Sorry but this is getting silly! Infact........

[jrb]

In this weeks Building Magazine the first estimated budget for the London Olympic stadium is £275,000,000! By the time the stadium is completed it will probably be £350,000,000, if not more?! Add the cost of the new Wembley stadium and your looking at £1,150,000,000 for two stadiums!

...........Its a fucking national disgrace!

And you wonder why the rest of us get/are fucked off?!

[DarJoLe]

Well I'm getting fucked off with stupid thread titles and superfluous threads being started.

[Boards]

If youre sick of it why reply? Why not fuck off instead? Nothing wrong with the thread as far as I can see? Yeah thats an awful, awful lot of money for two stadiums - seems the U.K has a problem with overspend ( on all types of projects ) compared to certain other countries. Something inherently wrong in the U.K? May well be - worth thinking about.

[jrb]

Well I'm getting fucked off with stupid thread titles and superfluous threads being started.

So its ok to spend over a billion pounds on just two stadiums?

Yeh right! Good one!

[Zim Flyer]

I'm with DarJoLe, £350 million for a top of the range international stadium is superb value, especially when you look at how happy it will make the nation in 2012.

In 2002 we had the Commonwealth Games in Manchester and the Queen's Golden Jubilee and in 2012 we will have the Olympics and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee - it is kismet, somethings are meant to be.

If you have problems that Manchester's Big Bang has not been built take that up with Alistair Darling and the Department of Transport, they are the "fucking national disgrace!".

[jrb]

I'm with DarJoLe, £350 million for a top of the range international stadium is superb value, especially when you look at how happy it will make the nation in 2012.

In 2002 we had the Commonwealth Games in Manchester and the Queen's Golden Jubilee and in 2012 we will have the Olympics and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee - it is kismet, somethings are meant to be.

If you have problems that Manchester's Big Bang has not been built take that up with Alistair Darling and the Department of Transport, they are the "fucking national disgrace!".

Its nothing to do with the Big Bang or Manchester!
Its about spiralling costs, accountability, value for money, etc! Every Tom, Dick and Harry is getting rich on OUR money and no f****** bothered!

We're talking about two stadiums for f***s sake! HOW MUCH IS THE REST GOING TO COST?

[Boards]

Accountability thats the word! Sorry but over a billion pounds on two stadiums is taking the piss! Millenium stadium in Cardiff - bout 74'000 all seater isnt it? It has a god damn retractable roof! Tell me how much was that?

A few comparisons :

http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/accountancyage/features/2040051/think-number

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/01/25/story773243459.asp

Wembley at over £700 million is looking a bit much.

[Zim Flyer]

Its nothing to do with the Big Bang or Manchester!
Its about spiralling costs, accountability, value for money, etc! Every Tom, Dick and Harry is getting rich on OUR money and no f****** bothered!

We're talking about two stadiums for f***s sake! HOW MUCH IS THE REST GOING TO COST?

Like I said 350 million for an Olympic Stadium is fine, I agree the Wembley build was a typical New Labour Millenium dome style cock up of huge proportions.

With that in mind it's a bit harsh to blaim the olympic stadium for the Wembly build. The Wembly build is so expensive you could put a small project with it and the two would still look expensive.

Your theme about spiralling costs, accountability and value for money is a good one, taxes have gone up, public spending has increased, but at the same time so has the amount of money the public sector is wasting. My advice is to perhaps break it down into seperate projects. For me the Olympics is fine, the cost of the Wembley stadium is not. The money wasted on public sector pensions which the Govenment doesn't have the balls to sort out is dreadful, the money wasted on planning the Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester tram systems only for the govenment to reject them is a disgrace.

Like I said your theme is fine, just don't be too harsh on the Olympic Stadium.

[jrb]

Like I said 350 million for an Olympic Stadium is fine, I agree the Wembley build was a typical New Labour Millenium dome style cock up of huge proportions.

With that in mind it's a bit harsh to blaim the olympic stadium for the Wembly build. The Wembly build is so expensive you could put a small project with it and the two would still look expensive.

Your theme about spiralling costs, accountability and value for money is a good one, taxes have gone up, public spending has increased, but at the same time so has the amount of money the public sector is wasting. My advice is to perhaps break it down into seperate projects. For me the Olympics is fine, the cost of the Wembley stadium is not. The money wasted on public sector pensions which the Govenment doesn't have the balls to sort out is dreadful, the money wasted on planning the Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester tram systems only for the govenment to reject them is a disgrace.

Like I said your theme is fine, just don't be too harsh on the Olympic Stadium.

Zim!

Even £350 million(possibly) for the Olympic stadium is to much! I can only compare it to COMS! The total cost for COMS was roughly £100 million and it holds 48,000. (Its a fantastic stadium) Double that capacity for the Olympic stadium, and theres no reason why it should'nt cost any more than £200 million. A saving of at least £100 million!

I have no problems with the Olympics or the legacy it will leave East London. But we've got to draw the line somewhere on stadia costs, etc!

[Jerv]

And remeber, its a temporary facility. Manchester had to prove the sustainability of it'd facilities to get the Commonwealth games, but it seems London can be as extravagant as it likes and the government throws it's weight behind it. London...the home of the white elephant, where a temporary stadium costs as much as the national debt of an african country.

[DarJoLe]

The stadium isn't temporary.

[Monkey]

And remeber, its a temporary facility. Manchester had to prove the sustainability of it'd facilities to get the Commonwealth games, but it seems London can be as extravagant as it likes and the government throws it's weight behind it. London...the home of the white elephant, where a temporary stadium costs as much as the national debt of an african country.That's London for you Manc....

RAW POWWEEEERR!!!!! :guns1:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/London/OlympicStadium1000x511.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/London/Olympic-Stadium-Games-time.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/London/Olympic-Stadium-from-the-Ro.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/London/Olympic-Stadium-concourse.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/London/Aquatic-Centre-internal.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/London/London-Olympic-site.jpg

[Jerv]

The stadium isn't temporary.

Why? because they are retaining small sections of it to act as another 20,000 seat athletics stadium thus becoming or causing another white elephant. The last time I looked, London already had a 20,000 athletics stadium that is very under used.

It is as temporary as the stadium used at the 1994 commonwealth games in vicotria.

[Newcastle Guy]

All this stuff, the stadiums, the transport, the scrapers, the airports etc, are gonna make London the best city in the world for 2012. This is going to cost money, but on the whole it will definately be worth it.

Sorry if people disagree, but it is the truth.

GO LONDON 2012!!!

[andysimo123]

How large will the new studium be? because ifs its around 70,000 or 80,000 then £300,000,000 isnt that bad for the studium of that size. If you were thinking of buying or building Old Trafford again would easily need about £350 million+.

[Zim Flyer]

Why? because they are retaining small sections of it to act as another 20,000 seat athletics stadium thus becoming or causing another white elephant. The last time I looked, London already had a 20,000 athletics stadium that is very under used.

It is as temporary as the stadium used at the 1994 commonwealth games in vicotria.

By reducing it's capacity they will be preventing it from becoming a white elephant. Crystal Palace as an International Athletics stadium is well past it's best.

[Zim Flyer]

How large will the new studium be? because ifs its around 70,000 or 80,000 then £300,000,000 isnt that bad for the studium of that size. If you were thinking of buying or building Old Trafford again would easily need about £350 million+.

Thank you andy, I didn't think £300 million for an international Olympics Stadium was too extreme either.

Like I said to JRB, any stadium will be expensive if it is included with the build price of the new wembley.

[JacobRit]

the reason it costs so much is the cost of construction in this country - yeah you could build it cheaper in Africa, but the labour and materials would be a fraction of the price.... its called living in a strong economy! if you dont like it move... haul arse to uganda and live there!

[Newcastle Guy]

^^ :applause:

[dronkula]

Wembley is being built to a fixed cost.

Any extra over what was originally agreed has to be covered by the builders. The high price of Wembley isn't for the actual construction - it also includes all the legal costs caused by the hold-up from the inquiry into whether to even rebuild Wembley or not. If that fiasco hadn't last so long, then the cost would've been lower and the original financial backers wouldn't have dropped out - leading to the FA having to find new financial backing with not quite as good a deal. The building costs haven't changed and hopefully they'll get the same sort of contract setup for the Olympic venues.

The Olympics is being funded through 3 major revenue sources

1) The National Lottery - if you're that upset, don't buy a ticket.
2) Londoners Council Tax - so those living in Manchester wont be paying for it.
3) From the London Development Agency - from within their existing budget (or whatever Ken decides they can have).

Yes, if you had £1Bn to spend, you probably could spend it on something more worthwhile other than 2 sports grounds. However, this isn't money sitting in a pot somewhere - it's money specifically 'acquired' for these 2 projects. If they weren't going ahead, the money wouldn't exist either.

[london lad]

Why you a speculative report in bulding just to take a dig at London- Yes the 2012 will be in London & at the mo the cost of the stadium etc is speculative- Look at the price of Liverpools new stadium -its almost doubled in 2 years & trhat like most larg building projects is to do with whats going on in the world- raw material prices are going through the roof, largely inpart to Chinas booming econonmy- If you want to see overpsend then look at China there spending something like $32 billion on doin up Bejieng for the 2008 & good luck to them.

Anyway London's already been costed at something like 2 billion & any overspend is going to be paid for by London taxpayers through higher council taxes & by nobody else UK.

And besides the UK wouldn't get the Olympics if it was proposed in any other city other than London so we shuold be grateful that we got it.

[reyrey]

we arent playing for wembley either are we? apart from the national lottery contribution for the land. the rest is covered by the fa and they seem to have a business plan to pay for it (its profitable in 10 years?), so i dont see why you should be complaining.

[Monkey]

Manchester is populated by envious traitors with a huge chip on their shoulder about London. They failed to get the Olympics themselves (they probably blame the South somehow....) and many supported Paris's bid and poo-pooed London's chances of winning the Games. Now they moan about the costs even though the burden will largely be shouldered by London.

[Jerv]

We just don't like you, ok












;)

[jrb]

Manchester is populated by envious traitors with a huge chip on their shoulder about London. They failed to get the Olympics themselves (they probably blame the South somehow....) and many supported Paris's bid and poo-pooed London's chances of winning the Games. Now they moan about the costs even though the burden will largely be shouldered by London.

So will the benefits! So stop moaning gimp! Sorry, chimp! :)

[DarJoLe]

God did Madrid complain this much when Barcelona got the Games?

I doubt it.

[nick_taylor]

Manchester is populated by envious traitors with a huge chip on their shoulder about London. They failed to get the Olympics themselves (they probably blame the South somehow....) and many supported Paris's bid and poo-pooed London's chances of winning the Games. Now they moan about the costs even though the burden will largely be shouldered by London.I think the real reason is because they fear they will be getting less subsidisation in the coming years from London. :yes:

[jrb]

The thing is Nick!

Give the North a chance to breakaway and we'd jump at it!

We don't need London and the South East!

Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield, etc would all thrive!

Imagine what our combined GDP would be! :)

The problem is, our London based ministers and MPs would shit themselves would'nt they!

Just look at Scotland and Wales!

[CharlieP]

Even £350 million(possibly) for the Olympic stadium is to much! I can only compare it to COMS! The total cost for COMS was roughly £100 million and it holds 48,000. (Its a fantastic stadium) Double that capacity for the Olympic stadium, and theres no reason why it should'nt cost any more than £200 million. A saving of at least £100 million!

If you double the capacity you don't simply double the cost - the more seats you add to a stadium design, the higher off the ground they are, and the higher you get, the increasingly more expensive per seat it gets!

[jrb]

If you double the capacity you don't simply double the cost - the more seats you add to a stadium design, the higher off the ground they are, and the higher you get, the increasingly more expensive per seat it gets!

The actual design of the stadium and finish has a lot to do with cost aswell, not just the capacity!

A simple temporary design and inexpensive cladding would save a fortune!

The money saved could then be returned to the North and the Midlands! :) (bite!)

[Zim Flyer]

The thing is Nick!

Give the North a chance to breakaway and we'd jump at it!

We don't need London and the South East!

Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield, etc would all thrive!

Imagine what our combined GDP would be! :)

The problem is, our London based ministers and MPs would shit themselves would'nt they!

Just look at Scotland and Wales!

I don't think so, the shire counties like Cheshire and Lancashire would always vote to stay. You had the chance with regional assemblies and there was so little interest they were dropped.

That said, I would like more power to be given to Manchesters Councils, they have proved themselves to be the most organised in the UK, in my humble opinion.

[jrb]

I don't think so, the shire counties like Cheshire and Lancashire would always vote to stay. You had the chance with regional assemblies and there was so little interest they were dropped.

That said, I would like more power to be given to Manchesters Councils, they have proved themselves to be the most organised in the UK, in my humble opinion.

They would'nt Zim!

If the Goverment gave the North a chance to breakaway from London and the South East via a straightforward yes or no ballot, the result would be an overwhelming YES vote!

[Zim Flyer]

They would'nt Zim!

If the Goverment gave the North a chance to breakaway from London and the South East via a straightforward yes or no ballot, the result would be an overwhelming YES vote!

How so, although the south grumbles about the north and the north the south, I think when the cookie crumbles we basically like each other in a brother / brother kind of way ;)

[jrb]

How so, although the south grumbles about the north and the north the south, I think when the cookie crumbles we basically like each other in a brother / brother kind of way ;)

I hate the misreable b*******! :)

[MoreOrLess]

we arent playing for wembley either are we? apart from the national lottery contribution for the land. the rest is covered by the fa and they seem to have a business plan to pay for it (its profitable in 10 years?), so i dont see why you should be complaining.

Of the total £750 million cost £600 million is from private funding with £100 million from the lottery and £50 million of public money(mostly for transport infrastrcture I believe). Compair that to over £400 million of public money being spent on the Stade De France and it looks like good value to me. For the Oylmpic stadium I'd say 25,000 is as much as we need for an athletics stadium, unless a football club moves there keeping it at 70-80,000 would be a needless vanity project that would cost masses in upkeep in the longrun.

In the case of the Oylmpics I don't see it being a case of London centralism, Manchester had two shots at the games and failed to win them both times.

[CharlieP]

If the COMS cost £100 million for 48,000 seats, then £275 million for 80,000 seats in London sounds pretty good to me, given what I mentioned earlier about costs shooting up the higher above ground you go...

[terryfied]

Manchester had two shots at the games and failed to win them both times.

But Manchester didn't have anything like the Government support London had.

Nor did Birmingham BTW.

[Zim Flyer]

But Manchester didn't have anything like the Government support London had.

Nor did Birmingham BTW.

Terryfied stop yapping about the past.

We have the Olympics and for me that is all that matters.

So stop bloody moaning.

[Monkey]

But Manchester didn't have anything like the Government support London had.

Nor did Birmingham BTW.I knew they would manage to blame the South! :laugh:

[andysimo123]

Terryfied stop yapping about the past.

We have the Olympics and for me that is all that matters.

So stop bloody moaning.
Mate we are Mancs, moaning is what we do!! We like to be the best at everything and give everybody else a hard time, while still being chilled out.

[potto]

But Manchester didn't have anything like the Government support London had.

Nor did Birmingham BTW.

bollocks it had more national support than the London Olympics.

[potto]

Accountability thats the word! Sorry but over a billion pounds on two stadiums is taking the piss! Millenium stadium in Cardiff - bout 74'000 all seater isnt it? It has a god damn retractable roof! Tell me how much was that?


Haha but the Millenium Stadium looks crap. You can tell it is cheap and looks terrible from the outside, which is how most people will experience it. Overbearingly ugly is how I would describe that place. How are your lovely little accountants going to evaluate the cost of negative psychological impact of ugliness? They don’t, they just conveniently ignore it! Oh and I would actually travel to see the new Wembley, I travelled to the old one just to see it and im not even that keen on football. Again does anyone bother to look at the benefits of the 'pull' factor?

[Jerv]

If you reckon that temporary stadium with the nauseating roof for t'lypmics looks better than the millenium stadium, especially when you consider it was built for just over a third of the projected cost of the next white elephant, then you really are looking through rose tinted spectacles.

I'm 100% behind the London Olympics, but it's time london put a stop to these grandiose "money no object" schemes and gave us value for money or it will be another montreal situation.

[Monkey]

^ Yup it definitely looks much better than the Millennium Stadium. I think the Millennium Stadium is nice but it's not all that....

London's amazing.... :yes:

[Monkey]

Mate we are Mancs, moaning is what we do!!That's right. :yes:

[TheFly]

The Olympic stadium is needed! We won the bid!

It is a waste of money in so much as once the event is over the faciltity is a waste of space. Who turns up to watch athletics/javelin throwing and how often.

The cost?

You can't build an 80,000 seater, in London for a few bob.

The only valid arguement is therefore:
1. Should we have bid
2. Could not a national stadium for rugby/football and athletics have been built at 120,000???!!! rather than Wembley/Twickers/East London thingy?

[Jerv]

The Olympic stadium is needed! We won the bid!

It is a waste of money in so much as once the event is over the faciltity is a waste of space. Who turns up to watch athletics/javelin throwing and how often.

The cost?

You can't build an 80,000 seater, in London for a few bob.

The only valid arguement is therefore:
1. Should we have bid
2. Could not a national stadium for rugby/football and athletics have been built at 120,000???!!! rather than Wembley/Twickers/East London thingy?

Atlanta - Stadium modified and retained for Baseball
Sydney - Stadium retained for multisports/ARF
Athens - Existing Natioal stadium refurbished (needed)

Manchester Commonwealth games - Stadium modified and retained for Football use

London 2012 - Stadium 70% dismantled. Athletics stadium rivalling Crystal Palace to host underattended Athletics meets.

[london lad]

Now I bet if London planned to have a permenant 80,000 stadium the snippers would still complain. Most Olympic facilities aren'tused much after the games & London is showing sense- remodelling the athletics staduim to a more managable 30,000 which is about acceptable for an athletics stadium. Syndeys stadium isn't used that often & most of the other stdiums for baseball, hockey etc are barely used at all. Its even worse in Athens. Londons proposals for the whole site are very sensible.

At the end of the day London won due to its bid from having been a rank outsider to begin with-so if its good enough for all the IOC members & passed several tough test from the IOC then it should be good enough for us , including all thsoe anti- London snipers who seem to think there being hard done by.

[Monkey]

Sydney set the precedent by reducing the size of its stadium after the 2000 Olympics. The IOC praised the post-games arrangements of the Stratford site. If by 2012 we find that a demand for a large athletics stadium has arisen then we can always keep it large. If not then it's only sensible to reduce it.

[Jerv]

Hopefully there will be, being an athletics man myself, but I cant see it. Athletics just isn't popular enough. The Don Valley stadium at a similar capacity is hardly ever used and never to capacity. Sustainability is the key. They should put forward a real case to West Ham and/or Charlton to use it after the games. If not, then just make it truely temporary for a fraction of the £350m quoted and clear the site afterwards for more worthwhile use.

[Lostboy]

How come Arsenal manage to construct a quality 60000 capacity stadium at half the cost, likewise Cardiff a 76000 stadium at just £125m. Public Funded Stadiums in London seem to be inherently more expensive than either private stadia or stadia elsewhere.

[DarJoLe]

Hopefully there will be, being an athletics man myself, but I cant see it. Athletics just isn't popular enough.

You say that now, but after the Olympics I can see athletics becoming more popular - in fact I would bet that people will go and see whatever is on at the stadium just to say they've been to the London Olympic stadium.

What do the other Olympic cities do with theirs? What about Munich's - it seems their park and stadium is the blueprint for ours...

[Madman]

Bayern Munich used their stadium until the recent completion of the Allainz Arena - their fans must be overjoyed at not having an athletics track seperating them from the pitch now.

[MoreOrLess]

How come Arsenal manage to construct a quality 60000 capacity stadium at half the cost, likewise Cardiff a 76000 stadium at just £125m. Public Funded Stadiums in London seem to be inherently more expensive than either private stadia or stadia elsewhere.

The new Arsenal stadium cost £275 million didnt it? the actual construction(I'd guess this is the figure you see banded around for almost all new stadiums not the total project cost) of Wembley is £375 million.

The idea that making a stadium multi use automatically means it will provide better value for money has been prooven wrong in recent years IMHO. While money will be saved in the short term(why the concept is popular with politiicans I'd guess) the compromises in design for each sport and the fact that some users will only be tenants and so unable to fully explote the earning potential of the stadium often means money is lost in the long term. Just look at all those deserted 60's/70's multi use stadiums in the US or every Seria A club who can afford it trying to move out of their state owned athletics track stadium.

Also I don't think you can underestimate the importance of the London Oylimpic stadium remaining as an athletics venue had in winning us the games in the first place.

[andysimo123]

Your both wrong the total cost of Emirates Stadium is £357 million.

[Isaac Newell]

You say that now, but after the Olympics I can see athletics becoming more popular - in fact I would bet that people will go and see whatever is on at the stadium just to say they've been to the London Olympic stadium.

What do the other Olympic cities do with theirs? What about Munich's - it seems their park and stadium is the blueprint for ours...

The one in Sydney is hardly used, a few big rugby and football games.
The one in Athens was already there and is used by AEK on a permanent basis and by Olynpiakos and Panathinaikos for big games.
The one in Atlanta is a baseball stadium and probably sees more people in it than any other Olympic stadium.
The one in Barcelona is used by Espanyol
The one in Seoul... no idea
The one in Los Angeles, USC football.
The one in Moscow is used for car boot sales and the one in Montreal for monster trucks.

[Phenomenal Fullerton]

Speculate to accumulate.

There's always talk of how much things are going to cost for an Olympics, but not often about how much revenue it will generate.

[MoreOrLess]

The one in Sydney is hardly used, a few big rugby and football games.
The one in Athens was already there and is used by AEK on a permanent basis and by Olynpiakos and Panathinaikos for big games.
The one in Atlanta is a baseball stadium and probably sees more people in it than any other Olympic stadium.
The one in Barcelona is used by Espanyol
The one in Seoul... no idea
The one in Los Angeles, USC football.
The one in Moscow is used for car boot sales and the one in Montreal for monster trucks.

Both Espanyol and AEK have average attendances of less than 30,000 though and the Atlantia stadium was hardly an idea athletics venue.

As I said I'd be interested to see the long term finicial background to all those stadia, merely being used doesnt automatically mean they are not losing money.

[Monkey]

The Barcelona stadium seemed derelict when I was last there a couple of years ago.

[Pobbie]

Wow jrb, I find myself supporting you on this one. It's not that I totally agree with your initial assessment, but the pompous Londoncentric crowd have reared their ugly head again and you need all the support you can get. "Moaning northerners" this, "bitter Mancs" that... for fuck's sakes! Nobody said they wanted London to lose the Olympics or anything, they just hate this "Centre of the Universe" mentality which festers on here. Why else do you think other British cities moan all the time about London? :bash:

[Isaac Newell]

I didn't want London to get the Olympics because I live there and I'm going to end up paying for it.

[DarJoLe]

I didn't want London to get the Olympics because I live there and I'm going to end up paying for it.

Good. I hope then you won't use the new improved transport links and facilties built for 2012.

[Zim Flyer]

I didn't want London to get the Olympics because I live there and I'm going to end up paying for it.

miserable sod

[Jerv]

How about turning it into a large capacity cricket/concert/athletics/Monster trucks etc venue such as the MCG which the UK does not have. You can't tell me that the cricket grounds we have are adequate.

[MoreOrLess]

London has serveral large stadiums that can be used for concerts but I spose Cricket might be a good idea. I'm sure serveral days of the ashes series could for example have sold alot more tickets than any english cricket ground has to offer plus the pitch size would be more or less correct unlike football specific stadiums.

[Monkey]

Lords and the Oval have too much tradition.

[MoreOrLess]

Lords and the Oval have too much tradition.

There has been talk of the proposed new Birmingham stadium hosting cricket games dispite the presense of Edgbaston in the same city so I don't think its out of the question. As I said I could just see it being used for the odd game with big demand rather than as a base for a team.

[Jerv]

How about turning it into a large capacity cricket/concert/athletics/Monster trucks etc venue such as the MCG which the UK does not have. You can't tell me that the cricket grounds we have are adequate.

Now this is what I'm talking about;

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/Hornet/AUboy_mcg.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/Hornet/AUboy_mcg4.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/Hornet/AUboys_mcg5.jpg

[MoreOrLess]

Concerts/monster trucks/rally stages and the like could be held in the new Wembley, Twickenham, the Emirates stadium etc I'd guess just as they have been in the Millenium stadium. Unless they can come up with some kind of moveble stand technology that can be used fequently(since the stadium being retained for athletics use was part of the bid) and convince a football team to move in then cricket does seem like the only event that could make use of a 70-80,000 seat stadium. As I said I'm sure the demand would be their for many England games and the odd final and might help with the growth of the game since more than the members/fanatics will get to see them live.

[Jerv]

Well it would remain a world class athletics venue (the UK currrently has precisely none of these), whilst also having the playing surface to host anything from football to gaelic/ARF exhition games to cricket. But of course it would be in the wrong city (look at the competition - Wembley, Twickenham, Lords, Emirates etc). Birmingham or Manchester would be more appropriate.

[Blabbernsmoke]

How come Arsenal manage to construct a quality 60000 capacity stadium at half the cost, likewise Cardiff a 76000 stadium at just £125m. Public Funded Stadiums in London seem to be inherently more expensive than either private stadia or stadia elsewhere.

Because the British state is incompetent when it comes to managing big capital projects.

The Olympics will be a monumental waste of money, and I would only ever agree to it if the private sector agreed to fund and run the whole thing. But that's never going to happen, becuase no company board in its right mind would sanction a project that will predictably go massively over budget and and have little market demand once the 2 week event is over.

Well, there's the stupidity of authoritarians for you.

[MoreOrLess]

Well it would remain a world class athletics venue (the UK currrently has precisely none of these), whilst also having the playing surface to host anything from football to gaelic/ARF exhition games to cricket. But of course it would be in the wrong city (look at the competition - Wembley, Twickenham, Lords, Emirates etc). Birmingham or Manchester would be more appropriate.

How often is a "world class athletics venue" with a 70-80,000 capacity going to be filled after the games though? I don't think the situation would be any different anywhere else in the UK either unless the bid did not entail that the stadium be retained for athletics use, probabley worse actually as there would still be competision from the likes of Anfield and Old Trafford aswell as a much smaller doorstep market.

[MoreOrLess]

Because the British state is incompetent when it comes to managing big capital projects.

The Olympics will be a monumental waste of money, and I would only ever agree to it if the private sector agreed to fund and run the whole thing. But that's never going to happen, becuase no company board in its right mind would sanction a project that will predictably go massively over budget and and have little market demand once the 2 week event is over.

Well, there's the stupidity of authoritarians for you.

I'd agree much of the time however most of the facts the post you resposed to contained are incorrect. The new Arsenal stadium has infact cost a similar amount or more to the projected cost of oylimpic stadium not "half as much" and the vast majority of the funding for Wembley(which I assume was being reffered to aswell) is not public but private.

[Jerv]

How often is a "world class athletics venue" with a 70-80,000 capacity going to be filled after the games though? I don't think the situation would be any different anywhere else in the UK either unless the bid did not entail that the stadium be retained for athletics use, probabley worse actually as there would still be competision from the likes of Anfield and Old Trafford aswell as a much smaller doorstep market.

Well, they were going to build one at picketts lock weren't they, so there has and will be a need. France has the Stade-de-france, Belgium has the heisel stadium, Spain, Italy, Germany have any number of stadia suitable for big athletics meets. The UK does not have any (the biggest being the 25,000 capacity Don Valley stadium-too big for domestic meets, too small for large international meets).

OK manchester has enough stadium competition but not birmingham. Also, it's not just the doorstep market that you are trying to attract for such events. Do you think it is quicker to travel the 25 or so miles from say west byfleet to Stratford than the 45 miles from either leeds or liverpool to manchester?

[Giorgio]

The one in Sydney is hardly used, a few big rugby and football games.
The one in Athens was already there and is used by AEK on a permanent basis and by Olynpiakos and Panathinaikos for big games.
The one in Atlanta is a baseball stadium and probably sees more people in it than any other Olympic stadium.
The one in Barcelona is used by Espanyol
The one in Seoul... no idea
The one in Los Angeles, USC football.
The one in Moscow is used for car boot sales and the one in Montreal for monster trucks.
Panathinaikos is using it also as there new stadium is being Constructed.

[Jerv]

Panathinaikos is using it also as there new stadium is being Constructed.

Please could you link to the thread with info and pics

[Bob]

Because the British state is incompetent when it comes to managing big capital projects.

The Olympics will be a monumental waste of money, and I would only ever agree to it if the private sector agreed to fund and run the whole thing. But that's never going to happen, becuase no company board in its right mind would sanction a project that will predictably go massively over budget and and have little market demand once the 2 week event is over.

Well, there's the stupidity of authoritarians for you.Where does this attitude come from? This is a serious question. There are millions of people the world over with it.

I disagree with every word. For me 35p a week extra in tax which means London gets a massive new park, facilities and a world showcase is damn good value. If it were privately funded it would be cheap and nasty, probably falling down in 10 years and add no value to the city.

And why do people always assume public administered money is wasted? I've worked in the public, private and charity sector. Through temping, contracting and being outsourced I have now had 35 employers.

The private sector pays higher wages and has massive expense accounts. The public sector wince at buying a round of sandwiches, but are a bit wealthier in moral purpose.

In the private sector there is at the minimum duplication of effort (competition) and yet I have percieved no better work ethic in either. And who is getting £4bn of bonuses this year between 20,000 people? The city of London bankers. The public sector rarely pays any individual a bonus.

The two worst two places I have worked are IBM and NetworkRail. Both are lumbering dinosaurs strangled by inempt managers. My guess would be that IBM costs about 3 times as much per employee. And we all pay for that as one of their biggest money makers has been secure transaction processing in the form of CICS and its successors for which IBM earns money on every bank machine withdrawal. So IMO for individuals to save money we would be much better off taking on large dominant private companies rather than moaning about low paid government administrators.

I am not saying the public sector is well run, rather I have yet to come across the slick, efficient and supposedly much cheaper private sector that is marketed to us. Has anyone else found it?

[MoreOrLess]

The problem with the public sector as reguards big projects like this is I'd guess more down to political interference than ineffientcy. Look at Wembley, if the goverment had ended up having its way it would now have a running track around it that would most likely never have been used.

[Monkey]

All this debate.... Let's just worry about getting the damn thing built first. We have seven years to decide what to do with it afterwards.

[kingdomca]

well does it not have to be decided whether its permanent before construction begins?

The only reason to not downgrade it would be cricket, but its a political choice for cricket and I dont think they are interested.

As for the north v London thing, well from abroad it just seems ridiculous.

Should manchester really detest London for a "centre of the universe" mentality? What do Manchester achieve by trying to trash London, why not play along with it. It can hardly hurt Manchester after all, if they are 200 miles away from the centre of the universe.

Perhaps some serious high speed trains London-Birmingham-Manchester should be considered.

[Jerv]

No listen, all I said about such a multi-sport venue is that if the UK were to get something like the MCG, capable of hosting any UK outdoor sport, then it would be best located in either Manchester or Birmingham for 2 main reasons:

1. Accessiblility for the nation as a whole. The NEC site near Birmingham would be ideal
2. London already has all of the national stadiums for all of the big outdoor sports. In 2012 it will have stadia of 90,000, 84,000, 80,000, 60,000 and a further 2 possible soccer stadia over 50,000 (spurs and chelsea), along with the 2 best and biggest cricket arenas in the UK.