Wycombe Fox Posted 24 January 2011 Posted 24 January 2011 Decision has been put on hold. I guess the Olympic Park Legacy Committee have been sat around a table debating the pro's and cons of each bid and someone has suddenly realised that once the decision has been made, there's no requirement for the quango,,,sorry... OPLC anymore and therefore redundancy beckons. This could be on hold for a while then.
Super_horns Posted 24 January 2011 Posted 24 January 2011 You'd think they might have thought more about the post-Olympics legacy before going to the IOC telling them about how wonderful British athletics will be after 2012...
iBleedLeicesterColours Posted 24 January 2011 Posted 24 January 2011 Save Upton Park & The Lane! Don't even want another souless ground.
Fosse Boy Posted 25 January 2011 Posted 25 January 2011 AFC Spurs? ‘They say it’s not a big distance to Stratford but, to me, we’d be selling our soul to the devil if we moved there,’ said Tim Framp, spokesman for the We Are N17 fans’ group, which has already staged one pre-match protest against the move before the recent Premier League match with Manchester United at White Hart Lane. ‘We’re thinking about forming a new club along the lines of what AFC Wimbledon did.’ The official decision over who will move into the Olympic Stadium after the 2012 London games was postponed yesterday after the Olympic Park Legacy Group said it needed more time to decide . Spurs are battling it out with fellow Premier League side West Ham for the site, with a war of words breaking out in recent weeks over their differing plans for the stadium. Tottenham’s proposals have attracted considerable criticism due to the plans to tear up the athletics track. http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/853635-spurs-group-considers-breakaway-club-over-olympic-stadium-plans
accessory Posted 23 August 2011 Posted 23 August 2011 Spurs set to abandon legal challenge Seems like they're doing a deal to stay in Tottenham. After the recent riots there, it appears, the club is seen as an important "regeneration partner" by powers-that-be. In practice, this means the redevelopment will receive a bigger public subsidy than would have happened previously.
Mike the Metal Ed Posted 24 August 2011 Posted 24 August 2011 I seem to remember the original plan being to cut its capacity to 20,000 as soon as the games were finished and that it should never, under any circumstance, be used for football. I guess the building costs got the better of that. Dreading the thought of West Ham moving out of Upton Park to play at a ground where you need binoculars to see beyond the half way line.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.