LONDON - Olympic Stadium (79,999) [Archive] - Page 12

flashman

February 8th, 2011, 09:34 PM

From a purely aesthetic point of view it's shambolic. Whatever about the original WHL stadium's design in terms of the choice of cladding etc, it was at least suited to an urban enviroment. To pick it up and dump it in the Olympic park is lazy, cheap and completely unimaginative.
When you look at stadiums that fit their surroundings such as Estadio Omnilife, Greenpoint in Capetown, Amex in Falmer, Qwest in Seattle etc. it just further adds insult to injury

In Spurs case, maybe we should have been hoping to see sooty brick, broken glass, cigarette butts and gum-dotted asphalt?

With maybe a few dark, satanic gin mills where boisterous men can crowd in pre-game to drink warm, weak lager and become drunk and agitated.

Not the best rendering, to be sure. Perfect picture would have had people dressed in all-white, belted jumpsuits, like extras from Logan's Run.

flashman

February 8th, 2011, 09:41 PM

And here's an image generated from the West Ham Kray Supercomputer. Must be envisioning a derby with Millwall. There's a pitch invasion underway.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Football/Pix/pictures/2011/2/8/1297186024511/A-computer-generated-imag-007.jpg

RobH

February 8th, 2011, 09:43 PM

Hopefully it's this:

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/6201/olypicarena.jpg

I hope so too, that really is fantastic. And with the light from the stadium interior shining through to the outside it'll look great as the colours slowly change across the circumference.

It's well worth the 7m, it'll lift the stadium to another level altogether. :cheers:

Welshlad

February 8th, 2011, 11:26 PM

I reckon my mum could cut some strips of fabric and hang them round the stadium for less than 7million pounds.

Andre_idol

February 9th, 2011, 01:20 AM

^^Mine can help.

LOL to the West Ham roof :D

AlienB

February 9th, 2011, 05:06 AM

Spurs defend Olympic stadium plan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12395567

Melb_aviator

February 9th, 2011, 08:18 AM

Athletics is in a very difficult position, as it can not sustain 50K seat stadiums on its own, which it needs to host big events like World Champs or larger Continental events.

The key issue is that a track ruins the spectator experience for sports like football, given the distance to the pitch, and lack of atmosphere it generates, so its hard for other sports to share in athletics 'vision' for shared utilisation.

Athletics becomes the ultimate build and replace sport for any city, almost like a designer event, which cities are happy to bid for the big event, yet in the end all evidence is destroyed. In the end its all about economics, and whoever can make a venue sustainable in the longer term, without inconvenience.

Andy-i

February 9th, 2011, 01:05 PM

^^^^^^
Great post. Sums up the truth of the matter in a few paragraphs :)

oxo

February 9th, 2011, 04:07 PM

RobH and WooWoo:

No, the ‘legacy with track-retention’ promise did not clinch it for London to win the right to host the Olympics.

The word ‘legacy’ was being used in its broadest sense and was being flexibly defined both by the IOC and the bidding teams.
A ‘legacy’ could be used to mean the retention of a running track in a different venue to the one used for athletics in the actual Olympics themselves, but then again, not necessarily.

Athletics may prosper in Crystal Palace as a consequence of the impact of the Olympics, even though the Olympic athletic events will not be held at Crystal Palace itself. So in that sense, if an athletics stadium is built in Crystal Palace (or its present athletics stadium developed) a legacy is still being formed anyway.

If, as you claim, the track-retention legacy could only be interpreted to mean not getting rid of the running track used for the London Olympics, why were Tottenham invited to bid with the prospect of Spurs demolishing the Olympics stadium with its running track?

Me Too

February 9th, 2011, 05:36 PM

RobH and WooWoo:

Athletics may prosper in Crystal Palace as a consequence of the impact of the Olympics, even though the Olympic athletic events will not be held at Crystal Palace itself. So in that sense, if an athletics stadium is built in Crystal Palace (or its present athletics stadium developed) a legacy is still being formed anyway.

Crystal Palace does not have the transportation links that Stratford does. Plus, it wouldn't leave a community legacy in East London. It is also complicated by the fact that Crystal Palace FC wants to move there, without a track.

RobH

February 9th, 2011, 06:24 PM

RobH and WooWoo:

No, the ‘legacy with track-retention’ promise did not clinch it for London to win the right to host the Olympics.

Yes, it did. I've already explained why.

RobH and WooWoo:
The word ‘legacy’ was being used in its broadest sense and was being flexibly defined both by the IOC and the bidding teams.
A ‘legacy’ could be used to mean the retention of a running track in a different venue to the one used for athletics in the actual Olympics themselves, but then again, not necessarily.

Athletics may prosper in Crystal Palace as a consequence of the impact of the Olympics, even though the Olympic athletic events will not be held at Crystal Palace itself. So in that sense, if an athletics stadium is built in Crystal Palace (or its present athletics stadium developed) a legacy is still being formed anyway.

If, as you claim, the track-retention legacy could only be interpreted to mean not getting rid of the running track used for the London Olympics, why were Tottenham invited to bid with the prospect of Spurs demolishing the Olympics stadium with its running track?

Because the legacy has since been reinterpreted by those in the OPLC, by Boris, by politicians and of course by Tottenham Hotspur. Look at the head of the IAAF's recent angry words about the tearing up of the Stratford track to see how he (also a voting IOC member) interpreted London's bid promises during the vote in 2005. He was one of those who switched his vote - clinched it for London - and he certainly took London's athletics legacy to mean a track in Stratford.

The truth of the matter is, athletics may well be better served at a refurbished Crystal Palace than at West Ham's ground with only 20 days access per year, but the promise made was unequivocal, or was, at least taken to be so.

flashman

February 9th, 2011, 06:49 PM

Transport links to Crystal Palace should be perfect for the sort of crowds athletics draw. Isn't the area targeted for future DLR expansion?

REVUpminster

February 9th, 2011, 07:07 PM

Transport links to Crystal Palace should be perfect for the sort of crowds athletics draw. Isn't the area targeted for future DLR expansion?

No DLR but London Overground has arrived. Good for a football team like Crystal Palace.

Me Too

February 9th, 2011, 11:18 PM

OPLC have chosen West Ham. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12412739

AshVentini

February 9th, 2011, 11:36 PM

OPLC have chosen West Ham. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12412739

WH fans should pray that Spurs have good lawyers... Otherwise they can kiss their club goodbye.:ohno:

bigbossman

February 10th, 2011, 12:17 AM

^^ lol just a tad melodramatic, when was the last time an English club the size of West ham went to the wall???

flashman

February 10th, 2011, 09:32 AM

The way West Ham are 'compacting', Southampton five years ago.

And when you look at how Leeds and Nottingham Forrest have struggled to rebound from their financial woes and relegations, West Ham fans certainly have plenty to be concerned about.

AshVentini

February 10th, 2011, 10:37 AM

^^ lol just a tad melodramatic, when was the last time an English club the size of West ham went to the wall???

I dont think so. Their numbers dont add up.. It's not hard to see it... IF they sell more tickets (at cheaper prices) they will end up with similar ticket revenue. There is no way they will generate Big increases in ticket sales (with such a poor viewing experience). I predict attendances will drop.. Even with cheap tickets.. Certainly revenue will reduce IMO. Then there's leasing the stadium / Loans to repay (and is £40M enough to convert the ground??)
So where's the money needed going to come from for a small club like WH? As tenants, other events wont go to them..:ohno:

BhamJim

February 10th, 2011, 10:53 AM

I think West Ham is the best choice. The olympic stadium will now be multi-purpose top class arena for years to come and Spurs will still go ahead with development elsewhere. Palace will develop the old athletics stadium meaning London will have several top class facilities as a legacy in one way or another of the 2012 games, as was intended.

bigbossman

February 10th, 2011, 04:28 PM

I dont think so. Their numbers dont add up.. It's not hard to see it... IF they sell more tickets (at cheaper prices) they will end up with similar ticket revenue. There is no way they will generate Big increases in ticket sales (with such a poor viewing experience). I predict attendances will drop.. Even with cheap tickets.. Certainly revenue will reduce IMO. Then there's leasing the stadium / Loans to repay (and is £40M enough to convert the ground??)
So where's the money needed going to come from for a small club like WH? As tenants, other events wont go to them..:ohno:

Yes but it doesn't mean that West Ham fans won't have a club. If things go wrong the same thing will happen as always happens.

West12Rangers

February 10th, 2011, 04:30 PM

AshVentini

February 10th, 2011, 06:34 PM

[QUOTE=AshVentini;72357759]I dont think so. Their numbers dont add up.. It's not hard to see it... IF they sell more tickets (at cheaper prices) they will end up with similar ticket revenue.

but they will make increased revenue from more sales of beer/hot dogs/burgers/programmes and sales in the club shop.Dont forget those people who are lured by cheap tickets could possibly say,bring a friend or family member the next time they go.Word of mouth is one of the best ways football clubs attract new fans

Word of mouth that the viewing experience and atmosphere is awful... hmmm. Cheap tickets doesnt influence fan base (fans buy merchandise like shirts etc), but it may sell a few more tickets. But i hardly think that selling £4 hot dogs is going to turn the club profitable... Lets think about deloitess money league, TV rights, commercial, match revenue & hot dog sales!..:lol: Maybe they will sell West Hamburgers for £20 a pop, thats the secret..:lol:

REVUpminster

February 10th, 2011, 07:28 PM

Everybody is complaing about the viewing experience but has anybody been to Upton Park. The West Stand is the biggest in London and you need Sherpa Tensing and oxygen to get to the highest seats. The East side has space already for an 8 lane running track since the pitch was moved over but you can now see the corner flags. Spectators in the NorthEast and Southeast corners have to stand to see across the pitch. The proposed redevelopment of the East stand would have rectified most of these fault but only increased capacity by 5000 for a huge cost.

West12Rangers

February 10th, 2011, 08:02 PM

[QUOTE=West12Rangers;72375489]

Word of mouth that the viewing experience and atmosphere is awful... hmmm. Cheap tickets doesnt influence fan base (fans buy merchandise like shirts etc), but it may sell a few more tickets. But i hardly think that selling £4 hot dogs is going to turn the club profitable... Lets think about deloitess money league, TV rights, commercial, match revenue & hot dog sales!..:lol: Maybe they will sell West Hamburgers for £20 a pop, thats the secret..:lol:

you claimed that cheaper tickets/increase in gates wouldn't mean increase in revenue.My point was that a club can see in increase in revenue despite lowering ticket prices if gates increase due to other factors ie food and drink sales.I didnt say that it would turn the club profitable.I was simply stating that your equation of lower ticket prices/higher attendances is no better than higher prices and lower attendances is not always the case.
your assuming that overall the experience is going to be negative too..not everbody thinks the same as you,not everybody goes to football for the same reason.

flashman

February 10th, 2011, 09:55 PM

They won't be selling many season tickets here. They'll become totally reliant on walk-up crowds on game day. Hand to mouth existence, no ability to buy quality players because they'll have no money in early from subscribers early payments.

Cheap seats also means more troublesome fans. Maybe not out and out hooligans like the 70-80s troubles, but scruffy, inebriated idiots that can ruin a match just by being their own miserable selves.

They're doomed. Probably use the acquisition of the ground to negotiate a payout from Spurs to let them take over and use that money to pay debts and upgrade Upton.

AshVentini

February 10th, 2011, 10:24 PM

AshVentini

February 10th, 2011, 10:46 PM

[QUOTE=AshVentini;72383223]

you claimed that cheaper tickets/increase in gates wouldn't mean increase in revenue.My point was that a club can see in increase in revenue despite lowering ticket prices if gates increase due to other factors ie food and drink sales.I didnt say that it would turn the club profitable.I was simply stating that your equation of lower ticket prices/higher attendances is no better than higher prices and lower attendances is not always the case.
your assuming that overall the experience is going to be negative too..not everbody thinks the same as you,not everybody goes to football for the same reason.

OK i hear you...I just dont think that people will want to watch a game in a poor viewing spectacle unless they are FANS of the club or football.. I dont think the price will make too much difference IMO. I believe that the hardcore fans will still go, moan about the view, but grin and bear it (like Juve fans did).. But the average guy will probably not bother. A club such as big as my team even struggled with this set up and attendances declined...And the way WH are doing, does not bode well... Lets just say for argument purpose that revenue will stay the same from game days for now... They stiil have to repay £40M loan from council. Even at favourable rate (not published) they will still need to repay between £9M - £11M back per year (with compounded APR) for a 5 year period.. Then they have to pay lease payments for the stadium = 3 or 4M a year (guessing) and maybe no EPL football also (that may loose them 5M a year). So they might be looking at a deficit of nearly £20M. Thats all before the current loss making scenario.. If they move in (regardless of EPL status) they will choke, default on payments and have to sell players to offset the financial load. This will result in poor football / zero good players + lower attendances and turn the stadium into a mamouth ghost town and the club in admin... Stay around on SSC in 2 - 3 years and see if im right..:cheers:

Richo83

February 11th, 2011, 06:44 AM

Everybody is complaing about the viewing experience but has anybody been to Upton Park. The West Stand is the biggest in London and you need Sherpa Tensing and oxygen to get to the highest seats.

The west end is similar to many stands in England. Compare it to say St James or the stadium of light it's not too bad.

The East side has space already for an 8 lane running track since the pitch was moved over but you can now see the corner flags.

Maybe but it's still closer to the action and rectangular seating works best for rectangular sports.

Spectators in the NorthEast and Southeast corners have to stand to see across the pitch.

I don't think that's much different to most English grounds and most grounds in general, so much that football has a standing end culture. I mean if you were in the kop especially up the top decks you'd probably need to stand as well.

flashman

February 11th, 2011, 08:58 AM

AshVentini

February 11th, 2011, 09:41 AM

I was in Upton Park in the late 80s. A little dowdy in parts, but a great place to watch a game, wonderful fans. This will be such a harsh change.

West Ham's media pals at The Daily Melee have declared that the club is on the verge of reaping a 150 million pound windfall through auctioning off stadium naming rights. No length of term named.

Have to be some length to make that money. All the while it's been erected and on through its opening and use during the games, it will be publicly referred to as the Olympic Stadium.

A lot of companies are wise now to the peril of trying to rename a well-known stadium or site with a corporate title. People get used to the first name and keep referring to it that way.

If Britain win some big medals, it will be a tough job to erase the stadium name, commercially re-brand it and expect it to fall into everyday language.
Agree.. I didnt hear that, but surely any naming rights would go to the owners of the ground, not any lease tenants? WH wont own this, so why would the government just hand over a boat load of revenue for the rights? I think this would cause up-roar (given the money already spent by public). sounds like a 20 yr time period.. if this is true.. But as i said, naming revenue usually offsets the building construction costs, so I cant see why WH would gain much of anything..

MoreOrLess

February 11th, 2011, 11:10 AM

I was in Upton Park in the late 80s. A little dowdy in parts, but a great place to watch a game, wonderful fans. This will be such a harsh change.

West Ham's media pals at The Daily Melee have declared that the club is on the verge of reaping a 150 million pound windfall through auctioning off stadium naming rights. No length of term named.

Have to be some length to make that money. All the while it's been erected and on through its opening and use during the games, it will be publicly referred to as the Olympic Stadium.

A lot of companies are wise now to the peril of trying to rename a well-known stadium or site with a corporate title. People get used to the first name and keep referring to it that way.

If Britain win some big medals, it will be a tough job to erase the stadium name, commercially re-brand it and expect it to fall into everyday language.

I doubt "the Olympic Stadium" will stick as a commonly used name, no history and hardly very specific.

Indeed I'd say that the Olympic connection may actually increase the amount they can get since the sponsor is also getting there name associated with it aswell as the football club, thats not something thats ever happened before.

spud

February 11th, 2011, 01:26 PM

whats important here is that we have a athletics stadium thats large enough to meet the the sizeable ticket demands for any future diamond league,european athletics,world athletics and commonwealth games...

carlspannoosh

February 11th, 2011, 02:10 PM

AshVentini

February 11th, 2011, 02:18 PM

as i was once described on this thread as "not the sharpest tool in the box", It's ironic that what I have been saying for nearly 2 months on this thread, is now almost exactly being said by Lord Sugar.. I dont think anyone would suggest he is a blunt tool! I wonder if Karen Brady will be assisting him on the apprentice again..:lol::lol: As he said, it's flawed, its been proven worldwide time and time again mixing football and athletics doesnt work and that it will become a white elephant. Come back and open the files in 4 years and we will say I told u so!
SSC users that dont agree, hang around on here so i can remind you so too.!:)
End of!

AshVentini

February 11th, 2011, 02:21 PM

The athletics track is a terrible compromise but keeping it has won West Ham the bid I think. Hopefully West Ham fans will enjoy the atmosphere.
http://www.wikistadiums.org/images/stadia/stadio-san-nicola-bari-239.jpg

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

http://Juventini, avete distrutto uno stadio, avete distrutto due campionati, vi prego non distruggete pure la vostra "arena". Ciao

RobH

February 11th, 2011, 02:35 PM

I wonder if Karen Brady will be assisting him on the apprentice again..:lol::lol: !

Haha, interesting point, and arguably the most important question in all of this! :lol:

Curva Nord

February 11th, 2011, 02:39 PM

Today I listen on italian TV that West Ham will play in this stadium after Olympic Games. Is it true?
Will they leave the beautiful Upton Park to play in this horrible athletic stadium? :ohno:

AshVentini

February 11th, 2011, 03:16 PM

Haha, interesting point, and arguably the most important question in all of this! :lol:

:lol::lol: yeh I know. I enjoyed your comment.:righton:

AshVentini

February 11th, 2011, 03:17 PM

Today I listen on italian TV that West Ham will play in this stadium after Olympic Games. Is it true?
Will they leave the beautiful Upton Park to play in this horrible athletic stadium? :ohno:

Yes. They play in a new Delle Alpi! :ohno:

Curva Nord

February 11th, 2011, 03:26 PM

Yes. They play in a new Delle Alpi! :ohno:
All teams like Galatasaray, Juve, Espanyol, ecc. go in opposite direction, from athletic stadia to football stadia :bash:

West Ham is also my favourite team in Premier League, also for historical Boleyn Ground...and the new of today makes me very sad. :ohno:

MoreOrLess

February 11th, 2011, 03:33 PM

The athletics track is a terrible compromise but keeping it has won West Ham the bid I think. Hopefully West Ham fans will enjoy the atmosphere.

Partly although I think the real clincher was sucessfully making it public that Spurs were planning to demolishing the stadium.

The actual economics really don't come into peoples minds in that situation, knocking down a brand new stadium is going to be viewed as a massive waste of money reguardless of which option was actually better, the media would have ruthlessly hounded everyone involved about it.

If the process has carried on more behind clsoed doors and Spurs plan had just been labeled a "redevolpment" they'd have had a much better shot.

AshVentini

February 11th, 2011, 03:39 PM

All teams like Galatasaray, Juve, Espanyol, ecc. go in opposite direction, from athletic stadia to football stadia :bash:

West Ham is also my favourite team in Premier League, also for historical Boleyn Ground...and the new of today makes me very sad. :ohno:

Curva, agree and say so all along. They play in a new version of the "Old delle alpi" in case you mis-read my comment..
I said all along the club board betray their fans. None of them want this move.:ohno:

RobH

February 11th, 2011, 03:48 PM

carlspannoosh

February 11th, 2011, 03:58 PM

Partly although I think the real clincher was sucessfully making it public that Spurs were planning to demolishing the stadium.

I agree but I don't think Spurs had much choice in admitting that they would have to start from scratch once they had made it clear that keeping the track was not acceptable.

Skyrobot

February 11th, 2011, 04:02 PM

I'm no Spurs fan, but I think watching football with a running track around it is anti-football. It takes away the Englishness of watching the BPL. Boo to the people who thinks it is a good move. Spurs' Crystal Palace proposal is way, way better.
What if West Ham gets relegated? Npower football in the ex-Olympic Stadium?

AshVentini

February 11th, 2011, 04:26 PM

Actually, more than half of them want this move according to polls of West Ham fans I've seen around the internet (I've kept an eye on their forums, and there is significant support for this). A significant proportion don't like the idea also, I'm not going to pretend otherwise, but to say "none of them want this move" is very wide of the mark.

Depends where you take the data from, what u read, where u listen to news..The bigger and sad issue is that the fans are screwed IMO. But being a spurs fans it's a good result for you..

RMB2007

February 11th, 2011, 04:46 PM

"Roll up, roll up, get your binoculars here!" Yep, I can already hear the chant of someone selling this necessary item when you go to watch a football match at an athletics stadium. ;)

oxo

February 11th, 2011, 05:42 PM

RobH: If a promise was made that a track would be retained at the Olympic stadium and this clinched it for London to host the games (which I still question) then Spurs were being used as a stalking horse in their bid to relocate to Stratford. The Olympic Park Legacy Company deny that Spurs were being used as a stalking horse in the bid.

Either way, I think Daniel Levy merely served as a useful idiot for the The Olympic Park Legacy Company.

WooWoo

February 11th, 2011, 06:12 PM

RobH: If a promise was made that a track would be retained at the Olympic stadium and this clinched it for London to host the games (which I still question) then Spurs were being used as a stalking horse in their bid to relocate to Stratford.

It wasnt just the althletic legacy that clinched it for London, that was a part of it, but it was that our legacy meant the regeneration of east London, better quality of lives for the future and affordable housing after the games (among other things,) which was better than what Moscow New York and Paris provided.

Great news on the Stadium though, the right team was chosen in the end IMO :)

RobH

February 11th, 2011, 06:46 PM

RobH: If a promise was made that a track would be retained at the Olympic stadium and this clinched it for London to host the games (which I still question) then Spurs were being used as a stalking horse in their bid to relocate to Stratford.

That is indeed a possible explanation, but it's not the only one.

Another possibility, of course, is that the OPLC were very much willing to go back on the promise made to the IOC (hence shortlisting Spurs' bid), but decided not to in the end.

The former explanation would be unfair on Spurs, the latter wouldn't I and sincerely hope - for fairness' sake - Spurs' bid was seriously considered after it was shortlisted. I have no evidence to suggest it wasn't. I don't know whether Spurs have any such evidence, but I suspect even if they do they'd find it hard to prove anything in a judicial review.

As far as I'm concerned, unless I see proof to the contrary, Spurs lost in a fair process. The only problem I have with it was yesterday's leak.

metros11

February 11th, 2011, 07:00 PM

AshVentini

February 11th, 2011, 07:08 PM

Bari?

yes.

carlspannoosh

February 11th, 2011, 07:09 PM

Yes that half empty 60k athletics stadium is home to Bari apparently..

AshVentini

February 11th, 2011, 07:14 PM

another similar
http://www.yotufutbol.com/contenido/estadios/italia/delle%20alpi/delle%20alpi2.jpg

Me Too

February 11th, 2011, 07:15 PM

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Football/Pix/pictures/2011/2/8/1297186024511/A-computer-generated-imag-007.jpg

Judging by the positioning of the screen and scoreboard, they may be planning to move the pitch to the near end of the stadium and put a semi-temporary stand behind the far goal and beneath the screen. The L.A. Coliseum uses a similar configuration for U.S.C. games: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008-0913-USCOSU-Pan01.JPG

They would need to cover the track in the near side with grass that can be removed, but that technology exists. They use a moveable field at The University of Phoenix Stadium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Phoenix_Stadium

We'll have to see when the detailed plans are released next week.

AshVentini

February 11th, 2011, 07:20 PM

Judging by the positioning of the screen and scoreboard, they may be planning to move the pitch to the near end of the stadium and put a semi-temporary stand behind the far goal and beneath the screen. The L.A. Coliseum uses a similar configuration for U.S.C. games: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008-0913-USCOSU-Pan01.JPG

They would need to cover the track in the near side with grass that can be removed, but that technology exists. They use a moveable field at The University of Phoenix Stadium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Phoenix_Stadium

We'll have to see when the detailed plans are released next week.
Dreaming to think that a Phoenix type system would be affordable or work or even the external room to move a field outside etc..:lol: WH fans are gonna have to suck it up!

flashman

February 12th, 2011, 09:08 AM

REVUpminster

February 12th, 2011, 12:03 PM

Looking on the bright side; If West Ham get relegated and have to face their bitter rivals from Millwall, then crossing that huge, wide track area would surely leave any hooligans trying to invade the pitch too tired to make much trouble.

Shss!!! This is the secret plan to have the stadium remodelled by the supporters. Gold and Sullivan are already buying life jackets to ring the stadium island as the fighting supporters float down the river Lea to the Thames. I suggest as a test event this year to have a pre season match between Spurs and West Ham.

NORIND

February 12th, 2011, 02:36 PM

i am from Cali Colombia here are also reshaping our stadium and athletics track will install a similar to that of his new London stadium will be possible to help me get the data sheets for these types of tracks and the brand and the company factory

if you please send me the information to a PRIVATE MESSAGE

ALGUNAS FOTOS DE NUESTRO ESTADIO

Remodelación Estadio Pascual Guerrero

CFotxxrhGCA

Night view

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/92/pascual1.jpg

South view

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5813/pascual2.jpg

VIP area

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/4840/pascual3.jpg

VIP box

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/1194/pascual4.jpg

VIP restaurant

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/7339/pascual5.jpg

Air view

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/2231/pascual6.jpg[/QUOTE]

madjackmcmad

February 12th, 2011, 02:45 PM

I'm behind the West Ham bid simply because the UK made a promise of an athletics legacy for the stadium.

I thought it was interesting that Karen Brady said yesterday that it seems people are forgetting that West Ham will restructure the stadium somewhat so that the the crowd at the farthest point from the pitch will still be 10m closer than the same section at Wembley.

West12Rangers

February 12th, 2011, 03:42 PM

[QUOTE=madjackmcmad;72495755]I'm behind the West Ham bid simply because the UK made a promise of an athletics legacy for the stadium.

I thought it was interesting that Karen Brady said yesterday that it seems people are forgetting that West Ham will restructure the stadium somewhat so that the the crowd at the farthest point from the pitch will still be 10m closer than the same section at Wembley.[/QUOT

i agree with you,i'm behind the West Ham bid too,but i think Karen Brady is being a bit sly there.What she doesnt mention is the nearest seats
at Wembley are considerably nearer to the pitch then those at the Olympic Stadium

RobH

February 12th, 2011, 05:34 PM

Suggestion in today's Independent that West Ham are looking into retractable seating solutions.

Brady said the club were considering "a number of different innovations". She said: "It is possible to put retractable seats on the running track. Our designers' job is to maximise the experience for all the supporters. It is not as much money as you think. It would be in the region of 10 per cent of the overall costs [£9.5m]."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/spurs-warned-off-seeking-stadium-review-2212417.html

flashman

February 13th, 2011, 06:43 AM

REVUpminster

February 13th, 2011, 08:58 AM

Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.

West Ham are hilarious.

Do they have retractable ambitions?

Because once they get relegated all bets are off. And if you think they won't get relegated, take a few days off popping mushrooms and look at their schedule the rest of the way. Fewest remaining games, league-worst goal differential, five games against top six clubs, eight of 11 against top ten. Totally eff yew see kay-ed.

Luckliy Spurs is one of those games. Your flawed mathematics throughout these posts, I hope your not Harry's lawyer for his July court appearance for tax evasion or that well known ticket tout Stan Flashman.

jdjones

February 13th, 2011, 11:15 AM

Judging by the positioning of the screen and scoreboard, they may be planning to move the pitch to the near end of the stadium and put a semi-temporary stand behind the far goal and beneath the screen. The L.A. Coliseum uses a similar configuration for U.S.C. games: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008-0913-USCOSU-Pan01.JPG

They would need to cover the track in the near side with grass that can be removed, but that technology exists. They use a moveable field at The University of Phoenix Stadium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Phoenix_Stadium

We'll have to see when the detailed plans are released next week.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Football/Pix/pictures/2011/2/8/1297186024511/A-computer-generated-imag-007.jpg
you do realise that that image is of the stadium in 'concert mode' and that big screen you see is the stage. This is the 'football mode' picture and shows the screens are staying where they are:
http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/files/morethanthegames/westhamolympicstadium.JPG

RobH

February 13th, 2011, 11:22 AM

Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.

West Ham are hilarious.

Do they have retractable ambitions?

Because once they get relegated all bets are off.

Wishful thinking. Do you honestly believe the OPLC didn't investigate their finances in the event of (very probable) relegation? Of course they did, and they were obviously convinced the finances were sound, even under those circumstances.

Point is, I know you wanted Spurs to get the stadium, but it ain't going to happen. All your wishful thinking in the other thread about West Ham getting a pay-off from Spurs in return for the stadium site is also complete nonsense.

This is all over, bar the shouting. Whether it'll work out long term for West Ham and UK Athletics is of course a different question but we're certainly not going to get into the scenario where West Ham are relegated and the OPLC says "oh shit, didn't see that one coming!" :lol:

AshVentini

February 13th, 2011, 11:44 AM

Wishful thinking. Do you honestly believe the OPLC didn't investigate their finances in the event of (very probable) relegation? Of course they did, and they were obviously convinced the finances were sound, even under those circumstances.

Point is, I know you wanted Spurs to get the stadium, but it ain't going to happen. All your wishful thinking in the other thread about West Ham getting a pay-off from Spurs in return for the stadium site is also complete nonsense.

This is all over, bar the shouting. Whether it'll work out long term for West Ham and UK Athletics is of course a different question but we're certainly not going to get into the scenario where West Ham are relegated and the OPLC says "oh shit, didn't see that one coming!" :lol:
Rob, I think your spot on about this picture. It's been considered. No doubt.
What the key risk for the future is the forecast for attendances. Even with lower prices, I dont think they will see similar numbers as they do today.. IMO and the offset of "hot dog sales" as someone was suggesting wont matter. And when WH are relegated, this will impact the fans attendance before the new stadium effect kicks in... It all depends on how optimistic their revenue is based on future attendances. I'm sure they would have been very optimistic, they would have to be to make it attractive, but I doubt they really understand the impact of fans turning up.. Thats what they have to work on.. Its the number 1 priority now.. I reckon that if 40 - 50% of the fans are saying they wont go in the future, then about half of that will (for a short while). My forecast is that they will get about 70-80% of current fans to start with, and it will drop to 60-70% (28K - 30K) after novelty has worn off. The whole cheap ticket thing is a flawed strategy (but the only one WH could have taken to secure)..

GideaParkHammer

February 13th, 2011, 12:33 PM

Rob, I think your spot on about this picture. It's been considered. No doubt.
What the key risk for the future is the forecast for attendances. Even with lower prices, I dont think they will see similar numbers as they do today.. IMO and the offset of "hot dog sales" as someone was suggesting wont matter. And when WH are relegated, this will impact the fans attendance before the new stadium effect kicks in... It all depends on how optimistic their revenue is based on future attendances. I'm sure they would have been very optimistic, they would have to be to make it attractive, but I doubt they really understand the impact of fans turning up.. Thats what they have to work on.. Its the number 1 priority now.. I reckon that if 40 - 50% of the fans are saying they wont go in the future, then about half of that will (for a short while). My forecast is that they will get about 70-80% of current fans to start with, and it will drop to 60-70% (28K - 30K) after novelty has worn off. The whole cheap ticket thing is a flawed strategy (but the only one WH could have taken to secure)..

I have been pretty much anti the move on a West Ham forum, but I am optimistic about the attendances at the OS. Of course I do not expect to sell out 60,000 every game.

I know people refer to the fact that we have had to discount tickets this season to get close to selling out the Boleyn, and I will not even use our league position to defend it. What I will use to defend it is the fact that TFL, (Transport for London), seems to have planned all their work to make visiting the Boleyn Ground as difficult as possible this season. I have lost count of the amount of times the relevant stretch of the District Line has been "down" during a home game, and this has usually been combined with either the Jubilee line, and/or the Great Eastern line to Liverpool St, (the line that carries many West Ham fan's from the bases in Romford, Chadwell Heath etc), also being closed for work.

To be honest, I doubt a high percentage of current West Ham season ticket holders will end up refusing to at least giving the OS a go, and I do think new, or old supporters that have not been for a while, will be attracted by the novelty and vast transport inprovements for the first couple of seasons. Then the matchday experience, and the performance of the team will decide whether this attendance level is maintained.

I think West Ham will be an exaggerated version of clubs like Sunderand and Manchester City, (where there is a larger gulf between highest attendance and lowest). To have a 40,000 base attendance is easily achievable, and this could get into the 50,000s against the big teams, and our London rivals.

AshVentini

February 13th, 2011, 02:54 PM

I have been pretty much anti the move on a West Ham forum, but I am optimistic about the attendances at the OS. Of course I do not expect to sell out 60,000 every game.

I know people refer to the fact that we have had to discount tickets this season to get close to selling out the Boleyn, and I will not even use our league position to defend it. What I will use to defend it is the fact that TFL, (Transport for London), seems to have planned all their work to make visiting the Boleyn Ground as difficult as possible this season. I have lost count of the amount of times the relevant stretch of the District Line has been "down" during a home game, and this has usually been combined with either the Jubilee line, and/or the Great Eastern line to Liverpool St, (the line that carries many West Ham fan's from the bases in Romford, Chadwell Heath etc), also being closed for work.

To be honest, I doubt a high percentage of current West Ham season ticket holders will end up refusing to at least giving the OS a go, and I do think new, or old supporters that have not been for a while, will be attracted by the novelty and vast transport inprovements for the first couple of seasons. Then the matchday experience, and the performance of the team will decide whether this attendance level is maintained.

I think West Ham will be an exaggerated version of clubs like Sunderand and Manchester City, (where there is a larger gulf between highest attendance and lowest). To have a 40,000 base attendance is easily achievable, and this could get into the 50,000s against the big teams, and our London rivals.

Season ticket holders is they key! It allows a club to plan financial projections, cash flow etc in the longer term (if match day revenue is a big piece of your income). Otherwise you cannot commit to investments such as players (on contracts etc). What is it today? about 20K ST holders. Maybe 23K max? Expect it to reduce even tho prices may drop (IMO) and based on survey's / history of other projects similar. Then its big problems. Even if cheap tickets bring in OK attendances, but based on a week by week basis.. You cant plan and sign good contracts without huge financial risk..
I'd expect some "creative pricing packages" nearer the time..

GideaParkHammer

February 13th, 2011, 04:52 PM

Season ticket holders is they key! It allows a club to plan financial projections, cash flow etc in the longer term (if match day revenue is a big piece of your income). Otherwise you cannot commit to investments such as players (on contracts etc). What is it today? about 20K ST holders. Maybe 23K max? Expect it to reduce even tho prices may drop (IMO) and based on survey's / history of other projects similar. Then its big problems. Even if cheap tickets bring in OK attendances, but based on a week by week basis.. You cant plan and sign good contracts without huge financial risk..
I'd expect some "creative pricing packages" nearer the time..

There are a number of reasons people buy season tickets, one is obviously to guarantee a ticket at all homes games, but another is to receive priority for big away games and...don't laugh...possible Cup Finals. It is hard to predict whether the season ticket numbers will increase or decrease.

To be honest, I am of the mind to drop my season ticket until I experience what it is like watching at the OS.

However, I would think the Club is looking to other revenue streams, such as naming rights, and believing we will have a higher profile for the non-domestic TV market, that would compensate for any season ticket loss.

AshVentini

February 13th, 2011, 06:28 PM

There are a number of reasons people buy season tickets, one is obviously to guarantee a ticket at all homes games, but another is to receive priority for big away games and...don't laugh...possible Cup Finals. It is hard to predict whether the season ticket numbers will increase or decrease.

To be honest, I am of the mind to drop my season ticket until I experience what it is like watching at the OS.

However, I would think the Club is looking to other revenue streams, such as naming rights, and believing we will have a higher profile for the non-domestic TV market, that would compensate for any season ticket loss.

I admire ur optimism. Ive been against this for one reason. The fans...
Just a question. People keep referring to naming rights and WH did too. I'd find it hard to believe that the revenue would go to Tenants, vs the actual owners.. I dont think anything is published, but is this agreed to help the offset of the stadium re-model? Seems a little unusual..

REVUpminster

February 13th, 2011, 07:37 PM

When stadiums had standing and bigger capacities spectators knew they could turn up and get in. West Ham's record attendace, against Spurs, was 42,000 and at a time when may women and children did not attend and support lived more locally. If Westfield believe they can duplicate Westfield White City only 13 miles by central line at Stratford then West Ham can tap into this market for three hours on a saturday just as Spurs hoped to. West Ham has already cheaper season tickets than their main rivals partly due to all the concessionary tickets (pensioners, children). If they follow how Man U and Liverpool until recently had some of the cheapest season tickets in the country they should be alright.

GideaParkHammer

February 13th, 2011, 09:53 PM

I admire ur optimism. Ive been against this for one reason. The fans...
Just a question. People keep referring to naming rights and WH did too. I'd find it hard to believe that the revenue would go to Tenants, vs the actual owners.. I dont think anything is published, but is this agreed to help the offset of the stadium re-model? Seems a little unusual..

I would regard myself less pessimistic, than being an optimist.

The thing is I do not believe West Ham are tenants. If they were, Spurs would not have been allowed to bid to knock down the stadium. I believe we are leaseholders. There is a big difference. Basically, the authorities are landlords on the land only. The lease is reported as being around 200 years, way beyond the lifespan of the actual stadium.

Profits for naming rights will be split between the stakeholders in the Holding Company. As far as I am aware, these stakeholders will be West Ham and Newham.

I am a season ticket holder, and argued for months that I did not want us to move there, but as I fan...I obviously want the move now to be successful

flashman

February 14th, 2011, 01:47 AM

Wishful thinking. Do you honestly believe the OPLC didn't investigate their finances in the event of (very probable) relegation? Of course they did, and they were obviously convinced the finances were sound, even under those circumstances.

Point is, I know you wanted Spurs to get the stadium, but it ain't going to happen. All your wishful thinking in the other thread about West Ham getting a pay-off from Spurs in return for the stadium site is also complete nonsense

This is all over, bar the shouting. Whether it'll work out long term for West Ham and UK Athletics is of course a different question but we're certainly not going to get into the scenario where West Ham are relegated and the OPLC says "oh shit, didn't see that one coming!" :lol:

Oh, sure, they investigated. They're a quality group, very fair and balanced, no doubt. If the track record of how the legacy has been handled so far, they are probably praying deeply for West Ham's survival as we speak.

I'm not that fussed which team gets it, just interested in seeing a stadium project that works. The big bowl that's up now is a joke, a cheap, flimsy construct that does disservice to a city like London. It would be nice to see England do something with a stadium that doesn't include adjectives like 'disaster', 'crowd crush','poor planning', 'financial fiasco','lack of vision', 'back-room stitch-up', 'White Mastodon', and so forth. Thank goodness England doesn't have a space program.

'Over bar the shouting'? Now that may be wishful thinking. Spurs don't seem too happy that they've been used as a bargaining tool to keep West Ham's bid honest. Leyton Orient are pissed off too. Their frustration is quite understandable. If West Ham go down, it will be interesting to see how stable the situation really is.

So would it be a shock to see UK Athletics get messed around regarding their ability to bid for other major athletics events in the short term? I think not. Looks good on them.

AshVentini

February 14th, 2011, 11:01 AM

I would regard myself less pessimistic, than being an optimist.

The thing is I do not believe West Ham are tenants. If they were, Spurs would not have been allowed to bid to knock down the stadium. I believe we are leaseholders. There is a big difference. Basically, the authorities are landlords on the land only. The lease is reported as being around 200 years, way beyond the lifespan of the actual stadium.

Profits for naming rights will be split between the stakeholders in the Holding Company. As far as I am aware, these stakeholders will be West Ham and Newham.

I am a season ticket holder, and argued for months that I did not want us to move there, but as I fan...I obviously want the move now to be successful
I hope it works out for u guys (in terms of the finances and stability of the business model). Its debatable if it does. One thing is for sure, is the views are gonna be effing awful...Dont let anyone con you its gonna be ok (not worse than wembley etc, Rome & Lazio do ok in the Olympic etc). Thats all BS. The nearest seats are gonna be miles away and the atmos will be terrible. At Juve's old ground you were miles away from the slidlines (and the ends...wow) Olympic will be similar distances, but even worse than Delle Alpi was IMO becasue at least with Juve old ground it was quite steep tiers x 3 and was pretty enclosed, but still bad...Your board is treating you fans likes idiots with their lies...Sorry mate, your gonna hate it..
As part of the voting committee criteria they should have made all member go and watch a EPL game, then watch one in Italy (Bari or Rome) and then decide if its a good workable idea..

REVUpminster

February 14th, 2011, 11:23 AM

AshVentini

February 14th, 2011, 01:00 PM

The sides are steeply raked. There are 80,000 seats in the same footprint as the Emirites. Everybody talks about Football supporters and ignores the fact that during the Olympics the spectators will want to see the other side of the running track or the long jump pits. No one has talked about issuing binoculars to them. This whole saga is about possession of the site. If West Ham get a 250 year lease then there will be structural changes as the life structure of the upper tiers is not known. The oldest part of Upton Park is 42 years old and was due for replacement 2 years ago. Planning already in place. Incidently West Ham's debt is about £45m and Spurs debt is about £60m

The sides are not steeply raked.. Where do u get that idea? Its plain to see. Fans wont see what going on the other side of the stadium in the games! They will look at the screen or buy tickets (that side) for the long jump if thats what they like..And in running events the go around the track mostly, and the track is closer than a footie pitch! :lol:
And debt is a problem is revenue is poor. Spurs have much better revenue projections because of their season ticket waiting list / CL football and Player asset valuation.. That comment is idiotic..:bash:

JimB

February 14th, 2011, 02:00 PM

The sides are steeply raked. There are 80,000 seats in the same footprint as the Emirites. Everybody talks about Football supporters and ignores the fact that during the Olympics the spectators will want to see the other side of the running track or the long jump pits. No one has talked about issuing binoculars to them. This whole saga is about possession of the site. If West Ham get a 250 year lease then there will be structural changes as the life structure of the upper tiers is not known. The oldest part of Upton Park is 42 years old and was due for replacement 2 years ago. Planning already in place. Incidently West Ham's debt is about £45m and Spurs debt is about £60m

I hesitate to intervene in this specific discssussion because I'm delighted that Spurs failed to win the bid for the Olympic stadium. However, I have to respond to the above.

Spurs' debt is entirely the consequence of asset acquisition - namely property on the NDP site and building a £30 million training ground and academy.

Net assets is the key figure in this respect. And Spurs' balance sheet is very healthy.

Not to mention that Spurs' income is 50% greater than West Ham's (and likely to be 100% greater for the year 2010-11).

CharlieP

February 14th, 2011, 02:14 PM

And in running events the go around the track mostly, and the track is closer than a footie pitch! :lol:

Well, a quarter of the track is closer than the pitch... ;)

RobH

February 14th, 2011, 02:23 PM

Oh, sure, they investigated. They're a quality group, very fair and balanced, no doubt. If the track record of how the legacy has been handled so far, they are probably praying deeply for West Ham's survival as we speak.

:nuts:

This is the first major decision made by the Legacy Board actually. Therefore, they have no track record so far as the Olympic Legacy is concerned. But, for what it's worth, the woman leading it is the person who lead the process which turned the Millennum Dome from a white elephant into the world's leading indoor arena.

If you want to believe the OPLC haven't looked into West Ham's finances in the event of relegation and have handed the stadium to them praying they don't go down, fine, believe what makes you happy. But there's really no point me debating with you if you think that, because it's such a ludicrous opinion to hold without any evidence to back it up.

Alemanniafan

February 14th, 2011, 02:23 PM

RobH

February 14th, 2011, 02:30 PM

I'd be extremely angry if the athletics legacy lasts only 5-7 years and London's legacy is giving West Ham a stadium on the cheap. It'd be unfair on UKA and unfair on Spurs, and unfair on London and the UK as a whole. West Ham are getting a 60k stadium for a quarter of the price it'd cost to build a new one. The compromise for West Ham is the track, which provides a home for Britain's Olympians. Sounds like a fair enough trade off to me.

If Crystal Palace FC demolish the athletics arena in Crystal Palace to find space for their new stadium London will only have the Olympic Stadium capable of holding major athletics meets. The track has to stay given West Ham's promises and their high-and-mighty rhetoric during the bidding process for the stadium. As far as I'm concerned, that's non-negoitable. And as far as I'm concerned, in 5-7 years time the track will still be there. It looks, for example, like London may well bid for the 2017 World Athletics Championships.

AshVentini

February 14th, 2011, 02:54 PM

REVUpminster

February 14th, 2011, 02:59 PM

I think West Ham will have to retain the track BUT as parts of the stadium come up for renewal could they build over the ends of the running track and only have an upper tier with the track passing under it. Would the stadium cease to be an outdoor athletics venue. I am only talking about moving the upper tier forward by about 20/30 yards so the sightline would come 10 yards?? behind the goal line. Engineers anybody? The new Wembley was built to have a running track installed on a platform above the lower tier seats. That is another solution but too costly to do in one go at the Olympic Stadium.

JimB

February 14th, 2011, 03:46 PM

The views in the Olympic Stadium will really be awfull for soccer.

But my guess is, that the stadium is going to look somewhat like this in several years time:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Zentralstadion_Leipzig_2008.jpg/800px-Zentralstadion_Leipzig_2008.jpg
source: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Zentralstadion_Leipzig_2008.jpg&filetimestamp=20090718074253

Let sometime like 5 or 7 years pass and the Spurs have their proposed stadium finished or nearly finished.
And then the olympic legacy will start to be forgotten in the public opinion.
Let the temporary upper tier of the olympic stadium see some necessary minor repairs like repainting...
Then will probably be a good time for Westham to come up with Plans for stadium modifications or plans to put a new soccer only stadium inside the Olympic Stadium simmilar to the stadium in Leipzig or in other places where new stadia have just been built inside an old existing one.

The government has confirmed that there will be a legally binding contract to ensure that the track remains an integral part of the stadium. Spurs will be watching very closely and would sue the shit out of West Ham and the government if that contract was ever broken. So West Ham will not be able to get around it - however much they might want to.

Besides, as RobH said, it's likely that Crystal Palace FC will take over UKA's current home. So the whole idea of getting rid of the track would become prohibitively expensive for West Ham - i.e. they would have to completely rebuild the Olympic stadium; buy a new site and build a new stadium for UKA; and pay huge damages to Spurs. West Ham could never afford it.

The only thing that they might do to mitigate the poor sightlines is to install retractable seating. However, even that will be a less than satisfactory solution since it would inevitably mean a very shallow lower tier and there would still be a big gap between stands and pitch.

JimB

February 14th, 2011, 03:47 PM

REVUpminster

February 14th, 2011, 05:36 PM

Thats a very expensive solution. You're talking about virtually rebuilding the stadium.

The whole stadium would be but if you did one end as it is all made to be deconstructed and then reused only the upper tier moved forward resting on a girder spanning the running track just covering the upper third of the curve so a supporting pillar could be placed inside the track. The cost would not be prohibitive. But this will not happen in the short term.

REVUpminster

February 14th, 2011, 05:45 PM

The only thing that they might do to mitigate the poor sightlines is to install retractable seating. However, even that will be a less than satisfactory solution since it would inevitably mean a very shallow lower tier and there would still be a big gap between stands and pitch.

I don't see them using retractable seating but if it started level with the upper tier and then down towards the pitch and abandoning the lower tier completely it would not be that shallow but you would end up with 100,000 seats. Imagine the old Wembley and the shallow front and the steeper rear.

Alemanniafan

February 14th, 2011, 05:52 PM

Thats a very expensive solution. You're talking about virtually rebuilding the stadium.

Not necessarily. Assuming it would be possible under the various regulations that would have to be respected of course.

There are plenty of older and smaller stadia here in Germany for example where they built more or less temporary stands to turn a stadium with runningtrack into a soccer only stadium.

Building a rectangular upper tier that's overlapping a running rack like REVUpminster suggests wouldn't really be all that much more difficult or expensive.
And in this special case here they would of course allready have plenty of parts from an existing temporary second tier right at the location which they would probably easily be able to use.
Of course the running track would not be completely visible for all spectators from everywhere in the stadium, surely not from plenty of seats in the upper tier.

But thinking this idea through just a bit further, they might even be able to place removable stands as a lower tier right at the pitch on top of the track, or between the curves of the track and the pitch to close the gap between upper tier and pitch behind the goals.
That way the stadium would then have an athletics track that partially dissapears underneath the two endstands, which would then of course be removed in case of hosting athletic events, which usually wouldn't have more visitors than the capacity of the original lower tier bowl anyways where the entire track could be seen except for some minor obstructions from the supports of the upper tier.

I find that suggestion from REVUpminster a really interesting and charming. And It might indeed be a pretty cheap and practical solution to getting a halfwhat suitable stadium for soccer. Of course it would then probably be looking pretty awfull like piecemeal.
And the roof structure would probably also have to be changed significantly.

Alemanniafan

February 14th, 2011, 06:20 PM

By the way I just got another neat little idea:

If they were building a rectangular upper tier from pieces of the existing one, it might even be possible to change the orientation of the upper tier of the stadium and rotate the pitch ninety degrees.
If necessary they could remove a few first rows of the original current lower tier sidestands to get enough space for a soccer pitch to fit into the stadium when turned sideways.
That way the existing sidestands would become endstands behind the goals very close to the pitch and additional temporary stands in the lower tier could be placed very close to the pitch as sidestands.

Using artificial turf instead of grass would then easily allow to rotate the pitch back and forth, whenever athletics are being hosted in the original lower bowl. And the temporary stands of the lower bowl would then of course be removed.

The stands of the existing lower bowl would then awkwardly switch from being sidestands in athletics mode to becoming endstands in soccer mode and vice versa.

The VIP boxes would of course then end up being behind the goals in soccer mode though, kinda simmilar to the Aquarium Stand in Leverkusen where they also have VIP boxes behind the goal.

hubemx

February 14th, 2011, 11:06 PM

Maybe something like this: Stadium Sant'Elia in Cagliari.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Stadio_Sant%27Elia_-Cagliari_-Italy-23Oct2008.jpg/800px-Stadio_Sant%27Elia_-Cagliari_-Italy-23Oct2008.jpg
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/5017/94055449.jpg

Andre_idol

February 15th, 2011, 12:02 AM

^^Hideous.

flashman

February 15th, 2011, 06:48 AM

^^Hideous.

Right up West Ham's alley.

RobH: The legacy board had one decision to make and could scarcely have looked less objective in its composition. It was stacked with West Ham season ticket holders, a former Arsenal director, an accounting firm executive who's own company does West Ham FC's accounting, an Olympic gold medallist surviving on a teaching contract from Newham and a past director of Sport England who staunchly support retaining the track.

Yeah, that's where fair and balanced discussion is going to take place. I bet Keith Edelman had a good laugh at Spurs prospects.

Interesting to see that Field Marshall Sullivan and Goldenrod are out hustling for new investors already, offering a 35% share of the club for 35 million quid. Apparently its shares owned by their deadbeat Icelandic bank partners. Could be worth a lot less not long from now.

RobH

February 15th, 2011, 09:39 AM

Let me get this straight....you question the West Ham decision because of the OPLC's track record, and when I point out they don't have a track record yet you say "look at the West Ham decision".

Okkkkkkk.

Mo Rush

February 15th, 2011, 09:43 AM

An SSC Stadium Competition for the Olympic Stadium renovation/conversion project

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1305631

AshVentini

February 15th, 2011, 11:00 AM

Lets see if anyone out there will want to cough up £40M for a 35% stake in the small club... That's the acid test! If their business model is good enough to attract such an investor. I wouldnt, too much risk... Can you really say that either of the two Dave's inspire you? Particularly idiot Gold. A rich arab might invest to get in Brady's Knickers tho..:lol:
All this talk about changing the stadium to improve views.... Haven't WH submitted their plans to OPLC? which was basis for preferred bidder selection..No point talking about changing the goal posts now... WH just need to put up and shut up! They got it cheap, so enough said. The only realistic improvement to what their submitted plans are is retractable seats (and that wont improve views much because of the angle) So i dont think anything will be done that people are discussing..IMO

Schmeek

February 15th, 2011, 11:17 AM

Just wondering what the delay was for. They required an extended deadline... then vote unanimously.

AshVentini

February 15th, 2011, 11:32 AM

Just wondering what the delay was for. They required an extended deadline... then vote unanimously.

To create the impression of a robust assessment IMO.

Schmeek

February 15th, 2011, 12:53 PM

But if that's the case, in doing so they've actually achieved the opposite.

JimB

February 15th, 2011, 01:07 PM

Right up West Ham's alley.

RobH: The legacy board had one decision to make and could scarcely have looked less objective in its composition. It was stacked with West Ham season ticket holders, a former Arsenal director, an accounting firm executive who's own company does West Ham FC's accounting, an Olympic gold medallist surviving on a teaching contract from Newham and a past director of Sport England who staunchly support retaining the track.

Yeah, that's where fair and balanced discussion is going to take place. I bet Keith Edelman had a good laugh at Spurs prospects.

Interesting to see that Field Marshall Sullivan and Goldenrod are out hustling for new investors already, offering a 35% share of the club for 35 million quid. Apparently its shares owned by their deadbeat Icelandic bank partners. Could be worth a lot less not long from now.

The OPLC committee was presumably in situ before West Ham expressed their interest in the stadium, only a year ago? Certainly, they were in situ long before Spurs expressed an interest on the deadline day for bids.

And it's hardly surprising if Newham is represented on the committee. The stadium is, after all, in their borough. It's also hardly surprising that athletics is well represented. The stadium was always intended to retain an athletics legacy until Spurs muscled in with their Crystal Palace scheme. Lastly, it's hardly surprising that there should be a few West Ham supporters among the committee. Again, the stadium is situated in West ham territory. Besides, at least half of all West Ham fans were opposed to the move to the Olympic stadium. So if the West Ham supporters on the committee had been thinking like fans, rather than rationally, there's at least a 50-50 chance that they would have voted for Spurs.

Futhermore, for all we know, there might well have been some Spurs fans on the committee too. But obviously, you're not going to complain about that.

Ultimately, you might have had a case if the OPLC's decision had been completely illogical and without good reason. But that's not the case, is it? Spurs might have been the safest choice in terms of the bottom line. But it was also the most heartless choice; the most disruptive choice; the least popular choice; the least inclusive choice; the most illogical choice (in terms of location); and it was the only choice that would have, hitherto, rendered the UK liars in the eyes of the sporting world.

All in all, it was a no brainer. And that's why the vote for West Ham was unanimous. No amount of whining and muttering about conspiracy or bias will change that.

JimB

February 15th, 2011, 01:10 PM

JimB

February 15th, 2011, 01:14 PM

Just wondering what the delay was for. They required an extended deadline... then vote unanimously.

Apparently, they were waiting on an assessment of their legal position because they reckoned it was likely that Spurs would try to take the decision to judicial review.

jerseyboi

February 15th, 2011, 01:32 PM

How London's Olympic Stadium looks

See Video>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12461687

AshVentini

February 15th, 2011, 03:15 PM

I hate to come across all politically correct, fella, but how many people do you want to offend in one sentence?

Then don't! It's not personally offensive to any user on here (unlike some of ur past comments). And im sure Brady doesnt use SSC. And as Arabs are big current investors in football, its NOT stereotypical race based. It's a probability based comment! Your not the sharpest tool in the box are you?

flashman

February 15th, 2011, 04:00 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/feb/15/athletics-olympic-stadium

Now there's this story, with Ed Warner, head of UK Athletics saying athletics won't come close to filling the Olympic stadium, some events expected to have audiences in the hundreds or single thousands. Probably won't even pay the janitors salaries, it doesn't go on to conclude.

And, yes, Jim and Rob, this stadium decision simply looks like a sleazy back-room deal. I understand how the initial legacy board was formed, I understand why the compostion of the board at that time took the form it did. Not arguing that certain elements had every right to be there.

But if footballing interests were going to be represented on that board, it would have been appropriate to balance those with London connections with people of similar ability from outside London, just to ensure the decision was seen to be arrived at fairly.

But, hey, it's all good now, right? A cheap, chintzy tin bowl of a stadium that looks like a tribute to the gas storage tank industry, handed over to a pair of porn-merchant plungers running a desperate, debt-ridden club, supported by a grasping, grubby athletics coalition. Marvellous legacy. Capolavoro!

JimB

February 15th, 2011, 04:54 PM

JimB

February 15th, 2011, 05:03 PM

Then don't! It's not personally offensive to any user on here (unlike some of ur past comments). And im sure Brady doesnt use SSC. And as Arabs are big current investors in football, its NOT stereotypical race based. It's a probability based comment! Your not the sharpest tool in the box are you?

What does it matter whether or not Brady reads SSC?

That's like saying it's okay to tell racist jokes or refer to black people as n*****s so long as there aren't any present.

It's the kind of attitude that sustains racism / sexism etc.

You don't have to like or approve of Karen Brady. But you can surely think of a way to express that without gratuitously bringing gender into the equation?

JimB

February 15th, 2011, 05:11 PM

How London's Olympic Stadium looks

See Video>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12461687

Thanks for that.

Getting there.

RobH

February 15th, 2011, 06:38 PM

Video of the view from the back row of the stadium shot by the BBC's James Pearce. The upper tier is much steeper than I thought looking at this film:

http://www.twitvid.com/EHILC

:cheers:

Pennypacker

February 15th, 2011, 06:50 PM

I hate to come across all politically correct

Why?

AshVentini

February 15th, 2011, 07:35 PM

What does it matter whether or not Brady reads SSC?

That's like saying it's okay to tell racist jokes or refer to black people as n*****s so long as there aren't any present.

It's the kind of attitude that sustains racism / sexism etc.

You don't have to like or approve of Karen Brady. But you can surely think of a way to express that without gratuitously bringing gender into the equation?

Get real. Or perhaps you are one of those guys who goes down the pub and talks about how good loose women is...:lol: Live in the real world or stop being a hypocrite and all righteous in front of an audience. Unfortunately ISM's exist in this world. But I suppose ur just one of those guys who thinks Andy Gray and Keys was soooo out of order and committed a cardinal sin (unlike 10 million guys do every night down the pub). Life is too serious already to take things so literal. If my girlfriend finds that situation pathetic and laughs it off (like millions of women do), what's so wrong if one is not manipulating someone for wrong doing? Oh AND my girlfriend is Black FELLA! She may call me white meat! Am i offended NO! I may even call her n*****. Or burnt! True equality is about accepting someone for who they are, not what they look like, and then you can say almost anything & laugh..:lol:, cuz words are not as important as true acceptance of differences. Im comfortable in my own skin, knowing how i see people. But im realist who can laugh at myself and others! Right im off. Better sort dinner out. Fried chicken! Cuz all black people like fried chicken! (actually thats true in USA & I lived there - before u ask) :lol:

RobH

February 15th, 2011, 07:43 PM

Video of the view from the back row of the stadium shot by the BBC's James Pearce. The upper tier is much steeper than I thought looking at this film:

http://www.twitvid.com/EHILC

:cheers:

Mossy22

February 15th, 2011, 08:05 PM

^^^^ wow that is really steep though u can really see why they did it because the views are excellent considering that is the back row and the track looks so close, i was considering paying more for the closer seats but looking at that i may save some money and go nearer the back :P

RMB2007

February 15th, 2011, 08:15 PM

Seeing that video, well, I think I'd rather be watching from the upper tier than the lower one.

REVUpminster

February 15th, 2011, 10:10 PM

Video of the view from the back row of the stadium shot by the BBC's James Pearce. The upper tier is much steeper than I thought looking at this film:

http://www.twitvid.com/EHILC

:cheers:

I have said before the upper tier is much steeper than most people think. They have got 80,000 seats in the same space as The Emirites although the seats there are like armchairs built for the larger (size) supporter.

SO143

February 15th, 2011, 10:24 PM

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5173/5448408580_71e4a32f04_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ukinargentina/5448408580/)
Olympic Park Construction/ Construcción del Parque Olímpico (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ukinargentina/5448408580/) by UK in Argentina (http://www.flickr.com/people/ukinargentina/), on Flickr

RobH

February 15th, 2011, 10:33 PM

Three months old that, but still a nice panorama.

Alemanniafan

February 15th, 2011, 10:55 PM

Seeing that video, well, I think I'd rather be watching from the upper tier than the lower one.

I don't want to spoil anyones optimism, but a video really isn't very helpfull in getting an accurate impression of the viewingdistance and the steepness of a stand.

In fact, looking at the video a bit more closely, I rather tend to disagree with most here that it really does seem to be all that seem.
I'll explain why:
The lower tier of the stadium looks rather shallow to me in the video.
Especially when assuming the camera is not filming in a slight zoom or light wide angle but giving a halfwhat realistic impression of the angles and creates an overall picture very similar to the natural eye view.

When the camera is looking down at the lower tier, one can hardly see anything of the lower tier, which in fact indicates that either the upper tier is A) unusually high above the lower one. But that surely doesnt seem to be the case lookin at the stadium.
Or that B) the upper tier isn't all that much steeper than the lower one.
Because if it were far steeper than the lower tier, one would most likely be able to see more from the lower tier.

I modern stadia (but even in many ancient ones allready) the steepness of a tier generally increasses when going further back and higher up, to provide a better view.
There are stadia where the steepness on the stands varies very much. Especially in very large and very high bowl shaped stadia this is usually the case.
And there are of course also stadia where it varies less. Those are oten smaller stadia or ones that have overall rather shallow stands.

Here in this case the steepness of the stands between the lower front end all the way up to the very rear upper end obviously doesn't seem vary all that much.
The stand obviously doesn't seem to be all that much steeper in the upper rear end than it is down at the very front.

And if that really happens to be so in reality, that the stands don't curve upwards all that much, this would certainly match and explain the visual impression one gets when whatching the video. (The impression that one can hardly see anything of the lower tier from the last row up at the very back.)

A rather slight increase of steepness over the stands, a mild upwards curving of a stand usually tends to indicate that the stand is in fact probably not overly steep. And here the lower tier in fact doesn't seem look all that steep to me.
It might of course also be the opposite case, that the very low end of the lower tier is comparatively steep. But as I allready said, I believe that's probably not the case because if it really were the bowl of the stadium would probably look quite a bit steeper than it appears. At least from what I would expect on pictures or in a video and comparing the impressions with pictures or videos of other very steep looking stadia.

Well of course it's nearly impossible to really get an accurate and realistic overall impression just by looking at a video, other than logically deriving these kind of indications which I mentioned here from a given view.

So all in all it basically just remains to be guesswork, but this video here surely doesn't convince me that the Olympic Stadium does in fact really have steep stands in comparison to other modern stadia.

SO143

February 15th, 2011, 10:56 PM

Three months old that, but still a nice panorama.

Ohh sorry i didn't know that i thought its a recent shot, but it still looks superb :)

flashman

February 15th, 2011, 11:47 PM

Get over it, fella.

West Ham won. Spurs lost. Being all bitter about it ain't a good look.

Of course, and consolations to the people of London. Which now sets the agenda for further discussion on THIS stadium.

The showpiece structure of London's Olympic legacy.

Which is shaping up to be a money-losing joke. It could well be the most embarassing stadium amongst the world's developed nations.

With long-running comedy sports shows as its prime tenants.

How proud the nation must be.

flashman

February 15th, 2011, 11:54 PM

Video of the view from the back row of the stadium shot by the BBC's James Pearce. The upper tier is much steeper than I thought looking at this film:

http://www.twitvid.com/EHILC

:cheers:

Aviemore has quite magnificent views, steep pitches, too. Doesn't mean I'd want to watch a football match from up there.

http://codyduncan.com/blog/blogimages/2009/02/cairngorms_hiking6_codyduncanphoto1.jpg

JimB

February 16th, 2011, 01:17 AM

Get real. Or perhaps you are one of those guys who goes down the pub and talks about how good loose women is...:lol: Live in the real world or stop being a hypocrite and all righteous in front of an audience. Unfortunately ISM's exist in this world. But I suppose ur just one of those guys who thinks Andy Gray and Keys was soooo out of order and committed a cardinal sin (unlike 10 million guys do every night down the pub). Life is too serious already to take things so literal. If my girlfriend finds that situation pathetic and laughs it off (like millions of women do), what's so wrong if one is not manipulating someone for wrong doing? Oh AND my girlfriend is Black FELLA! She may call me white meat! Am i offended NO! I may even call her n*****. Or burnt! True equality is about accepting someone for who they are, not what they look like, and then you can say almost anything & laugh..:lol:, cuz words are not as important as true acceptance of differences. Im comfortable in my own skin, knowing how i see people. But im realist who can laugh at myself and others! Right im off. Better sort dinner out. Fried chicken! Cuz all black people like fried chicken! (actually thats true in USA & I lived there - before u ask) :lol:

Indeed.

Which begs the question why you referred to Karen Brady in such pejorative and dismissive, gender specific terms.

Say what you like about her. But leave gender out of it. There's a good lad.

flashman

February 16th, 2011, 05:39 AM

Yeah, that Olympic stadium scenario is just getting better and better with every passing day. Here's an excerpt from a Telegraph article regarding financial problems facing lower-league clubs:

'Giving evidence before a parliamentary select committee inquiry into football governance, football League chairman Greg Clarke warned that the underlying finances of football needed urgent reform if clubs were to be viable in future. “Debt’s the biggest problem in the game. If I had to list the 10 things about football that keep me awake at night, it would be debt, one to 10,” he said.

“Football League clubs carry about one third of a billion pounds in debt but overall make no profit and have to service that with no positive cash flow. If we were a commercial organisation we would be out of business. “

"Debt is a good proxy for risk and the amount of debt in the Football League is absolutely unsustainable We are heading for the precipice and we will get there quicker than people think.” '

West Ham United Football Club, occupants-in-waiting of the Olympic stadium and strong candidates to be relegated, are about to be plunged into the financial turbidity of this scenario. Plunged? Hell, Bill Paxton said it best in Aliens: "We're on the express elevator to hell, going down!"

Who knew London's Olympic legacy would include financial cliff diving?

flashman

February 16th, 2011, 06:52 AM

LandOfGreenGinger

February 16th, 2011, 09:17 AM

http://insidethegames.biz/summer-olympics/2012/11966-exclusive-olympic-park-architect-protests-over-west-ham-stadium-decision

And here's an interesting view on the future of the stadium. From someone with a very intimate view of proceedings.

Wonder if Big Boris will give him a listen?

West Ham and Spurs sharing the stadium? They are lucky that either of them want to move there as sole tenants. Personally i'm astonished that he mentions 'sharing', as if its even a vaguely realistic option.

AshVentini

February 16th, 2011, 11:11 AM

Indeed.

Which begs the question why you referred to Karen Brady in such pejorative and dismissive, gender specific terms.

Say what you like about her. But leave gender out of it. There's a good lad.

Your too serous..
But if i'm honest KB is a Misandrist IMO. That's my problem with her..

AshVentini

February 16th, 2011, 11:23 AM

hugenholz

February 16th, 2011, 01:55 PM

By far the most ugliest Olympic Stadium ever build.

oxo

February 16th, 2011, 02:52 PM

^^

Agreed.

The claret and blue paint job may improve the stadium's external appearance
in as much as lipstick may improve the sex appeal of a gorilla. The stadium will remain embarrassingly ugly. Devoid of any sense of style, character or refinement, it even makes Wembley look interesting by comparison.

However, forgetting about its unfortunate appearance, lets consider how it could perform excellently in terms of function and spectator experience.

This Olympic stadium can be made flexible and multi-functional for West Ham United with the use of innovatively designed retractable seating systems.
Things that were not technically possible some 20 or even 10 years ago are now becoming achievable and a bit more affordable.
Just take a look at Lille stadium (currently under construction) which illustrates how neatly a football stadium can be converted into a boxing/tennis court/boxing arena and vice-versa.

With sufficient funding and a ingenious technical idea (converting from football to an athletics/cricket ground for the summer and back again a week before the start of the football season), West Ham could end up prospering in a way that most of us can't quite imagine now.

Rev Stickleback

February 16th, 2011, 03:11 PM

Having seen the ticket prices, I wonder how they compare with other Olympics.

They are not exactly cheap. £2012 to see the opening ceremony is over three times the top price of a world cup final ticket. For £2012 I'd want to be able to take part, not just watch. OK, prices do get cheaper, but they are still ridiculous.

The evening athletics seems to be incredibly expensive at £95 for a cheap seat. That's twice the price of a group stage world cup ticket.

Me Too

February 16th, 2011, 03:23 PM

Spurs are threatening to sue the OPLC because the committee should have known that the stadium will be a financial disaster for West Ham, leaving a white elephant. Leyton Orient are threatening to challenge the Premier League for allowing West Ham to move closer to them because the league should have known that West Ham will be so successful there that Orient will lose all their fans. They can't both be right.

Alemanniafan

February 16th, 2011, 04:14 PM

WooWoo

February 16th, 2011, 04:22 PM

By far the most ugliest Olympic Stadium ever build.

ffs :bash:

its clearly not. Yeah, thats your opinion and i respect it, but if you hate it that much theres no need to come on a thread specifically designed for it.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/past_future/pictures/future_stadiums/london_olympic1.jpg

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/pictures/800x400fitpad[238]/6/4/9/1678649_Stadium_9_ready.jpg

ok, clearly its not in the league of the Birds Nest, but its clearly not the ugliest stadium ever built for the olympics is it?

How many other stadiums plan to have a 900m continuous wrap? Or plan to have a multi coloured exterior stadium?

Do you really think it is worse than Atlanta's?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fb/Atlantaolympicstadium.JPG

Or Sydney's?

http://images.travelpod.com/users/tomijoz/1.1233468600.olympic-stadium.jpg

If you dont like the stadium, dont come onto a thread specifically designed for it! :ohno:

RobH

February 16th, 2011, 07:53 PM

It's all a matter of opinion and if people don't like it, so be it. But people shouldn't harp on if they don't like a building's aesthetics, it just ends up derailing the thread and is unfair on those who do want to discuss it. Such behaivour isn't put up with in the skyscraper threads on this forum, but it seemingly is in this section, which is a shame. I don't like the aethetics of the 20FS Project in London, so I don't tend to post in its threads. Simples.

For what it's worth, I think it's anything but beautiful externally without the wrap and I'm hoping the wrap will return (as is looking likely). Internally, I think it's stunning; the best Olympic Stadium in years. Interestingly, the thing that I think makes it look disjointed on the outside (the lighting structures) are the very same things which really add the icing on the cake to the internal appearance. It's funny how one element can look so different from different angles.

oxo

February 16th, 2011, 08:21 PM

RobH

February 16th, 2011, 08:26 PM

I'm not having a go at Hugenholz specifically and do respect his opinion. Freedom of expression is fine, but from experience posting "this is the ugliest thing ever" (or words to that effect) is pointless and derails threads; it's NOT tolerated in other parts of this forum for good reason because the mods know what happens to threads which allow such contributions. I know, I have been on this forum long enough.

Flashman's moaning is hardly any better, but at least you can argue against it with facts. Posting a purely subjective opinion which gets people's backs up and ends up derailing threads (you might say it oughtn't but negative opinions on aesthetics always have that outcome) can't be argued against and always ends in tears. As I said, there are projects I don't like but I tend to keep my opinions to myself for the sake of the board's sanity.

oxo

February 16th, 2011, 08:44 PM

So its OK for Flashman to come up with derogatives such as
''Which is shaping up to be a money-losing joke. It could well be the most embarassing stadium amongst the world's developed nations''.
-post no. 2889.

But, not OK for Hugenholz to give the stadium a quick thumbs down.

I sense somewhat of a double standard here.

RobH

February 16th, 2011, 08:50 PM

PMed you.

REVUpminster

February 16th, 2011, 08:55 PM

WooWoo:

In any case, the Olympic stadium is generally accepted as an eye-sore although there is a rather small minority who heap praise on its external look.

I wonder what West Ham will be allowed to do to the exterior to stamp their identity on it. Maybe bring the turrets from the Boleyn. The main entrance and Olympic hospitality areas seem to be on the west side (not in the sun) so the turrets would be away from the main park, and I still wonder where West Ham will lose 20,000 seats thats almost 20 rows of seats along one side unless it is for more boxes.

WooWoo

February 16th, 2011, 10:42 PM

WooWoo:

Who are you to deny Hugenholz the right to free expression which can also include
bitter criticism of the stadium? He just wanted to give it a quick one-off thumbs down.

In any case, why is Flashman's boring and constant moaning about West Ham's future use of the
stadium any more acceptable? Obviously a case of sour grapes on his part but he does not need to keep harping on about it.

In any case, the Olympic stadium is generally accepted as an eye-sore although there is a rather small minority who heap praise on its external look.

Saying its the worst Olympic stadium ever built isnt a "quick thumbs down" is it? No

Tbh, Flashman isnt moaning on a thread specifically designed for WH getting the stadium are they? Why come onto a thread specifically designed for something you quite clearly 'hate' just to slate it? Do you think we all want to know about that? Its just a pointless post, with nothing helpful to supply to the thread.

Actually, responses about this are pretty varied. Some people do see it as an eye-sore, but not "the worst Olympic stadium built" is it? It was a tough act to follow Beijing, but IMO its much more creative than Athens, Sydney and Atlanta's. :bash:

Mossy22

February 16th, 2011, 11:06 PM

Can we please stop this moaning about who won the stadium, in my opinion it went to the best bid because too often in britain we know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Flashman can quote all the figures he wants but the end of the day the Value of the stadium is more than its cost in monetary terms, our children would have watched the london olympics on youtube and asked us why we knocked it down for a football stadium that could have been built anywhere else in london. This way we get to keep a stadium that will mean more to the people of east london and britain due to the records it may achieve. It would be a much duller world if we quoted figures all the time to try and prove or disprove something, there is more to this world than money and profits and if west ham do come into financial difficulties we need to do all we can to preserve the stadium that after these games us and our children will be proud of.

Secondly saying at this stage that the stadium is ugly is not an appropriate comment since it is not externally finished. Im pretty sure once it is lit up with the wrap and the glowing spiked floodlights it will become quite iconic even on the inside the sight of the spikes is quite cool. Just for lords sake give it a chance, it seems like theres so many people out to criticise the london olympics from the start, just please try to look at it positively and be proud of it, is it really too much to ask

AshVentini

February 16th, 2011, 11:25 PM

Wow, such a lot of debate on appropriate conduct. But thats the attraction of this thread. Its soo varied in opinion its a result of this divided opinion.. And with so much publicity and contention, its not surprising that stuff is said on this thread and not others.. Certain users constant policing to others doesnt really help does it?
Apart from being informative and interesting, there is an element of entertainment that one gains from using SSC. Let be honest all of us have occasionally posted something troll like or subjective in nature.. That said I think most will know I hate this project for what it will turn out to be which is a disaster IMO. Externally it is very ugly, but Ive seen worse. Inside I actually do think it's pretty attractive and does not look temporary at all. So some credit where due. I actually have an interest because of my experience of what is coming down the pipeline for WH (from frequent attendances to DA). Anyone who has experience in the art of forecasting will know that history is the single biggest indicator for the future.. That's why i say what many believe to be true..Just because you dont like something, doesnt mean you dont have the right to an opinion.. But i think objectivity is better than subjective..for what its worth..

flashman

February 17th, 2011, 04:03 AM

One of my favourite sports-related comedy shows was a great little Australian series that ran during the year or two prior to the Sydney Olympics.

It was a funny mockumentary on the alleged behind-the-scenes events of bumbling Olympic administrators. When they discovered that the 100metre track is actually only 100 yards, panic sets in as they worry about what a global embarassment this will be to Australia. Until a clever assistant suggest everyone think on the broight soide.

"They'll be setting world record times in every race. We have the fastest stadium track in the world." Chins lift, eyes widen, backs get slapped and hands get shaken. Everybody's upbeat again. And that's how the whole thing gets spun.

But now we have Barry Hearn threatening to bring London's looming Olympic white elephant to a standstill with his call for a judicial review. Could take years to settle. He could be doing London the biggest favour. It's unreal that people in charge of this project wouldn't have had the foresight to properly plan its design, the process of making it viable or the damaging effects it could cause.

This stadium should really inspire the children of London. It's giving them wonderful material to become great comedic scriptwriters.

DarJoLe

February 17th, 2011, 11:56 AM

It's unreal that people in charge of this project wouldn't have had the foresight to properly plan its design, the process of making it viable.

They did. A 25,000 seater permanent English Institute of Sports and Sports Science paid for by the Government to be used by the people of this country capable of being upgraded to 80,000 to host an Olympics.

It's only a change of Government unwilling to fund something for the good of the nation that's caused all this issues with the stadium.

oxo

February 17th, 2011, 12:17 PM

topalex

February 17th, 2011, 12:55 PM

''Lille stadium in Belgium ''

Isnt Lille in France?
I know you are lobbying for Spurs to relocate to Dalston oxo but you're taking the p*ss trying to relocate Lille into Belgium mate :lol:

Joke oxo...no offence intended:cheers:

brossa

February 17th, 2011, 12:56 PM

Ok ready for my opinion? lol ...
It's ugly and a waste!

Andy-i

February 17th, 2011, 12:58 PM

There seems to be an awful lot of mud slinging in this thread now.
I think we can agree that the stadium is no beauty but that it will be fit for purpose. It would of been better with the wrap but who knows, the wrap may be used after all.

I think the major problem is that:

It was designed as a temporary structure which was to be disassembled after the games leaving a permanant open 25K athletics stadium.

Someone (insert any from Goverment/UKA,UKOC,Mayor of London) then decided that would be unacceptable.
This then left the problem that it wouldn't be self funding without a Premier League football as the main tennant. Very true, all the talk of Rugby clubs and Cricket being viable alone was just that, talk.

So now we have a very large, very poor (from a fans view) ground for West
Ham, which can and will be used for the occasional county cricket match, concert and athletics.

It's a mess but the origional stadium design is not at fault. They got what they asked for

oxo

February 17th, 2011, 02:08 PM

Thanks for correcting me Topalex - Lille is in France. It must be near Belgium then because for some reason I’m making a connection between the two.

Anyway, we now we have a very large, very poor (from a fan’s view) ground for West Ham – yawn, heard this about a 100 times now.

But what is anybody ever going to do about it?
Lille seem to have solved a similar problem.
Why can’t West Ham show the same sort of ingenuity?

A stadium which (due to lack of governmental foresight) was not designed with conversion in mind or demolition but diminution.

Now the challenge is to devise ways of radically improving the football spectator experience with seating over the track - a very tricky and expensive undertaking but achievable nevertheless.

AshVentini

February 17th, 2011, 02:36 PM

So what is this - Flashman the anti West Ham fan?

It makes me wonder… did he have a bad experience with a West Ham fan?
Maybe got his head severely smashed in by one?
Will he ever get over Spurs losing the bid?
How many more of his sour grapes remain?
Is this the latest installment in a 50-chapter book entitled
HAMMERS FACING THE ABYSS
– West Ham United perish at Stratford.

If there is a problem the natural inclination of most people is to solve it.
West Ham are undoubtedly facing a big problem.
Apart from death, every problem has a solution.
I suggest we come up with possible solutions on this thread instead of repeatedly condemning West Ham United to a life of eternal damnation and conference league football.
What is the point?

Yesterday I pointed to the Lille stadium in Belgium as an example of a multi-functional venue.
Why can’t West Ham solve their problem in a similar or even better way?

I urge you all to have a look at the Lillle (under construction) thread and browse through some of the pages there. The first page shows visuals of the stadium.

Can some of the lessons there in Lille be eventually applied to the Olympic Stadium after the Olympics are finished?

I dont want to get into something with you, but comparing Lille project is really of no use. It's a purpose design multi-function arena.. Its a bit late to suggest that type of approach now. May as well tear it all down to try innovation like that & the cost??...:ohno:
Some things have to be accepted, not solved.
Quotations "If a problem has no solution, it may not be a problem, but a fact - not to be solved, but to be coped with over time".. "Shimon Peres - Israel President"
You cant turn a pig into beauty queen... Its a shame for the fans..

DarJoLe

February 17th, 2011, 03:15 PM

"It should have been a multi-purpose stadium from the start" keeps cropping up, then a complaint it's all the organisers fault from the outset. Er, it shouldn't have been designed as a multi-purpose stadium because it was meant to be an athletics stadium FROM THE BEGINNING.

It's like trying to put a velodrome into an Aquatic Centre and saying well the cyclists might get a bit wet. Well, durh, you're fitting a square peg into a round hole.

The stadium should have been converted to the 25,000 seater English Institute of Sports Science as it was intended to be. The notion that this was financially unsuitable goes to show how much this Government actually understood about the reasons London bid and won the Games. It certainly wasn't because we wanted a multi-purpose stadium.

Axelferis

February 17th, 2011, 04:28 PM

:lol: glad to see that some pzople start to point lille project as a reference :cheers:

I never understood why a similar project not exist in the rainy london?

WooWoo

February 17th, 2011, 04:46 PM

:lol: glad to see that some pzople start to point lille project as a reference :cheers:

I never understood why a similar project not exist in the rainy london?

:lol: :rofl: :lol:

REVUpminster

February 17th, 2011, 05:31 PM

As has been posted before, West Ham were interested even to the point of putting up £100m in advance to make it multi functional but the Icelandic's wanted the freehold. This was refused and they dropped out. The stadium was designed as it is now because of time constraints and then Gold and Sullivan bought West Ham and said they wanted the stadium. Spurs only came into it last September maybe as a stalking horse to force West Ham's hand to take the stadium as it is.

CharlieP

February 17th, 2011, 06:33 PM

So what is this - Flashman the anti West Ham fan?

It makes me wonder… did he have a bad experience with a West Ham fan?
Maybe got his head severely smashed in by one?

Flashman being bullied? That would be a case of literary irony... :lol:

CharlieP

February 17th, 2011, 06:34 PM

oxo

February 17th, 2011, 06:51 PM

'Should have been' and 'could be' are two different
matters meaning it's not too late to convert the
stadium into a multi-functional venue after the
Olympics.

oxo

February 17th, 2011, 06:51 PM

The moaning about the shortcomings of the Olympic stadium as a football stadium sounds a bit self-defeatist.

I don't understand why we should cope with the stadium problem instead
of solving it.

It should have been designed as a multi-purpose stadium. Regrettably it wasn't.

Just because it wasn't, does not mean it now can't be converted into a multi-purpose stadium - meaning athletics/cricket for the summer and football for the other seasons.

It could be designed in such a way that there would only be a 4 to 8 metre distance from the front row of seats to the throw-in line.

Lille stadium only serves to provide an example.
I'm not impressed with the way Lille stadium looks (judging by the visuals) but from a technical/functional aspect it seems very interesting. The solution to West Ham's sight-line problem could have even more technical wow factor.

GunnerJacket

February 17th, 2011, 06:55 PM

Saying its the worst Olympic stadium ever built isnt a "quick thumbs down" is it? No

Tbh, Flashman isnt moaning on a thread specifically designed for WH getting the stadium are they? Why come onto a thread specifically designed for something you quite clearly 'hate' just to slate it? Do you think we all want to know about that? Its just a pointless post, with nothing helpful to supply to the thread.
Actually, responses about this are pretty varied. Some people do see it as an eye-sore, but not "the worst Olympic stadium built" is it? It was a tough act to follow Beijing, but IMO its much more creative than Athens, Sydney and Atlanta's. :bash:
(Not picking on woowoo, just using this post to encapsulize an example)

Regreattably the artistic side of architecture means such works are subject to criticism from even the great unwashed. While we'd like to think participants here come with an equal grasp of principles like "form follows function" (and clearly that's not the case), that doesn't mean opinions won't be swayed by simple visual appeal. Even a fellow arch grad and I completely disagree on some venues.

Thus, I suggest many a contentious debate around here could be diffused by simply reading opinion statements less as ultimatums and more with the old "In my opinion" filter, even if that person doesn't say so. Maybe to that person this IS the worst stadium ever.

After all, for all the bashing Atlanta's venue receives it's arguably the most successful in terms of life-long use - because its form followed a different function, just as London's differs from the Birds Nest. It's all a matter of perspective.

Cheers. :cheers:

GunnerJacket

February 17th, 2011, 07:00 PM

I don't understand why we should cope with the stadium problem instead
of solving it.

...

Just because it wasn't does not mean it now can't be converted into a multi-purpose stadium The problem is that this isn't a logistical matter but one of politics and contractual agreements. Even West Ham would like to do as you're supposing, but in theory the folks behind the venue are obliged to retain the general form.

Axelferis

February 17th, 2011, 07:35 PM

Me Too

February 17th, 2011, 08:02 PM

The problem is that this isn't a logistical matter but one of politics and contractual agreements. Even West Ham would like to do as you're supposing, but in theory the folks behind the venue are obliged to retain the general form.

West Ham is only required to mantain the running track and allow the stadium to be usable for large athletics meets. They could completely rebuild it if they wanted to. The problem is that they only have 95 million budgeted and that will largely be eaten up by making the top tier permanent and by replacing the roof.

WooWoo

February 17th, 2011, 08:45 PM

I don't understand why a Cardiff has a retractable roof and why london has not it! London is the richer and powerful city of europe!

Why such a lack of ambitions ?!

Even Paris french federation is planning their future arena with retractable roof and pitch! Why london isn't able to transform this olympic white elephant in a new modern arena with all accomodations needs?!

please answer guys :)

I think its because London already has like "the ultimate" of all those things. Like Twickenham (rugby) Webmley (football) Lords (cricket) Wimbledon (tennis)

They didnt think to make it a 'multi-use stadium' because London already has stadiums that are capable of hosting world class events like those above already, so they thought whats the point?

The only thing that they dont have is an 'Athletics mecca' sort of thing, thats why the original plans were for athletics.

I could be wrong though, its just my opinion :)

AshVentini

February 17th, 2011, 08:49 PM

I think its because London already has like "the ultimate" of all those things. Like Twickenham (rugby) Webmley (football) Lords (cricket) Wimbledon (tennis)

They didnt think to make it a 'multi-use stadium' because London already has stadiums that are capable of hosting world class events like those above already, so they thought whats the point?

The only thing that they dont have is an 'Athletics mecca' sort of thing, thats why the original plans were for athletics.

I could be wrong though, its just my opinion :)

good answer :okay:

GunnerJacket

February 17th, 2011, 08:56 PM

West Ham is only required to mantain the running track and allow the stadium to be usable for large athletics meets. They could completely rebuild it if they wanted to. The problem is that they only have 95 million budgeted and that will largely be eaten up by making the top tier permanent and by replacing the roof.Exactly. It's a modest contractual obligation that has a big impact on the nature of any redevelopment. It's not that they don't want to reconfigure the stadium into a more true football venue, rather it's that they're not supposed to in order to retain the "legacy." That's all I was trying to clarify for someone.

RobH

February 17th, 2011, 08:58 PM

WooWoo

February 17th, 2011, 10:28 PM

It should have been designed as a multi-purpose stadium. Regrettably it wasn't.

why should we take away a stadiums Olympic originality to make it multi-purpose when we already have stadiums for different events already in place?

Alemanniafan

February 17th, 2011, 11:14 PM

why should we take away a stadiums Olympic originality to make it multi-purpose when we already have stadiums for different events already in place?
Because after the Olympics it will hardly ever be used for what it was originally intended to be built.

In my own personal opinion, neglecting the bid process and the promises of an athletics legacy made there for a moment, assuming London would have won the bid anywas, then it would have been far cheaper and better to just use the new Wembley stadium by temporarily turning it into an athletics venue and adding an olympic torch somewhere nicely.
That way London could have made history, would have had a stadium right up there at the worlds top level with the Birds nest in Bejing.
And the New Wembley being the national stadium would have had another glorious chapter added to it's history.

What happened instead, is that they came up with a cheap disposable that's not even cheap and hardly completely finished for the Olympics. And it will have a legacy of a rare use for athletics (only for larger events) and a very regular use for soccer which it's hardly any good for.

So sadly this stadium does and will allways draw plenty of criticism and ridicule on it. Because the overall package of this stadium project is just poor and flawed everywhere. There is simply nothing exellent or even outstanding about the outcome of this stadium project, while at the same time having plenty of problems, flaws and poor solutions at relatively high cost.

And that is a real pity, because London could have done so much better - and everyone knows that.

RobH

February 17th, 2011, 11:40 PM

I'd rather you didn't invoke "everyone" in your arguments - it doesn't do your point any favours. And I disagree with most of what you've said anyway. Wembley would be out of the way and problematic in terms of shifting people to and from the venue who want to see more than one sport in a day, problematic in terms of fitting a track (the platform solution is a work-around and actually leaves no entrances into the stadium in Wembley's design), problematic in terms of lack of a warm up track or space to build one, and it wouldn't give the same stunning setting as the Olympic Park. It wouldn't leave an athletics legacy to London as was intended with the downsized Olympic stadium before politics decided this legacy wasn't do-able.

The Olympic Stadium was the right way to go; we're only saying London could have done so much better because for some reason the powers that be have decided it should be a football stadium now! The stadium oughtn't draw criticism, nor should its functional design which is perfect for what was intended when it was drawn up. The process of changing the legacy after most of it has been built is what is worthy of criticism. As DarJoLe said, you don't build and aquatics centre then try to make it into a velodrome.

Saul Silver

February 17th, 2011, 11:48 PM

I dont understand what all the fuss about this stadium is, people who are comparing the birds nest to this.
Yes this isnt the nicest looking stadium but the olympics is about the whole city ,NOT just an individual stadium. Beijing is a sh******.

Alemanniafan

February 18th, 2011, 12:25 AM

... It wouldn't leave an athletics legacy to London as was intended with the downsized Olympic stadium before politics decided this legacy wasn't do-able.
And that's exactly where the key flaw in the whole project is. What was planed is simply not do-able.

... The Olympic Stadium was the right way to go; we're only saying London could have done so much better because for some reason the powers that be have decided it should be a football stadium now!
The stadium oughtn't draw criticism, nor should its functional design which is perfect for what was intended when it was drawn up. The process of changing the legacy after most of it has been built is what is worthy of criticism. As DarJoLe said, you don't build and aquatics centre then try to make it into a velodrome.Yes, so why should one be so stupid to actually plan and build an aquatics center in the first place when one in fact really needs a velodrome?

The Olympics stadium obviously wasn't the right way to go because the direction of the path has obviously been drastically changed in the mean time.

It might have been the right way to go if only the path and the goals had not been changed in the meantime, which they have though.
It may also have been the wrong way to go all along in the first place.
Either way the poor outcome proves that some serious mistakes have been made at some point of the process.

By the way the Birds Nest in Beijing in fact happens to have far greater problems with it's Olympic legacy than the stadium discussed here has with it's planned legacy. But somehow hardly anyone happens to care about that.

DarJoLe

February 18th, 2011, 11:49 AM

Either way the poor outcome proves that some serious mistakes have been made at some point of the process.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

If London had bid with Wembley as the Olympic stadium, we would never have had the impetus to build the Olympic Park. There would be no regeneration on the scale of Hyde Park in East London. There would be no impetus for the Olympics to leave a profitable positive legacy in London. Nobody would believe the Olympics would be worth the cost, therefore no-one would have been on board to support a bid for it.

London proposed a tight cluster of venues, an Olympic village, temporary solutions to prevent white elephants and a legacy of massive regeneration of land for decades of future use to the people who needed convincing to support a London Games. The organisers felt London required a 100% dedicated athletics stadium to inspire a new generation into athletics and placed this as a prominent reason for voting for London, and built a stadium that can be reconfigured to provide this. The Mayor at the time offered a subsidy, as well as the money made from the regeneration and other venue admission to pay for its upkeep. It was very obvious it wouldn't make a vast, if any, profit, but it was something needed for the good of the nation to continue to inspire students into sport for generations and to visit and say 'it happened here'. That's a powerful concept for kids, and something that we should, as a nation, support, just as we support our loss making heritage sites, churches, and landmarks across the nation. Sometimes these things are important as an inspiring beacon to maintain a positive, well balanced and hopefully, from the notion of the National Institute of Sport, a healthier nation.

What changed was a different direction in belief of finance and unwillingness to underwrite the subsidy by a change in Mayor and Government, who, whether you agree or not, believe the Institute of Sports and Sports Science stadium idea to be not worthy of taxpayers money. So now the waters have muddied, and there needs to be a lot of compromise from both sides. But it certainly isn't a case that things were 'done wrong' at any stage - things were done the way they were to get us where we are today, which, as I think some people are forgetting the bigger picture, is London hosting the best and most inspirational Olympic and Paralympic Games of this generation.

oxo

February 19th, 2011, 02:15 AM

it certainly isn't a case that things were 'done wrong' at any stage.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

DarJoLe: There were quite a lot of key figures who had the authority to make a difference but lacked any foresight, strategy and imagination during the planning process. As a result we have ended up with a stadium which fulfills most of the requirements for those few weeks during the Olympics but nothing much beyond them apart from athletics.

After much dithering and political wrangling, a plan was put in place to reduce the capacity of the Olympic athletics stadium to 25,000 but with flagrant disregard of other sports, most notably football and in particular West Ham United - a club only about 15 minutes walk away and which had been desperately looking for a new venue for quite a few years.

So why is it that the board of West Ham United, Newham Council and the Olympic committee failed to agree on a mutually beneficial deal a few months after London was awarded the right to host? Both parties had a lot to offer each other - West Ham in sustaining the legacy and preventing a white elephant, the Olympic committee in making the marvellously located site available to West Ham for next to nothing!

Unfortunately politics, as is often the situation, got in the way of intelligent planning and plain common sense.

This is not a case of hindsight is a wonderful thing but more a case of foresight would have been a wonderful thing.

Axelferis

February 19th, 2011, 10:53 AM

WooWoo

February 19th, 2011, 12:41 PM

??? are you serious? Beijing did BETTER than this london creation

He means London is better than Beijing as a city, which is quite right. He's not comparing the stadiums :)

RobH

February 19th, 2011, 12:55 PM

It's terrible isn't it?! The aquatics centre was built in flagrant disregard of other sports apart from swimming, the velodrome built in flagrant disregard of other sports apart from cycling, and don't even get me started on the White Water Centre - you couldn't kick a ball there?! How dare an athletics staduim be built in flagrant disregard of other sports, particularly football which should, of course, have a say in everything!

oxo

February 19th, 2011, 01:20 PM

^^

That's the way of the world - football rules.
Well, certainly in the UK it does.

I think the creation of a dual-purpose velodrome and swimming pool
venue would be possible albeit ridiculous. I know you are taking the piss.

However, the creation of a dual-purpose athletics and football venue?
Nothing ridiculous about that. If you think it is a stupid idea, please tell us why.

If it wasn't for the plain incompetence of key figures in the planning process, we would have a dual-purpose stadium that would superbly serve West Ham United as well as athletics/cricket.

By the way, I have been to the Beijing stadium during its construction and a few months after the games were held there. In reality it does look quite original but there is something awkwardly heavy and clumsy about its appearance. It does not have as much wow factor as, for example, Warsaw's more elegant and more refined looking stadium that will host some of the 2012 Euro football games.

RobH

February 19th, 2011, 01:35 PM

DarJoLe has explained above better than I can. The point was, a small-modern athletics stadium was what was needed, and that's what was built (with a temporary upper tier for the Games). Nothing incompetent about that at all.

However, the creation of a dual-purpose athletics and football venue? Nothing ridiculous about that. If you think it is a stupid idea, please tell us why.

I don't think it's a stupid idea; but it wasn't the idea that was decided upon and built, that's all. I think what is stupid is trying to now convert a mostly temporary athletics stadium into a permanant football stadium rather than converting it to its originally planned use. And that's a decision driven by politics and a recession nobody saw coming six years ago more than anything.

The point is London needed a small and modern athletics stadium in a good location. There was nothing incompetent or "wrong" in going in that direction, just as there wouldn't have been anything incompetent or "wrong" about going in a different direction. It's the CHANGE of direction now the thing's built which causing the problems.

oxo

February 19th, 2011, 02:26 PM

We reap what we sow and what we have now is a stadium not fit for purpose in terms of the football spectator experience. It has nothing to do with changes of direction but lack of vision.

Simply put:

1.For several years West Ham United needed a new ground with higher capacity in a local area

2.We needed the Olympic legacy to be sustained and athletics on its own could not carry such a weight on it shoulder in a prime location with such great transport links as Stratford.

Any person or group of people with even an ounce of intelligence would try and accommodate both needs and kill 2 birds with one stone (ie. A dual-purpose stadium which could be partly dismantled after the Olympics for less capacity).

This should have been done, was not done and now West Ham face a very big problem.

Axelferis

February 19th, 2011, 02:36 PM

CharlieP

February 19th, 2011, 07:45 PM

i recognize one thing:

>London is very well equiped for all sports:

-O2 arena for indoor
-Wembley+emirates for football
-Twickenham for rugby
-Wimbledon for tennis
-The "awful" olympic stadium for athletism

Why is it "awful"? I thought the designers came up with a perfectly good proposal - 80,000 seats for the Olympics, 55,000 of which can be recycled afterwards leaving a 25,000-seat athletics stadium, perfect for IAAF Grand Prix/Diamond League plus all the national championships, and used year-round as a centre of excellence. What's awful is that that plan's now been rejected so that a soccer team can move in...

Axelferis

February 19th, 2011, 07:47 PM

"Perfectly good proposal"???

i can't imagine one second this project has something perfect! :nuts:

RobH

February 19th, 2011, 08:25 PM

Seriously, stop trolling. There are a lot of good things about this stadium; the sightlines are superb, the interior is stunning (matching any past Olympic stadium in my opinion), the parkland location, the economy of materials, the lightness of touch and merging of the exterior and interior, the wrap (if we get it), the demountable architecture.

WooWoo

February 19th, 2011, 08:43 PM

Any person or group of people with even an ounce of intelligence would try and accommodate both needs and kill 2 birds with one stone (ie. A dual-purpose stadium which could be partly dismantled after the Olympics for less capacity).

This should have been done, was not done and now West Ham face a very big problem.

Why would they want to do this?

The Olympic stadium had nothing to do with West Ham, and the organizers and contractors didn't either, so why would they want to build this stadium with West Ham in mind?

West Ham would have been quite capable of re-locating to another stadium by themselves, the only reason the Olympic stadium has come into the picture is because of the recession.

Putting an Athletics event that regularly gets around 20,000 spectators with a football club that normally gets 43,000 is just ridiculous, and is flawed, so the principal of this stadium, which is what the original plan was, should be to host athletics alone

the wrap (if we get it)

by the way, has there been any updates on the wrap?

RobH

February 19th, 2011, 08:57 PM

WooWoo

February 19th, 2011, 09:02 PM

I don't know whether this is news to you or not WooWoo, but this is the last I heard:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/08/uk-olympics-britain-wrap-idUKTRE7173IT20110208

More details:

http://www.newtownabbey.gov.uk/business/downloads/Bulletin%20103%20-%20London%202012%20Olympic%20Stadium%20Wrap.pdf

Cheers :)

I guess we just have to wait and see now, I really do hope the wrap is done though, or the stadium will just look terrible and unfinished :ohno::ohno:

RobH

February 19th, 2011, 09:32 PM

Indeed, though in my opinion there's much more chance of it happening than not now. They opened the tender process on the back of private companies coming to them expressing ideas and interest. It's not like they opened it hoping someone, anyone (!) would come forward.

As a public body they couldn't just hand it to the first company that came forward, they've had to make an official, public tender process. I'm quite confident they're just making sure everything is official and properly done, and that we will get a wrap in the end.

I think it's probable the Sophie Smallhorn colour scheme may be lost given that private money's going to be involved and they'll want input on the design. That's a shame but I'm sure what we'll get will be better than nothing.

Alemanniafan

February 19th, 2011, 09:34 PM

Seriously, stop trolling. There are a lot of good things about this stadium;
I disagree there
the sightlines are superb
They're not superb at all, in fact they are no better than in any other modern stadium. Especially the viewingdistances are in fact pretty bad, even though the builders surely say otherwise.
But what they are comparing are just the maximum viewdistances of the stadium with those in other, especially even with those of larger stadia.
But minimum viewing distances in many other olympic stadia are far better than here, easily noticeable because of the bid distances between running track and stands. So if you compare the average viewingdistaces for the best 80000 seats in olympic stadia the outcome should show something completely different than they're saying. And minimum and maximum viewingdistances for the best 80000 seasts should most likely also be better in many other stadia. It's just unfair to compare the view in the last rows in a stadium with a capacity of 90000 to those of a stadium with 80000 seats and then claim that the views were overall better.

the interior is stunning (matching any past Olympic stadium in my opinion) That's your opinion, mine is also different here. But let's not argue there. We most likely won't convince each other in that point anyways

the parkland location, the economy of materials, the lightness of touch and merging of the exterior and interior
Again a question of personal taste. Is the parkland location better than the Olympic park in Munich or Sochi or wherever else?

the wrap (if we get it)
Well the wrap is not there yet, so let's just wait and see if it will come in time or not. The fact that it's being discussed if it will come for the Olympics or ever is probably rather embarassing though than stunning or good.

the demountable architecture.
That's something which can be discussed. It's a very big demountable architecture. But there have been other stadia with demountable stands before. A good example is the stadium in Innsbruck, where the temporary expansion was not exactly a comercial success. And the demountable parts of that stadium could not be sold sucessfully as intended and thus ended up just being shredded and recycled.

Another aspect about the Olympic Stadium is that this demountable architecture (which just judged by itself alone, all isolated and just regarding only the intended original purpose is indeed rather good and interesting and aesthetic) will now not be demounted but have to be turned into a permanent structure. So what was originally meant to be an advantage indeed happens to turn into a disadvantage now, exactly because the upper tier of the stadium has not been designed to be permanent, even though it is intended to be used permanently now.

I could list more points that I find anything but extraordinary or superb or outstanding, like the design of the roof in fact even the overall stadium design that looks very simmilar to the Olympic stadium in Kiev, the Mercedes Benz Arena, the Silesian Stadium Chorzow in Poland and a few others.

Your personal opinion is, that there are a lot of good things, I personally only see very few good things and a lot of bad or average things instead.
Different opinions are what make a forum interesting, especially if it's a forum about stadium architecture and not just a fan forum.
The Olympic stadium is very interesting to discuss because of the different views and opinions on the matter.

It's surely not like everyone should basically have to like it and anyone who doesn't is a troll.
In an forum about stadium architecture a posting saying nothing but just a brief: "Awfull!" is no more or just as trolling as a posing only saying: "Superb!".
Both of that kind don't really add anything of great interest to a discussion about architecture or facts.

Mossy22

February 19th, 2011, 09:50 PM

Alemanniafan

February 19th, 2011, 10:18 PM

^^^^ I really dont see what people gain from coming on this thread and being negative. Do u have a problem with people being positive about this staduim? Ure entitled to ure opinion and everything but i just dont see the reason to post it and cause an argument. I come on this thread because i am excited about the olympics being held in my country and look for progress or announcements and all i end up seeing is people argueing the toss over what pleases them. seriously guys why the repetative negative posts we understand ure point just go to the threads u like and just let us discuss more relevant issues concerning this staduim that we happen to like
Why should I have a problem with people being positive about this stadium?
I enjoy controversial discussions and this stadium and the entire process of changes is very interesting to follow and to discuss. That's what makes this thread interesting for me.

If you want a thread to just glorify the stadium and everything about it feel free to open one where only positive arguments are allowed or go join some London Olypmics fan forum where everyone probably just loves the stadium.

But that's not what this forum and this thread is about, wether you like it or not. It's an international stadium architecture forum where good stadia are being discussed and criticised just as bad stadia are being discussed and criticised also.

If it were just about trolling and insulting that would be something different but this thread is clearly not, it's by far mostly a discussion based on reasonable facts, arguments and reasonable understandable opinions.
It's clearly not being overly spoiled by spammers and trolls.
It's just a more polarized discussion than in other threads, but that mostly has to do with the nature of the matter being discussed and only very rarely with behavior of those that argue here.

RobH

February 19th, 2011, 10:47 PM

I enjoy reading your posts Alemanniafan; Axelferris on the other hand comes into this thread every other week to state his opinion in two or three words and sends the thread off-topic. It is trolling as far as I'm concerned, or at least it's got that point given the regularity with which he does it.

With regard to the points in your post, saying the sightlines are "no better than in any other modern stadium" isn't really disproving my point. Sightlines are generally pretty damn good in all modern stadiums, often to the detriment of other aspects such as intimacy and atmosphere.

Aesthetics we'll disagree on; there's not much point arguing the toss over that because you're right, we won't convince each other. I acutally think, without the wrap it's a bit of a mess on the outside so am hopeful (and indeed confident now) that it'll be reinstated. Internally, as I said, I think it's a stunner and once the plastic is lifted off the bright white seats, the grass is laid and the tangerine orange track put down, I think others might well come round to this point of view as well.

The park setting doesn't have to be better than Munich or Sochi or wherever to be good. I wasn't saying it's the best ever, or anything like that. But the park setting will lift this stadium once the planting is completed, I'm quite sure of that. Imagine Wimbledon Centre court in the middle of a brown building site rather than a green park and you'll get my point I hope.

The fact that the demountable architecture happens to be a disadvantage now is becuse we're trying to fit square pegs into round holes; it's nothing to do with the design which is fine for its INTENDED legacy (as opposed to the one we're now getting). Had the stadium become what was originally intended it wouldn't be a problem and would be seen as an elegant solution. Nonetheless, despite its temporary nature, it seems like it is robust enough to become permanent (it's now temporary in the same sense the London Eye, the Eiffel Tower etc are temporary :D ).

The one point I will concede is regarding the roof. I do think the legacy aspect of the roof wasn't as well thought through as it should have been. The limited 25k legacy stadium roof is not good (well, it's almost non-existent actually). Not that that matters now of course because we'll never see the stadium as it was originally intended to be post-2012.

Axelferis

February 19th, 2011, 11:00 PM

RobH

February 19th, 2011, 11:09 PM

I've had other French posters apologise to me because of your tiresome posts in this thread. I think that says it all.

Axelferis

February 19th, 2011, 11:22 PM

George Cantstandya

February 19th, 2011, 11:23 PM

Robh-> we are discussing then stop to treat me like a troll everytime i object with argues that london has do something weak with this structure compare to wembley , o2 arena!

why can't you make a good critic of this stadium? When i say wembley is great do you say i troll?

Then stop because it's not the first time! :ohno:

I'll probably be accused of being a troll myself or may be banned for saying so, but this is the most annoying poster here. I mostly read rather than post, but this guy is all over the place criticizing or offering backhanded compliments to every stadium not being built in Lille, or not resembelling Le Grand Stade.

WooWoo

February 19th, 2011, 11:37 PM

Stop this childish attitude for the safe of this thread!

i don't understand why you do this! Is it a crime to comment the weakness of this structure?

If i say wembley is a wonder do you say something?

Tbh, you are allowed (as is everyone) you're own opinion on this stadium, and indeed the olympics, but some of the things you say have nothing to do with the Olympics.

Its like you're constantly trying to get one up on London, for example, saying "you know what the weather is like in London" or "in rainy London" or saying that this architecture is boring and dull, which is typical of Britain.

Do you really thing that this has anything to do with the Olympic stadium? The architecture yes, but no need to make personal references to other things.

And I'm sorry, but can you please stop going on about this London weather crap. Its drier than Paris, and most places in France. And it has nothing to do with the Olympic stadium.

Now that is what I consider to be trolling.

Axelferis

February 20th, 2011, 12:09 AM

ok i stop to coment on this thread because the majority just want to hear positives things on it whithout seeing all aspects! ok i don't change my opinion but i stop posting on london olympic!

it's not democracy rules .

And please George castagnada-> "this guy " talk directly to me. i don't even know you then adress me a Mp if you to say something because it's disrepectful to talk to me indirectly like you do. indeed to say false things on me ...

REVUpminster

February 20th, 2011, 12:41 AM

If Chicago had won the next Olympics, they were hoping to sell the upper steelwork for their stadium but it now would have to be scrapped at a cost of £35m for an athletics stadium. As for sightlines the upper tiers along the sides can be no worse than the Emirites. 80,000 seats in the same footprint as the Emirites. On their page they seem to complain about the distance between pitch and the lower tier and talking of lowering the pitch to get more seats in.

AshVentini

February 20th, 2011, 12:24 PM

oxo

February 20th, 2011, 12:35 PM

The Olympic stadium had nothing to do with West Ham, and the organizers and contractors didn't either, so why would they want to build this stadium with West Ham in mind?

WooWoo:
They could have built a dual-purpose stadium to prevent a white elephant from forming. Athletics has not a strong enough foothold in British sporting culture to be self-sustaining, even in the context of post-olympic potential. It needs other more prosperous ‘flat-mates’.

West Ham were waiting in the wings like a gorgeous woman at the bar you had to approach and chat her up. So why did you let that opportunity go by?
Because you had nothing to do with her in the same way the organizers/contractors had nothing to do with West Ham?
West Ham could prevent a white elephant, so wasn’t that considered to be important at the time???

West Ham would have been quite capable of re-locating to another stadium by themselves, the only reason the Olympic stadium has come into the picture is because of the recession.

Have you heard of the saying ‘You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’ when two people need something that the other can offer? West Ham offering to sustain the legacy with athletics intact and the Olympic organisation figures offering a 'politically cleared' marvellous location.
The recession has little bearing on the matter - West Ham needed a location even before the recession and athletics alone would not have provided a self-sustaining legacy, even without a recession.

REVUpminster

February 20th, 2011, 12:51 PM

West Ham's Icelandic owners did offer £100m at the design stage for a multiuse stadium but wanted the freehold and were turned down. They did and still have alternate plans to rebuild the east side with a mini west stand (no boxes) but for the huge cost of the roof girder and only gaining 5000 seats it is very expensive. Then there is the parcelforce site at West Ham station. Good transport links (5 lines, 8 platforms) but they were concerned about the gasholders (the IRA did blow a hole in one in the 70's but the natural gas did not ignite) even though flats have been built on the Bromley by Bow side seperated only by the river lea and canal.

WooWoo

February 20th, 2011, 01:19 PM

WooWoo:
They could have built a dual-purpose stadium to prevent a white elephant from forming. Athletics has not a strong enough foothold in British sporting culture to be self-sustaining, even in the context of post-olympic potential. It needs other more prosperous ‘flat-mates’.

How could a 25,000 seater athletics stadium be a white elephant? Crystal Palace manage to pack in 24,000 quite easily when big events on, and they don't need another tenant to help keep the stadium popular.
And Athletics does have a strong foothold in British sporting culture, as things like Worlds and European championships, UK Grand prix's, Indoor championships, Dimon League meetings, London Grand Prix (I could go on) are shown on main stream TV. Not to mention the London Marathon which receives hours of coverage, and is watched by millions in this country. It is a very popular sport Athletics, and is gaining more and more in popularity
So tbh, they wouldn't of needed another tenant, because Athletics as one sport could cope quite easily by itself.

West Ham were waiting in the wings like a gorgeous woman at the bar you had to approach and chat her up. So why did you let that opportunity go by?
Because you had nothing to do with her in the same way the organizers/contractors had nothing to do with West Ham?
West Ham could prevent a white elephant, so wasn’t that considered to be important at the time???

The recession has little bearing on the matter - West Ham needed a location even before the recession and athletics alone would not have provided a self-sustaining legacy, even without a recession.

Well, it did, as if forced plans for the Olympic stadiums post Olympic use to be changed quite dramatically. An Athletics stadium would provide a very strong legacy, and would have been the best choice for the stadium imo.

LondonLoves

February 20th, 2011, 01:20 PM

That Barry Hearn from Leyton Orient confuses me.The decision was made that West Ham have won the stadium, and now Leyton are jumping in saying we want it and we will fight to get it.....Bit late now isn't it?

oxo

February 20th, 2011, 01:21 PM

^^

At least West Ham had a vision of sorts but were brushed aside by the elitist Olympic idealists who imagined athletics would become so popular after the Olympics, that they turned their noses down at West Ham and their £100m offer of a dual-purpose redesign.
The Chariots of Fire brigade did not want football to contaminate the wonderful purity of their beloved athletics by sharing the same venue with West Ham United and the populist sport they represent.
Talk about snobbery!

This is what I meant by lack of imagination, foresight and vision. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with shifting circumstances as someone was harping on about before.

Is, as WooWoo suggests, athletics too special to have shared its venue with West Ham United?
Athletics for athletics sake in its own stadium designed exclusively for it? That's a very selfish and inconsiderate stance to take.

LondonLoves

February 20th, 2011, 01:24 PM

Im confused, are you happy about West Ham winning it or not?

WooWoo

February 20th, 2011, 01:29 PM

This is what I meant by lack of imagination, foresight and vision.

How the hell did it lack vision?!? We have 5 perfectly good, and large football clubs and stadiums, not including 90,000 Wembley. :bash:
So why on earth would they want to design this stadium for football?!? When the only area of sports London doesn't have a world class stadium for is Athletics?
The post-use design for this stadium (appart from the roof) was spot on. They had done a good job designing this for Athletics only, it did have vision, it was supposed to be the centre of Athletics for Great Britain.

Is, as WooWoo suggests, athletics too special to have shared its venue with West Ham United?
Athletics for athletics sake in its own stadium designed exclusively for it? That's a very selfish and inconsiderate stance to take.

How the hell is that selfish?!? Sorry for them wanting a world class stadium just for athletics, seems as though they don't have one yet (Crystal Palace maybe, but it doesn't really rival what we would call "world class stadiums" in this country)

REVUpminster

February 20th, 2011, 04:35 PM

The current roof is spot on. Once lowered onto the lower tier it would cover the seats. It's current use is for summer only and the spectators praying it does not rain

oxo

February 20th, 2011, 06:21 PM

How the hell did it lack vision?!? We have 5 perfectly good, and large football clubs and stadiums, not including 90,000 Wembley,

WooWoo, it lacked vision mainly because of the following 3 reasons:

1. it failed to recognize the needs of the wider community in the surrounding areas of Stratford, most notably West and East Ham.
Like it or not, football rules supreme and West Ham needed a new stadium with more capacity. (We may have 5 very good football venues but West Ham desperately need a better stadium of its own)

2. Only a limited number of athletics events will take place there and not even on a monthly basis. How does this compare with the weekly use that West Ham United will bring? This alone is justification enough for the stadium to have been designed as a dual-purpose stadium.

3. If we are going to go to such lengths as to build a stadium why not get our money’s worth and make maximum use out of it, especially with it being in such a great location with all the transport links. Just because the Olympics will be held there will not make it some sort of holy shrine to athletics in which other sports are sniffed at.

It could still have been the mecca for athletics in Britain but why at the expense or inconvenience of tens of thousands of fans visiting the stadium on a weekly basis?

A cleverly designed dual-purpose stadium would be all the more amazing – the first stadium in the world to perfectly cater for both football spectators as well as athletics ones unlike all the rest – Stade de France, Berlin, etc.

The world would marvel at our ingenuity in the way it did during the Victorian era.

That chance of a dual-purpose stadium went begging but has now passed by. Instead West Ham are now faced with a task which seems like trying to square a circle, albeit not an impossible one. I am happy about West Ham moving in on one hand, but unhappy on the other.

WooWoo

February 20th, 2011, 06:42 PM

WooWoo, it lacked vision mainly because of the following 3 reasons:

1. it failed to recognize the needs of the wider community in the surrounding areas of Stratford, most notably West and East Ham.
Like it or not, football rules supreme and West Ham needed a new stadium with more capacity. (We may have 5 very good football venues but West Ham desperately need a better stadium of its own)

Football reigns supreme, yes, but it has nothing to do with Olympic Organizers. They see Athletics as the main sport in the Olympics, why else would it always either get the biggest stadium, have the blue ribboned events, or be held in the same stadium as the ceremonies. When this stadium was designed, hell, even before we won the bid, the organizers weren't thinking "West Ham, West Ham, West Ham" were they? West Ham are and were quite capable of finding there own stadium

2. Only a limited number of athletics events will take place there and not even on a monthly basis. How does this compare with the weekly use that West Ham United will bring? This alone is justification enough for the stadium to have been designed as a dual-purpose stadium.

Most of the UK's athletic events will be held there, as it was intended to be the Athletics home. And I really don't see West Ham filling 60,000 seats, and the atmosphere will be quite bad if they don't put seating over the track. Once West Ham have hold of it, Locog will have no profit in it, so why would they care about profit or money?

3. If we are going to go to such lengths as to build a stadium why not get our money’s worth and make maximum use out of it, especially with it being in such a great location with all the transport links. Just because the Olympics will be held there will not make it some sort of holy shrine to athletics in which other sports are sniffed at.

It was planned to be the home of Athletics, it's not just some term someone has dreamed up because the Olympics were held there. Why build another football stadium when there are already loads around? Especially as it is in such a great place.

It could still have been the mecca for athletics in Britain but why at the expense or inconvenience of tens of thousands of fans visiting the stadium on a weekly basis?

A cleverly designed dual-purpose stadium would be all the more amazing – the first stadium in the world to perfectly cater for both football spectators as well as athletics ones unlike all the rest – Stade de France, Berlin, etc.

True, but why do this? When we already have plenty of football stadiums, or world class rugby and cricket stadiums around? It would just be pointless not to cater for just Athletics

That chance of a dual-purpose stadium went begging but has now passed by. Instead West Ham are now faced with a task which seems like trying to square a circle, albeit not an impossible one. I am happy about West Ham moving in on one hand, but unhappy on the other.

This bid was made with a legacy for Athletics in mind, not a legacy for every sport under the sun in mind. Why make it a multi-purpose stadium when the only world class stadium we don't have is Athletics??

Jericho-79

February 20th, 2011, 08:59 PM

Sorry to hijack the ongoing discussion here for a moment.

But...

After the Olympics, do you guys think that naming rights will be given to this new stadium?

I mean- The Olympic Stadium in Sydney was named "Telstra Stadium" and then "ANZ Stadium" after the 2000 Summer Games.

RobH

February 20th, 2011, 09:08 PM

I don't know who would own the rights to the stadium to sell on the naming rights since technically West Ham are a tenant aren't they?

CharlieP

February 20th, 2011, 09:45 PM

Sorry to hijack the ongoing discussion here for a moment.

Given that the ongoing discussion is basically "This is the worst Olympic stadium in history" followed by "Stop trolling this thread, it's getting boring", any change of direction is pretty welcome. :lol:

oxo

February 20th, 2011, 10:36 PM

I do not think the stadium is the worst ever designed, Far from it.
My argument is that the organisers did not have the foresight to
build something more ambitious - a truly innovative dual-purpose stadium serving mainly football but also athletics in the summer months.

They see Athletics as the main sport in the Olympics, why else would it always either get the biggest stadium, have the blue ribboned events, or be held in the same stadium as the ceremonies.

WooWoo: Yes, I understand the Olympic ceremonial excess that the stadium must indulge in. I also appreciate that football could not be considered as the key sport for the actual Olympics themselves.
However, what about the long run? The venue as a sporting facility for decades to come?

When this stadium was designed, hell, even before we won the bid, the organizers weren't thinking "West Ham, West Ham, West Ham" were they? West Ham are and were quite capable of finding there own stadium

No, they probably were not thinking ‘’West Ham, West Ham, West Ham’’ but surely they must have been very anxious about creating a white elephant.
Even greyhound stadiums and 25,000 capacity stadiums can become windswept and redundant after a few years.

Hosting mainly athletics could not guarantee the stadium from becoming largely redundant. What a terrible waste of a great site that would be, especially with such great transport links. To have a 25,000 stadium in such a location put on a financial life support machine would be just plain madness.
Surely such worrying thoughts must have crossed the ortganisers’ minds in those weeks following the day we won the bid.

A few months later West Ham even approached them with an offer – a post-olympics lifeline for the stadium.

Most of the UK's athletic events will be held there, as it was intended to be the Athletics home. And I really don't see West Ham filling 60,000 seats, and the atmosphere will be quite bad if they don't put seating over the track.

Sad as this may seem to you, most of the locals could not give 2 hoots about athletics. What they would have been thrilled about would be a dual-purpose stadium which, in my realistic estimation, would attract about 40,000 to 50,000 for football matches. How would such a figure compare to annual athletic event attendances? Very poorly indeed.

Why build another football stadium when there are already loads around? Especially as it is in such a great place.

It would not have strictly been about building a football stadium as such, albeit one that brilliantly serving football spectators’ needs. The missed opportunity was to build a dual-purpose stadium that would be the only one in London, or indeed even the UK. There are certainly not loads of truly dual-purpose stadiums around, all the more reason to have built one.

This bid was made with a legacy for Athletics in mind, not a legacy for every sport under the sun in mind.

A dual-purpose stadium would have retained the legacy whilst serving the high local demand for football. If only the organisers and other key figures had the foresight, intelligence and imagination to decide on building a dual-purpose stadium. Not designed for every sport under the sun but enough to get maximum usage out of the stadium.

Just imagine what an impression such an ambitious dual-purpose stadium could make on an international scale, especially if it was ingeniously designed. The Olympics would have presented the stadium with the ideal platform of publicity for such an innovative stadium.

Oh well...

AshVentini

February 20th, 2011, 10:40 PM

I don't know who would own the rights to the stadium to sell on the naming rights since technically West Ham are a tenant aren't they?

I have been asking this for weeks (without any answer) and my view was similar. WH have talked about NR, but they are tenants, so it doesnt seem right. Thought it would go to owners, but perhaps this is part of the "management model" agreed to convert it? Someone else said lease is different to being tenant, but i dont see how it is..

GideaParkHammer

February 20th, 2011, 11:05 PM

I don't know who would own the rights to the stadium to sell on the naming rights since technically West Ham are a tenant aren't they?

I think West Ham and Newham, as a JV, are Leaseholders as opposed to tenants. This would mean that they would share any money from naming rights.

GideaParkHammer

February 20th, 2011, 11:07 PM

Someone else said lease is different to being tenant, but i dont see how it is..

It is very different. In effect West Ham and Newham will own the stadium for the fixed period of the lease.

RobH

February 20th, 2011, 11:12 PM

Lease the land but own the stadium, in effect?

GideaParkHammer

February 21st, 2011, 12:11 AM

Lease the land but own the stadium, in effect?

I do not want to say for sure, but that is my understanding of it....or more lease the stadium and rent the land. The closest real life example I can give is if you lease a shop from a Landlord, (I use example this as I am in Lettings), and the shopkeeper could have someone pay to advertise their product in the shop sign, (which naming rights basically is), and that revenue is the Leaseholders.

Me Too

February 21st, 2011, 12:13 AM

GideaParkHammer

February 21st, 2011, 12:52 AM

West Ham and Newham will have the naming rights. Tottenham's bid mentioned that the naming rights could help offset the cost of rebuilding. They argued that the naming rights would be more valuable for the rebuilt stadium because, if the original building stood, many people would always call it The Olympic Stadium regardless of its official name.

One of the questions that I can not get a definitive answer for is whether you can still officially have the name "Olympic" in the title of a stadium that is sponsored. The IOC seem pretty reluctant to have any sponsorship linked with the Olympics, and I can not think of any former Olympic Stadium being linked with a sponsor, such as the ANZ Stadium, and retaining the Olympic Legend.

If this is the case, and if the Stadium is sponsored, I would prefer something like "Stratford Stadium" or "Queen Elizabeth II Park" sponsored by <insert Sponsor>, rather than <Insert Sponsor> Stadium.

WooWoo

February 21st, 2011, 12:55 AM

One of the questions that I can not get a definitive answer for is whether you can still officially have the name "Olympic" in the title of a stadium that is sponsored. The IOC seem pretty reluctant to have any sponsorship linked with the Olympics, and I can not think of any former Olympic Stadium being linked with a sponsor, such as the ANZ Stadium, and retaining the Olympic Legend.

If this is the case, and if the Stadium is sponsored, I would prefer something like "Stratford Stadium" or "Queen Elizabeth II Park" sponsored by <insert Sponsor>, rather than <Insert Sponsor> Stadium.

Maybe as part of a deal for supplying the wrap, the IOC could agree to calling the stadium something to do with the company that supplied it?

Alemanniafan

February 21st, 2011, 01:15 AM

...
If this is the case, and if the Stadium is sponsored, I would prefer something like "Stratford Stadium" or "Queen Elizabeth II Park" sponsored by <insert Sponsor>, rather than <Insert Sponsor> Stadium.

That's very unlikely to happen, because a namesponsor surely doesn't have much interest in paying for a stadium name that's not going to be used.

And "Stratfort Stadium sponsored by XYZ & sons Ltd." is not something anyone would say, so the stadium would just end up being called "Stratford Stadium" instead of "XYZ & sons Ltd. arena".

My club here in Aachen originally tried to sell the name of the new Tivoli, a stadium with a very traditional and very well known name here in Soccer-Germany.
Since the traditional stadium name Tivoli was allways a very important and powerful "brand" and selling the stadium name in the opinion of local fans would almost be halfwhat like selling the clubs name.
The club decided to make the traditional name Tivoli a suffix to a sponsor name instead of stadium or arena. So it would have been something along the line of "XYZ & sons Ltd. Tivoli"
They weren't successfull in finding an appropriate sponsor willing to pay enough to give up the name so they kind of just sold it to the fans instead by selling bond issues.

What we now have is the official traditional stadiums name TIVOLI written on the facade of the stadium with a little "powered by STAWAG" behind it (a lokal energy company) which just payed for having their advertisement on the stadiums facade. But it's not part of the name. And four separately sponsored names of stands inside the stadium just like in the old Tivoli where we had two sponsored stands.

I suppose our powerful traditional stadium name Tivoli was a problem in terms of getting a decent namingrights deal. And having this traditional name as part in a sponsored stadium name was most likely less attractive for a potential sponsor than the suffix arena or stadium, because it encourages people to just continue using the old name without mentioning the sponsor at all.

Someone who pays a lot of money for a name wants to make sure it's "their name" and not someone (or something) elses name with the sponsor as a suffix.

Alemanniafan

February 21st, 2011, 01:26 AM

Maybe as part of a deal for supplying the wrap, the IOC could agree to calling the stadium something to do with the company that supplied it?

Probably very simmilar to the FIFA regulations only if it's COKE (or was it Pepsi?) or a name of some other very large official Sponsor from the Olypmics.

In the 2006 WC in Germany stadia with sponsored names had to be renamed and Letters removed from the facades temporarly.
Gottlieb Daimler Stadium in Stuttgart was allready a problem and only allowed as an exception since it's the name of the person and not the brand Mercedes or the company Daimler-Chrysler, which is what the name of the company was at that time.

AshVentini

February 21st, 2011, 11:32 AM

Whomever gets the rights deal will want it as the primary name for sure. I would. The stadium does not have any history and the olympic legacy really wont distract because it will only been associated for a matter of weeks (in real terms). It wont take long before people say "we are playing in the xxxxxx stadium today, you know the old olympic stadium" and that will die over time too IMO. The only problem is that WH are taking the ground and they are not really a big team or have attractive marketing power to build from, so it will reduce their bargaining power on fee.
So its positive that little history and longevity will be an issue for WH. Stadiums like Juve new ground have the issue of being built on the same site (using some of the same infrastructure) and often called new delle alpi. And thats only with a 18 yr old stadium... so its different considerations & opportunities if done right.
In general, i think this situation will be to WH advantage though. A sponsor can unofficially piggy back the olympic tag afterward but not have to deal with an abundance of history for a mind set change to occur..

Brigate Rossonere

February 21st, 2011, 12:30 PM

Alright, I was expecting exceptional. Like, never before seen. But when you look at it for a while, it is pretty good.

REVUpminster

February 21st, 2011, 03:00 PM

Very few people refer to Upton Park by it's real name "The Boleyn Ground" so it will probably always be the Olympic Stadium.

AshVentini

February 21st, 2011, 03:55 PM

Very few people refer to Upton Park by it's real name "The Boleyn Ground" so it will probably always be the Olympic Stadium.

I dont agree. Now, WH ground has no real concern either way as to what it were referred to as long as it was street name or something related to it... Future, Clubs will insist all publications will state the naming rights name, tv coverage and all media references.. so it will change because someone will be paying. Unlike today, who really cares...?
How many people know or really call the San Siro by its real name? A £100M deal will change any clubs media and partnering responsibilities..

Jericho-79

February 21st, 2011, 09:30 PM

One of the questions that I can not get a definitive answer for is whether you can still officially have the name "Olympic" in the title of a stadium that is sponsored. The IOC seem pretty reluctant to have any sponsorship linked with the Olympics, and I can not think of any former Olympic Stadium being linked with a sponsor, such as the ANZ Stadium, and retaining the Olympic Legend.

If this is the case, and if the Stadium is sponsored, I would prefer something like "Stratford Stadium" or "Queen Elizabeth II Park" sponsored by <insert Sponsor>, rather than <Insert Sponsor> Stadium.

What are the chances of the stadium being named "Stratford Stadium" (like Twickenham Stadium) as opposed to "Barclays Stadium" (like Emirates Stadium)?

(I chose Barclays because it is headquartered in London.:))

flashman

February 22nd, 2011, 06:48 AM

Although it was intended as a gag gift, or gift gag, when introduced in 2008, here's a product that would make an appropriate sponsor:

http://bitsontheside.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/crap3.jpg?w=468&h=286

http://www.slipperybrick.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/firefox-crapwrap-thumb-395x293.jpg

You can call it The CrapWrap Bowl. Many already are. Or will be, once this always-influential thread reaches the wider world.

By the way, anyone wonder whether plucky Leyton Orient chairman Barry Hearne's stated intent to ask for a judicial review is a front for behind-the-scenes work being done by Daniel Levy of Tottenham Hotspur, the club who currently have three players on loan at Orient?

A number of interesting stories in the UK media after Orient's 1-1 draw in the FA Cup game with Arsenal this past weekend. Not only is the result a great profile builder for the overlooked club, but the replay at Emirates could produce a huge payday. They've already earned about 800,00 pounds in their cup run and should add at least half that to their total, or even as much as 700,000 pounds from the one game if it's picked up for telecast. Hearn's already quoted as saying it will form the financial foundation of his legal challenge.

If they were to perform a miracle and win the replay, they'd earn a very lucrative quarter-final trip to Old Trafford to play ManU. No predicitions from here on upcoming results, on or off the pitch, but it is rapidly becoming a very entertaining scenario and an increasingly uncomfortable one for decision makers to deal with. If it were to delay West Ham taking over the stadium, it could have huge repercussions.

A very good read here from July, 2010, on West Ham's financial state going into this season:

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/07/fortunes-always-hiding-at-west-ham.html

AshVentini

February 22nd, 2011, 07:58 AM

[QUOTE=flashman;73091427]Although it was intended as a gag gift, or gift gag, when introduced in 2008, here's a product that would make an appropriate sponsor:

http://bitsontheside.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/crap3.jpg?w=468&h=286

http://www.slipperybrick.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/firefox-crapwrap-thumb-395x293.jpg

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
Nothing like a laugh first thing!

Please everyone dont take this too seriously.. Agree or not..Appreciate a little wit and light humour!

Those swiss ramble reports are very good. Ive read a few over the last several months. Un-biassed, factual and insightful... Users should read to see what they then think after. The move and club is soooooo risky it is bonkers! I cant see how the OPLC were not biased in the assessment. Yes there was 5 criteria, but they should have been weighted more appropriately.. Lets be honest, the project without a solvent team playing there is just madness, and that will probably happen IMO.