not what was promised in 2005. The debate has become increasingly heated. What counts is the decision of the OPLC, which has said alternatives can be considered. A complication for Spurs has arisen in the last few days in the shape of Crystal Palace Football Club, who have announced their ambition to return to the site that gave them their name. The significance of this development is being dismissed by sources close to Spurs but it adds another element to the already difficult decision-making process. Once Spurs and West Ham have made their final submissions, OPLC chief executive Andrew Altman faces a long weekend of deliberation. He and Baroness Ford, the OPLC chairwoman, will then make their recommendation to the OLPC board. If the board are happy, that positive feeling cascades down to the two major stakeholders: the Government and the London Mayor's office, who have the final say. What is clear is that whichever way this falls, one party will very disappointed, possibly even prepared to mount a legal challenge. The OPLC will have to be confident its decision will stand up to scrutiny, especially from the Government's audit committee, for whom value for money overrides all other more emotive considerations in these difficult economic times.
Webbo Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 It was part of the agreement when we got the Olympics that the athletics track had to be kept. West Ham will keep the track, Spurs won't, so West Ham should have it ,end of.
Zingari Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 i agree with webbo , but i can't see how a nation of some 70 million can't just have a dedicated athletics arena
Finnegan Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 i agree with webbo , but i can't see how a nation of some 70 million can't just have a dedicated athletics arena Because there's no interest. What the **** will we do with an athletics arena of that size? It's a minority sport, it gets less interest, funding and less broadcasting than almost every other "major" sport in this country. I don't see what the point of all this "lasting athletic legacy" bullshit is supposed to be about, to be perfectly honest. Look at the Louis Company. It's just been a football ground since the Olympics, hosting the odd extra occasional money spinner. Some seven or eight years after the Olympics it held a minor athletics competition last year (European Championships) that got immensely minimal coverage in this country and now it's back to being empty as Espanyol have moved out. I imagine the story's the same for most former Olympic stadiums. If it's going to come to some use as a sporting venue I don't really see the fuss to be perfectly honest. My view would probably be different if I actually gave much of a shit about athletics but I'd personally see these stadiums go to some viable use after the tournament's moved on than see them stand mostly empty. If you want to create some "lasting legacy" you do it by funding grass roots atlhetics, building training facilities and top level performance centres. Not by having some fifty thousand seater stand dormant for a decade just in case it gets to host the Commonwealth Games or something in about 2058.
Zingari Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 yes , i suppose you're right finners , it's just that i really think that athletics has been vastly under promoted as a sporting spectacle for far too long , and given the right standard of quality events on a regular basis , with good sponsorships , i think athletics could grab the public's attention far more than it does but again , maybe that's just my unrealistic aspirations for what i genuinely believe is the blue riband of all sports (no other sport whatsoever beats athletics imo)
Webbo Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 I imagine the story's the same for most former Olympic stadiums. If it's going to come to some use as a sporting venue I don't really see the fuss to be perfectly honest. My view would probably be different if I actually gave much of a shit about athletics but I'd personally see these stadiums go to some viable use after the tournament's moved on than see them stand mostly empty. It will have a viable use, it'll be West Hams ground.
broughtonblue Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 Think west ham should have it. some people on here have said athletics is not considered a major sport anymore which is true. But when I was a teenager the whole country felt involved when Coe, ovett, and cram were battling it out for world records and Olympic/world titles. Add in Daley Thompson, tessa Sanderson, Steve backley and others and we were pretty dominant over the rest of the world. Perhaps the olympics and an excellent new stadium could re-ignite the passion for athletics that is now sadly missing!
Edmund Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 Can't either of them rebuild their current stadiums or use the land their on now? Upton park and White Hart Lane are both great stadiums. They will regret erecting plastic soulless bowls. Why West Ham even need a bigger stadium is baffling, especially as time goes by it looks ever increasingly that they will be championship bound next season.
purpleronnie Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 Agree its a pity 2 clubs with great stadiums want to move into another generic bland bowl.
Finnegan Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 It will have a viable use, it'll be West Hams ground. Yeah but it'll still be half empty.
Miquel The Work Geordie Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 Haven't Spurs purchased land near White Hart Lane anyway? Would save moving to an entirely different part of London. Don't think their fans want it, they're not too fond of Levy.
Finnegan Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 Can't see why either set of fans would want it. Spurs are a proud North London club in a city where North, South, East and West means something to it's residents. West Ham fans surely know they won't fill it and even if they did, getting atmosphere in an Olympic stadium will be hard. They pride themselves on the hostility of Upton Park, they have to realise that'd be destroyed.
Fosse Boy Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 Can't see why either set of fans would want it. Spurs are a proud North London club in a city where North, South, East and West means something to it's residents. West Ham fans surely know they won't fill it and even if they did, getting atmosphere in an Olympic stadium will be hard. They pride themselves on the hostility of Upton Park, they have to realise that'd be destroyed. My thinking on it too. Should just give it a couple of the "London" rugby clubs to share. Bring them back into the city. I know none of the big teams originate from the East End but having them back in the city instead of out at Reading, Watford or Wycombe can only be a good thing surely? The one's I feel sorry for in all this are Orient. If Spurs or West Ham move to Stratford, they're encroaching further on to Orient's already diminished fanbase and catchment area.
Maybes Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 What about neither of them, unlikely as it is. Upton Park and White Hart Lane are both brilliant and prestigious grounds for both clubs. Im sure the fans of both are not supporting a move.
CosbehFox Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 Would save moving to an entirely different part of London. Don't think their fans want it, they're not too fond of Levy. There's talk in London, Spurs are actively seeking foreign investment or a take over. Moving to the Olympic Stadium gives more prestige than White Hart Lane which is in one of the biggest dumps in London. My thinking on it too. Should just give it a couple of the "London" rugby clubs to share. Bring them back into the city. I know none of the big teams originate from the East End but having them back in the city instead of out at Reading, Watford or Wycombe can only be a good thing surely? The one's I feel sorry for in all this are Orient. If Spurs or West Ham move to Stratford, they're encroaching further on to Orient's already diminished fanbase and catchment area. That's completely my thinking. However, there's a slightly problem. Wasps/Wycombe are virtually dual clubs now and have a site to replace Adams Park (unsurprisingly next to the M40 rather than nearer High Wycombe), Saracens are moving away from Watford and taking up residence at Barnet Copthall Athletics Stadium, Irish are possibly the biggest opportunity but get decent crowds in Reading and then you have Quins who already play in the Stoop. They have seriously cocked up this one.
Fosse Boy Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 Shame really. Thought it was in the original plans for the stadium back in the dim and distant that it wuld be given over for rugby after the games? The only other team I can think of that could make use of it would be the possible London-based NFL franchise that keeps getting bandied about. Guess Wembley would be pretty keen to make a cash cow out of that if/when it happens though.
ajthefox Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 If they want to make back every extra part of the ridiculous amount of money being spent on these olympics then spurs should get it, I tihnk. A european club getting bigger by the year or a team who are going in the opposite direction. hmm.
CosbehFox Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 Shame really. Thought it was in the original plans for the stadium back in the dim and distant that it wuld be given over for rugby after the games? The only other team I can think of that could make use of it would be the possible London-based NFL franchise that keeps getting bandied about. Guess Wembley would be pretty keen to make a cash cow out of that if/when it happens though. It was off memory. They could always launch a second London Rugby League team out of it.....seeing as that's gone the way of franchising. It's not only the stadium which is stuck though, a couple of the arenas are. The Basketball Arena which can be reassembled everywhere as no 'buyer' and Handball Arena at the moment 'community use'.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 22 January 2011 Posted 22 January 2011 They should never have built the stupid thing in the first place. Do they really think 80,000 people are going to go watch the Olympics at the extortionate prices they are charging? They couldn't even sell out Crystal Palace when Usain Bolt was there not too long after his record breaking exploits. It is quite a funny situation though in that the money men associated with both clubs are every bit as desperate to secure the move as their respective fans are to avoid it. I will be watching the developments with interest and a certain measure of bemusement.
Guest Bilo Posted 24 January 2011 Posted 24 January 2011 Call me mad but how's about a private company making the necessary upgrades after the Games to make it suitable for being a multisport arena as well as a suitable venue for concerts? It's worked for the o2 after all. Bit out of left-field but no less silly than moving Tottenham out of their traditional area of London and certainly no less daft than effectively condemning Leyton Orient to extinction by dropping a Premiership club in their midst. It could even be used for FA Cup semi-finals instead of Wembley because so far as many fans are concerned, the only FA Cup match that should be played at Wembley is the final. Maybe use it for England games where there's fvck all chance of selling out Wembley. There's no need for it to become a white elephant like Montreal's Olympic Stadium or the Companys that Sosban mentioned. If you take Stadium Australia as an example, you'll see a stadium that has hosted a multitude of events since 2000.
Wycombe Fox Posted 24 January 2011 Posted 24 January 2011 I'm a big fan of the Olympics but over the years it's become a commercial monster, more often than not leaving debt and a white elephant in a different city every four years. In my opinion the world should have just one Olympic venue - Olympia in Greece, home of the ancient Olympics. How many Olympic stadia does the planet need FFS? It would do away with the ridiculous bidding process (and potential for corruption). Any profit generated could be ploughed back into the participating nations' Olympic governing body coffers. One City, one stadium, one games. Simple.
StanSP Posted 24 January 2011 Posted 24 January 2011 Fatal consequences for Leyton Orient or just chairman becoming a bit paranoid/wary of future? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/london_2012/9371221.stm
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.