I really don't understand why people bang on about how great the Athens Olympic stadium is. It's simply a plain stadium with a nice roof. The internal design isn't too dissimilar to that of London new stadium, maybe a touch blander and smaller.

It's a proper bog standard stadium yet everyone gets excited about it. Don't get me wrong, I like a roof as much as the next person but I don't care that much.

Athens' stadium is very similar to London's in many respects. It is much more impressive internally than externally from the pictures I've seen. I've never much liked the exterior of Athens' stadium and have always thought the roof sat oddly on the bowl, but I think it is gorgeous internally. London's stadium without the wrap gives off the same sort of vibes to me. I'm keeping my fingers crossed the organisers can find some money from somewhere to restore this much needed element.

Wrong!

The main stadium design in London's bid book was only ever a concept.

Everyone within the IOC knew that the actual design would be very different.

London won the 2012 bid because they promised a compact games, with most events taking place within a new sporting hub and fantastic new park in east London, with the athletes village right in the middle of it all. They promised a legacy of an athletics stadium that would finally be worthy of a city like London; they promised an outstanding new aquatics centre and a beautiful new velodrome. They promised the massive regeneration of a hugely deprived area.

The IOC also liked the fact that this new sporting hub would be supplemented by some of the most iconic venues in all of world sport - Wembley, Wimbledon and Lords.

Paris' bid, by contrast, was all over the place. It lacked a central focus to match London's Olympic Park.

In addition, London won because the IOC really believed in the people who were organising and backing the bid. And the IOC's faith has been fully rewarded - with the construction for the various venues and overall organisation going incredibly smoothly by comparison to most previous Olympics.

What Wrong.!

Both London and Paris were good bid in final round voting.! it was main olympic stadium issue.!

Paris was widely regarded as the firm favourite to become the host city of the 2012 Olympics. Paris had the perceived advantage of bidding for a third time, especially since the IOC tends to reward persistence. The French capital also had a ready-to-go Olympic stadium in the Stade de France and embraced the IOC's blueprint for controlling the size and cost of the games.

I don't think we should criticise the stadium design so much, considering that it's not finished yet. And let's not forget, it's a temporary stadium not permanent, as the stadiums you are comparing it to. I have high hopes that the 2012 Olympics are goign to be a success.

What Wrong.!

Both London and Paris were good bid in final round voting.! it was main olympic stadium issue.!

Your ignorance is astounding.

I'm aware of the funding issue with the stadium wrap, but any idea who the artist commissioned to design it was?

What Wrong.!

Both London and Paris were good bid in final round voting.! it was main olympic stadium issue.!

Paris was widely regarded as the firm favourite to become the host city of the 2012 Olympics. Paris had the perceived advantage of bidding for a third time, especially since the IOC tends to reward persistence. The French capital also had a ready-to-go Olympic stadium in the Stade de France and embraced the IOC's blueprint for controlling the size and cost of the games.

You were wrong when you wrote:

This Reason Why IOC awarded 2012 Olympic to LONDON.? They were showing good Original Renders stadium. Later changed their mind.

I repeat, everyone within the IOC understood that the stadium that featured in London's bid was only a concept. It was never intended to be the actual stadium.

For your further information, it isn't uncommon for bidding cities to present renders of concept stadiums that they don't actually intend to build.

London won the 2012 bid because they convinced sufficient IOC delegates that it could host an outstanding, well organised and well budgeted Games - not because of a pretty picture of a stadium.

It's preposterous to think otherwise.

I'm aware of the funding issue with the stadium wrap, but any idea who the artist commissioned to design it was?

Sophie Smallhorn.

You were wrong when you wrote:

This Reason Why IOC awarded 2012 Olympic to LONDON.? They were showing good Original Renders stadium. Later changed their mind.

I repeat, everyone within the IOC understood that the stadium that featured in London's bid was only a concept. It was never intended to be the actual stadium.

For your further information, it isn't uncommon for bidding cities to present renders of concept stadiums that they don't actually intend to build.

London won the 2012 bid because they convinced sufficient IOC delegates that it could host an outstanding, well organised and well budgeted Games - not because of a pretty picture of a stadium.

It's preposterous to think otherwise.

Very well put. London put forward a superb bid and is delivering on it. The quality of the bid OVERALL was the reason London could compete with Paris, which also had a very good bid.

That said, the stadium issue could well have been the factor that got London over the line ahead of Paris - nudged its bid slightly further forward. Not because of its aesthetics of course which, as you've pointed out, were entirely conceptual at the bid stage, but because London promised a NEW athletics stadium capable of hosting future world championships. The head of the IAAF, for example, voted for London on the basis that Britain would gain a world class athletics venue; as did a few other IOC members who have athletics as their core interest.

So the differences between London and Paris' stadium concepts could well have been the difference between a London victory and a Paris one, but not for the reason venki04ss is suggesting.

:lol:

You really are a tedious dimwit!

Yet another article that is well past its sell by date! It was written in March 2010.

Once again, I repeat: THE SITUATION IS VERY DIFFERENT NOW.

Could I make it any clearer for you?

Thats why a chose the word RISK.... Cuz it is a risk and a football takeover may JUST save it from being a WE.. And it may not... Time will tell. and unless u can see the future, u cant say it wont be.... So its a risk..Just my opinion.. And loads of other people seem to think so too on SSC, but ur opinion is the only view that matters..... talk about arrogance.

Both those articles are over nine months old.

Yes, but they describe the risk... So the football bids are all about trying to prevent it from being a white elephant, and until we know the future and how it all works out in a few yrs, its still a very big risk today... anyone can understand that..

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/White-elephant-worry-2012-stadium-man-helped-build/article-2813508-detail/article.html

last one for good measure. and recent! Guy whos building it, is worried! On a possitive note for u fans of this, he is confident, but he wud be... anyway time will tell... we'll just have to agree to disagree. its getting boring...

Too right

Retard

No just dam funny! Thx for rising to it. I knew it wud stir a reaction and by responding it re-posts this amusing image, so whos the retard or did u not have the intelligence to consider this? ..:lol::lol::lol::lol: U lot are so easy...

http://uksnowolf.blogspot.com/2010/11/and-on-pedestal-these-words-appear.html

This supports and quotes all i have said, the comparisons with Juve's old ground, the risk of being white elephant and the ridiculous situation this will create for the west ham fans if they win this bid.... And it speaks about the effect on west ham fans too... like it or lump it, ur opinions and childish comments dont change anything and i can only suggest that ur defence of this proposal is really out of anger to the clubs plans... It is a shame for u. i wud not wish this on any true fans..:ohno:

Can't the mods have a word with him, or are posts like this (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=69429937&postcount=895) just excepted now on here? :ohno:

Can't the mods have a word with him, or are posts like this (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=69429937&postcount=895) just excepted now on here? :ohno:

What for having an opinion and bringing in some information that backs my view? This forum is not a communist dictatorship. go ahead.

What for having an opinion and bringing in some information that backs my view? This forum is not a communist dictatorship. go ahead.

You act like a complete tit on this thread and then, when pretty much everyone is criticizing you for your ignorance and poor attitude, you go running off to another thread and, in the most cowardly fashion, start squealing about how nasty and horrible we were to you.

Seriously...............are you five years old?

You act like a complete tit on this thread and then, when pretty much everyone is criticizing you for your ignorance and poor attitude, you go running off to another thread and, in the most cowardly fashion, start squealing about how nasty and horrible we were to you.

Seriously...............are you five years old?

still here. There's plenty of people on this thread that support my view!

This is the problem with this forum. Twats like this are allowed a free reign to troll and mods hand out briggings to those of us who call them out for the idiots they are. Get your act together SSC

Thats why a chose the word RISK.... Cuz it is a risk and a football takeover may JUST save it from being a WE.. And it may not... Time will tell. and unless u can see the future, u cant say it wont be.... So its a risk..Just my opinion.. And loads of other people seem to think so too on SSC, but ur opinion is the only view that matters..... talk about arrogance.

You were the one who blundered into this thread and started telling anyone who would listen that this stadium will be a white elephant. Not "might" be - "will" be.

The fact that you can't see the future didn't stop you from expressing your opinion. So why should it have stopped me? If I am arrogant, at least my arrogance is based on the fact that I have followed this project from the very beginning and I know quite a lot about this stadium.

You, by contrast, have repeatedly demonstrated that you haven't followed this project closely and you know comparatively little about this stadium. So there is no good reason or excuse for your arrogance.

Sportsmail's Magnificent 7 access all areas at the 2012 Olympic Village: our golden hopefuls for in seventh heaven at the venue of their dreams

-- Link to Daily Mail article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-1340539/EXCLUSIVE-Sportsmails-Magnificent-7-2012-Olympic-Village.html) --

Like any sightseer, he had his camera out. A Colgate smile lit up his face. 'Nice,' he purred slowly. 'It's pretty cool.' That was Tom Daley's reaction as he entered the aquatics centre being fashioned for the Games of the XXX Olympiad. No matter that the interior was a maze of scaffolding underneath the iconic shark-style roof. There, simply, were the diving boards he wants to own.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/21/article-1340539-0C8B07F2000005DC-238_964x641.jpg

Daley, a favourite for gold in 2012, was ushered up the wooden ladders and through the yellow doors to pose for my colleague Andy Hooper's wonderful photograph (below). A headstand for the artist's lens? 'Don't give him ideas,' said Daley with mock concern, posing instead on his feet with his arms outstretched. A crane was poised to his right, just where the water of the diving pool will wait for him, mirror-like, at his moment of truth.

This was the highlight of our privileged peak behind the diggers and cement-mixers at the Olympic site in East London. We were there to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the Magnificent 7, the talented group of young athletes whose progress this newspaper is following up to 2012, and to bring a sense of the smell and feel of it all to our readers.

'A lot is made of the outside of this building,' said Daley, a 16-year-old Plymouth A-Level student and recently-crowned double Commonwealth champion, of the edifice designed by British-Iraqi architect Zaha Hadid, 'but the whole centre is amazing.'

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/21/article-1340539-0C8B07F6000005DC-703_964x641.jpg

He was thinking mostly of the boards themselves. They are unlike anything anyone has seen before: modern sculpture produced, so I am reliably informed, by high-tech self-compacting concrete poured into glass-fibre reinforced moulds with a core of steel bars. 'They look like waves coming out of the floor,' added Daley. 'Seeing this today gives me the motivation to do the work I need to come back here and get a medal. But diving is an on-the-day sport.'

This was a chilly December morning but still the ripples of anticipation were palpable even to us non-competitors as we snaked our way by bus around a plot now employing its peak manpower of 1,000 workers. Much is already built - most of the grey and white seats, for example, are fitted inside the Olympic Stadium - but a great deal remains to be done. That is a reflection of the size of the project rather than a hint that any construction deadline will be missed.

A long dive away from Daley's balanced pose, we inspected the blue and white tiling in the swimming pool. We stood at the bottom of it, three metres down. Above us the ceiling timber of hardwood slats were barrel-gun straight to direct the backstrokers. 'Brilliant,' said Louise Watkin, the 18-year-old Paralympic silver medallist as she inspected the centre.

'I remember when London was awarded the Games in 2005 and I thought we don't need to worry about that for a while. It feels like yesterday. Now I know the Games will be here faster than we realise.' And when they are over, the pools will regularly be divided into smaller areas by booms that rise from the floor. The depth, too, can be altered.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/21/article-1340539-0C8AFEC4000005DC-619_964x520.jpg

Over at the velodrome, the steep track of Siberian pine - 43 degrees at the ends, reducing to 12deg at the sides - was hidden under wraps. The smell of the blue paint on the infield hung in the air. The challenge of designing the fastest track drew Ron Webb, an ace Australian designer, out of retirement. Geometry that allows maximum speed to be taken out of the turns and a high internal temperature are crucial. So is workmanship to the nearest two millimetres.

Shanaze Reade, the BMX world champion and a hot tip for gold in London, spent her last visit here posing on the undulating roof for one of our previous photo-shoots. 'The velodrome has come on so much since then and it was only six months back,' said the 22-year-old from Crewe. 'I want to compete on the track at London, as well as the BMX. The track comes first in the timetable, which is great because it gives me a good run through to the BMX event a week and a half later.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/21/article-1340539-0C8AF9D8000005DC-682_964x641.jpg

'If I can go to London and create a bit of history by winning two golds then that will be amazing. If I get a silver or a bronze and I've given my best then that's all I can do.'

The stadium is, of course, the heart of the whole carnival. It's an understated design and you feel it needs the participants to paint their magic on its canvas to bring it to life. One hoping to be there is Emily Pidgeon, a 21-year-old Loughborough University psychology student, who is splitting the final year of her degree course in two to help towards selection at 5,000 metres. She missed out on qualification for the Commonwealth Games in Delhi in October by seven seconds. Her Lottery funding was stopped the following month.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/21/article-1340539-0C8AF958000005DC-595_964x641.jpg

Despite it all, she is confident. 'It's going well with my new coach Andy Hobdell and I've set PBs throughout the year,' said the former European junior champion. 'I am injury-free and I am on target to make it.'

On to the media centre. It's still a shell of a building but will be buzzing with 20,000 journalists when the Games arrive. Around a table, I conducted the first interview there, with Louis Smith, Olympic bronze medal gymnast from the Beijing Olympics. He was moments away from catching a flight to Los Angeles for an adidas shoot alongside David Beckham. It was a heady assignment for a burgeoning 21-year-old who, it is said, not so long ago cast his eyes to his feet rather than meet your eyes in conversation.

Away from London, the two other members of our Magnificent Seven toiled at their dream. British Open judo champion Gemma Howell was winning a World Cup silver medal in Korea. Finn sailor Giles Scott was adding to his host of sailing medals in Australia at the end of a wonderful, breakthrough year.

What an experience the grand tour of Stratford was. And at the end of it Lord Coe, chairman of the Organising Committee, spoke of what awaits our starlets. 'In a couple of weeks, the Games will be next year and then it will be writ large,' he said. 'Before they know it, it will be January 2012 and then they will think in a completely different way. It will be an Olympic year. We are getting closer and closer.'

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/21/article-1340539-0C8B0632000005DC-583_964x641.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/21/article-1340539-0C8B07F2000005DC-238_964x641.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/21/article-1340539-0C8AFEC4000005DC-619_964x520.jpg

You were the one who blundered into this thread and started telling anyone who would listen that this stadium will be a white elephant. Not "might" be - "will" be.

The fact that you can't see the future didn't stop you from expressing your opinion. So why should it have stopped me? If I am arrogant, at least my arrogance is based on the fact that I have followed this project from the very beginning and I know quite a lot about this stadium.

You, by contrast, have repeatedly demonstrated that you haven't followed this project closely and you know comparatively little about this stadium. So there is no good reason or excuse for your arrogance.
I believe it will be... but our opinion divides us. U think not. Truth is neither of us knows for sure! The best way to forecast the future is by looking at history.. Thats how every business in the world works, weather, etc etc. Its a question of probability..
If Juve had 70,000 stadium and
It was built for a world one off event
Was adopted by 2 football teams (game every week, not other week)
Was only ever half full on average
Had a running track
Was dictated to keep the running track
Was very poor viewing
Was hated by the fans
Did host other events and concerts
And was still considered to be the Whitest of white elephants, why is this different. And this is why i think it will be. Based upon historical probability.

http://uksnowolf.blogspot.com/2010/11/and-on-pedestal-these-words-appear.html

This supports and quotes all i have said, the comparisons with Juve's old ground, the risk of being white elephant and the ridiculous situation this will create for the west ham fans if they win this bid.... And it speaks about the effect on west ham fans too... like it or lump it, ur opinions and childish comments dont change anything and i can only suggest that ur defence of this proposal is really out of anger to the clubs plans... It is a shame for u. i wud not wish this on any true fans..:ohno:

Saying that this stadium will be far from ideal for football (something which no one disputes) is quite different from saying that this stadium will be a white elephant. How can you still not understand that?

Forget football for a moment. You have to remember that, unlike Torino, London is one of the top two or three cities in the entire world for attracting major pop and rock acts. So any comparison with the Delli Alpe is instantly redundant. Even if football is never played at the Olympic stadium, it could still lead a profitable existence as a concert venue.

Saying that this stadium will be far from ideal for football (something which no one disputes) is quite different from saying that this stadium will be a white elephant. How can you still not understand that?

Forget football for a moment. You have to remember that, unlike Torino, London is one of the top two or three cities in the entire world for attracting major pop and rock acts. So any comparison with the Delli Alpe is instantly redundant. Even if football is never played at the Olympic stadium, it could still lead a profitable existence as a concert venue.
Ok i accept that point of London... Turin is a major city (industrial) and was previously 1st Capital, but i know more people visit London, so I cant argue with that point...That's a worthy push back...:okay:

JimB & RobH. Lets now stop this debate if you would like to agree that we just see things different. I dont think its constructive and is probably bad now. I accept some of ur points, but u can see surely some of mine...
And some of the comments are getting out of control... One comment made cud have caused a riot, but good it removed... :okay:

JimB & RobH. Lets now stop this debate if you would like to agree that we just see things different. I dont think its constructive and is probably bad now. I accept some of ur points, but u can see surely some of mine...
And some of the comments are getting out of control... One comment made cud have caused a riot, but good it removed... :okay:

Of course we can see some of your points.

They've never been in dispute. We all know perfectly well that this stadium will be far from ideal for football.

But the specific accusation was that this stadium will be a white elephant.

And that's simply not true, by any proper definition of the expression "white elephant".

I sincerely hope that you can now see that too.

Of course we can see some of your points.

They've never been in dispute. We all know perfectly well that this stadium will be far from ideal for football.

But the specific accusation was that this stadium will be a white elephant.

And that's simply not true, by any proper definition of the expression "white elephant".

I sincerely hope that you can now see that too.
Did you see Barry Hearn's sky sports news interview today? He didnt use that term... but he was most critical.. But i suspect his connection leighton Orient drive his negativity, but he is an expert i guess. I'm not gonna post it, but if your interested im sure you can find it..

So AshVentini, seeing as you're the expert, what do you think should be done to the stadium to ensure it's not a white elephant?

So AshVentini, seeing as you're the expert, what do you think should be done to the stadium to ensure it's not a white elephant?

Well im not officially an expert, but try to be well informed and have much experiences of stadiums around the world.. it is a difficult situation, because big mistakes have already been made so any outcome will have negative effects, whether its tearing it down or west ham keeping it. At this stage it's about trying to salvage something... Its only good for cricket and concerts, but thats already catered for in London, so my view sadly would be to dismantle it. As others have pointed out there are plenty of others olympic facilities that are being built in the area, so keep use of those buildings... Everyone keeps talking about leaving a legacy, but why does this have to be a physical one? better to leave a mental positive one, than something which always creates negative comments, either by fans experience or general public it seeing it after. Better to have good memory of the stadium for the games Vs having daily reminder of a project that is very very contentious.. As i said, its hard to make a positive result from this one...Thats just how i see it, im sure others will see differently...

A fully temporary 80,000 seater stadium might have been the answer. But then I can't imagine that would go down well with the IOC.

People need to chillax. This is just a thread for comments and debate, and there's no reason to get nasty with people with differing opinions from your own. Besides, it's Christmas!!!:cheers:

Well im not officially an expert, but try to be well informed and have much experiences of stadiums around the world.. it is a difficult situation, because big mistakes have already been made so any outcome will have negative effects, whether its tearing it down or west ham keeping it. At this stage it's about trying to salvage something... Its only good for cricket and concerts, but thats already catered for in London, so my view sadly would be to dismantle it. As others have pointed out there are plenty of others olympic facilities that are being built in the area, so keep use of those buildings... Everyone keeps talking about leaving a legacy, but why does this have to be a physical one? better to leave a mental positive one, than something which always creates negative comments, either by fans experience or general public it seeing it after. Better to have good memory of the stadium for the games Vs having daily reminder of a project that is very very contentious.. As i said, its hard to make a positive result from this one...Thats just how i see it, im sure others will see differently...

So there are numerous cricket stadiums with a capacity of around 60,000 in London? That's the first I've heard of it. Additionally, Wembley and Twickenham are very hard venues for acts to book as there is a huge amount of pressure on The FA and RFU to continually keep their venues in a condition fit for international fixtures. The sightlines for football at the Olympic Stadium are also comparable to Wembley (a quick internet search will corroborate this).

Given that the majority of the Olympic Stadium was only ever going to be a temporary build for the games, I'd say that the interest generated for future tenancy of the stadium at present is outstanding. If West Ham and their partners win the right to call this stadium their home, we will see regular top-class football, cricket, athletics, concerts, and other events in the stadium; there would be no stadium in this country which could boast such a diverse range of events.

Put it this way, far from being a flop, the stadium has the potential to be the best in the country. For a venue only designed for a month-long event only a few years ago, that's quite a turnaround.

There should be no Tottenham Hotspur settlement allowed on London's East bank! The only scaremongering tinpot chairman Barry Hearne should do is against North Londoners. Anything thrown at West Ham United FC is a deep red herring which only abets invasive Tottenham settlers over East London's two native football clubs.

We're told that this whole Olympics trip is also meant to be about 'legacy' 'development' 'local communities' and 'infructucture' etc. So why the effing couldn't Hearne, the ruling Govermnet and Hackney borough council sort it so that the London Olympics left Leyton Orient FC with a brand new 16'000 -20'000 stadium right next door to their old ground, a stones throw away in the world famous Hackney marshes?

Leyton Orient FC have always weathered being slap bang amidst their big siblings West Ham and the whopping outlanders of Arsenal and Tottenham. Even an ameture club called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyton_F.C. (which get gates of roughly 200) play on the same day as Leyton Orient! The level of backing shown by English folk for their football clubs is truly breathtaking. The O's gates can only get bigger.

Whatever happens, an united East London must keep the Tottenham landgrabbers out of its turf. By hook or by crook West Ham should at the very least 'bluff it' to the sheer end. Hopefully though, West Ham will somehow turn that ugliness which is the Olympic stadium into a blinging 48'000 - 50'000 trackless football ground.

People need to chillax. This is just a thread for comments and debate, and there's no reason to get nasty with people with differing opinions from your own. Besides, it's Christmas!!!:cheers:



So there are numerous cricket stadiums with a capacity of around 60,000 in London? That's the first I've heard of it. Additionally, Wembley and Twickenham are very hard venues for acts to book as there is a huge amount of pressure on The FA and RFU to continually keep their venues in a condition fit for international fixtures. The sightlines for football at the Olympic Stadium are also comparable to Wembley (a quick internet search will corroborate this).

Given that the majority of the Olympic Stadium was only ever going to be a temporary build for the games, I'd say that the interest generated for future tenancy of the stadium at present is outstanding. If West Ham and their partners win the right to call this stadium their home, we will see regular top-class football, cricket, athletics, concerts, and other events in the stadium; there would be no stadium in this country which could boast such a diverse range of events.

Put it this way, far from being a flop, the stadium has the potential to be the best in the country. For a venue only designed for a month-long event only a few years ago, that's quite a turnaround.

I congratulate ur optimism... as i said. im sure opinions will differ...And play cricket away from the home of the sport.. yeh right! Home alone!

People need to chillax. This is just a thread for comments and debate, and there's no reason to get nasty with people with differing opinions from your own. Besides, it's Christmas!!!:cheers:



So there are numerous cricket stadiums with a capacity of around 60,000 in London? That's the first I've heard of it. Additionally, Wembley and Twickenham are very hard venues for acts to book as there is a huge amount of pressure on The FA and RFU to continually keep their venues in a condition fit for international fixtures. The sightlines for football at the Olympic Stadium are also comparable to Wembley (a quick internet search will corroborate this).

Given that the majority of the Olympic Stadium was only ever going to be a temporary build for the games, I'd say that the interest generated for future tenancy of the stadium at present is outstanding. If West Ham and their partners win the right to call this stadium their home, we will see regular top-class football, cricket, athletics, concerts, and other events in the stadium; there would be no stadium in this country which could boast such a diverse range of events.

Put it this way, far from being a flop, the stadium has the potential to be the best in the country. For a venue only designed for a month-long event only a few years ago, that's quite a turnaround.

Come to think of it, why effings didn't the East London Olympic legacy leave Essex County Cricket Club with good sized Cricket stadium in inner East London to stand up to the likes of what Kent CCC, Surrey CCC and Middlesex CCC have got going on in the other parts of London. Anyone?

I congratulate ur optimism... as i said. im sure opinions will differ...And play cricket away from the home of the sport.. yeh right! Home alone!

The Olympic stadium is only earmarked as a cricket venue for Essex CCC - and specifically for T20 games, I should imagine. They don't have a major stadium.

The Olympic stadium is only earmarked as a cricket venue for Essex CCC - and specifically for T20 games, I should imagine. They don't have a major stadium.

Hi man, how do u know this, do u have a link for what u saying about Essex CCC and the Olympic stadium? Essex CCC, the Cricket world and even the Olympic bandwagon haven't seemed to of been bothered to let anyone else know.

Essex CCC have been involved with West Ham's bid as I understand it.

Link (http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/02102010/58/gooch-backs-olympic-stadium-plan.html)

I congratulate ur optimism... as i said. im sure opinions will differ...And play cricket away from the home of the sport.. yeh right! Home alone!

Well, it's not really optimism: the interest generated for a temporary stadium built for one thing speaks for itself.

No-one is advocating having the Olympic Stadium replace the likes of Lords or the Oval: the reality of the proposal is Essex CCC's desire to cash-in on the benefits of a huge stadium for big games a handful of times a year. Although West Ham and the ECB have been coy on the matter, I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibiliy that should WHU get tenancy of the stadium and Essex CCC were to enjoy success with cricket at the venue, the next logical progression would be to start staging England cricket internationals there; sub-40,000 capacity cricket grounds everywhere else in the country coupled with the Olympic Stadium's size, location and transport links seem to make the Olympic Stadium a very viable venue for international cricket.

Let's see what happens, but remind yourself that the possibility of cricket at the stadium is just one of many mooted events. In short, the Olympic Stadium has a healthy amount of interest from potential suitors post-games and also has plenty of potential for other events as well.

Come to think of it, why effings didn't the East London Olympic legacy leave Essex County Cricket Club with good sized Cricket stadium in inner East London to stand up to the likes of what Kent CCC, Surrey CCC and Middlesex CCC have got going on in the other parts of London. Anyone?

The ECB certainly missed a trick when the plans for the Olympic Stadium were initially being drawn-up, and it's something that they have got a fair bit of criticism for. That said, we can all look back and say 'why wasn't this or that factored in before', but the reality is that it wasn't: the Olympic Stadium is an athletics venue designed purely for athletics.

Well, it's not really optimism: the interest generated for a temporary stadium built for one thing speaks for itself.

No-one is advocating having the Olympic Stadium replace the likes of Lords or the Oval: the reality of the proposal is Essex CCC's desire to cash-in on the benefits of a huge stadium for big games a handful of times a year. Although West Ham and the ECB have been coy on the matter, I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibiliy that should WHU get tenancy of the stadium and Essex CCC were to enjoy success with cricket at the venue, the next logical progression would be to start staging England cricket internationals there; sub-40,000 capacity cricket grounds everywhere else in the country coupled with the Olympic Stadium's size, location and transport links seem to make the Olympic Stadium a very viable venue for international cricket.

Let's see what happens, but remind yourself that the possibility of cricket at the stadium is just one of many mooted events. In short, the Olympic Stadium has a healthy amount of interest from potential suitors post-games and also has plenty of potential for other events as well.



The ECB certainly missed a trick when the plans for the Olympic Stadium were initially being drawn-up, and it's something that they have got a fair bit of criticism for. That said, we can all look back and say 'why wasn't this or that factored in before', but the reality is that it wasn't: the Olympic Stadium is an athletics venue designed purely for athletics.

I certainly agree that it would be a good international cricket venue. If competitively priced it could be better for generating revenue than Lords etc.. So I like this case put forward..:)

I didn't realise this until somebody pointed it out, but the Olympic Stadium is just on the Middlesex side of the historic border, not the Essex side. :lol:

edited

Proof, if ever needed, that an iconic wow factor starchitectural stadium is not needed to win and host a successful Olympic Games.

Well, the Maracana is iconic and full of history, just as the old Wembley was for us despite it not having a wow factor. Nevertheless, it's a stretch to call it Rio's Olympic Stadium seeing as only ceremonies and football will be held there.

The stadium we'll see most of during 2016, and the stadium which I'd therefore call Rio's Olympic Stadium, is in fact an expanded João Havelange Stadium, built for the 2007 PanAm Games, and to be expanded to 60,000 seats for the Olympics.

http://www.zerozerofootball.com/img/estadios/051/8051_ori_estadio_olimpico_joao_havelange_engenhao_.jpg

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/09/0925_olympics_2016_finalists/image/rio_joao_havelange.jpg

Again, not particularly special in its architecture, but a sensible and very workable solution for Rio's Games plan; though I'm intruiged to find out how the logistics of the Olympic flame will work with two main stadiums.

Anyway, we're going off topic somewhat, this being the thread for London's stadium.

Rio will put on a fantastic Games. Just as London it has the atmosphere and icons of the city to make it its own and put a special stamp on them.

Hello I would like to share with you the olympic stadium in Rio 2016:


FAIL! :bash:

...................

Hello I would like to share with you the olympic stadium in Rio 2016:

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/3198/18856970x6001.jpg
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/6788/maracanastadiumriodejan.jpg
http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/192/marcanastadium.jpg
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/6104/18847970x6001.jpg
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/3037/maracana05.jpg



I hope the olympic games again in Mexico... hehehe
Good luck Rio2016:banana::banana:

I've read through various previous posts, and there's a lot of talk about the post-Olympics stadium being used for outdoor concerts.

But doesn't London already have Wembley, Twickenham, and Emirates for large-scale concerts?

And don't forget about the Milton Keynes National Bowl.

Combined with the O2 Arena, doesn't London already have enough concert venues?

I've read through various previous posts, and there's a lot of talk about the post-Olympics stadium being used for outdoor concerts.

But doesn't London already have Wembley, Twickenham, and Emirates for large-scale concerts?

And don't forget about the Milton Keynes National Bowl.

Combined with the O2 Arena, doesn't London already have enough concert venues?

simple answer is yes...and the others are better for concerts too (or will be).. it wont attract events (IMO) unless it vastly costs less to hire the venue vs others which will meant less profits for the owners per event and the atmosphere wont be as good (IMO)... I beleive this is all just optimistic BS, to attract a new owners and if they didnt try and sell it like this, well its future existence would be even more of joke. U'd have to be very very niave, to bank on future revenue from this type of use.

Yet AEG and LiveNation - two huge concert promoters - think otherwise and are happy to partner football clubs in trying to gain the rights to the stadium for concerts. I take it you think they're BOTH very naive. Given this is clearly your conclusion, I'd quite like to know what your expertise are in this area and why you think you know better than both these corporations regarding the stadium's revenue generating potential as a concert venue.

Actually, I wouldn't like to know that. I'll simply take their thoughts over yours, thanks all the same.

The fact is, two world leading concert promoters are vying for this venue in partnership with two football clubs.

As has been said both Wembley and Twickenham can only host a very limated number of concerts per year and the latter espeically doesnt have great transport infrastructure.

Yet AEG and LiveNation - two huge concert promoters - think otherwise and are happy to partner football clubs in trying to gain the rights to the stadium for concerts. I take it you think they're BOTH very naive. Given this is clearly your conclusion, I'd quite like to know what your expertise are in this area and why you think you know better than both these corporations regarding the stadium's revenue generating potential as a concert venue.

Actually, I wouldn't like to know that. I'll simply take their thoughts over yours, thanks all the same.

The fact is, two world leading concert promoters are vying for this venue in partnership with two football clubs.

As you are conflicted as to whether you want to know my expertise, I'll at least say that having held numerous senior managerial business roles in a large globally recogized corporation (and lived in USA for 8 yrs) I think i can have an educated and experienced opinion. Do you not think that corporations do sometimes get things wrong? Happens everyday.. On face value this is a bad deal to get involved with. But i suspect (things that neither you or I know) that other things are influencing this that are not public knowledge, such as Government intervention (taxation breaks, offset guarantees etc) and corporation alliances to OTHER projects or business strategies they have planned... not necessarily sports / concert related?

So whatever the SOLD desired outcome is, dont be surprised to see a change.. IMO and based on experience and proven acimin...
Please dont come back saying so what you have done etc etc, all you have brought to the table is an argument that 2 big names want a stake in it.. so it must be good... thats not how the business world works im sorry to say..

One key question... and i dont know assume I know. If a football club gets the stadium, who OWNS the ground and how will these partners figure in. Is it 50-50? or 100 owned by 1 and leased by the other? These are important..

I'm sure corporations sometimes get things wrong, but two such big ones in the very field we're talking about? Seems unlikely.

I'm sure corporations sometimes get things wrong, but two such big ones in the very field we're talking about? Seems unlikely.

I beleive its unlikely that they will get it wrong as to what the real plans are to be...Perhaps the real intent is not what is published? Or believed by most... As i say i dont know, but can only judge on face value, which leads me to think there is more than what is advertised..cuz on face i wudnt touch it...

So do you know what the answers are to my questions from my recent post?

The details aren't known because this is a confidential process. The fact is, you've said:

U'd have to be very very niave, to bank on future revenue from this type of use.

So, what are AEG and LiveNation in this for if not to increase their revenue? They clearly think they can make money from this whatever the finer details of the arrangements are, and the likelyhood of them both being wrong is small.

The details aren't known because this is a confidential process. The fact is, you've said:



So, what are AEG and LiveNation in this for if not to increase their revenue? They clearly think they can make money from this whatever the finer details of the arrangements are, and the likelyhood of them both being wrong is small.

If they own they stadium, im sure they will make money from from changing the whole strategy from this current published belief......THats my guess...

For them to make something work, i would imagine they would want to own it (and lease to a football club) not the other way around.. so they have control of the marketing and strategy etc.. I just cant see them wanting to rent it ad hoc from a footie club and really make big money.. IMO.. Thats why i asked about proposed ownership split or single owner etc...Watch this space... No point debating right or wrong, just something i can see from aquisition experience..

As has been discussed, on both this page and others, in comparison to most of the other London venues mentioned, straford, and the Olympic Stadium will have far superior public transport links, will be situated in a brand new Olympic Park development, and on top of an initial novelty factor, I believe that it WILL be able to compete favvourably with other grounds for big concerts.

Not aware of any that go to Emirates, it will attract more than Twickenham, very possibly similar numbers, if not more than Wembley (especially long term when the FA debt on the stadium is no more), and surely the Olympic Stadium. in London, is more attractive for concerts than anything in Milton Keynes?

Hello I would like to share with you the olympic stadium in Rio 2016:


They'll ruin a beautiful,probably the most famous stadium in the world,it makes me sad.

The London Olympic Stadium is amazing,but really too many(great) stadiums in one city.

Not aware of any that go to Emirates, it will attract more than Twickenham, very possibly similar numbers, if not more than Wembley (especially long term when the FA debt on the stadium is no more), and surely the Olympic Stadium. in London, is more attractive for concerts than anything in Milton Keynes?

Bruce Springsteen and Capital FM's Summertime Ball took place at Emirates. Twickenham and Milton Keynes were used as concert venues while Wembley was undergoing reconstruction.

So I guess that, if it were in the cards, the Olympic Stadium (with its reduced capacity) and Wembley will be competing against each other for U2-sized outdoor concerts?:dunno:

One thing the Olympic stadium may well have in its favour is alot less restriction on the number of dates per year it can be used, I know thats a big issue with Twickenham and I'd geuss Wembley and the Emirates aswell.

I see some of illuminati symbols on this stadium.

I see some of illuminati symbols on this stadium.

If I was designing a building - heck, if I was designing anything - I'd put "hidden" illuminati symbols all over it, just to freak out the conspiracy theorists.

They'll ruin a beautiful,probably the most famous stadium in the world,it makes me sad.


The most famous stadium in the world, really, I'd say Wembley would hold that title.

The most famous stadium in the world, really, I'd say Wembley would hold that title.

i agree :cheers:

People around the world know Maracana, Camp Nou, Wembley and Hampden - all 150,000+ standing capicity stadiums in there past forms.

The most famous stadium in the world, really, I'd say Wembley would hold that title.

Definitely :cheers:

Hard to tell; depends where you come from and what sports you like...we're getting a bit off topic here.

The most famous stadium in the world, really, I'd say Wembley would hold that title.

Rugby Park in Kilmarnock surely!

beijing olympic stadium and allianz arena

People around the world know Maracana, Camp Nou, Wembley and Hampden - all 150,000+ standing capicity stadiums in there past forms.
The Nou Camp and (old) Wembley are/were both big, but neither have ever had a capacity close to 150,000.

Barcelona's capacity was 121,000 at its highest, while Wembley was always limited to 100,000 after the first choatic cup final, when 120,000+ plus were thought to have got in.

The thing is not everyone on the world is a football fan, so I would scratch Nou Camp, Maracana and Hampden, whereas Wembley is not just known as a football stadium, it's probably equally as well known as a concert venue.

Well,i said probably.Even the biggest stadium in my country has a nickname after Maracana :)

The Nou Camp and (old) Wembley are/were both big, but neither have ever had a capacity close to 150,000.

Barcelona's capacity was 121,000 at its highest, while Wembley was always limited to 100,000 after the first choatic cup final, when 120,000+ plus were thought to have got in.

Actually, it was between 240,000 and 300,000 with 60,000 locked outside that got in to Wembley to see the "White Horse Final". The amount of people that would turn up was grossly underestimated so it was not a ticketed event.

Actually, it was between 240,000 and 300,000 with 60,000 locked outside that got in to Wembley to see the "White Horse Final". The amount of people that would turn up was grossly underestimated so it was not a ticketed event.

"white horse final"... there seems to be a common theme about white animals and this stadiums thread.. ...too funny....:lol::lol::lol:

Your posts are getting seriosly boring to be honest.

Fuck off mate, your contributions to this thread have been close to nil.

Unless you fancy me trolling the Turin thread in return?

come on mate how could i resist that lead in? However This just happens to be one of the most contentious threads..Mainly because of the hugely divided opinions on the project.. and some of the users responses..You think my contributions have been close to nil, because you dont agree. I try to be objective, not subjective like some of you. Most of the time anyway (we all can banter at times) and have tried to show MY OWN teams mistakes, bad stadium problems and facts supporting this comparison that are very similar to this project, but they are just IDIOT comments.... Or Im not the sharpest tool in the box...Or Peadophile or what else???
And i am now not the one who is talking about illuminati or signs or past wembley or brazil stadiums etc... like some on this thread.. So im not sure where you are really coming from when this recent stuff adds NIL and you react just at my user name...
If you were not so defensive and accepted a view that you dont agree with, but agree to disagree, then this tread would not attract such comments. And its not like im the only one you have insulted or name called on this site is it?
Take a chill pill. Troll if u want to, but i doubt anyone will act with such rage as yourself...:ohno:

Your posts are getting seriosly boring to be honest.

Yes well i can at least control my behaviour and NOT post abusive (border line illegal) comments which i then have to edit / remove the comments...And this aint the first time is it? Im not the one embarrassing myself... Just chill out a bit..:cheers:

Whatever mate, not interested.

Why is it the threads in this section of SSC are allowed to be trolled so frequently I wonder? I saw this yesterday in another part of this forum:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=418897&page=260

That comment which got im_from_zw038 on a final warning , not dissimilar to many of AshVentini's posts, would completely derail a thread in this section of the forum until it is beyond repair.

The above is how the whole forum should be moderated. Snide remarks and stupid comments are more damaging to this forum than occaissional and often deserved insults aimed at those making them - much more so.

The above is how the whole forum should be moderated. Snide remarks and stupid comments are more damaging to this forum than occaissional insults aimed at those making them, much more so.


Its a nice building... In that link!

I read the terms... Abusive comments violate, not differing views...You should be worried... I cant be bothered with this for now, it a lost cause.. Until somethinf constructive comes up.

I don't need a noob with a history of derailing threads lecturing me. Go away.

I don't need a noob with a history of derailing threads lecturing me. Go away.

sounds like u need it! I dont derail... I think we are scrapping the barrel at the moment... hopefully some interesting news will come up to discuss soon..

When is decision expected on new stadium owners? And which football club is ahead?

If Spurs have so much money - why can't they install retractable seating?

If Spurs have so much money - why can't they install retractable seating?

And where exactly do you want the retractable seating? We can't dig down as it would be below the water table, and with a river only a few meters away that could be a problem. Also when you retract the seats you would be a lot higher than the track making it impossible to see.

And where exactly do you want the retractable seating? We can't dig down as it would be below the water table, and with a river only a few meters away that could be a problem. Also when you retract the seats you would be a lot higher than the track making it impossible to see.

Two other problems with that idea that I can think of:

1. The stadium wasn't designed to accommodate retractable seating. If you dig under the existing stands, you will come up against foundations.

2. If you add another tier that could take the stands close enough to the action, you would be adding a something like a further 15,000 seats - making a total of 95,000. Too big, even for Spurs!

Just reconfigure the top tier. Saves money. Break it down and put it back together for football.

Does anyone know how West Ham will make the changes if they get the bid. It was reported that they will spend £180m to upgrade the roof and put toilets and hospitality suites in but are there any designs yet? Will it even resemble the current stadium?

Does anyone know how West Ham will make the changes if they get the bid. It was reported that they will spend £180m to upgrade the roof and put toilets and hospitality suites in but are there any designs yet? Will it even resemble the current stadium?

£180M can buy a new modern football stadium...

£180M can buy a new modern football stadium...

It does come across as madness. They could easily (not an expert) upgrade Upton Park and save themselves a fortune. They may have other costs or the figure may be wrong though.

It does come across as madness. They could easily (not an expert) upgrade Upton Park and save themselves a fortune.
Upton was expanded only a few years back, it might be difficult?
I believe (I'm sure someone will correct me!) the publicised justification is linked to moving away from the current stadium to an area where other events can be hosted and transport available to generate more income from non football events... If this is so, then there is 2 options..
1. spend this money to re-develop / reduce the Olympic a event arena, poor for football.
2. Build a new stadium, elsewhere (cap 50,000?) top class football ground, ideal for the fans! WH usually average about 40,000 per game. Its about 97-98% full which is good, so increase would make sense..

Pro and cons to both...
Some will argue that re-development will make more money long term, because of the benefits of the Olympic infrastructure and large events capable of hosting, and in my opinion there will be tax breaks involved because the Government had a real headache with this project legacy..
Others (any football fans, like myself) would argue that the club is hugely compromising the fans (who pay a large part in the club) for a few extra ££'s..They risk a ground for football which is very un-loved and poorly attended. Past mistakes similar to this suggest this will be the case..IMO.
If ur a true WH football fan, u'd be mad to support this plan. IMO. I'd want the new ground!

Upton was expanded only a few years back, it might be difficult?
I believe (I'm sure someone will correct me!) the publicised justification is linked to moving away from the current stadium to an area where other events can be hosted and transport available to generate more income from non football events... If this is so, then there is 2 options..
1. spend this money to re-develop / reduce the Olympic a event arena, poor for football.
2. Build a new stadium, elsewhere (cap 50,000?) top class football ground, ideal for the fans! WH usually average about 40,000 per game. Its about 97-98% full which is good, so increase would make sense..

Pro and cons to both...
Some will argue that re-development will make more money long term, because of the benefits of the Olympic infrastructure and large events capable of hosting, and in my opinion there will be tax breaks involved because the Government had a real headache with this project legacy..
Others (any football fans, like myself) would argue that the club is hugely compromising the fans (who pay a large part in the club) for a few extra ££'s..They risk a ground for football which is very un-loved and poorly attended. Past mistakes similar to this suggest this will be the case..IMO.
If ur a true WH football fan, u'd be mad to support this plan. IMO. I'd want the new ground!

In a very round about (and small way) Spur's bid has probably taken a bit of the heat off of Brady and Co, as a lot of the WH fans only want the stadium in order to stop us getting it. If they were sole bidders I could see protests matching the We are N17 one (I know there are a few but no where near as publicised).

In a very round about (and small way) Spur's bid has probably taken a bit of the heat off of Brady and Co, as a lot of the WH fans only want the stadium in order to stop us getting it. If they were sole bidders I could see protests matching the We are N17 one (I know there are a few but no where near as publicised).
Whether spurs win the bid or not, your team will still end up with a top class stadium (on Olympic site or current). The design proposal is a nice one. And you play good football to watch it in. Either way I wudnt be bothered about winning the bid too much. Let WH have it! It will finish them..

Whether spurs win the bid or not, your team will still end up with a top class stadium (on Olympic site or current). The design proposal is a nice one. And you play good football to watch it in. Either way I wudnt be bothered about winning the bid too much. Let WH have it! It will finish them..

I hope so, but where are we going to get £450m to build the NDP? Look at what happened to Liverpool who are a bigger club than us and that was over £200m. The risk is huge, I really hope that we can make it work but I dread what happens if we have to stop buying players in order to pay for it that could lead to disaster.

I hope so, but where are we going to get £450m to build the NDP? Look at what happened to Liverpool who are a bigger club than us and that was over £200m. The risk is huge, I really hope that we can make it work but I dread what happens if we have to stop buying players in order to pay for it that could lead to disaster.

Lets be honest.. Spurs cannot afford a £450M stadium.. Even for the NDP this seems a very very high estimate... It looks more like a £300M project.. Even that's pushing spurs capabilities... If you can reduce the project to around £250 with some good negotiating and maybe some design changes I can see it's just about do-able..For marketing purposes, I am going to say spurs is medium level club (they cannot be compared to ManU, Barca, Real, Bayern, Juve) No dis-respect. Thats how sponsors will view them, so given other big clubs deals, i reckon spurs can expect something like this..
Shirt sponsor (next year?) 60M -70M over 5-6 yrs? Cuz of CL...maybe a bit more?
Kit supplier (dont know when it up for renew?) 50M? over ???
Naming rights.. 75M - 100M over 10 - 15 years..
Sale of Barry.. It will happen.. 35M?
Increased revenue more tickets ..£30M per year.
Council concessions / investment... for staying put.. ??
Sale of land??
CL participation .. £30M per yr (cant bank on that)

So other than the sale of player and land, most of these are incomes that are spread over contract terms. If the construction cost is spread in a similar way, it add's up. With a good manager and a shrewd transfer strategy, you can be competitive..It can be self financing it done well.. But watch your debt. Its grown each yr, to now about £70M.. Of course its also attractive to be bought out... New owners would still do most the above though to re-coup investment...

Lets be honest.. Spurs cannot afford a £450M stadium.. Even for the NDP this seems a very very high estimate... It looks more like a £300M project.. Even that's pushing spurs capabilities... If you can reduce the project to around £250 with some good negotiating and maybe some design changes I can see it's just about do-able..For marketing purposes, I am going to say spurs is medium level club (they cannot be compared to ManU, Barca, Real, Bayern, Juve) No dis-respect. Thats how sponsors will view them, so given other big clubs deals, i reckon spurs can expect something like this..
Shirt sponsor (next year?) 60M -70M over 5-6 yrs? Cuz of CL...maybe a bit more?
Kit supplier (dont know when it up for renew?) 50M? over ???
Naming rights.. 75M - 100M over 10 - 15 years..
Sale of Barry.. It will happen.. 35M?
Increased revenue more tickets ..£30M per year.
Council concessions / investment... for staying put.. ??
Sale of land??
CL participation .. £30M per yr (cant bank on that)

So other than the sale of player and land, most of these are incomes that are spread over contract terms. If the construction cost is spread in a similar way, it add's up. With a good manager and a shrewd transfer strategy, you can be competitive..It can be self financing it done well.. But watch your debt. Its grown each yr, to now about £70M.. Of course its also attractive to be bought out... New owners would still do most the above though to re-coup investment...

The new stadium at White Hart Lane would not cost £450 million. That's just the lie that the Spurs directors want fans to believe (in order to make the move to the Olympic stadium seem more appealing).

The truth is that the stadium would cost £250 million.

The remaining £200 million would mostly go towards building the 200 new homes, the hotel and the supermarket that are part of the overall project. Spurs don't even have to build those elements of the project. They can, if they wish, sell the land with planning permission and allow property developers to take on the risk.

The new stadium at White Hart Lane would not cost £450 million. That's just the lie that the Spurs directors want fans to believe (in order to make the move to the Olympic stadium seem more appealing).

The truth is that the stadium would cost £250 million.

The remaining £200 million would mostly go towards building the 200 new homes, the hotel and the supermarket that are part of the overall project. Spurs don't even have to build those elements of the project. They can, if they wish, sell the land with planning permission and allow property developers to take on the risk.

for once Jim we agree.... :)i think ur spot on, and like i sugested.. £250M stadium..:tongue3:

bird nest stadium in beijing is much better than this

bird nest stadium in beijing is much better than this

Doing well, that stadium?

Doing well, that stadium?

I believe this may be a forecast..

This stadium is never out of the news..Theres a common theme developed.. Emotional athletics icons & government/city officials "save face support" want WH to take it on... AEG business parties want Spurs to succeed with their plans to demolish.. Hmmm..

building below the water table happens all the time. A similar tub to those built for skyscrapers could be build along with a pump draining system at minimal cost. Its been done before.

building below the water table happens all the time. A similar tub to those built for skyscrapers could be build along with a pump draining system at minimal cost. Its been done before.

Good man, we've found a solution, no more petty arguments required.

West Ham
-Dig down and install a tub and a pump - borrow an engineer from Skanska or Mace etc to sort this out. (loads kicking about on highrises in London right now)
-Dismantle the ends of the stadium to keep the capacity sensible, and fuck it send them down to Crystal Palace for good faith.

Tottenham
-Stick to their original plan a build a new ground at White Hart Lane or if their hearts are set on shifting to East London, move to Upton Park, I'm sure West Ham would sell it to them at mates rates anyway.

And bish bash bosh it's all sorted*

*obviously we'll ignore the fairly shallow gradient of the current lower bowl; this would most likely ensure terrible sightlines to the pitch if it were dug down. But heh, no plan is perfect.

building below the water table happens all the time. A similar tub to those built for skyscrapers could be build along with a pump draining system at minimal cost. Its been done before.

Yeh it called a basement....Lol.. I had a few of them over in USA in my houses, with water pumps...

Good man, we've found a solution, no more petty arguments required.

West Ham
-Dig down and install a tub and a pump - borrow an engineer from Skanska or Mace etc to sort this out. (loads kicking about on highrises in London right now)
-Dismantle the ends of the stadium to keep the capacity sensible, and fuck it send them down to Crystal Palace for good faith.

Tottenham
-Stick to their original plan a build a new ground at White Hart Lane or if their hearts are set on shifting to East London, move to Upton Park, I'm sure West Ham would sell it to them at mates rates anyway.

And bish bash bosh it's all sorted*

*obviously we'll ignore the fairly shallow gradient of the current lower bowl; this would most likely ensure terrible sightlines to the pitch if it were dug down. But heh, no plan is perfect.

Better still to protect the Olympic legacy.... Dig down, Install a tub, but without any pumps and let it be used for a swimming...No need to install toliets, folk could just piss in the pool..:lol:

Realistically I think any kind of "moving stands/Rising Pitch" design is unlikely to work on a large scale(at least without being prohibitively expensive), for a 20-30K stadium maybe but every time its been tried on a larger scale its been more of a "one off" for big events rather than the regular access I'm assuming UK athletics will want.

As I said if WH are going to keep the track then surely their #1 priority should be maxmising the number of seats with passable views. That to me means keeping as much of the upper teir as possible, yes those seats will obviously be further from the pitch but the viewing angle will clearly be superior to the the lower teir. Keeping the upper teir, adding some boxes in the press section and removing the lower teir behind the goals to add their big screens seems like the best option to me. That would leave you with I'd guess around a 65K capacity with around 50K seats with good views and 15K uncovered seats with poor views which could be sold cheap, seems like it would be alot cheaper aswell without the need for a totally new roof.

We're 12 years on from when Stade de France was built, which means 15 years ahead of the technology Stade de France uses.

Its possible, and its not a gigantic task but given the cost of the basic stadium structure who knows what they'll pay.

Realistically I think any kind of "moving stands/Rising Pitch" design is unlikely to work on a large scale(at least without being prohibitively expensive), for a 20-30K stadium maybe but every time its been tried on a larger scale its been more of a "one off" for big events rather than the regular access I'm assuming UK athletics will want.

As I said if WH are going to keep the track then surely their #1 priority should be maxmising the number of seats with passable views. That to me means keeping as much of the upper teir as possible, yes those seats will obviously be further from the pitch but the viewing angle will clearly be superior to the the lower teir. Keeping the upper teir, adding some boxes in the press section and removing the lower teir behind the goals to add their big screens seems like the best option to me. That would leave you with I'd guess around a 65K capacity with around 50K seats with good views and 15K uncovered seats with poor views which could be sold cheap, seems like it would be alot cheaper aswell without the need for a totally new roof.

Why not remove the whole ends behind the goals then, and put in really really big screens so the fans in the upper tier ( with good views..:ohno:) can see the game from the TV Screens?:ohno:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/london_2012/9366610.stm

Sir Craig Reedie comments are idiotic.. How can you defend a proposal by quoting Roma & Lazio share a stadium which is used for both athletics and football..:ohno: Does he not know it is hardly ever used for athletics and both football teams have plans & desire to move away from the Olympic Rome stadium??? :lol:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/gordonfarquhar/2011/01/weighing_options_for_olympic_s.html

read the comments made at the bottom of this article.. backs up what i have said all along...

Why not remove the whole ends behind the goals then, and put in really really big screens so the fans in the upper tier ( with good views..:ohno:) can see the game from the TV Screens?:ohno:

Surely the fans watching the big screens at the ends are going to be looking at the big screen at the opposite end of the ground anyway?

Removing the ends entirely would obviously be an option but it would reduce the number of seats with decent views of the pitch.

Surely the fans watching the big screens at the ends are going to be looking at the big screen at the opposite end of the ground anyway?

Removing the ends entirely would obviously be an option but it would reduce the number of seats with decent views of the pitch.

It was a joke...;) but given this project... never say never..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12227069

Report on West Hams financial support to take stadium..
Feels a bit like "Little Italy" in East London...:lol:

Better still to protect the Olympic legacy.... Dig down, Install a tub, but without any pumps and let it be used for a swimming...No need to install toliets, folk could just piss in the pool..:lol:

Nice patronising use of the underline function. What would you consider to be a decent Olympic Legacy??

I completely agree... this stadium was built in a practical sense, definitly not in an aesthetic sense..

This building could have an extraordinary performance but don't deserve Olympics more than this?? I think it deserves more than a funcional building for a city, deserves a stetical image to export to the world, to exalt the spirity of such event...

Definitly this stadium won't remain in people's mind... :ohno: ... Congratulations Beijing for giving to the hole world such architectural gift, hope to see something similiar in the future, somewhere...



This Reason Why IOC awarded 2012 Olympic to LONDON.? They were showing good Original Renders stadium. Later changed their mind.

This London Olympics stadium is one worst Olympics stadium in the world and It looks Like 1945 Summer Olympics.

It's two-thirds temporary, but everyone seems to have forgotten that, including those who are supposed to be ensuring its future.

I completely agree... this stadium was built in a practical sense, definitly not in an aesthetic sense..

This building could have an extraordinary performance but don't deserve Olympics more than this?? I think it deserves more than a funcional building for a city, deserves a stetical image to export to the world, to exalt the spirity of such event...

Definitly this stadium won't remain in people's mind... :ohno: ... Congratulations Beijing for giving to the hole world such architectural gift, hope to see something similiar in the future, somewhere...

The Birds Nest has held 6 events of any note in the last 2 years. It is used as more of a tourist attraction than a stadium.
I'd rather have 60,000 people coming to an average looking stadium for sport every 2 weeks as opposed to 60,000 coming to have a look at the architecture.
It's all about the sport for me bud

We're 12 years on from when Stade de France was built, which means 15 years ahead of the technology Stade de France uses.

Its possible, and its not a gigantic task but given the cost of the basic stadium structure who knows what they'll pay.

Even if at all possible, it would surely be hugely problematic and / or expensive to install retractable seating in an already built stadium that hasn't been designed to accommodate retractable seating? There must surely be a conflict with the existing piling and foundations of the stadium?

The Birds Nest has held 6 events of any note in the last 2 years. It is used as more of a tourist attraction than a stadium.
I'd rather have 60,000 people coming to an average looking stadium for sport every 2 weeks as opposed to 60,000 coming to have a look at the architecture.
It's all about the sport for me bud
How is this going to get 60,000 fans every 2 weeks? Dont tell me West Ham are gonna get this... They will be VERY lucky to maintain the 40,000 they get today. After the initial novelty of the stadium has worn off (wont take long) they will be lucky to get 25,000. Especially if they are not in the EPL.
I agree with ur view (It's all about the sport for me bud):). But this includes fans wanting to watch good engaging sport, which involves a passionate crowd.. Match ticket revenue will drop and costs will increase, which will result in worse financial situation, locked into a stadium which doesnt generate good income for the CLUB, and hacked off fans....
Im all for sport too and for fans. Secretly I bet almost all WH fans are hoping they loose the bid for this stadium...

All of this kind of makes you wish that it had been a COM situation where Manchester City were going to be the tenants afterwards and the stadium was designed that way. It worked for athletics and then it worked for football, even with the Premier Leagues biggest pitch and relatively big gaps to the sidelines, it's still a great football stadium. Atlanta did something similar too. I just cant see how West Ham will make a successful stadium, given how much of the Olympic Stadium is temporary, although it would be fantastic if they could pull it off.

All of this kind of makes you wish that it had been a COM situation where Manchester City were going to be the tenants afterwards and the stadium was designed that way. It worked for athletics and then it worked for football, even with the Premier Leagues biggest pitch and relatively big gaps to the sidelines, it's still a great football stadium. Atlanta did something similar too. I just cant see how West Ham will make a successful stadium, given how much of the Olympic Stadium is temporary, although it would be fantastic if they could pull it off.

We likely wouldnt have gotten the games with a design like that which didnt allow for an athletics legacey.

I presume and hope that the profit from the tickets / stadium related revenue for the games is going back to the tax payer? Are there any estimates on what this is? I cant imagine it would even dent the £500M cost though...

"They will be VERY lucky to maintain the 40,000 they get today."

Seeing as there current stadium only holds 35,000 they are very lucky indeed!:)


On another note....what is the point of new stadiums striving to outdo eachother in the provision of giant screens ? If fans want to watch the action on TV why not stay at home and put your feet up? I can see there usefulness but dont understand the reliance on bigger and better ones each new build.
To be fair though WHU fans might need a bit of help if they are stuck 70 mtrs away :lol:

All of this kind of makes you wish that it had been a COM situation where Manchester City were going to be the tenants afterwards and the stadium was designed that way. It worked for athletics and then it worked for football, even with the Premier Leagues biggest pitch and relatively big gaps to the sidelines, it's still a great football stadium. Atlanta did something similar too. I just cant see how West Ham will make a successful stadium, given how much of the Olympic Stadium is temporary, although it would be fantastic if they could pull it off.

Allso Sydney removed the athletics track and now seems to work fine allso for football.
Personally i can't believe that a football club today would like to move to a stadium with a track, especially in premier league wich is known for it's proper intimate football grounds. If West Ham gets it, in a few years they will start working to get rid of the track or be on the move again.

"They will be VERY lucky to maintain the 40,000 they get today."

Seeing as there current stadium only holds 35,000 they are very lucky indeed!:)


On another note....what is the point of new stadiums striving to outdo eachother in the provision of giant screens ? If fans want to watch the action on TV why not stay at home and put your feet up? I can see there usefulness but dont understand the reliance on bigger and better ones each new build.
To be fair though WHU fans might need a bit of help if they are stuck 70 mtrs away :lol:
Good catch. I got my number jumbled... 35K it is.. Makes it even more ridiculous..

Allso Sydney removed the athletics track and now seems to work fine allso for football.
Personally i can't believe that a football club today would like to move to a stadium with a track, especially in premier league wich is known for it's proper intimate football grounds. If West Ham gets it, in a few years they will start working to get rid of the track or be on the move again.

WHU betray their fans...:ohno:

The Olympic stadium needs a football club to take the reigns after the 2012 Olympics otherwise it will look a travesty and will be an embarrassment of a venue I point your attentions to this impression of the stadium for Atheltics use after 2012.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/stadium595jpg.jpg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2011/01/original_stadium_plan_not_an_o.html
This is terrible and was actually the image shown to the IOC in Singapore as part of the contingency plans what is this its awful

what going on with this proyect?

its an absolute cock up thats who its going......


we should have built a true multi sports,stade de france-esq arena from the outset instead of spending £500million on a temporary stadium....

but then again i said all this 3 bloody years ago

its an absolute cock up thats who its going......


we should have built a true multi sports,stade de france-esq arena from the outset instead of spending £500million on a temporary stadium....

but then again i said all this 3 bloody years ago

That's all very well.

But the problem was that no football clubs were interested back then - despite persistent efforts on the part of the authorities to get them involved.

That's why they eventually settled on the rather unsatisfactory solution of building a stadium that was, above ground at least, two thirds temporary.

no football club was interested in a stadium with a track around the pitch....which is why they should have built a retractable stadium from the beginning...

Even in that terrible image below

1. What happened to the concrete of the uppe tier?
2. What happened to the steel supports of the upper tier?
3. What happened to the steel roof and facade structure?
4. What happened to the fabric of the roof?

Woof, Puff, into thin air.

I struggle to believe that even if this venue becomes a football venue that the top tier cannot be reconfigured into one suitable for football, while investing in a movable first tier.

Nice stadium:)

The Olympic stadium needs a football club to take the reigns after the 2012 Olympics otherwise it will look a travesty and will be an embarrassment of a venue I point your attentions to this impression of the stadium for Atheltics use after 2012.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/stadium595jpg.jpg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2011/01/original_stadium_plan_not_an_o.html
This is terrible and was actually the image shown to the IOC in Singapore as part of the contingency plans what is this its awful

This didn't go to Singapore. The final design was only revealed well after Singapore.

Karma is a biatch. Criticizing Stade de France in the final stages of the bid process for some poor sightlines.

A question for RobH & JimB... I'm presuming your both WHU fans?
Previous debate set aside, What's your honest feeling about this proposal if West ham win the bid? And as far as the club goes, how do you think it will realistically effect the whole mood of the average supporter / attendance? Serious question.. becuase you must be closer to the real view than what we are here... I'm interested. thx..

Karma is a biatch. Criticizing Stade de France in the final stages of the bid process for some poor sightlines.

To be fair it was correct in terms of athletics.

As I said I'd guess the main thing standing in the way of a true multi sport venue was always cost. The Stade De France is basically a football/rugby venue that can every so often host athletics. As I understand it the plan for the London stadium is for a venue that can host athletics much mroe regularly and even be used for training.

A system of moving stands that can be opperated say a couple of times a week rather than once every few years seems likely to be incredabley expensive to me. The Saitama Super Arena is the only venue I know of that seems to have a system capable of delivering that but is both indoors and on a much smaller scale.

Even in that terrible image below

1. What happened to the concrete of the uppe tier?
2. What happened to the steel supports of the upper tier?
3. What happened to the steel roof and facade structure?
4. What happened to the fabric of the roof?

Woof, Puff, into thin air.

I struggle to believe that even if this venue becomes a football venue that the top tier cannot be reconfigured into one suitable for football, while investing in a movable first tier.

Yeah thats why I'v been questioning, it seems doubtful to me that the upper teir simpley isnt built well enough to withstand continued use, it is afterall going to be standing for over a year before the games and you'd think if it wasnt up to 20-30 years use it wouldnt be up to a years use given the UK/IOC's safty standards.

It just seem common sense for Westham to keep as much of that upper teir as possible if they can. You look at any athletics track stadium used for football(or indeed some of the brazilian circular stadiums) and almost without exception the upper teir is favoured by the fans.

Indeed if you want to take a positive from the current design as a football stadium I think its exactly that compaired to other modern athletics venues the lower teir is relvatively small with 55-60K seats being in the upper level with superior views.

A question for RobH & JimB... I'm presuming your both WHU fans?

They'll love that. :lol:

To be fair it was correct in terms of athletics.

As I said I'd guess the main thing standing in the way of a true multi sport venue was always cost. The Stade De France is basically a football/rugby venue that can every so often host athletics. As I understand it the plan for the London stadium is for a venue that can host athletics much mroe regularly and even be used for training.

A system of moving stands that can be opperated say a couple of times a week rather than once every few years seems likely to be incredabley expensive to me. The Saitama Super Arena is the only venue I know of that seems to have a system capable of delivering that but is both indoors and on a much smaller scale.

I know. I really do support a 25,000 seat athletics venue over any of the other proposals, apart from that fact that 225m pound is disappearing into thin air i.e. everything except the first tier.

Secondly, the cost argument has obviously gone out the door with the 530m pound price tag.

I hope West Ham get this as they will keep it as an Athletics ground too, Tottenhams idea is to just use it for football, now some of you will be talking about sight lines etc. but its West Ham so no one will care about that I think they would rather look at the back of someone else's head. I like this stadium and am proud that GB will be able to show the country off, all the other people that slag it off are mostly from the countries that didnt win the Olympics and are still sore about not getting it give over. I'm already over Russia winning the 2018 WC and that was 2 months you have had about 5 years to get over it.

A question for RobH & JimB... I'm presuming your both WHU fans?
Previous debate set aside, What's your honest feeling about this proposal if West ham win the bid? And as far as the club goes, how do you think it will realistically effect the whole mood of the average supporter / attendance? Serious question.. becuase you must be closer to the real view than what we are here... I'm interested. thx..

You dont care about this stadium all you care about is having your 5 minute rant everytime someone posts something positive about this stadium, for instance quite a few of the materials are or will be recycled after depending what the out come of friday is.

I think the legacy for the stadium was overlooked somewhat which is wrong but I would hope they get it right on friday (or whenever they decide)

You dont care about this stadium all you care about is having your 5 minute rant everytime someone posts something positive about this stadium, for instance quite a few of the materials are or will be recycled after depending what the out come of friday is.

I think the legacy for the stadium was overlooked somewhat which is wrong but I would hope they get it right on friday (or whenever they decide)

Your right, I dont care about this stadium..... But i do care about fans which have to pay to see their team (whomever it is) and are completely overlooked and treated like idiots by their club, with comments about how the sight lines are ok etc etc. WHU are screwing over their fans IMO and thats been my whole argument all along. The whole thing kicked off just because i said it could turn into a white elephant, and it still may do AND i gave good reasons why (compared to other past projects alike).. People dont want to hear it and subsequently users wind each other up! But the Truth hurts....And i speak the facts and will be proven right if WHU win this bid. I hope they dont, because i dont want to see any fans suffer like Juve fans did in the old stadium... So l want Spurs to win for that reason only... Is this that hard to comprehend?
And is just so uncanny how nearly all impartial parties are all saying the same thing, unless they are a WHU club employee or athletics BOD...I think everyone know the truth here... AND i ask the 2 users because i really am interested... :cheers:

I hope West Ham get this as they will keep it as an Athletics ground too, Tottenhams idea is to just use it for football, now some of you will be talking about sight lines etc. but its West Ham so no one will care about that I think they would rather look at the back of someone else's head. I like this stadium and am proud that GB will be able to show the country off, all the other people that slag it off are mostly from the countries that didnt win the Olympics and are still sore about not getting it give over. I'm already over Russia winning the 2018 WC and that was 2 months you have had about 5 years to get over it.

I am British... So your point is not that valid.. Im embarrassed by this whole F UP... Like half the nation is... AND why now after joining 6 months ago, with only 12 posts do you chime in? Maybe you are just jumping on this topic because it in the forefront of news or want to argue..?:bash:

I am British... So your point is not that valid.. Im embarrassed by this whole F UP... Like half the nation is... AND why now after joining 6 months ago, with only 12 posts do you chime in? Maybe you are just jumping on this topic because it in the forefront of news or want to argue..?:bash:

The fact of the matter is that I only usually come on here to be nice and just look at the progress once in a while, I have plenty of other things to be getting on with while you seem to be on here 24/7, why does it matter if i have only posted a few times when i write something its because i want to not just to continue the drivel you come out with. It may be forefront of the news but that is usually when people talk about things. Do you think people would be talking bout sexism in football if it wasnt for Andy Gray being a complete.....

Also I said people are mostly from the other countries so that doesnt mean you aren't from Britain.

Your right, I dont care about this stadium..... But i do care about fans which have to pay to see their team (whomever it is) and are completely overlooked and treated like idiots by their club, with comments about how the sight lines are ok etc etc. WHU are screwing over their fans IMO and thats been my whole argument all along. The whole thing kicked off just because i said it could turn into a white elephant, and it still may do AND i gave good reasons why (compared to other past projects alike).. People dont want to hear it and subsequently users wind each other up! But the Truth hurts....And i speak the facts and will be proven right if WHU win this bid. I hope they dont, because i dont want to see any fans suffer like Juve fans did in the old stadium... So l want Spurs to win for that reason only... Is this that hard to comprehend?
And is just so uncanny how nearly all impartial parties are all saying the same thing, unless they are a WHU club employee or athletics BOD...I think everyone know the truth here... AND i ask the 2 users because i really am interested... :cheers:

So you don't care but your interested bit contradictory. You say that WHU fans are being mistreated etc but they might get a new stadium and will have cheaper tickets, i read somewhere they will reduce their ticket prices, Also I think the stadium wont be a white elephant as there are enough different organisations that have previously been interested in the stadium. I am just waiting for the outcome of friday (or whenever the outcome will be) to see what will happen

The fact of the matter is that I only usually come on here to be nice and just look at the progress once in a while, I have plenty of other things to be getting on with while you seem to be on here 24/7, why does it matter if i have only posted a few times when i write something its because i want to not just to continue the drivel you come out with. It may be forefront of the news but that is usually when people talk about things. Do you think people would be talking bout sexism in football if it wasnt for Andy Gray being a complete.....

Also I said people are mostly from the other countries so that doesnt mean you aren't from Britain.
I choose my words carefully.. believe it or not. Thats why i said not that valid.. I agree that it is somewhat applicable, not completely.. I do read people words.. I agree with most of your other comments..

So you don't care but your interested bit contradictory. You say that WHU fans are being mistreated etc but they might get a new stadium and will have cheaper tickets, i read somewhere they will reduce their ticket prices, Also I think the stadium wont be a white elephant as there are enough different organisations that have previously been interested in the stadium. I am just waiting for the outcome of friday (or whenever the outcome will be) to see what will happen

IMO cheaper tickets is just a cheap sell to justify the poor effect on fans, so i dont accept or agree that any contradiction are made from myself..
cheaper tickets + more fans = similar revenue for games.
cheaper tickets + same fans = less revenue for games.
cheaper tickets + less fans = significantly less revenue, possible finance problems..
And i think this will be the result..Historically this has been proven the likely outcome.. WHU do not have the marketing or merchandising power to increase revenue significantly to offset the difference.. And if WHU lease or have to pay large financing cost for the project, i dont believe other events will cover the costs etc. IMO.. Anyway thats where i stand,,, When nearly every other major club in europe has moved away from running tracks, or is planning to (inc Roma & Lazio) why does WHU board think that they can make it work and no other team can? Its a farce.. and they will bankrupt the club..:ohno: I can understand Lord Coe & politicians wanting to keep it / backing WHU, but come on... The club here is sooo out of reality of today its obscene.

We shall oppose and protest Tottenham's plans to take over the Olympic Stadium, because they still plan to demolish all of the Olympic Stadium and build a football-only stadium, which will probably be bad for the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.

A question for RobH & JimB... I'm presuming your both WHU fans?
Previous debate set aside, What's your honest feeling about this proposal if West ham win the bid? And as far as the club goes, how do you think it will realistically effect the whole mood of the average supporter / attendance? Serious question.. becuase you must be closer to the real view than what we are here... I'm interested. thx..

They'll love that. :lol:

:lol:

AshVentini,

Rob and I are Spurs fans!

If West Ham win the bid, I couldn't care less about the sight lines being far from perfect!

If Spurs win the bid and consequently abandon Tottenham for Stratford, I will give up my two season tickets. So, even though Spurs would demolish the athletics stadium and build a football specific stadium, I still wouldn't care about sight lines!

:lol:

AshVentini,

Rob and I are Spurs fans!

If West Ham win the bid, I couldn't care less about the sight lines being far from perfect!

If Spurs win the bid and consequently abandon Tottenham for Stratford, I will give up my two season tickets. So, even though Spurs would demolish the athletics stadium and build a football specific stadium, I still wouldn't care about sight lines!
Right ok. Yeh i know it contentious with spurs fans too. I dont visit the proposal section very much, too much theory vs actual.. But from yourself (not press) , What is the problem so much? Is it the heritage of WHL or location and moving area? Or both? I can understand why some fans may oppose this if there is an option to stay put and re-build. I think the accessibility may be the biggest drawback if u do so.. Oh well it's not too bad for you guys... either way you will get a new stadium (and it a very nice proposal - it looks great as ive said before somewhere, (but IMO will only cost 250-300M) Im sure if you do move, you will have time to think about your attendance..It will be good for the clubs bottom line if you do move, so not all bad... If WHU get it.. game over... Bankrupt in 5 years.. Shame they dont leave it just for athletics and reduce to 40k... but never gonna happen. Hopefully it will work out for u guys. Spurs is a decent club. I like them. (at least it aint ur board that are proposing keeping the track!, so it could be worse):):)

Right ok. Yeh i know it contentious with spurs fans too. I dont visit the proposal section very much, too much theory vs actual.. But from yourself (not press) , What is the problem so much? Is it the heritage of WHL or location and moving area? Or both? I can understand why some fans may oppose this if there is an option to stay put and re-build. I think the accessibility may be the biggest drawback if u do so.. Oh well it's not too bad for you guys... either way you will get a new stadium (and it a very nice proposal - it looks great as ive said before somewhere, (but IMO will only cost 250-300M) Im sure if you do move, you will have time to think about your attendance..It will be good for the clubs bottom line if you do move, so not all bad... If WHU get it.. game over... Bankrupt in 5 years.. Shame they dont leave it just for athletics and reduce to 40k... but never gonna happen. Hopefully it will work out for u guys. Spurs is a decent club. I like them. (at least it aint ur board that are proposing keeping the track!, so it could be worse):):)

I don't want to go into detail on this thread about Spurs' proposed move to Stratford.

I'll just say that I believe that there are more important things than the pursuit of success. Building a new stadium in Tottenham might be more challenging than building it in Stratford. But it is still viable, despite the fact that Spurs are doing their damnedest to persuade us that it isn't. If Spurs sacrifice history, identity, integrity and community in exchange for instant gratification, then they will have ripped the soul out of the club.

And what is a club.....what is football without soul?

I don't want to go into detail on this thread about Spurs' proposed move to Stratford.

I'll just say that I believe that there are more important things than the pursuit of success. Building a new stadium in Tottenham might be more challenging than building it in Stratford. But it is still viable, despite the fact that Spurs are doing their damnedest to persuade us that it isn't. If Spurs sacrifice history, identity, integrity and community in exchange for instant gratification, then they will have ripped the soul out of the club.

And what is a club.....what is football without soul?

Of course it should be viable to build a new stadium in Tottenham.
But the proposed NWHL plans are indeed very fancy ones. Those are far more, far fancier and far more costly than just a basic soccer stadium with an appropriate size and capacity. I can very well immagine and understand that the current plans are to costly and therefore alternatives are being discussed and investigated. The hotspurs surely wouldn't be the first club to readjust and modify stadium plans due to financial reasons.
The best solution for all parties would probably be if Westham won the bid for the Olympic stadium and the Hotspurs would cut back their fancy stadium plans in order to build a cheaper, more basic, more spartanic and pure soccer stadium at the current location, instead of trying to errect a fancy Shoppingmall-palace with a pitch and some seats inside.

Of course it should be viable to build a new stadium in Tottenham.
But the proposed NWHL plans are indeed very fancy ones. Those are far more, far fancier and far more costly than just a basic soccer stadium with an appropriate size and capacity. I can very well immagine and understand that the current plans are to costly and therefore alternatives are being discussed and investigated. The hotspurs surely wouldn't be the first club to readjust and modify stadium plans due to financial reasons.
The best solution for all parties would probably be if Westham won the bid for the Olympic stadium and the Hotspurs would cut back their fancy stadium plans in order to build a cheaper, more basic, more spartanic and pure soccer stadium at the current location, instead of trying to errect a fancy Shoppingmall-palace with a pitch and some seats inside.

But the whole point is that, even if Spurs move to Stratford, they propose to knock down the existing Olympic stadium and then build almost exactly the same stadium as they had planned for White Hart Lane!

I don't want to go into detail on this thread about Spurs' proposed move to Stratford.

I'll just say that I believe that there are more important things than the pursuit of success. Building a new stadium in Tottenham might be more challenging than building it in Stratford. But it is still viable, despite the fact that Spurs are doing their damnedest to persuade us that it isn't. If Spurs sacrifice history, identity, integrity and community in exchange for instant gratification, then they will have ripped the soul out of the club.

And what is a club.....what is football without soul?

I respect that view Jim... I think its doable also..

But the whole point is that, even if Spurs move to Stratford, they propose to knock down the existing Olympic stadium and then build almost exactly the same stadium as they had planned for White Hart Lane!

Well, it's all just big business. :nuts:
We had a simmilar situation here in our small club Alemannia Aachen when it was decided to build a new stadium.
Club officials, well a big Sponsor who had a big say in the club, came up with plans to build the new Tivoli out of town by the freeway. He would have provided cheap land and would have made big money himnself by building a shopping center there and sharing parking space with the planned stadium. Here in Aachen it's just because us, the clubs fans and the clubs basis protested loudly and vividly against these original plans to move out of town, so they were indeed sucessfully stopped. But these things really only work successfully in the kind of clubs where fans still do have some reasonable influence on the clubs decision processes.
Its just a bit late in time for spurs fans to organize a sucessful protest against the Olympic stadium bid and against plans to move to Stratford or elsewhere, but maybe it's not to late yet.

I know. I really do support a 25,000 seat athletics venue over any of the other proposals, apart from that fact that 225m pound is disappearing into thin air i.e. everything except the first tier.

Secondly, the cost argument has obviously gone out the door with the 530m pound price tag.

Have we ever had a breakdown of exactly what that covers? I.E. is it just the stadium or the surounding area and the multiple bridges?

Either way it just goes to show you just how expensive construction in central London is these days, I'm guessing that Wembley built now would probabley crack the £1 billion mark for the total devolpment.

I'm guessing that Wembley built now would probabley crack the £1 billion mark for the total devolpment.

It already did crack one billion didn't it after all the missed deadlines and cost overruns?

1 bilion :-s

1 bilion :-s

WTF

But last-ditch negotiations to resolve the situation have succeeded. The FA has agreed to pay Multiplex an additional £70 million on top of the original agreed fixed price of £458m for erecting the totally revamped 90,000-seat stadium. That will push Wembley's eventual price tag to an incredible £827m, once the cost of acquiring the land, paying stamp duty and other costs have been included.

The article goes on to say this:

Although Multiplex will be glad to receive some extra cash for the project, it will simply mean that its total loss on Wembley drops from £183m to £148m. Its losses make the real total cost of the stadium £975m.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDoQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fuk%2F2006%2Foct%2F15%2Ffootball.wembleystadium&ei=T2RATZiFOI26hAe9sYXMCA&usg=AFQjCNGPctsYnDfhFuEsN_uVYdfQ7qCaNg

So if Tottenham win the bid and build their stadium at Stratford , they couldn't continue calling themselves Tottenham, could they?

So what can they call themselves? Stratford Hotspur sounds awkward.
How about Bow Hotspur? That's got a nice ring to it.

Or what about Stratspur (portmanteau combining Stratford and Spurs)?

I don't buy Seb Coe's argument that we would be ruining our great 'reputation' if we rebuilt it into a football stadium. What so called reputation do we have to protect anyway?
A football pitch with a running track will always be an awkward compromise.
I think that if West Ham win the bid they would end up getting rid of the athletics track after a few seasons playing there anyway.

So if Tottenham win the bid and build their stadium at Stratford , they couldn't continue calling themselves Tottenham, could they?

So what can they call themselves? Stratford Hotspur sounds awkward.
How about Bow Hotspur? That's got a nice ring to it.

Or what about Stratspur (portmanteau combining Stratford and Spurs)?

I don't buy Seb Coe's argument that we would be ruining our great 'reputation' if we rebuilt it into a football stadium. What so called reputation do we have to protect anyway?
A football pitch with a running track will always be an awkward compromise.
I think that if West Ham win the bid they would end up getting rid of the athletics track after a few seasons playing there anyway.
I dont think that's soo much a worry for now IF they win the bid... I cant imagine they would risk alienating the fans even more... Lets be honest, ManU are not in Manchester are they? and they dont call themselves Salford Utd... But i agree with most of your other comments, apart from the fact WHU wont be able to afford to convert the stadium at a later stage.. So it will be put up and shut up (not for the fans i expect tho)...

So if Tottenham win the bid and build their stadium at Stratford , they couldn't continue calling themselves Tottenham, could they?

So what can they call themselves? Stratford Hotspur sounds awkward.
How about Bow Hotspur? That's got a nice ring to it.

Or what about Stratspur (portmanteau combining Stratford and Spurs)?

I don't buy Seb Coe's argument that we would be ruining our great 'reputation' if we rebuilt it into a football stadium. What so called reputation do we have to protect anyway?
A football pitch with a running track will always be an awkward compromise.
I think that if West Ham win the bid they would end up getting rid of the athletics track after a few seasons playing there anyway.

I very much doubt that that will happen.

For one thing, if they did as you suggest, its highly likely that Spurs would sue both them and the OPLC - since, if West Ham win the bid, it will almost certainly be on the basis that they would be preserving the athletics legacy in the Olympic Park.

For another, I doubt that West Ham could afford it. Doing away with the athletics track and digging down to get the stands closer to the pitch will cost a pretty penny. And then they would have to fund a new stadium for UK Athletics elsewhere in London. Since they will already be up to their eyeballs in debt, I can't see where the money will come from.

I very much doubt that that will happen.

For one thing, if they did as you suggest, its highly likely that Spurs would sue both them and the OPLC - since, if West Ham win the bid, it will almost certainly be on the basis that they would be preserving the athletics legacy in the Olympic Park.

For another, I doubt that West Ham could afford it. Doing away with the athletics track and digging down to get the stands closer to the pitch will cost a pretty penny. And then they would have to fund a new stadium for UK Athletics elsewhere in London. Since they will already be up to their eyeballs in debt, I can't see where the money will come from.

If WHU win the right to call the Olympic Stadium their home, I honestly believe that after a few seasons the track will be replaced with a temporary one whenever it's needed for athletics. I'm not arguing whether this is right or wrong, but I just think it's something that could end up happening.

I agree that they won't lower the pitch to add extra seats, though. Why would they want to, especially considering that WHU's bid partners need the area that will be taken up by the running track anyway?

Here's an idea. They turn the main stadium into a football stadium (without a track) and stick some seats around the warm-up track. That way football fans don't have to put up with a track and athletes will be happy because there will still be athletics within the Olympic Park, if not actually in the Olympic Stadium itself. It's what they did in Manchester after the Commonwealth Games in 2002.

PS. Appologies to anyone who already came up with this suggestion.

PPS. Why wasn't the Olympic Stadium legacy decided before they started building it, or better still, before the London bid was even submitted to the IOC?

Here's an idea. They turn the main stadium into a football stadium (without a track) and stick some seats around the warm-up track. That way football fans don't have to put up with a track and athletes will be happy because there will still be athletics within the Olympic Park, if not actually in the Olympic Stadium itself. It's what they did in Manchester after the Commonwealth Games in 2002.

PS. Appologies to anyone who already came up with this suggestion.

PPS. Why wasn't the Olympic Stadium legacy decided before they started building it, or better still, before the London bid was even submitted to the IOC?

Depends what you mean by "stick some seats around". If you mean 25,000, as UK Athletics would want as a minimum for their flagship stadium, is there room to do so without rendering the park not much of a park at all? And wouldn't they then have to build another warm up track to make the stadium suitable for any top class athletics meeting?

As to not deciding upon the stadium's long term future years ago, it was decided! The stadium was to be scaled down to 25K and handed over to UK Athletics. But in came a new government, who are embarking upon a radical programme of cuts to public expenditure, and that led to a rethink. That rethink happened to coincide with football clubs expressing a serious interest in the stadium for the first time. First West Ham, after Sullivan and Gold took control, and subsequently Spurs. Prior to a year ago, neither had been interested.

If WHU win the right to call the Olympic Stadium their home, I honestly believe that after a few seasons the track will be replaced with a temporary one whenever it's needed for athletics. I'm not arguing whether this is right or wrong, but I just think it's something that could end up happening.

I agree that they won't lower the pitch to add extra seats, though. Why would they want to, especially considering that WHU's bid partners need the area that will be taken up by the running track anyway?

If West Ham tried to move the stands significantly closer to the pitch without digging down, the sight lines would be atrocious. The lower tier is already quite shallow. If it was was stretched horizontally to cover the yawning gap between stands and pitch, it would be ridiculously shallow, IMO.

Hey Arsenal should actually be Woolwich Arsenal, in the wilds of south-of-the-river

Credit to RobH for posting this in the UK section of the forum:

West Ham's proposal:

http://insidethegames.biz/images/stories/Olympic_Stadium_in_West_Ham_mode.jpg

Link (http://insidethegames.biz/summer-olympics/2012/11784-west-ham-unveil-images-of-olympic-stadium-post-london-2012)

I dont think that's soo much a worry for now IF they win the bid... I cant imagine they would risk alienating the fans even more... Lets be honest, ManU are not in Manchester are they? and they dont call themselves Salford Utd... But i agree with most of your other comments, apart from the fact WHU wont be able to afford to convert the stadium at a later stage.. So it will be put up and shut up (not for the fans i expect tho)...


I know where you're coming from but let's say Milwall moved 7 miles west. They would end up in (wild guessing here) the Lambeth area. They could not possibly continue calling themselves Milwall with their ground in Lambeth. Well they could but most people would find it too weird to accept.

It looks quite nice in WHU colours, is it tomorrow when the verdict will come out?

For one thing, if they did as you suggest, its highly likely that Spurs would sue both them and the OPLC - since, if West Ham win the bid, it will almost certainly be on the basis that they would be preserving the athletics legacy in the Olympic Park.

Would they even have grounds to sue? Like selling a house, I'm sure they can sell to whoever they choose, can't they?

Would they even have grounds to sue? Like selling a house, I'm sure they can sell to whoever they choose, can't they?

I'm no lawyer.

But if Spurs were refused the Olympic stadium on the basis that West Ham's bid better provided for the promised legacy of the 2012 Olympics and if West Ham then shat on that legacy a few years later by getting rid of the track and kicking out UK Athletics, then I would have thought that Spurs would have a very strong case indeed.

P.S. Just for info, this isn't a sale. It's a lease.

It looks quite nice in WHU colours, is it tomorrow when the verdict will come out?

No. The OPLC announcement has been delayed.

No new date as yet. But it would have to be reasonably soon because they have to decide on the preferred bidder early enough to give the Mayor and the government sufficient time to view the report and make a final decision - which is due before the end of March.

It would seem that West Ham have taken some artistic licence with their latest rendering of the Olympic Stadium in football mode. The pitch looks a lot closer to the stands in their artwork than it does in this expanded graphic of the stadium.

http://www.treehugger.com/stadium-detail.jpg

http://insidethegames.biz/images/stories/Olympic_Stadium_in_West_Ham_mode.jpg

Credit to RobH for posting this in the UK section of the forum:

I love how the dark clouds on the horizon look like a huge mountain range peeking through the white clouds!

Here's another view from official Olympic renderings. Not even close to what West Ham have in their fantasy version. Stands are much further from the field. Not that this view is perfect, either. People on track aren't to scale with people in lower level stands. But still, lotta space between playing field and front row seats.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49295000/jpg/_49295535_insidestadium_976450.jpg

Here's another view from official Olympic renderings. Not even close to what West Ham have in their fantasy version. Stands are much further from the field. Not that this view is perfect, either. People on track aren't to scale with people in lower level stands. But still, lotta space between playing field and front row seats.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49295000/jpg/_49295535_insidestadium_976450.jpg

This is a "stretched view" so things look further apart.

In reality this is not your view from your seat. This is the worst seat.

http://www.london2012.com/transform/1965137/m700x/stadium-close.jpg

I'm no lawyer.

But if Spurs were refused the Olympic stadium on the basis that West Ham's bid better provided for the promised legacy of the 2012 Olympics and if West Ham then shat on that legacy a few years later by getting rid of the track and kicking out UK Athletics, then I would have thought that Spurs would have a very strong case indeed.

P.S. Just for info, this isn't a sale. It's a lease.

Maybe, but they'd have to prove there was a legal obligation to give Spurs the lease, and I don't see that being the case. People are free to sell or rent to whoever they see fit. They aren't legally compelled to accept the best offer.

I love how the dark clouds on the horizon look like a huge mountain range peeking through the white clouds!


Look like a mountain range? Come now Jim dont you recognise the Chilterns when you see them! ;)

Thanks, Mo, for that excellent picture. Really does show that West Ham's computer image is not realistic in portraying the space between the field and the stands.

Of course, it's all a matter of opinion, but that view from your 'worst' seat might be more appealing than the view from many seats in the shallow lower bowl, where the flattish slope will have many heads in the way and make it difficult to have much perspective on game action away from the nearest sideline.

Reminds me of those big South American stadiums where the track and expanse of space help keep players safe from seething mobs of rabid fans, like at the Maracana or El Monumental. Maybe West Ham will try to use that in marketing their match-day atmosphere - keeping the ICF yobs at bay.

Still, won't look authentic without a moat. Or a few leash-straining Alsatians.

Look like a mountain range? Come now Jim dont you recognise the Chilterns when you see them! ;)

Ah! Of course. My bad. ;)

Maybe, but they'd have to prove there was a legal obligation to give Spurs the lease, and I don't see that being the case. People are free to sell or rent to whoever they see fit. They aren't legally compelled to accept the best offer.

But this isn't people, though. It's a government quango. And it isn't a house. It's a publicly owned asset. Different rules apply.

It's all hypothetical, though. If West Ham win the bid, they won't be able to afford to install retractable seating. Not for a long time, anyway.

But this isn't people, though. It's a government quango. And it isn't a house. It's a publicly owned asset. Different rules apply.

It's all hypothetical, though. If West Ham win the bid, they won't be able to afford to install retractable seating. Not for a long time, anyway.

The question will probably just be wether they demand a guarantee in the contracts or not.
If Westham wins the bid because they're planning to keep the athletic track, but have to sign no guarantees. Then, who knows... things might soon change due to whatever reasons and circumstances. And then they might decide to remove the track and if the owners agree then, who cares?
Who could sue anyone successfully, ust because of the change of circumstances. And should such be the case, that it was intended to remove the tracks all along and all just a cheap trick to win the bid, how likely would it be that anyone could prove the original intentions of westham or whoever were including a removal of the runningtracks all along? How likely would that be?

Things of that sort where promises aren't kept happen quite regularly, around the globe in bidding processes. There are plenty of examples elsewhere. But maybe they in fact really will keep the athletic track should they win, who knows?

nice

http://insidethegames.biz/images/stories/Olympic_Stadium_in_West_Ham_mode.jpg

Going from that it looks like WH arent actually going to rebuild any of the upper teir, just replace part of one side with directors boxs, put in bigger screens at the ends and extent the roof.

Its more than likely just dishoniest but there does seem to be room to potentially drop the pitch while keeping the track aswell. Right now it seems very much setup for athletics, you've got a large gap between the track and the stands for crowd control and lots of room for the longjump pits.

Compair that to say the Berlin stadium....

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3432/3356899271_6903e3ce9c.jpg

This is a "stretched view" so things look further apart.

In reality this is not your view from your seat. This is the worst seat.

http://www.london2012.com/transform/1965137/m700x/stadium-close.jpg
I think it looks beautiful and I rarely use this word to describe anything.

Also it reminds of the Maracanã.

Surely, just a sandal toss away from the golden beaches at Copacabana-sur-Thames.

Stadium might look marvelous - might - but football matches won't. If seat colour is anything to go by, certainly well on its way to becoming a white elephant.

@More or Less: They're not changing anything with the stands, other than removing 20,000 seats. Those 'boxes' you're referring to can be seen in the other, non-fantasy picture, just on the left side.

Apparently they can't drop the pitch lower. The water table is too high to dig down. If you look at the West Ham image, you'll see the channelled river running past on both sides of the stadium.

Fantasy Island?

Surely, just a sandal toss away from the golden beaches at Copacabana-sur-Thames.

Stadium might look marvelous - might - but football matches won't. If seat colour is anything to go by, certainly well on its way to becoming a white elephant.

@More or Less: They're not changing anything with the stands, other than removing 20,000 seats. Those 'boxes' you're referring to can be seen in the other, non-fantasy picture, just on the left side.

Apparently they can't drop the pitch lower. The water table is too high to dig down. If you look at the West Ham image, you'll see the channelled river running past on both sides of the stadium.

Fantasy Island?

Ive said this since ive been using SSC. Some of our resident experts dont agree tho...And if you look at other similar past flawed projects, the result has been as you suggest...

Ive said this since ive been using SSC. Some of our resident experts dont agree tho...And if you look at other similar past flawed projects, the result has been as you suggest...

...because technically its not going to be one. Either Spurs will replace it or Westham will use it with some alterations, a white elephant would be an 80K athletics stadium left unused outside a handful of events not a stadium which isnt ideal for football.

...because technically its not going to be one. Either Spurs will replace it or Westham will use it with some alterations, a white elephant would be an 80K athletics stadium left unused outside a handful of events not a stadium which isnt ideal for football.

Yes if Spurs get it, it wont exist! Because they will tear down the WE...So you are correct technically i suppose..
If WHU win it it will be... a huge stadium even with 60K, but only 25k filled and unloved still qualifies... Past examples prove so..

Either way, physically or from a legacy standpoint it will be tagged as one... Naive to believe otherwise.. Those who oppose this will find out soon enough..I hope you are all around on SSC to face the music when this proves so...

Too much stadiums in London... There is no case like in Italy when 2 clubs use 1 stadium, like Milan and Inter?

There aren't too many stadiums in London, there's exactly the number there ought to be.

Too much stadiums in London... There is no case like in Italy when 2 clubs use 1 stadium, like Milan and Inter?
I dont think London has a problem with that..
1 stadium, 1 team. Thats how it should be. Thats where Italy are ancient and have got it wrong.. And this is why most clubs will build there own grounds (without tracks) in the future... But most of Italy is 20+ years behind the times, compared to england stadiums concept..

Yes if Spurs get it, it wont exist! Because they will tear down the WE...So you are correct technically i suppose..
If WHU win it it will be... a huge stadium even with 60K, but only 25k filled and unloved still qualifies... Past examples prove so..

Either way, physically or from a legacy standpoint it will be tagged as one... Naive to believe otherwise.. Those who oppose this will find out soon enough..I hope you are all around on SSC to face the music when this proves so...

While a stadium with a track is obviously far from ideal I don't think you can take the example of the whats happened in italy as proof it will drive fans away, issues such as their failure to deal with hooliganism are also a factor there. Were also talking about a club that cannot realistically afford to build a new stadium aswell and has a massive potential fanbase to attact with potential cheap tickets.

You look back over previous olympic stadiums and theres hardly a great record of sustained use either is there? something like the Dela Alpi is far worse for me in that there was never any reason for the track to be their in the first place beyond trying to justify public spending.

West Ham have already reduced ticket prices at UP, how are they even thinking of filling 60k? They look likely to be playing in the Championship next season, and if they are letting kids in for a quid now then they will soon have to start paying fans to watch games.
What happens to athletics if Platini gets his way and we start the season in June? I know that it's an unpopular move but Spurs is the only viable solution.

While a stadium with a track is obviously far from ideal I don't think you can take the example of the whats happened in italy as proof it will drive fans away, issues such as their failure to deal with hooliganism are also a factor there. Were also talking about a club that cannot realistically afford to build a new stadium aswell and has a massive potential fanbase to attact with potential cheap tickets.

You look back over previous olympic stadiums and theres hardly a great record of sustained use either is there? something like the Dela Alpi is far worse for me in that there was never any reason for the track to be their in the first place beyond trying to justify public spending.
Ok yeh I give you some credit... Delli Alpi, was designed poorly for use (great architeture tho) but routinely it never achieved more than about 60% of its cap.. And the trend was downward.. This was many due to poor experience for fans.. Believe me, London is about the same size as Juve's old rental ground with similar distances etc. Whether it is 69K or 65K (depends on when it was measured) Juve with 35, 40, or 45K felt empty and was sometimes ghostly.. Price wasnt the big issue.. And many felt this was a WE too..
With 60k and 25, 30 or 35K attendance I dont see how WHU will be different. Even if they get the same fans (35k) and i doubt that after the novelty has worn off, they will have less revenue because of cheaper tickets and be paying Rent.. Its a bad business model..
I accept your point on hooligans tho. This is part of the problem. But its more culture vs just the stadiums problem..
WHU want to move from a nice flat to a unfurnished mansion, and cant afford it.. whatever they make up. And their financial forecasts will be the downfall..
Im all for fans and this sucks..And I dont want to see WHU ruined by this move..Thats why I support spurs bid (if either one of them must have it)..

All this talk of sightlines from the SHALLOW lower tier is nonsense as I am sure Athletics fans sitting there will be able to see the runners. At West Ham they could fit a running track down the east side as the stadium is now configured and the back of the west stand is so high it would probably be the same as the olympic stadium.

Ok yeh I give you some credit... Delli Alpi, was designed poorly for use (great architeture tho) but routinely it never achieved more than about 60% of its cap.. And the trend was downward.. This was many due to poor experience for fans.. Believe me, London is about the same size as Juve's old rental ground with similar distances etc. Whether it is 69K or 65K (depends on when it was measured) Juve with 35, 40, or 45K felt empty and was sometimes ghostly.. Price wasnt the big issue.. And many felt this was a WE too..
With 60k and 25, 30 or 35K attendance I dont see how WHU will be different. Even if they get the same fans (35k) and i doubt that after the novelty has worn off, they will have less revenue because of cheaper tickets and be paying Rent.. Its a bad business model..
I accept your point on hooligans tho. This is part of the problem. But its more culture vs just the stadiums problem..
WHU want to move from a nice flat to a unfurnished mansion, and cant afford it.. whatever they make up. And their financial forecasts will be the downfall..
Im all for fans and this sucks..And I dont want to see WHU ruined by this move..Thats why I support spurs bid (if either one of them must have it)..

As I said though while its not ideal I don't think Juve's expereince is nesserally a definitive statements on Westham. Italian attendances across the board have declined both at stadiums with and without tracks. In Juve's case I'd say it was also partly down to attenances getting a kick for a few season in the new ground then dropping back to there previous level before of course the match fixing troubles hit and weakened them further.

Theres also a signifcant difference in ticket prices. Attending a premiership game in London is very rarely going to be cheaper than £30, compaired to that a £10-15 ticket could well attact alot of interest even if the view isnt great.

As I said though while its not ideal I don't think Juve's expereince is nesserally a definitive statements on Westham. Italian attendances across the board have declined both at stadiums with and without tracks. In Juve's case I'd say it was also partly down to attenances getting a kick for a few season in the new ground then dropping back to there previous level before of course the match fixing troubles hit and weakened them further.

Theres also a signifcant difference in ticket prices. Attending a premiership game in London is very rarely going to be cheaper than £30, compaired to that a £10-15 ticket could well attact alot of interest even if the view isnt great.

I agree its not black and white (forgive the pun!) But its at least an indicator that should be listened to...
BTW there is hardly any good sized stadiums in seria a which dont have tracks (apart from Meazza). Juve never averaged higher than 45-47K before calciapoli, so even then was bad % of capacity..
With the ticket prices and attendances i think they will get, i just dont see it working out. But thats IMO, so i cannot argue to much. anyway :cheers:

All this talk of sightlines from the SHALLOW lower tier is nonsense as I am sure Athletics fans sitting there will be able to see the runners. At West Ham they could fit a running track down the east side as the stadium is now configured and the back of the west stand is so high it would probably be the same as the olympic stadium.

In North America, there were baseball parks built with very shallow slopes in their lower levels. NY's Shea Stadium, Philly's Veteran's Stadium, Montreal's Olympic Stadium. The view was terrible.

This was partly because they used movable stands to accomodate football or other sports and they had to move a lot of seats on rails to each side of the field to get the front rows as close as necessary to the sidelines.

But it was also due to not compensating the slope for the increase in the average person's height nowadays. We're a taller society than previous generations. It's easy to get many heads sticking up and blocking your view.

Those lower Olympic stadium stands look very shallow and even if they aren't quite as flat, they're still a long way back from the sidelines and the view they'll offer fans watching play halfway across the pitch or on the far side is not going to be enjoyable. Worse if you're trying to bob your head around a taller person in front.

I agree its not black and white (forgive the pun!) But its at least an indicator that should be listened to...
BTW there is hardly any good sized stadiums in seria a which dont have tracks (apart from Meazza). Juve never averaged higher than 45-47K before calciapoli, so even then was bad % of capacity..
With the ticket prices and attendances i think they will get, i just dont see it working out. But thats IMO, so i cannot argue to much. anyway :cheers:

Even the likes of Fiorentina are now drawing far fewer fans than they once did though.

Juve have always seemed to have a problem generating the kind of support you'd expect in Turin aswell with there fanbase seeming to be spread over the whole country instead. Very different with Westham who have a large potential fanbase in the east end who arent generally that well off and maybe attracted to games by a cheap ticket price at a stadium with good public transport links.

As I said there does seem to be room to drop the pitch level and bring the stands closer to me. Right now you've got a sizeble gap between the track and the stands which I can understand for the games were security will be a big issue but shouldnt be needed afterwards.

Those lower Olympic stadium stands look very shallow and even if they aren't quite as flat, they're still a long way back from the sidelines and the view they'll offer fans watching play halfway across the pitch or on the far side is not going to be enjoyable. Worse if you're trying to bob your head around a taller person in front.
But West Ham are not going to spend on retractable seating. Their money is going on the roof and hospitality boxes. Looking at the doctored image the pitch looks wider than usual going over the running track. West Ham have never been that successful with the very wide pitches. I am still waiting to see Spurs doctored images saying the spectators will be 205metres away. That is nearly two pitches long so they must be measuring a ball in the net at one end and a spectator at the back of the stand at the opposite end.

No idea who created it, but there's a small image showing the Olympic track area covering about 75% of the entire Upton Park structure over on the new White Hart Lane thread.

Which, as architecture threads go, really isn't much about stadium architecture anymore, more about some kind of socio-political self-counselling for upset Tottenham fans.

Borrrrrrrrriiinnnggg.

Even the likes of Fiorentina are now drawing far fewer fans than they once did though.

Juve have always seemed to have a problem generating the kind of support you'd expect in Turin aswell with there fanbase seeming to be spread over the whole country instead. Very different with Westham who have a large potential fanbase in the east end who arent generally that well off and maybe attracted to games by a cheap ticket price at a stadium with good public transport links.

As I said there does seem to be room to drop the pitch level and bring the stands closer to me. Right now you've got a sizeble gap between the track and the stands which I can understand for the games were security will be a big issue but shouldnt be needed afterwards.
Italian stadia in general are 3rd world frankly.. that's part of the reason.. Even San Siro (as majestic as it is from outside) is pretty poor and tatty inside and has been renovated many times..:ohno: Juve will literally be moving from a council flat to the only Luxury pent house suite in Italy...:okay:

No idea who created it, but there's a small image showing the Olympic track area covering about 75% of the entire Upton Park structure over on the new White Hart Lane thread.

Which, as architecture threads go, really isn't much about stadium architecture anymore, more about some kind of socio-political self-counselling for upset Tottenham fans.

Borrrrrrrrriiinnnggg.

Hardly surprising, given the unprecedented circumstances.

Besides, there haven't been any architectural developments on Spurs' new stadium since the final plans were revealed and discussed at length.

So it's only natural that we are currently discussing the one unanswered question - the future location of the stadium.

Back on subject then. How can West Ham rebuild and put in corporate areas and toilets? I have seen the picture of what they think the new roof will look like but not how they are going to tackle this. I can't see it being possible for 60k people managing to go outside and have a whizz and then get back to their seat in the 15 minutes given for half time. Also how much is this going to cost, they have given estimates of £100m. I would have thought that most of this would be used to reduce capacity and extend the roof.

Back on subject then. How can West Ham rebuild and put in corporate areas and toilets? I have seen the picture of what they think the new roof will look like but not how they are going to tackle this. I can't see it being possible for 60k people managing to go outside and have a whizz and then get back to their seat in the 15 minutes given for half time. Also how much is this going to cost, they have given estimates of £100m. I would have thought that most of this would be used to reduce capacity and extend the roof.

Looking at the image the boxes look like they are to be built to the rear of the lower tier taking out a number of seats (Part of the 20,000). Cannot make out if it is two tiers or one. They have at Upton Park two tiers of 36 boxes although some are combined into double and treble boxes most are used as hotel rooms. At one time with the south stand they had another 20 boxes but these were converted to a club area. The Olympic stadium has it's own vip hospitality areas which I am sure will be retained. The Queen has to sit somewhere. As there is very little circulating area under the upper tiers toilets outside is the best solution and there seems to be plenty of vomitaries from the seats. Also depending on events you can have more Gents or Ladies. At the Millenium stadium many ladies toilets are resigned as Gent's during football matches.
The real problem is the segregation and turnstlie arrangements not being too ugly. Upton Park uses electronic smart cards to gain entry

Hi Guys,

Taken just yesterday using a 12 rotor UAV drone - a 100megapixel 360 degree image of the London Construction Site!

London Olympic Site Virtual tour (http://toursfromabove.com/aerial-photography/uk/london/london-olympics-2012-under-construction/) on Tours From Above

BTW - click "share" Facebook Button and it will add the 360 to your Wall :)

Cheers

Bill

Looks to me as if a section of the upper teir will be removed on the side in which its already smaller to fit in a couple of rows of boxes.

I have to say though looking at that image I'm supprized the capacity will be down by 20K, the upper teir has what 55K seats right now and it doesnt look like its going to lose over a 3rd of that capacity to me.

Hi Guys,

Taken just yesterday using a 12 rotor UAV drone - a 100megapixel 360 degree image of the London Construction Site!

London Olympic Site Virtual tour (http://toursfromabove.com/aerial-photography/uk/london/london-olympics-2012-under-construction/) on Tours From Above

BTW - click "share" Facebook Button and it will add the 360 to your Wall :)

Cheers

Bill

Wonderful post Bill!

Hi Guys,

Taken just yesterday using a 12 rotor UAV drone - a 100megapixel 360 degree image of the London Construction Site!

London Olympic Site Virtual tour (http://toursfromabove.com/aerial-photography/uk/london/london-olympics-2012-under-construction/) on Tours From Above

BTW - click "share" Facebook Button and it will add the 360 to your Wall :)

Cheers

Bill

Fantastic shot! Thanks for that.

Particularly stunning when looking towards the stadium, with the City and Canary Wharf beyond it, both silhouetted by the low sun.

Sorry to call 'Emporer's New Clothes' on this, but you can't polish a pig. This is probably the ugliest Olympic stadium ever built.

Maybe that's why the the panorama camera is so far away from it and parked over puddles and a parking lot instead.

Honestly, there isn't anything really worthwhile about its design or build. It looks temporary and cheap and rinky-dink. It's a trouble-making eyesore.

I can't believe people want to keep this thing going after the Olympics end and play football and hold track meets in it. It just screams 'Lack of Ambition' on all counts.

''It looks temporary ''

Well at least they got that right then as it was the original selling point If I'm not mistaken.

The upper tier is a temporary structure. They were hoping to sell the steelwork to Chicago if they had won the 2016 games. It would be interested to know what the lifespan is. It may have to be rebuilt after 10 years. Incidently West Ham station is currently having it's temporary Olympic exit built alongside the eastbound tracks. That is supposed to come down after the games but I wonder if West Ham win the stadium will it be kept.

It just screams 'Lack of Ambition' on all counts.

Lack of ambition! Oh dear. London's attempt at showing future Olympic host cities how to build venues for future sustainable and affordable use without creating white elephants and paving the way in engineering temporary architectural elements on a scale never seen before is seen as 'lack of ambition'!

Well London never wins does it? Build a Birds Nest Mk2 and everyone would call it a waste of money, build an easy assembly/dismountable stadium and everyone still calls it a waste of money.

Sometimes I wonder if London should have bid at all the way some people can't seem to grasp why London won the Games in the first place.

Lack of ambition! Oh dear. London's attempt at showing future Olympic host cities how to build venues for future sustainable and affordable use without creating white elephants and paving the way in engineering temporary architectural elements on a scale never seen before is seen as 'lack of ambition'!

Well London never wins does it? Build a Birds Nest Mk2 and everyone would call it a waste of money, build an easy assembly/dismountable stadium and everyone still calls it a waste of money.

Sometimes I wonder if London should have bid at all the way some people can't seem to grasp why London won the Games in the first place.

2/3 rds temp structure and it costs over £500M! Thats not smart, its a waste of money... Grossly...IMO all they did was concentrate on the capacity, wanting a large 80,000 for a single event, without considering the long term options..Because at that stage the footie clubs wernt interested... Arnt these things supposed to be looked at in a feasibility study..? My guess is that they didnt do one! Gross misconduct is the phase commonly used..

If I'm not mistaken, there's a huge media uproar in full swing about taking it down. The BBC and many newspaper websites are full of stories saying people and politicians want this thing to remain and 'inspire' future generations of young athletes.

That's why I'm saying 'Lack of Ambition'. Why would you want to keep such an unworthy structure longer than necessary. Easy to mistake it for one of these industrial rigs that grace many a British urban landscape.(from the telegraph)

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01557/gas_1557193c.jpg

"I say, Giles, that Olympic stadium looks a right cracker. Could hit one for six into the high jump pit, wot?"

I totally agree about the value in building a temporary stadium for the Olympics, such a bloated and excessive thing nowadays. Maybe they can make a great movie or TV series about disposing of it, like good old Auf Wiedersehen Pet, funny yarn about selling and shipping an old steel Middlesboro harbour bridge to American natives to build another bridge to a casino.

The Stadium did not cost £500m, most of the cost came on buying relocating existing tenants and reclaiming contaminated land. Seperately much of the Stratford rail lands is now 10ft higher than 20 years ago and the trains are in cuttings when before they were on the surface. 10 years ago I went on a tour and I am sure the spoil from the channel tunnel between St Pancras and Ebbsfleet was used to raise the ground. As for the Stadium it is basic but it could be tarted up. The Birdsnest in China was only a facade over a steel frame. Maybe West Ham if they win will bring the two castles from Upton Park to stick on the front

Maybe they can make a great movie or TV series about disposing of it, like good old Auf Wiedersehen Pet, funny yarn about selling and shipping an old steel Middlesboro harbour bridge to American natives to build another bridge to a casino.

You mean the Teessdie transporter bridge. :horse:

http://www.bythephone.co.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Middlesbrough/1050_08_17---Transporter-Bridge--Middlesbrough_web.jpg

I don't understand Spurs' plan at all.

Why demolish the entire permanent structure and build another one in its place, when they could just go to a different site and do exactly the same, only without the costly demolition part? :dunno:

I don't understand Spurs' plan at all.

Why demolish the entire permanent structure and build another one in its place, when they could just go to a different site and do exactly the same, only without the costly demolition part? :dunno:

:ohno: Spurs want a pure football stadium and not one with a running track...hence the demolition. The OS site would offer Spurs a prime location with fantastic transport links and potential to attract future investment,sponsorship. This is something they claim they cannot get if they relocate elsewhere :wtf:

The new white hart lane thread in the 'proposed' section of this site goes into this issue in much more detail.

I don't understand Spurs' plan at all.

Why demolish the entire permanent structure and build another one in its place, when they could just go to a different site and do exactly the same, only without the costly demolition part? :dunno:

I understand Spurs' plan perfectly from the board's perspective. A much better connected site on the edge of a new park, and a partner on board in AEG who will put forward a great deal of the money needed. Arguments about history and territory aside (and I'm obviously not claiming they're unimportant), the attraction is obvious.

I don't understand it from the government's point of view if Spurs' bid wins however. The original plan to reduce this stadium to a 25k athletics stadium is now viewed as not viable anymore apparently. Spurs' plan will undoubtedly make a financial success of the Olympic site, but they will also create a new 25k athletics stadium in Crystal Palace. If Spurs' bid wins, I'd love to hear an explanation as to why a 25k athletics stadium in Crystal Palace Park is apparently more viable than one in the Olympic Park, as was the original plan.

Either a 25k athletics stadium in London is viable, or it isn't.

I understand Spurs' plan perfectly from the board's perspective. A much better connected site on the edge of a new park, and a partner on board in AEG who will put forward a great deal of the money needed. Arguments about history and territory aside (and I'm obviously not claiming they're unimportant), the attraction is obvious.

I don't understand it from the government's point of view if Spurs' bid wins however. The original plan to reduce this stadium to a 25k athletics stadium is now viewed as not viable anymore apparently. Spurs' plan will undoubtedly make a financial success of the Olympic site, but they will also create a new 25k athletics stadium in Crystal Palace. If Spurs' bid wins, I'd love to hear an explanation as to why a 25k athletics stadium in Crystal Palace Park is apparently more viable than one in the Olympic Park, as was the original plan.

Either a 25k athletics stadium in London is viable, or it isn't.
The 25'000 seater is regarded to be a waste of space. It is viable as long as these athletics stay away in a remote area which Crystal Palace is. In Stratford, however, it stands in the way of private investors, the deities of our time. The Olympic Stadium occupies a valuable piece of land which lures interest of several parties. And that's why it's not viable there.
If it weren't two football franchise bidding for there would be other businesses grabbing the opportunity. An athletic stadium in Britain stands no chance to exist on a prime piece of property. The Olympic Stadium was always destined to be demolished.

It's a shame they can't just build the 25,000 seat athletics stadium elsewhere on the site. There must be stuff that's not going to be used after 2012.

The Stadium did not cost £500m, most of the cost came on buying relocating existing tenants and reclaiming contaminated land.

Thats always been my guess, £500 million seems likely to be the cost of all the works that have taken place on the stadiums "island", ground prep, bridges, the surrounding fan access etc.

If you remember the same was true for Wembley, the figures we saw quoted where the total cost of all the devolpment not just the stadium. In the UK media your simpley not going to get away with hiding those costs as you can in certain other nations with shall we say a "less critical" press.

I don't understand Spurs' plan at all.

Why demolish the entire permanent structure and build another one in its place, when they could just go to a different site and do exactly the same, only without the costly demolition part? :dunno:

Good taste?:lol:

Whoever gets the stadium site gets a budget - 35 mil I think - to pay for dismantling the stands. It looks like Tottenham would use sections of this grandstand in rebuilding the Crystal Palace stadium.

Go to a different site? Where? This one looks excellent, already cleared, politically, to build a stadium on.

BTW, I agree that an athletics stadium really isn't a huge necessity. But CP already has a tired old stadium, with historic ties to the sport, in need of serious upgrading and a very nice training centre on site already. And this would seem to be a decent proposal letting the athletics people use it 24/7 for training, events, maybe add a dirigible mast to dock Seb Coe's inflated ego.

Some say theirs transport concerns to CP. I say the athletics mob will never tax the system anyway.(Although isn't it a future target for DLR expansion?)

It's a shame they can't just build the 25,000 seat athletics stadium elsewhere on the site. There must be stuff that's not going to be used after 2012.

That would be even more of a travesty! If there's room elsewhere in the park (and I agree there must be, given the number of temporary venues), why not build a brand new soccer-specific stadium there, and just dismantle the upper tier at the Olympic Stadium as originally envisaged?

Very frustrating that the interior webcam hasn't been working for the past 8 days. I'd like to see how they're getting on with the track.

Good taste?:lol:

Whoever gets the stadium site gets a budget - 35 mil I think - to pay for dismantling the stands. It looks like Tottenham would use sections of this grandstand in rebuilding the Crystal Palace stadium.

Go to a different site? Where? This one looks excellent, already cleared, politically, to build a stadium on.

BTW, I agree that an athletics stadium really isn't a huge necessity. But CP already has a tired old stadium, with historic ties to the sport, in need of serious upgrading and a very nice training centre on site already. And this would seem to be a decent proposal letting the athletics people use it 24/7 for training, events, maybe add a dirigible mast to dock Seb Coe's inflated ego.

Some say theirs transport concerns to CP. I say the athletics mob will never tax the system anyway.(Although isn't it a future target for DLR expansion?)

Yes you have convinced me, what with London Overground now running a direct service from Dalston to Crystal Palace. Spurs should move there.

The 25'000 seater is regarded to be a waste of space. It is viable as long as these athletics stay away in a remote area which Crystal Palace is. In Stratford, however, it stands in the way of private investors, the deities of our time. The Olympic Stadium occupies a valuable piece of land which lures interest of several parties.

I'm sure we could find something more profitbale to do with the land upon which the Aquatics Centre, Velodrome and Handball Arena sit too. Roll up, roll up, the Great Olympic Land Sale is on!

There must be a lot of churches, museums, art galleries and concert halls which are draining public money as well. Get here before March 1st, our sale won't last long!

There are a few choice sites very near the City which developers would love to get their mits on as well, I'm sure! Don't Miss Out, the Great Fire Sale of London is Now On!! ;)

You're probably right in your analysis that £££ has likely won out, but I tend to think with the Olympic Stadium that the initial £1m a year in subsidy could easily have been worth it if it became a national centre of excellence, opened up to the community, held events in the Park for its visitors, as well as obviously the athletics events it would host. £3m of that subsidy had already been offered by the London Marathon Charitable Trust; it wouldn't all be taxpayers money. And in a city of 8m, supporting a small modern athletics venue shouldn't be that much of a stretch ESPECIALLY after having just spent billions on an Olympics. It seems churlish to waste the Olympic legacy over a few million in that context. It's hardly egotistical of Coe and "the athletics mob" to want a small modern venue capable of hosting athletics events in a city the size and importance of London.

Over time the subsidy could even have been reduced as it attracted events as a successful small venue. But it's not even being given that chance to do so, which I think is a shame really.

David Bond, the BBC sports editor on why a football legacy wasn't considered:


The cost of shunning Premier League duo

One of the questions which keeps coming up in the debate over the future use of the Olympic Stadium is, why did organisers decide back in 2006 and early 2007 to rule out a design which could have accommodated Premier League football?

Instead of building the £500m stadium only to reduce it from 80,000 seats to a 25,000 capacity athletics arena, why didn't designers come up with a plan that would have kept big football and the track and field community happy?

If they had done so, the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) would have avoided the difficult dilemma it faces of choosing between two bids essentially from Premier League clubs.

As we know West Ham are prepared to retain the running track which is such an emotive and fundamental part of the promises made by London's winning bid team back in 2005.

But Tottenham want to knock the majority of the stadium down and rebuild it as a football only ground while relocating an athletics legacy to a spruced up Crystal Palace.

Today both bidders will send in clarifications to the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC), the body charged with the task of choosing between these two bids. A decision on a preferred bidder is likely by the end of next week.Had Premier League football been factored in from the start then the OPLC's choice might have been an easier one. As it is, the idea of designing a stadium with retractable seating which could have factored in athletics and football or one which could have been easily adapted like the City of Manchester Stadium was rejected very early on in the process and not long after London had won the bid.

It has already been reported elsewhere that earlier interest from West Ham back in December 2006 and January 2007 was rebuffed by the Olympic board because a strategic decision had been taken by the ODA and its designers to rule out a Premier League option.

Despite an offer from West Ham, outlined in two letters to the ODA in December 2006 and January 2007, to pay £100m towards the extra costs created by a redesign, the ODA ploughed on with the reduced capacity athletics option.

I have now received information which sheds new light on why this happened.

As far back as the July 2006 Olympic Board meeting, the decision was taken to go for the so-called "base case" with athletics. This was reiterated at another meeting of the Olympic Board in November 2006.

Why was the then Mayor of London Ken Livingstone and former Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell so detemined to ignore the possibility of a big Premier League team moving in after the Games?

According to one source I have spoken to, the Government commissioned a report by consultants KPMG to examine the legacy options for the stadium. This included KPMG testing the market for interest from a Premier League club.

There was interest from West Ham but by July 2006 the ODA received no formal tenders from any clubs.

But with the clock ticking down, the ODA felt under pressure to start the procurement process for the stadium. They were anxious not to have a repeat of the Wembley Stadium fiasco which came in late and over budget and with an immovable completion deadline of one year before the Games, the Mayor, the Government and the ODA didn't want to take any risks.

The ODA went ahead with the procurement process choosing Team McAlpine and designs for the 80,000 to 25,000 stadium were drawn up by architects.

What potentially changed the situation was the Icelandic takeover by Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson and Eggert Magnusson in the autumn of 2006. The former chairman of the ODA Sir Roy McNulty received a short letter from West Ham on 4 December which outlined their interest but set out a number of conditions. These included:

* Being granted the freehold for the stadium
* Becoming the sole operator
* A retractable seating design
* A 500-space car park

These were reiterated in a more formal offer letter from West Ham's financial director Nick Igoe on 17 January 2007.

But for a third time the Premier League football option was rejected by the Olympic Board at a meeting in February.

Ministers, the Mayor of London and the ODA decided that after six months work the designs were too far down the line to reverse them without jeopardising the timetable for the stadium's delivery.

The source adds that reconfiguring the stadium with retractable seating would have meant submitting a complete redesign which involved moving and reconfiguring stands, starting a new tender process (as a public asset the ODA couldn't just hand the stadium to one bidder without going out to market again) and submitting a new planning application.

That would have had an impact on costs which West Ham's £100m offer may not have covered and potentially caused serious delays.

There was also opposition from developers Westfield, building the new Stratford City shopping complex and the entrance to the Olympic Park. Negotiations with the ODA and landowners were at a delicate stage and they, at that stage, were against a Premier League club moving into the stadium. It is ironic that Westfield are now working with West Ham and Newham Council on their bid.

The other factor to consider is that the ODA had commissioned in September 2006 another group of consultants, PMP, to examine the legacy plans for the stadium and the rest of the park following the work done by KPMG.

They were hired to look at all the options for the stadium except, once again, a combination of Premier League football and athletics, rugby union and rugby league and lower league football were considered.

PMP looked at the finances of the stadium over a five year period following the Games and estimated what the different configurations might cost. Among their findings PMP concluded:

* That an athletics only stadium would need a public subsidy of approximately £1m a year.

* That a combination of athletics and lower league football would only need a subsidy of £1m to £1.5m over five years (£200,000 to £300,000 a year).

Since then estimates for the public subsidy have soared to £5m-£10m a year depending who you believe but at the time, the ODA argued that a £10m subsidy guaranteed by the London Mayor would more than cover the £1m annual cost of running the athletics only legacy.

The PMP report was completed by January 2007 - exactly the same time West Ham were making their offer.

Since then, of course, the OPLC has been brought in to re-think the legacy plans for the stadium and reach out to Premier League football.

And while few expect the OPLC to stick with the original plan chosen back in 2007, a look back at the reasons for that decision do pose another interesting question.

Would the public be prepared to pay for a stadium which shuns Premier League football again and sticks to the legacy promise to athletics made in Singapore six years ago?


Link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2011/02/the_cost_of_shunning_premier_l.html)

can't believe i didn't thing of this before :lol:
referring to the wrap. I know someone who works for Speedy Hire. He is basically in charge of supplying things like steel, materials and equipment for the stadium.
Anyway I asked him what was going on about the exterior wrap. He said that the most likely probability is tensioned cables around the exterior. However, he did say that there are ideas for there to be no wrap, but have holograms projected onto the exterior of the stadium.
He did say that there is no final decision on the exterior of the stadium and they are just ideas, so anything could happen

Twelve boroughs urge Olympic bosses to back West Ham's stadium bid

More than a third of London boroughs have written to Olympic legacy chiefs to urge them to choose West Ham as the new owners of the Olympic stadium. Twelve council bosses told the Olympic Park Legacy Company it would be "astonishing" to choose the rival bid from Tottenham Hotspur, who plan to tear out the running track.

The letter states: "This is a vital decision - one which must deliver lasting benefits for all Londoners, not just serve the interests of one football club. "Any decision which paved the way for a project which would see the stadium knocked down and then rebuilt would, in our view, be a gross misuse of public resources."

It also says the stadium proposal put forward by Newham council and West Ham offered a "major boost" to the continuing regeneration of London. "We urge the legacy company to put London first when it makes its recommendation on the future of the Olympic stadium," it adds.

The letter is signed by the leaders of Labour-controlled Barking and Dagenham, Brent, Camden, Ealing, Haringey, Hounslow, Islington, Lambeth, Lewisham, Merton, Newham and Southwark.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-olympics/article-23920034-twelve-boroughs-urge-olympic-bosses-to-back-west-hams-stadium-bid.do

Now that's funny. Islington and Haringey, home to rival clubs, now brothers in arms in keeping Spurs where they are. Would this qualify as self interest from opposite ends of the spectrum?

Now that Daniel Levy is making suggestions that Spurs would pursuit legal action if West Ham's bid wins, any idea how long they would be able to tie up the process for?

Quality article from the BBC. Chucks some dirt on the qualifications of Livingstone and Jowell. Makes their recent comments look self-righteious.

The 25'000 seater is regarded to be a waste of space. It is viable as long as these athletics stay away in a remote area which Crystal Palace is. In Stratford, however, it stands in the way of private investors, the deities of our time. The Olympic Stadium occupies a valuable piece of land which lures interest of several parties. And that's why it's not viable there.
If it weren't two football franchise bidding for there would be other businesses grabbing the opportunity. An athletic stadium in Britain stands no chance to exist on a prime piece of property. The Olympic Stadium was always destined to be demolished.

South London. How do they cope with nothing going for them but 3-odd million people, Twickenham, Wimbledon and three or four football clubs?

With Spurs bidding with AEG for Stratford, you have to wonder if London's leaders would crave a similar development around the stadium like AEG has created with LA Live, in the district around the Staples Centre.

It holds a mix of accessible media facilities, hotels, restaurants and clubs, plus other attractions like a museum to give the area an appeal that extends beyond match day. It's quite successful.

Would London have won the Olympics if it hadn't promised a dedicated 25,000 seater athletics stadium as part of its legacy?

Would London have won the Olympics if it hadn't promised a dedicated 25,000 seater athletics stadium as part of its legacy?

Yes, the 'racing track legacy' was not a key issue or the clincher in awarding London with the right to host the olympics.
Infact there is nothing in any legally binding agreement which implicitly states
that a racing track must be retained at the stadium.
If West Ham win the bid, they will do an Eastlands and convert the Olympic stadium anyway (if not by 2016 well then most probably before 2020).

Spurs moving into Stratford? Pathetic.
As someone noted before why demolish the entire olympic stadium and build another one in its place, when Spurs could relocate to Hackney Downs for example and do exactly the same, only without the costly demolition part?
Flashman claims that whoever gets the stadium site gets a budget to pay for dismantling the stands in the region of £30 million.
Who would grant that?
What a total waste of resources and money!

That would be even more of a travesty! If there's room elsewhere in the park (and I agree there must be, given the number of temporary venues), why not build a brand new soccer-specific stadium there, and just dismantle the upper tier at the Olympic Stadium as originally envisaged?

...because a purposefully designed 25,000 seat althetics stadium would actually be better than a stadium based on one with just one very shallow tier of seating.

Yes, the 'racing track legacy' was not a key issue or the clincher in awarding London with the right to host the olympics.
Infact there is nothing in any legally binding agreement which implicitly states
that a racing track must be retained at the stadium.


yes it was. The reason why London won the bid is because it promised a legacy of athletics to Britain and promised that the Olympic Stadium will become Britain's home to athletics after 2012

Legacy, shmegacy. C'mon, it was a pity shag(to use a more polite 4-letter term) for old Albion.

The IOC knew ages ago that FIFA would proper stiff England in World Cup bidding. They got in while the getting was good.

They'll always have Paris in...

London 2012 won its bid on July 6th 2005. England 2018 conceived its bid at the very end of 2007. The IOC are clearly clairvoyant according to your little theory. :D

And WooWoo is right. Whilst London 2012 was able to compete with a very strong Paris bid because it had a sound plan and the right people in place, it wouldn't have won without the athletics promises. This wasn't known at the time, but it has since become clear this is the case. London won by four votes (a swing of two would have changed the result), and at least two of them were given to London because of the athlietics stadium promise. That promise alone didn't make our bid competitive, there were many more factors involved, but without it Paris would have just beaten us to the finishing post. That is certain.

Sorry to go off-topic, but does anyone have any current pictures of the stadium? The webcam hasn't been working for weeks now.

South London. How do they cope with nothing going for them but 3-odd million people, Twickenham, Wimbledon and three or four football clubs?

Last time I checked, Twickenham was north of the river. Where's the boundary between North and South if not the Thames? :dunno:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/02/06/article-1354300-0C4B825A000005DC-846_634x421.jpg

Is this view comparative to what WH fans will have if they get the OS? The second tier looks a bit more steep in the OS design, but will it be that far off?

That promise alone didn't make our bid competitive, there were many more factors involved, but without it Paris would have just beaten us to the finishing post. That is certain.

@ RobH and WooWoo:

The IOC evaluation report stated that ''Paris has committed to providing an olympic legacy to the city, the region, French athletes and the community generally''.

So Paris were committed in providing a legacy just as much as London.

There were lots of factors involved in deciding as you said but the promise of 'legacy provision' did not clinch the award to stage the olympics as you claim to be so certain about.

@ RobH and WooWoo:

The IOC evaluation report stated that ''Paris has committed to providing an olympic legacy to the city, the region, French athletes and the community generally''.

So Paris were committed in providing a legacy just as much as London.

There were lots of factors involved in deciding as you said but the promise of 'legacy provision' did not clinch the award to stage the olympics as you claim to be so certain about.

Who isnt going to be committed to providing a legacey of some form? the strenght of that legacey is obviously a big issue and the Stade De France is well known as a very part time athletics venue at best.

It seems to be that the real potential losers in this process arent the games organisers but rather Westham. They werent willing to put in a reasonable offer at the right time and as a result are havign to deal with a design not as well suited to their needs. The ODC on the other hand still look like there going to get tennants one way or the other.

As I said though I have serious doubts that a truely multi purpose stadium could be devolped on that scale. If we were offering just another Stade De France for 1-2 events a year would we have had the edge in the bidding?

It seems to me that the real choice for British athletics when it comes to the Spurs and Westham bids is use of facilties and size. Spurs bid to redevolp crystal palace will give them a dedicated facility but a 25K capacity isnt really enough to bid for any future events(most obviously the world athletics championships), plus of course our rep potentially being damaged with world athletics would make that harder.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/02/06/article-1354300-0C4B825A000005DC-846_634x421.jpg

Is this view comparative to what WH fans will have if they get the OS? The second tier looks a bit more steep in the OS design, but will it be that far off?

If no changes are made to the stands/pitch then yeah that seems pretty close.

As with the London stadium there does seem to be room to improve the view to me though.

http://www.financenews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Olympic-stadium-1.jpg

Look at the grey area beyond the track, probabley there for security during the games but it seems that if you say get rid of 3/4 of that then you could drop the pitch a few feet providing better views and moving the fans closer.

What will happen to the Olympic Stadium?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12379814

@ RobH and WooWoo:

The IOC evaluation report stated that ''Paris has committed to providing an olympic legacy to the city, the region, French athletes and the community generally''.

So Paris were committed in providing a legacy just as much as London.

There were lots of factors involved in deciding as you said but the promise of 'legacy provision' did not clinch the award to stage the olympics as you claim to be so certain about.

At least two members are known to have switched their votes from Paris to London on the basis of the new athletics stadium in the Olympic Park. You do the maths. We'd have had a draw of 52-52 between London and Paris in the final round if those two had not been persauded to vote for London on the basis of the athletics facility in the Olympic Park. The deciding vote would then have gone to Rogge, who was believed to be a Paris supporter. I'm as certain as I can be that that particular legacy promise got London over the line before Paris.

At least two members are known to have switched their votes from Paris to London on the basis of the new athletics stadium in the Olympic Park. You do the maths. We'd have had a draw of 52-52 between London and Paris in the final round if those two had not been persauded to vote for London on the basis of the athletics facility in the Olympic Park. The deciding vote would then have gone to Rogge, who was believed to be a Paris supporter. I'm as certain as I can be that that particular legacy promise got London over the line before Paris.

Rogge didn't vote did he? He can vote as the president but it says he chooses not to, but i could be wrong

@ RobH and WooWoo:

The IOC evaluation report stated that ''Paris has committed to providing an olympic legacy to the city, the region, French athletes and the community generally''.

So Paris were committed in providing a legacy just as much as London.

There were lots of factors involved in deciding as you said but the promise of 'legacy provision' did not clinch the award to stage the olympics as you claim to be so certain about.

Seb Coe even stood up on stage and said he promises a legacy of sport in East London, and to make the Olympic stadium the new home of British athetics