Ditching the actual track of Britain's modern Olympics would be nothing less than historic and cultural vandalism on a national scale, in my opinion.
We regret the passing of extremely similar things to this, like White City (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7401950.stm); they can never be reclaimed once lost.

Do we have an idea of what West Ham plan to do? Although the Spurs plans aren't too detailed, we know they are going to knock the stadium down and rebuild and refurbish crystal palace. What will West Ham do? will they keep most of the stadium as it is, or introduce movable stands, seeing as been discussed before the outer shell of the stadium has a short life, will they keep the bowl and rebuild around it?

I don't know how to take the seemingly more detail from Spurs and the less from West Ham, is more detail from Spurs a sign of confidence, or are they letting us know they're plans now so that when they loose they have an excuse that they're plans didn't match the remit? And subsequently are West Ham keeping their cards closer to their chest as a sign of quiet confidence, or that they don't want to embarrass themselves with plans that may lose? All this speculation is giving me a headache, off to bed I think! lol

As much as I hate the idea of Spurs moving there (and the whiff of arrogance coming from them) I am at least equally annoyed with the organisers.

The original 25k seater stadium was never realistic, anyone could see that. Athletics requires subsidising from the taxpayer and at some point one government or council would have deemed this a waste of money. From the beginning they should have designed a ground that could have hosted both athletics and football, getting a club to foot some of the bill. Retractable stands are hardly space-age technology.

I saw this situation coming as soon the concept of a 50k+ temporary stand was mooted and remain sad that it has appeared sooner than I expected

From the Greenwich Time article:-

"The London legacy company didn't oblige bidders to retain a running track in their plans, and Tottenham is arguing that its plan to instead redevelop the crumbling Crystal Palace athletics stadium in south London is a more viable long-term solution. Some elements of the 2012 stadium will be moved there."

I tell you what would be awesome... if they moved the entire olympic stadium there and rebuilt it at a lower capacity. The olympic stadium's designed to be modular so they could then replace parts as they wear out :)

Wishful thinking I know, but it'd be a crime to completely destroy the stadium as they plan to.

this is totally wrong http://www.building.co.uk/news/spurs-would-demolish-olympic-stadium/5011580.article?utm_source=Building&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+BreakingNewsFromBuilding+(BLDG+|+Breaking+news)&utm_content=Twitter

So much for creating an athletics legacy for east London then.

The original 25k seater stadium was never realistic, anyone could see that. Athletics requires subsidising from the taxpayer and at some point one government or council would have deemed this a waste of money.

Really? Shows how low we've come as a nation when promoting sport and a healthier nation is deemed an extravagance.

From the beginning they should have designed a ground that could have hosted both athletics and football, getting a club to foot some of the bill. Retractable stands are hardly space-age technology.


"Getting a club to foot the bill" being the operative word. They tried - no-one was interested. The project had to plough ahead, and we got what we bid with, a 25,000 seater athletics stadium with an extra 55,000 seats on the top to host an Olympics. By locking in the athletics legacy from the start it would take an enormous amount of political wrangling to remove it: except of course when money talks and we now have people in charge who it seems have a complete misunderstanding of the point of London hosting the Olympics.

Ed Warner calls Tottenham's plan for Crystal Palace 'insulting'

-- Link to Daily Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/8256306/London-2012-Olympics-Ed-Warner-calls-Tottenhams-plan-for-Crystal-Palace-insulting.html) --

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01802/olympic-stadium_1802264b.jpg

Tottenham on Wednesday revealed their plans to rebuild the Olympic Stadium as a football-only venue and to fund the redevelopment of the Crystal Palace athletics stadium, but the proposals have been branded as “insulting” by Ed Warner, the chairman of UK Athletics.

The north London club, who are vying with West Ham to take over the Olympic Stadium after 2012, made public their ambitious plans to demolish the existing structure in Stratford, east London, and replace it with a new 60,000-seat venue capable of hosting Premier League football and concerts staged by entertainments giant AEG.

But, crucially, the club have confirmed that there will be no place in the new stadium for an athletics track. Instead, to honour the promise made by the London bid team to the International Olympic Committee in 2005 to provide an athletics legacy, the Tottenham -AEG consortium, as revealed by Telegraph Sport last month, has offered to pay for an upgrade of the Crystal Palace athletics stadium, providing 9,500 extra permanent seats to raise its capacity to 25,000 with the option of adding a further 15,000 seats to stage a World Championship.

The consortium has also offered to complete the stadium bowl to improve the atmosphere and to provide a permanent four-lane warm-up track near the venue. But Warner, who has publicly backed West Ham’s alternative plan for a multi-use stadium in Stratford complete with a running track, described the Crystal Palace option as “a minimal consolation prize”. He added that Tottenham had turned down his offer of helping them deliver a credible alternative to provide an athletics legacy.

“I think what they’ve come up with looks incredibly thin,” he said. “They’ve come up with the bare minimum that they hope will pass muster with the legacy company when the decision is made, but it’s nothing like the sort of legacy that was envisaged in 2005 in the London bid. There are a number of people in the IOC and the IAAF firmament who are looking for the track to remain in the stadium and for the legacy to be substantial, and I think they’ll feel insulted by this. It has the feeling of a lick of paint and a new scoreboard.”

However, architect David Keirle, who is advising the Spurs board, said the Olympic site would need substantial alteration if it were to be used for football.

“This stadium is designed for an athletics event. It’s not like a football stadium. There are no permanent toilets, no suites or boxes. It’s 80,000 bums on seats to watch athletics. It does not have a roof to cover all the seats. Crystal Palace is the home of athletics. And the great thing about this is you can do it every day of the week. You don’t have to close off part of the track because you have a football pitch. You don’t have to worry about what anyone else is doing. Here is a dedicated athletics facility, whereas what I would argue with the Olympic Stadium that is it is a facility that can only be used [for athletics] in the summer months.”

The Olympic Park Legacy Committee will meet on Jan 28 and may then decide its preferred bidder to take over the stadium. The final decision, in conjunction with the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, will be made at the end of March. However, Tottenham are scathing of West Ham’s alternative proposals for the Olympic site. “There’d be nothing worse than, five years down the line, for a failing club not to be able to meet its obligations because it’s not getting 60,000 fans and saying there’s no atmosphere,” Keirle said.

Spurs will continue with their plans to redevelop White Hart Lane and insist their proposal for the Olympic site does not mean it is their preferred option. However costs have spiralled to more than £450 million with Spurs now liable for the station upgrades demanded by Transport for London and other stipulations from English Heritage.

The cost of building the actual stadium at White Hart Lane or Stratford is the same — thought to be around £250 million – which means the project in east London would be considerably cheaper for Spurs as there are no add-ons and there will also be revenue from redeveloping their existing ground.

Really? Shows how low we've come as a nation when promoting sport and a healthier nation is deemed an extravagance.

How many Western democracies subsidise spectator arenas of this scale? By and large, stadiums designed to hold professional spectator sport are expected to cover their own costs, hence why around the world most grounds which hold athletics also have an anchor tenant from a different sport (look at Barcelona, Sydney, Athens and Rio).

"Getting a club to foot the bill" being the operative word. They tried - no-one was interested. The project had to plough ahead, and we got what we bid with, a 25,000 seater athletics stadium with an extra 55,000 seats on the top to host an Olympics. By locking in the athletics legacy from the start it would take an enormous amount of political wrangling to remove it: except of course when money talks and we now have people in charge who it seems have a complete misunderstanding of the point of London hosting the Olympics.

No-one was interested because the project presented is crap for a sport like football because the stands are too far away. WH had different owners who, I'm led to believe, had plans to build a new ground on a different site closer to Upton Park. Their situation changed when new owners came in.

The point is they should have designed a stadium which was suitable for both athletics and a football (and rugby) by having retractable stands, probably a 60k ground with 20k of temporary seats (which would have been more in line with what Sydney did). This would have increased its attractiveness.

The fact that the situation of the use of the stadium after the Olympics has still not been resolved is completely unacceptable. The bid was won close to 6 years ago, this shouldn't still be up for discussion and reflects poorly on all parties involved.

The point is they should have designed a stadium which was suitable for both athletics and a football (and rugby) by having retractable stands, probably a 60k ground with 20k of temporary seats (which would have been more in line with what Sydney did). This would have increased its attractiveness.

The fact that the situation of the use of the stadium after the Olympics has still not been resolved is completely unacceptable. The bid was won close to 6 years ago, this shouldn't still be up for discussion and reflects poorly on all parties involved.

well doing that inst the spirit of the Olympics. No host city and planners ever think right we wont design an Olympic stadium, we will design a multi purpose stadium which can be used for many sports, and oh, we will use it for the Olympics as well. If they were to do that, there would be no point of building in in the Olympic park.

And tbh, the organisers, builders and planners have done really well keeping up with and in some cases completing things before the time schedule. Look at Athens 2004, it was utter chaos trying to get that stadium ready for the Olympics, however we have one venue nearly finished and all other venues on schedule to be completed early 2012. I think that is a bigger worry to the organisers than who will become tenants of the stadium after the games.

well doing that inst the spirit of the Olympics.

In what way?

No host city and planners ever think right we wont design an Olympic stadium, we will design a multi purpose stadium which can be used for many sports, and oh, we will use it for the Olympics as well. If they were to do that, there would be no point of building in in the Olympic park.


Er, when the Stade de France was built it was designed with the idea of not only hosting the WC but also the Olympics, hence the retractable stands (or I should say a mobile platform). In fact it hosted the 2003 World Athletics Championship. Barcelona and Athens didn't have to worry because their football clubs were happy to rent out their Olympic grounds (although this is no longer the case in Barcelona as Espanyol left last year). Sydney and Atlanta gave up on keeping the track.

The bit about the Olympic Park is nonsense because the broader idea of an environment featuring multiple sporting arenas doesn't conflict with a multi purpose stadium.

And tbh, the organisers, builders and planners have done really well keeping up with and in some cases completing things before the time schedule. Look at Athens 2004, it was utter chaos trying to get that stadium ready for the Olympics, however we have one venue nearly finished and all other venues on schedule to be completed early 2012. I think that is a bigger worry to the organisers than who will become tenants of the stadium after the games.

Come on, these guys are paid a lot of money and feature some of the leading names in logistics and construction. There is no reason why both couldn't be acted upon they involve different people.

Look, you have to remember that because government's receive their income from their citizens they have to (in a democracy anyway) justify every type of expenditure. It is the concept of the general good; we give the state resources to benefit society as a whole. As such it is part of their duty to avoid unnecessary waste wherever possible. In my view this could all have been avoided and the athletics legacy assured. Now however, it is directly under threat because of the situational change for a few years ago which was foreseen (recession and fiscally conservative government and mayor).

Spurs can't demolish Olympic stadium for football, says IOC chief (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/football/article-23913581-spurs-look-to-win-backing-for-controversial-plans-to-demolish-olympic-stadium.do)
Matthew Beard, Sports News Correspondent Matthew Beard, Sports News Correspondent
13 Jan 2011

The battle for the Olympic stadium escalated today as the most powerful figure in world sport insisted he would fight to stop the flagship venue being demolished to make way for football.

International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge vowed to keep London 2012 bosses to their pledge of retaining an athletics track in the stadium after the Games.

In an exclusive interview with the Standard, he dealt a potentially savage blow to Tottenham Hotspur's ambitions to move into the stadium. His comments will also fuel the debate on how to honour commitments made to the track and field community while preventing the venue, which has already cost taxpayers £500 million, from becoming a further strain on the public purse.

Mr Rogge's words potentially put him at loggerheads with Mayor Boris Johnson and Government ministers, who are thought to be warming to a bid from Spurs.

The club unveiled plans yesterday for a football-only venue at the Stratford site, saying its sell-out 60,000 stadium would need no further council tax subsidy.

Rival Premier League bidders West Ham propose to retain a running track but there are concerns about whether the relegation-threatened club can offer long-term financial stability.

Stadium freeholders, the publicly owned Olympic Park Legacy Company, will have to weigh the commercial edge of a Spurs bid against the self-styled legacy bid of West Ham, with a decision due later this month.

Mr Rogge said the IOC was “keen on sustainability” and had “always been keen on a scheme whereby a running track would be retained”. He went on: “I don't think there is a lack of will and commitment on the side of Sebastian Coe... I think [Coe] will fight for that. I think he will be successful and we support that. There will be a track either here or there and we would prefer to have one in the Olympic stadium.”

Mr Rogge's comments are the most influential in a series of concerns voiced about the stadium legacy among senior IOC members, including former Olympic pole vault champion Sergey Bubka and Frankie Fredericks, the four-times Olympic silver medallist and chairman of the IOC athletes' commission.

Tottenham's £250 million plans include the creation of a 20,000-capacity athletics venue at Crystal Palace. The club has said a running track would impede soccer spectators' views and spoil the atmosphere. Spurs declined to comment on Mr Rogge's words today. The Hammers propose to fund a move to the stadium with the sale of Upton Park and a £40 million loan from bid partners Newham council, secured against future ticket receipts.

In what way?

You build these Olympic parks and stadiums not with the thought of how we can use them after the Olympics, but to put on a show for the 16 of the greatest days in the sporting calandar

Er, when the Stade de France was built it was designed with the idea of not only hosting the WC but also the Olympics, hence the retractable stands (or I should say a mobile platform). In fact it hosted the 2003 World Athletics Championship.

The Stad De France was designed for Rugby and Football mainly. Paris hadnt even put in a bid to host the olympics when this was build. It's extremely different when a city wins the rights to host the olympics and then design and build a stadium fit for purpose.

The bit about the Olympic Park is nonsense because the broader idea of an environment featuring multiple sporting arenas doesn't conflict with a multi purpose stadium.

which bit about the olympic park?
EDIT: sorry just read what i put. Well clearly it isnt, because if you have a multi puropse stadium whats the point of building a handball arena and basketball arena....

Come on, these guys are paid a lot of money and feature some of the leading names in logistics and construction. There is no reason why both couldn't be acted upon they involve different people.

The London 2012 organisers have had to deal with the worst recession since WW2 which makes this the hardest build for any olympic organiser ever. We are now living in a Government who has slashed the funding for this project. Yet it is a testament to those who have worked on this site for what they have done already, dont take anything away from that.

Well I think of the two, I'm certainly rooting for West Ham.

You build these Olympic parks and stadiums not with the thought of how we can use them after the Olympics, but to put on a show for the 16 of the greatest days in the sporting calandar


Well London was proving that model is outdated and in the 21st century world of sustainability the Olympics need a reappraisal of what its legacy should be t a host city.

Tearing down an entire Olympic stadium, simply to build another one dedicated to another sport is hardly sustainable.

Well London was proving that model is outdated and in the 21st century world of sustainability the Olympics need a reappraisal of what its legacy should be t a host city.

Tearing down an entire Olympic stadium, simply to build another one dedicated to another sport is hardly sustainable.

wait,, im not saying i want spurs to get it, i dont, im all for West ham, they have pledged to keep the track.
Im saying that you dont design an olympic stadium with the sole purpose of what you would do with it after the games...

I actually think the root of the problem is the original planning behind the stadium. The organisers should have foreseen that the most likely future tenants would be a football club, and designed a better stadium for that.

They should have done all this consulting about what to do with it from the beginning and factored that into their original designs. The original idea was that the stadium would be reduced in capacity from 80000- 25000, and have it as a dedicated athletics track. However they must have known that they would need a tenant of some kind to make use of the stadium during most of the year.

The only real contenders were football and rugby clubs. If they had asked them right from the beginning if anyone was interested, they would have quickly found out that the athletics track would be despised.

They wanted to reduce the capacity so that the stadium wouldn’t become a white elephant; in doing so they have inadvertently done just that. All this could have been avoided if they had consulted about the future use of the stadium from the beginning and found an architectural solution to having the athletics track and moving the stands closer to the pitch.

Part of the 'swing' behind London's bid amongst the IOC was the fact London was proposing a 100% dedicated to athletics stadium. It could be said, but by no means wholly, that London won on that notion.

They should have done all this consulting about what to do with it from the beginning and factored that into their original designs.

I'm certain they did consult with West Ham and invited other clubs prior to the design phase, but to incoporate the needs of a football team, at the time, they needed them to sign-up and, if I remember, some form of financial commitment, neither of which was forthcoming. A deadline had to be set to avoid the risk of a late design and delay to constructing and completing the stadium, which was the right decision because the stadium build is on track.

Well wasn’t it just after London won the bid that they ditched the original design for the stadium, and proposed what we have now? I don't know how much better the original design would have been with regards to future use as a football stadium, and how much temporary seating that one had. But surly instead of the current stadium they could have come up with a dual purpose stadium when they changed the design after the bid was won?

I actually think the root of the problem is the original planning behind the stadium. The organisers should have foreseen that the most likely future tenants would be a football club, and designed a better stadium for that.

Wrong way around. Some people want as much money as they can grab, it certainly isn't about whether something is suited or financially viable. The two headline acts happen to be football clubs. Suprise suprise they have the most cash.

It is football that is not compatible with the stadium not the other way around. The athletics facilities in London are woeful and a 25'000 athletics stadium is perfectly viable for a world class city. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. The Olympics stadium is a perfect legacy for the country and a facility within the landscaped park.

Where is this notion that it has to be something happening in the stadium every weekend? It doesnt. What of the impact of football infrastructure on the park setting? The park was cleaned and brought into life using tax payers money so that people can live and work there in a beautiful setting. Football grounds of a certain size are paranoid war zones, concrete and barriers. It seems to be something intrinsic to the game rather than sports stadia.

I find it extremely uncomfortable that the insular world of football is the only thing that a money auction can offer to the Olympic park and its legacy.

The stadium depicted in the bid had no designs to go with it, it was really for visualisation purposes. What they did say is that the stadium would be downsized from 80 000 to 25 000 seats and would provide a legacy to Athletics, so these had to be factored into the design. As there were no tenants interested or signed up before the design phase they really had to go with what they had promised at the time.

But surly instead of the current stadium they could have come up with a dual purpose stadium when they changed the design after the bid was won?

Why would they? One of the reasons London bid was to increase participation in athletics and therefore validate a permanent 25,000 seater athletics stadium. You can't gain interest without world class facilities.

The whole vision London went to Singapore in 2005 with has been warped into something unrecognisable thanks to this current short term zeitgeist of 'cuts cuts cuts' and chasing the money over the nation's social well being.

You build these Olympic parks and stadiums not with the thought of how we can use them after the Olympics, but to put on a show for the 16 of the greatest days in the sporting calandar


Seriously? You believe that guff you just wrote? Governments and councils commit billions worth of taxpayers money just for a 2 week event and not because of regeneration, tourism boosts, housing and so on? You have no idea of how government works if you believe that.

The Stad De France was designed for Rugby and Football mainly. Paris hadnt even put in a bid to host the olympics when this was build. It's extremely different when a city wins the rights to host the olympics and then design and build a stadium fit for purpose.

Oh dear. The Stade de France was constructed with the ability to move the lower platform so that it could feature an athletics track. Regarding the Olympics, Paris bid for 2008 games and considering the city evaluations were in 2000, they must have decided upon bidding some years before, probably around '96/'97. However, all this is irrelevant tbh, as the Stade de France was clearly designed as a multi use stadium (football, rugby, athletics, motocross, concerts and so on).

which bit about the olympic park?
EDIT: sorry just read what i put. Well clearly it isnt, because if you have a multi puropse stadium whats the point of building a handball arena and basketball arena....

WTF?! a large outdoor stadium for indoor sports with small courts like basketball and handball? The requirements are totally different, surely you can see that? What about swimming pools, tennis courts, velodromes, etc. All of this (plus those indoor sports) cannot be hosted in a large out-door stadium designed for a football pitch and athletics track (which compliment each other)

The London 2012 organisers have had to deal with the worst recession since WW2 which makes this the hardest build for any olympic organiser ever. We are now living in a Government who has slashed the funding for this project. Yet it is a testament to those who have worked on this site for what they have done already, dont take anything away from that.

That's my point, they should have factored this in! You didn't believe in 2005 that we would never have another recession or conservative government did you? Imagine that London had the 2008 Olympics and Newham were subsiding the cost of the 25k stadium. The council are likely to lay of hundreds of workers, make cuts to services in social care, health, etc. Would it still be appropriate for them to bank-roll the stadium?

The whole reason I am saying this is that there is the very real danger that Spurs will get the nod and, tbh, I agree with the person above who said they could fudge out of their CP proposal (the £250m is a joke quote). I just always thought that the original idea was too risky and at the first sign of financial trouble (i.e. today) the government would not want to be responsible for it.

Crystal Palace is called Crystal Palace because it was the site to which the original Crystal Palace was moved following its initial erection in Hyde Park.Why not let history repeat itself and go through the original plan to reduce the Olympic Stadium in size and then move the latter, lock,stock and flood-lights to Crystal Palace - that way the athletes get the stadium they wanted and Tottenham get the site they want. The key pre-condition is that new construction at Stratford should not begin until the Crystal Palace site is finished.

And what about the central location and transport links that athletics wants in order to flourish, rather than the impossible to get to Crystal Palace?

Some people here are quite naive.

The most important thing was that a permanent athletics legacy was left after the Olympics. It was decided that a venue owned and managed by public sector was the way forward. However, it was obvious that this entailed some risks, notably if an economic downtown occurred, a new government preaching fiscal conservatism emerged and/or the body in question suffered from large liabilities. Even if we had a Labour gov. and no recession these factors wouldn't have gone away.

What if in some fictional future Newham council ran up shit loads of debt like many local authorities in the US and Spain and had to make drastic cuts of up to 30%? Should the social services for the elderly be affected so that they could have continued bank-rolling a loss making stadium? Get real, taxpayers care mostly about front line services (and they certainly wouldn't not want their council tax to rise)

If a new piece of expenditure comes on a government's books (like this) then either 3 things happen in order for the body to be able to afford it; increase revenue (tax rise), shift around expenditure (i.e. cut in other areas), obtain debt (which cost more in the long run).


I find it extremely uncomfortable that the insular world of football is the only thing that a money auction can offer to the Olympic park and its legacy.

Whilst a football club owning the stadium may not be to many people's taste, the fact is it could have better guaranteed a permanent athletics legacy at the Olympic site because it wouldn't have required public money. That I am afraid is the reality. The situation we now have is that there may be no athletics legacy.

I agree with Jacques Rogge I hope he does quash the conservative's and the mayor.

Crystal Palace is no good as a location for Athletics, if it's to grow as a spectator sport then it has to be somewhere at Stratford.

I doubt I'd ever go to a meeting at CP but I definately would at Stratford.

Some people here are quite naive.

The most important thing was that a permanent athletics legacy was left after the Olympics. It was decided that a venue owned and managed by public sector was the way forward. However, it was obvious that this entailed some risks, notably if an economic downtown occurred, a new government preaching fiscal conservatism emerged and/or the body in question suffered from large liabilities. Even if we had a Labour gov. and no recession these factors wouldn't have gone away.

What if in some fictional future Newham council ran up shit loads of debt like many local authorities in the US and Spain and had to make drastic cuts of up to 30%? Should the social services for the elderly be affected so that they could have continued bank-rolling a loss making stadium? Get real, taxpayers care mostly about front line services (and they certainly wouldn't not want their council tax to rise)

If a new piece of expenditure comes on a government's books (like this) then either 3 things happen in order for the body to be able to afford it; increase revenue (tax rise), shift around expenditure (i.e. cut in other areas), obtain debt (which cost more in the long run).



Whilst a football club owning the stadium may not be to many people's taste, the fact is it could have better guaranteed a permanent athletics legacy at the Olympic site because it wouldn't have required public money. That I am afraid is the reality. The situation we now have is that there may be no athletics legacy.

Are you discounting that in legacy mode the Stadium could not make any money i.e. its not all about expenditure, the revenue it generates would also need to be considered. I'm sure West Ham, and their partners, have a business plan so that athletics, football concerts, national and community events are all viable.

London should have a permanent and dedicated Athletics stadium, but that just isn’t affordable. In theory, having a football club would be the perfect solution since the football calendar runs for the 9 months that the stadium would otherwise be empty and losing money.

It will truly be shocking if Tottenham knock down a brand new stadium; that really would be embarrassing for everyone. West Ham would be ideal except no one believes them to be financially stable, especially if they get relegated.

Honestly I'd love to see the stadium become a new home for cricket, and a stadium to rival those in Australia. It's just a shame that the cricket calendar conflicts with the Athletics, and there just doesn’t seem to be a need or desire for a larger cricket stadium. Really if it were not for the football clubs, who else could have taken over the stadium and kept the Athletics track? Greyhound racing anybody?

How much would it cost to maintain the stadium in the original legacy mode sans football club?

^^ leyton orient still want the stadium in legacy mode. a 25,000? stadium would be more than enough for them. and they really don't want a big club moving in on their turf. average attendance right now is about 3000 per game and they would not be able to survive if a big team move in.

Are you discounting that in legacy mode the Stadium could not make any money i.e. its not all about expenditure, the revenue it generates would also need to be considered. I'm sure West Ham, and their partners, have a business plan so that athletics, football concerts, national and community events are all viable.

A big problem is that a) the athletics season is pretty short (May to August); and b) it doesn't generate large enough interest to regularly attract large crowds. This means the income is small yet the cost of running the stadium is the same. Outside of the Diamond League (where Britain already has 2 meetings iirc) I can't see another annual athletics event getting close to 25k.

The West Ham bid is obviously the best one for athletics and everyone else (i just wish they did this in the beginning with a 60k ground with WH owning and not renting it...). I think the owners are exaggerating the club's liabilities tbh, partly as a tactic to get fans onto the idea of leaving Upton Park for somewhere which will have crap site lines and quite poor atmosphere.

Should have built the national stadium in Birmingham (we told them so) x x lol

How would that work for the London Olympics? :D

Seriously? You believe that guff you just wrote? Governments and councils commit billions worth of taxpayers money just for a 2 week event and not because of regeneration, tourism boosts, housing and so on? You have no idea of how government works if you believe that.

Err yeah i do! the London 2012 bid, with Kelly Holmes, Seb Coe... put in a bid to host the biggest sporting event on this earth, not to boost tourism levels!!


Oh dear. The Stade de France was constructed with the ability to move the lower platform so that it could feature an athletics track. Regarding the Olympics, Paris bid for 2008 games and considering the city evaluations were in 2000, they must have decided upon bidding some years before, probably around '96/'97. However, all this is irrelevant tbh, as the Stade de France was clearly designed as a multi use stadium (football, rugby, athletics, motocross, concerts and so on).

Read what i say next time. The Stade de France wasnt designed for the Olymics. It had not been built and designed after winning an olympic bad and no olympic games have been held in it. Londons Olympic stadium was designed after we won the bid, so the Olympic games are the only thing the designers are going to take into mind!
And ok then, Paris 2020, i can see it now. One Stadium, an Aquatics venue and an olympic village...brilliant!


WTF?! a large outdoor stadium for indoor sports with small courts like basketball and handball? The requirements are totally different, surely you can see that? What about swimming pools, tennis courts, velodromes, etc. All of this (plus those indoor sports) cannot be hosted in a large out-door stadium designed for a football pitch and athletics track (which compliment each other)


Err no they arent, stadiums do this all the time. Football stadiums do it and concert venues-meaning that there would be no need for a hand ball arena or basketball arena!

And tbh, reading all the reports, spurs wont get the stadium. Ther are proposing to do something on a huge scale with not enough money. Also, when Seb Coe and the Prime Minister stood there in Singapore, they promised to leave a legacy after the games of athletics. Why would they want to make the british look like idiots? :S

How much would it cost to maintain the stadium in the original legacy mode sans football club?

No idea of the total but Ken Livingstone promised £10 million a year for its upkeep.

Crystal Palace is no good as a location for Athletics, if it's to grow as a spectator sport then it has to be somewhere at Stratford.

I doubt I'd ever go to a meeting at CP but I definately would at Stratford.

Agreed. CP is on the top of a steep hill half way between London and Croydon. It is hardly accessible, except by a very dingy railway station.

Err yeah i do! the London 2012 bid, with Kelly Holmes, Seb Coe... put in a bid to host the biggest sporting event on this earth, not to boost tourism levels!!

The bid was backed by the government which promised taxpayers money to fund the development necessary to hold the event. Without that backing the bid wouldn't have got off the ground. The government backed the bid for the reasons I outlined above (in conjunction with the PR boost and media attention that goes with hosting the event)

Read what i say next time. The Stade de France wasnt designed for the Olymics. It had not been built and designed after winning an olympic bad and no olympic games have been held in it. Londons Olympic stadium was designed after we won the bid, so the Olympic games are the only thing the designers are going to take into mind!
And ok then, Paris 2020, i can see it now. One Stadium, an Aquatics venue and an olympic village...brilliant!


The Stade de France was designed to host athletics, that is all that matters. At the very least it can be considered an insurance policy, although I believe considering Paris bid for 2008 and 2012 they added the track because they knew they would plan to hold an Olympics soon. Their plans had two major venue areas, one around the Stade de France the other Roland Garros.

Anyway this is all irrelevant. The point about the Stade de France was that it is a stadium designed to host both football/rugby and athletics and, IMHO, this is what should have happened with London to have guaranteed the continuation of athletics at the site.

Err no they arent, stadiums do this all the time. Football stadiums do it and concert venues-meaning that there would be no need for a hand ball arena or basketball arena!

No they don't. Apart from some stadia in Japan and elsewhere sports designed for small size courts and indoor environments do not share with much larger out-door venues. Do NBA or NHL teams play at NFL grounds? why do Barcelona have a separate arena for their basketball team? How many football grounds regularly have basketball, ice hockey, etc, games within the stadium?

There is also the fact that stadiums have licences for how many events they can hold per year. It simply wouldn't make sense to design a large outdoor stadium that could also host indoor sports (thus requiring design considerations) when there is a cap on the number of events the place could hold.

Re. London, the arenas were built not because London needs them (it doesn't) but as a legacy for other cities since they are being shipped off around the country, so even if your point was true (which is isn't) this wouldn't have stopped the construction of several arenas for the OP based on this rationale.

The bid was backed by the government which promised taxpayers money to fund the development necessary to hold the event. Without that backing the bid wouldn't have got off the ground. The government backed the bid for the reasons I outlined above (in conjunction with the PR boost and media attention that goes with hosting the event)


The Stade de France was designed to host athletics, that is all that matters. At the very least it can be considered an insurance policy, although I believe considering Paris bid for 2008 and 2012 they added the track because they knew they would plan to hold an Olympics soon. Their plans had two major venue areas, one around the Stade de France the other Roland Garros.

Anyway this is all irrelevant. The point about the Stade de France was that it is a stadium designed to host both football/rugby and athletics and, IMHO, this is what should have happened with London to have guaranteed the continuation of athletics at the site.


No they don't. Apart from some stadia in Japan and elsewhere sports designed for small size courts and indoor environments do not share with much larger out-door venues. Do NBA or NHL teams play at NFL grounds? why do Barcelona have a separate arena for their basketball team? How many football grounds regularly have basketball, ice hockey, etc, games within the stadium?

There is also the fact that stadiums have licences for how many events they can hold per year. It simply wouldn't make sense to design a large outdoor stadium that could also host indoor sports (thus requiring design considerations) when there is a cap on the number of events the place could hold.

Re. London, the arenas were built not because London needs them (it doesn't) but as a legacy for other cities since they are being shipped off around the country, so even if your point was true (which is isn't) this wouldn't have stopped the construction of several arenas for the OP based on this rationale.

oh dear, im clearly not wrong, many stadiums and concert venues do it, you just think youre right all the time when youre not
im not even wasting my time arguing with you. you take nothing on board what i say and believe you are always right :bash:
im not going to be the person who turns this thread into 1 bug argument

Is the original plan to reduce the stadium to 20000 even an option now? Or is it definitely going to go to West Ham or Spurs?

Is the original plan to reduce the stadium to 20000 even an option now? Or is it definitely going to go to West Ham or Spurs?

The option is available (25,000) but won't happen.

I'm still a bit confused as to who is taking on responsibility for the Aquatic Centre, Handball Arena and velodrome. Who is paying for their upkeep?

I think public use of the Aquatic centre and the velodrome will go along way to towards those paying for themselves. I can see a brand new Aquatics centre as being a very popular. If the BMX track is part of the velodrome then im sure that would go along way towards paying its upkeep.

http://i55.tinypic.com/2zs1e2c.jpg

Looks like the Stairs Entries are being painted?

I have a friend who works at the architects who are employed by Spurs (KSS), and he said it's pretty much a done deal that they'll move to the Olympic Park and build a new stadium

Can't see how the stadium can be converted. It'll have to be from scratch. What a waste of a stadium.

Anyway, you can properly see the shape of the track now. Starting to look good.

http://i55.tinypic.com/2zs1e2c.jpg

The stadium has one of the most beautiful interior any stadium has(bar athens olympic stadium).

The rhetorical temperature is rising...

Don't let Tottenham vandals wreck the Olympic legacy!

-- Link To Mail Online article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1347366/Des-Kelly-Spurs-vandals-musnt-wreck-Olympic-legacy.html?ITO=1490) --

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/14/article-1347366-0CBDF8CC000005DC-166_634x373.jpg
Nightmare vision: how the Olympic Stadium would look if Tottenham took it over after the 2012 Games

So the plan is to tear down a brand new Olympic stadium worth half a billion pounds after just three weeks of serious use and then build another ground on the same spot. That has nothing to do with the word 'legacy'. That's vandalism. Tottenham Hotspur's proposals for the main arena of the 2012 Games tell you everything you need to know about the swaggering arrogance and shameless opportunistic greed of modern football.

For Spurs to blithely announce that they will relocate to a part of east London that has nothing to do with them, flatten an 80,000-seat stadium, replace it with a new football-only facility that holds 60,000, even though thousands of their own fans oppose the move, is breathtaking in its conceit. But this wrecking-ball diplomacy faces another obstacle. One of the key promises that Great Britain made when they won the right to host the 2012 Games was to guarantee the Olympic arena would retain an athletics track as part of London's ongoing legacy.

Tottenham think they have found a crafty way around that. They say they will revamp the decrepit Crystal Palace site and athletics can continue to be catered for there. But if Palace were a prime location, it would hardly be in the state of disrepair and neglect it is now. The transport links are poor and the only way Crystal Palace might seriously be renovated is via the detonation of a small nuclear device. At least the Olympic venue would allow the nation's capital to host the World and European Athletics Championships in the years ahead.

Besides, who the hell do Spurs think they are? Who are they to tell the sport of athletics where their ambitions would be better served? This is a stadium that was essentially paid for with taxpayers' money and National Lottery funding. So it is our Olympic Stadium - and immediately knocking it down after the Games, a venue where history will be made, would be the height of philistinism. Moreover, how can Britain sneer at FIFA as they wriggle out of pledges and rewrite the Qatar 2022 World Cup plans without any discernible mandate if we cannot keep our promises on major events held here?

Spin doctors say the move makes economic sense for Tottenham because they can earn around £150million from the new stadium naming rights. Well, whoop de doo. Frankly, nobody beyond those with Spurs' allegiances gives a javelin toss whether a Premier League club makes even more money or not. But there is an alternative scenario to Tottenham's bulldozer plot. West Ham also hope to move up the road to the Olympic site. They intend to retain the athletics track, much of the existing structure and allow the local community access to a multi-purpose stadium in partnership with Newham Council.

Now I'm not exactly doing cartwheels about the Hammers' porn barons getting their hands on the ground either, and it is obvious that watching football across an athletics track can be an alienating compromise. But I'd still rather David Gold and David Sullivan had the place if it means locals and other sports are catered for and the athletics has somewhere better to call home after the Games than Crystal Palace.

The Olympic Park Legacy Board is due to announce its verdict at the end of this month. The clue as to how they must vote is in their name, where the words 'Olympic Legacy' figure prominently. Spurs don't really offer one of those. And we have to remember that sport in this country is not all about football, you know.
~~


Alternatively...

Tottenham's Olympic stadium plans make sense – for athletics

-- Link to Observer article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/jan/16/olympic-stadium-tottenham-west-ham) --

Apart from Seb Coe, who is trying to honour a promise, and a few athletes who are defending the sport they love, no one in this country can seriously believe athletics needs an arena with 60,000 seats, even after the 2012 Olympics, which have been invested by governments with a hypnotic power to turn us all into hammer throwers and 800 metres runners.

At the heart of the face-off between Tottenham Hotspur and West Ham United over the Stratford stadium is a myth that needs a javelin to be run right through it. The London Olympics are not going to send 60,000 Britons scurrying after a ticket for a grand prix track-and-field event, not in a country where only a few thousand habitually show up for meets at Crystal Palace or Gateshead. This is not footballing myopia. The starting point for any discussion about the Stratford monolith is that £547m has been spent to fulfil a commitment the London bid team probably never thought they would need to observe. When "London" emerged from Jacques Rogge's lips rather than the expected "Paris" our capital was lumbered with a mighty anomaly.

Wembley, an opera house for the pub band that are England, might have been constructed as a national sports stadium, with a removable track, if it needed to be built on that scale at all; but the Football Association's insistence that they needed a £750m arena solely for England, a couple of fading cup competitions and the play-offs ensured that a separate Olympic venue had to be constructed as the main stage for the Games.

From there £547m of partly public money was doused in fuel and set on fire to comply with the gigantism of the modern Olympics. In football the hubris is even worse. South Africa is now burdened with numerous potential white elephant stadiums that reflect Fifa's addiction to luxury. UK Athletics – for much of their life a spectacularly unproductive organisation – are protecting a rare opportunity to bump their sport from the margins to the mainstream. They want West Ham to be granted preferred bidder status on 28 January and pursue their joint plan with Newham council to spend £100m on a conversion that would retain the running track.

For some the West Ham proposal is the more public spirited. Unusually it also unites the Olympic movement with the pornography trade, where West Ham's owners made much of their money. The dividend would be a gleaming home for track and field: a place for runners, jumpers and throwers to gather after 2012 had achieved the vital proselytising breakthrough of bringing British children stampeding back to the sport.

Except that it will never happen. Athletics may rise in popularity but it will never compete with Spurs v Arsenal or West Ham v Man United as the hottest ticket on a midweek night. It will not surge from 6,000 to 60,000, which is why Tottenham's promise to redevelop Crystal Palace as a national hub is more honest and realistic than UK Athletics' attempt to bamboozle us into thinking a 60,000-seat auditorium for Jessica Ennis and company makes sense.

Intuitively most of us would rather see this ridiculously expensive project handed over to a sport that the people of east London can use and be inspired by. Few local children can hope to play for Spurs or West Ham. Tottenham are being cast by some in the athletics lobby as opportunistic predators when the truth is that only they have submitted a plan that lifts the organisers off the hook of having to justify a £547m splurge.

By this strange twist of reasoning demolishing a new half-a-billion-pound structure built with public funds turns out to be a lesser folly than erecting it in the first place. It is sophistry to pretend Olympic stadiums are traditionally handed over to track and field in perpetuity. In Sydney, after 2000, the lanes were rolled up and the infield colonised by team sports, as had been the case in Montreal, Los Angeles and Atlanta before. You would be unwise, too, to expect news of sell-out track-and-field nights in Beijing until the Bird's Nest hosts the world championships in 2015.

London's calamity was to win the 2012 bid without having a sensible scheme for the main stadium, and so now the taxpayer is in the lamentable position of having either to subsidise the dreams of Karren Brady, David Gold and David Sullivan at West Ham or to assist Spurs in escaping the planning complications they encountered in the proposed redevelopment of White Hart Lane.

Track and field, which was synonymous with incompetence and neglect, will need to rebuild its support base gradually, with the help of a bright new generation of athletes (Ennis leads the way), rather than rattle around in a 60,000-seat bowl surrounded by West Ham imagery. Crystal Palace – if Spurs are made to rebuild it properly and transport links are improved – is a more viable heartland.

One Premier League football club is going to be the undeserving beneficiary of a budget fiasco (poor old Leyton Orient miss out), for which the blame should fall on the politicians who deceived us with those dodgy costings when London saw off Paris. For them the West Ham-Spurs tussle is a nice distracting sideshow.

Just saw a Thomas cook advert on TV showin the olympic stadium all lit up and full of ppl, is it possible for anyone to be able to get it and post it on here, it looked really beautiful and i dont think it showed a wrap either lol

Its nice seeing some advertising for the games using the nearly completed venues, i suppose from here on in london 2012 will start being more in the public eye

5prYOe2f2xo

Notice... no wrap either! doesn't look too bad at night, but in the day it will look unfinished.

Lol... I could spot several things wrong with that video of the stadium etc but thats just being uptight lol. Its just giving away the general idea. Looks quite nice otherwise

If that is a render of what spurs plan to do at the Olympics site, then it's just a copy of their White Hart road redevelopment.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00770/SPUD1_666x450_770351a.jpg

Well there would be no point in them coming up with two different stadiums. One design works no matter where it was built. I do like the stadium; I just hope they build it in Tottenham. Really would be a shame to see the Olympic Stadium go, especially since it's not even finished yet! However whatever is built for the Olympics will be changed after the games. Enjoy it whilst it’s there I guess!

Would it not be possible to reduce the Olympic Stadium to it's 25,000 "legacy national athletics stadium" size, and have Tottenham build their new stadium elsewhere in the 2,000,000 sqm Olympic Park?

Havent Spurs got planning permission to rebuild at White Hart Lane anyway? Why do they want to move to Stratford?

Would it not be possible to reduce the Olympic Stadium to it's 25,000 "legacy national athletics stadium" size, and have Tottenham build their new stadium elsewhere in the 2,000,000 sqm Olympic Park?

Not really.

London 2012 Olympics: football and athletics CAN co-exist (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/brendangallagher/100014921/london-2012-olympics-football-and-athletics-can-co-exist/)
January 14th, 2011
Brendan Gallagher

A lively response to yesterday’s post on the Olympic Stadium, as you would expect given the subject matter. A couple of points need reiterating.

No matter what happens after 2012 there is no doubt that the MAIN use for the Olympic Stadium will have to be hosting a football club – that is the only sustainable economic model. So my comments yesterday were not an anti-football diatribe. Far from it. The ideal solution is for a football team, preferably with local links to the community, to become the main tenant which will automatically ensure at least 25 big matches there a year.

The main point, however, is that the athletics track stays. It was promised to both the British people and the IOC in the bid and this is not a promise that can be reneged on by anybody, without us losing all credibility.

We paid for it, we invested our money and time into the Olympic dream, it the stadium will be a huge part of our personal Olympic experience. It is the focal point of the Olympic Park, absolutely integral. The stadium and the legacy must never be hijacked and then demolished by one sporting club among thousands in this country.

No, the stadium and athletics track remains as promised, that is not negotiable. We haven’t spent billions on the infrastructure and stadiums for its use to be limited to one football club. But it is important to note that the Olympics Stadium won’t be an athletics stadium per se either, it will be a stadium where major athletics meetings are staged. The normal parade of rock concerts would also help put bums on seats and pay the bills.

All the major domestic and international competitions can be held between May and later August, which is when the short compressed athletics season takes place. The Olympic Stadium would host the AAA Championships, the English Schools Championships to inspire the next generation and an annual Diamond League meeting. It would also clearly be a regular contender to host the European Cup, the European Senior and Junior Championship, the Youth Olympics, the World Junior Championships and very occasionally the World Championships themselves.

All this happens between late May and August and although occasionally there might be a slight overlap with the football tenants, arrangements can be negotiated. They are constantly, without rancour, at other venues around the world.

People are inventing problems. Why the assumption of conflict? No football teams train at their main stadiums, they train at their specially appointed training grounds. Spurs are having a brand new one built as we speak. Local athletics clubs and schools would have the option of using the track as a training facility year round but actually most athletes spend the winters in gyms and running on the road while our elite athletes organise numerous training camps in the sun.

In fairness, I believe the athletics authorities would have to agree that for the duration of the football season – or the agreed period that the successful bidding club uses the facility – that field events are barred. The condition of the football pitch would clearly need to be preserved. But these details can be sorted.

It is clearly a complete nonsense to say that football can’t be played at stadiums with athletics tracks surrounding them. It is all over the world, I would hazard a guess that is the case in the vast majority of the nations in the world. Western Europe is one of the few areas affluent enough to be able to sustain football-only stadiums.

One of the best atmospheres I’ve ever experienced at a football ground was at the old Munich Olympic stadium, with its famous athletics track. And this close-to-the-action argument is a red herring. It would be nigh-on impossible to be further away from the action than you are at the top tiers at Wembley or indeed Twickenham or the Stade France for that matter. People are clutching at straws there.

And why this urgent need to destroy? Remember the Millennium Dome? Many wanted this magnificent iconic British building levelled after the turn of the century. Thank God we didn’t listen to them. Ten years on the O2 is one of the finest multi-purpose sport and entertainment venues in the world with various sports and cultural activities peaceful coexisting and making a few quid into the bargain.

The Spurs plan falls down not only on the massive issue of the wanton demolition of the nation’s Olympic Stadium but also on their hugely over-optimistic notion that Crystal Palace could privide athletics’ legacy from 2012.

I love the place, but anybody wil tell you that even with a relatively modest crowd of say 15,000 for one of their existing meeting on a Friday night in August it is a fiendisly difficult place to travel too. You have to arrive mid afternoon on a Friday evening meeting to be sure of even getting there at all and apart form the heroics of Ovett, Cram, Coe and countless others over the years my abiding memory of Crystal Palace is being stuck in horrendous traffic jams well after midnight trying to make my exit.

The train service after about 10pm seemed non existant. Also to suggest that a revamped 25,000 stadia could ever attract World and European championships is to live in cloud cuckoo land. International sport has moved on.

Alan Pascoe, the hurdler-turned-promoter, says Spurs' plans for the site 'betray the 2012 bid and our children's future' (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/fighting-talk-over-olympic-stadium-legacy-2185713.html)
By Alan Hubbard
Sunday, 16 January 2011

'Spending half a billion on a stadium and then knocking it down would make us a laughing stock,' says Alan Pascoe

It is all kicking off in the fight to inherit London's 2012 Olympic Stadium once the flame has been extinguished 18 months from now. Not so much hammer and tongs as Hammers and Spurs as the Premier League rivals go head to head in a bitter game of political football. Athletics is outraged by what local club West Ham's vice-chairman Karren Brady calls a "smash and grab" raid by Tottenham, who have confirmed they would bulldoze the £500 million, 85,000-seater stadium and build on the site a 60,000-capacity football-only facility; thereby leaving those who bid for the Games terminally embarrassed at seeing the Olympic legacy they had promised to secure being cynically betrayed.

West Ham, happy to retain the track and share what would become a multi-sports stadium with athletics, are afraid that the Tottenham bid, backed by US partners AEG who own the O2, will be seen as a better financial deal by the Olympic Park Legacy Board. The board are due to declare their preferred bidder this month – with a final decision made in conjunction with the Government and London mayor in March. It is set to become the most vexed sporting issue of 2011 and one prominent sports figure believes it will be critical to the future of international sport in Britain.

Former Olympian Alan Pascoe is calling on Prime Minister David Cameron and London's mayor Boris Johnson to intervene and prevent a Tottenham win which, he claims, would be catastrophic. "We made a pledge when we got the Games that there would be a legacy in the Olympic Park for athletics. If we go back on that, why should anyone ever believe us again when we bid for future major events? We'd be told, 'But you don't keep your word'."

Pascoe, 63, winner of Olympic silver and European and Commonwealth gold medals, who has risen from council house schoolboy, hard-up hurdler and one-time rebellious shop steward of athletics in the Seventies to become Britain's most successful sports marketeer as head of the international promotional organisation Fast Track, is among many infuriated by Tottenham's tactics.

"It is a disgrace that this situation is even being considered," he said. "If you drew up a list of the benefits of the Tottenham bid, the only thing in the plus column would be saving £100m for the money men at Spurs, against, on the other side, a multi-sports stadium that is there with facilities for all the young people and the community of East London.

"Spending half a billion pounds on building a stadium for 12 months, using it for less than a month and then knocking it down would make us a laughing stock. The commitment that was made – and I was part of it as [2012] bid vice-chairman – brilliantly fronted by Seb Coe and supported by all the team in Singapore – some of whom are in the Tottenham camp now – was that we would have an Olympic stadium with a proper legacy. Bear in mind we took kids to Singapore to show our commitment to this.

"Either the Prime Minister or the mayor, or both, have got to step in now and stop this happening. If it was just about money, we shouldn't have bid for the Games in the first place, but it is actually about a huge investment in the East End of London, the infrastructure of a sport in this country and its entire credibility."

With apparently only the Tottenham board wanting a contentious five-mile move from north to east London, theirs is hardly a cause célèbre. That is why, with supreme irony, last week they recruited Mike Lee, arguably the most consummate spinner since Shane Warne and himself a former West Ham director who, as the 2012 bid's communications chief, was instrumental in persuading the International Olympic Committee, hand on heart, that London's Olympic Park would have an athletics legacy. Presumably he is now paid to show that it doesn't actually need one.

"We are heading for a national embarrassment," Pascoe forecasts. "Tottenham are paying a lot of money to put themselves in pole position purely because it is a better deal financially for that piece of land. It shouldn't be about money, it should be about what we are committed to for the benefit of sport. Nine years ago we were lamenting the fact that we'd won the World Athletics Championships and then had to give it back as we wouldn't have a stadium because of the Picketts Lock fiasco. Tony Blair committed us to the championships in writing. I found it hard to believe then that sport could be stabbed in the back so cold-bloodedly. Now here we are again."

But what of Spurs' offer to tart up Crystal Palace, thus providing London with a potentially world-class athletics arena? "That's a different discussion. Yes, a renovation of the Palace would be good for British sport, but we are talking about the iconic Olympic stadium being reduced to rubble having made a commitment to the world of sport that we'd use that stadium to create a legacy. If they are going to rebuild Crystal Palace, OK, it's equally ludicrous, but why don't Spurs go there? Spurs fans don't want to move to Newham and the local community and local businesses and shopkeepers say they will be devastated. I feel sorry for Seb. Given the position he is in, he has made it as clear as possible he favours the West Ham bid. People should be saying: 'We can't allow this to happen to the people who led the bid, to the commitment we made and to our foremost sports politician, someone who has total credibility worldwide."

Karren Brady has described Tottenham's current romancing of David Beckham as "a cynical ploy" to boost their bid. Says Pascoe: "If this is the case, I would hope that David, as someone who has benefited from the sporting infrastructure of this country and was part of our bid team in Singapore, won't get involved."

And what of Sir Keith Mills, Coe's vice-chair at the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, who was a key player in the 2012 bid but is now a Tottenham director? "Keith is in an invidious position but he is an honourable man. I hope he'd take a backward step in all this."

And Mike Lee? "Mike is the ultimate pro, a hired gun. But I find it strange he is now lining up against Seb when he was spinning for him in the 2012 bid. Yet no amount of spin can get away from the fact that this is about the money men of Spurs against the kids of this country.

"At a time when we are looking to bid for big events and have just had such a disappointing attempt at getting the World Cup, with Fifa's credibility called into question, not least by us, why are we going to go back on our commitments? Surely our Olympic Stadium is worth more than just 40 days' football and a few pop concerts a year?"

"Alan's a real striver, he never gives up," Pascoe's old hurdling rival David Hemery once said. Tottenham should take note before they start up the bulldozers.

It's a very Tory government thing isn't it, knocking things down. We've even been in this situation before with the 1951 Exhibition and the Millennium Dome...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/millennium-dome-may-be-resurrected-on-new-site-622177.html

I remember when William Hague was running for PM and said if he was elected the next day he would be down at the Dome with a demolition crew to sell the site onto a housing company.

and skylon!

personally I wouldnt want the grubby paws of football anywhere near it

Havent Spurs got planning permission to rebuild at White Hart Lane anyway? Why do they want to move to Stratford?

It will save them £150 million.

It will save them £150 million.

But they'd have to spend that building an athletics stadium at Crystal Palace. It'd hardly be worth it!

You really couldn't make this up! We've got little stadium love triangles going on between North, South and East London now... :lol:

Crystal Palace potential move could hit Tottenham's Olympic Stadium bid


TOTTENHAM Hotspur's bid to relocate to the Olympic Stadium after London 2012 could be dealt a blow after Crystal Palace revealed they are looking to relocate to the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre.

Palace will unveil plans at a press conference on Thursday to return to what was the original home of the club when it was formed in 1905 before they moved to Herne Hill running track.

Tottenham are locked in a two-way battle for tenancy of the Olympic Stadium after the conclusion of the Games. Rivals West Ham remain committed to retaining both the stadium and the athletics track but Spurs want to demolish the £500m venue and rebuild a new ground, specifically for football.

The Olympic Park Legacy Company are expected to announce their preferred bidder in the next fortnight but Tottenham's plan have incensed many - not just their own fans but also UK Athletics officials, who claim their sport would be the big loser, despite Spurs promise to develop the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace for athletics sole use.

In contributing to the development of the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre, Tottenham believe they would be honouring the commitment to an athletics legacy - something the London 2012 bid team pledged to the International Olympic Committee back in 2005 upon securing the Games.

When Crystal Palace came out of administration last year, relocation from Selhurst Park was towards the top of their new consortium's agenda.

At present the outdated and rundown National Sports Centre has a capacity of 15,500 while Tottenham would be looking to modernise the arena and increase it to 25,000 seats.

It remains to be seen if Crystal Palace would intend to keep the athletics track should their plans be successful or do away with it, much like Spurs plan to with the Olympic Stadium.

If Crystal Palace do secure a move to the National Sports Centre and do intend to remove the athletics track, Spurs would be forced to come up with another way of honouring the London 2012 athletics legacy.

Link (http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/football/1713639-crystal-palace-potential-move-could-hit-tottenhams-olympic-stadium-bid)

As my old dad used to say "some people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing".

Richard Caborn was Britain's Sports Minister between 2001 and 2007, the longest anyone has held the position, and was instrumental in London's successful bid to host the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics

I think palace moving to the national sports centre in CRYSTAL PALACE and west ham moving to stratford in EAST LONDON is a great move, with West Hams plan on keeping the track there will be no need to have a track at Crystal Palace, selhurst park is a nightmare to get to anyhow so thats good for Palace. For me this is a perfect fit, everyone is happy. Leaving Spurs to build a new stadium further North.

West Ham can't afford to renovate the Olympic stadium and will require taxpayers money from Newham Council to do so.

The Government aren't willing to give Newham Council this money.

Boris Johnson and the Olympic Stadium: the politics of Spurs versus West Ham (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2011/jan/17/boris-johnson-olympic-stadium-politics)

In the recent parliamentary debate he secured about the stadium's fate, Tottenham MP David Lammy said:

"Whose bright idea was it to encourage Tottenham Hotspur to bid for the Olympic stadium on the other side of London, which would leave one of the biggest regeneration holes in London that we have seen for a generation? There are rumours that the Mayor encouraged Spurs to bid, which seems an absurd and ridiculous decision in the context of the regeneration of one of the poorest communities in the country."

I've heard those "rumours" too and am inclined to believe them. I'd be rather surprised if the Mayor had failed to make it known to Spurs in some way or other that he'd look kindly on their entering the contest. Indeed, he'd have defensible public interest grounds for having done so. It's part of his job to secure a sound legacy for the entire Olympic Park, and ensuring the stadium doesn't become a thirsty white elephant guzzling from the public purse is part of that task.

Were Spurs and AEG - the company that runs the O2, which was praised by Boris recently - not in the contest West Ham would be the only serious contender. As a firm believer that vigorous competition secures the best outcomes, the Mayor can't have thought such a situation ideal. Should Spurs prevail and it emerge that he'd egged Daniel Levy on in some way, that would surely be his justification.

But this would also provide his political opponents with a weapon, one that Lammy is already pointing the Mayor's way. The charge would be that Boris, Tory that he is, had helped a greedy and ambitious big money Premier League club deepen the economic hardship of the neighbourhood that gave it life by ruining a local regeneration scheme and scuppering West Ham and Newham Council's community-minded plans for the stadium and East London in the process. Ken Livingstone, a key player in securing the 2012 Games for London, might have a few things to say about it too.

I've got a few worries about the West Ham bid, not least the feeling that a refurbished Crystal Palace could be a more suitable international athletics venue than the Stratford bowl (a point argued by Paul Hayward in yesterday's Observer). But I've been turned off by Tottenham's attitude lately and can't shake the suspicion that moving to the Olympic stadium would be just one part of a larger and still more profitable plan. It's vital that the stadium works both economically and socially for East London post-2012, and the loss of Spurs would hit the Tottenham area hard. Neither bid is perfect, but I'm rooting for West Ham.

with the whole money from Newham debate, wouldn't that money be towards the cost of athletics events there etc which you cant expect West Ham to pay for? Im not really sure the ins and outs of it all and how much West Ham are short. Obviously theyre league status isn't looking too safe but they will have a few attempts to be in the premiership by the time 2014 comes around (or whenever the stadium is handed over to the new tenants?).

I'm def backing West Ham as they're local so its still being used by the people of Newham and also I think it would be great for Palace to move to the current sports centre and sell of Selhurst.

I'd still like it to be the 25,000 seater English Institute of Sport and Sports Science like it was planned to be but obviously we now live in a time where the idea of people subsidising positive things to the nation such as sporting success is considered a 'luxury'.

Makes me wonder what we'll actually learn from hosting an Olympics.

Who'll pay the upkeep of the 25,000 seat athletics venue at Crystal Palace that Spurs propose?

Spurs' plans move the "problem" of a 25,000 seat athletics only stadium - the reason the original bid plans were scrapped by Boris - to another part of London surely?

Or am I missing something?

Wouldn't it be possible to alter the interior and make it suited more for football and keep the exterior, with maybe some minor modifications (Hotspur logo, name et al)?

It just seems a shame that the venue will be given to 1 specific football club (with all the rubbish that gets deposited around after a match too) and not to something a little bit more enterprising in a sports complex without one club name splashed over it. I also think athletics and more general all round sports use brings a better focused environment than football fans! (and yes befor you start I am one). I have never been to a match where there isn't a clean up to do after of people's litter and crap. Surely non-partisan occupation of the stadium has to be better.

Boris Johnson and the Olympic Stadium: the politics of Spurs versus West Ham (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2011/jan/17/boris-johnson-olympic-stadium-politics)

In the recent parliamentary debate he secured about the stadium's fate, Tottenham MP David Lammy said:

Shocking. Boris should be sacked if that is the case.

It just seems a shame that the venue will be given to 1 specific football club (with all the rubbish that gets deposited around after a match too) and not to something a little bit more enterprising in a sports complex without one club name splashed over it. I also think athletics and more general all round sports use brings a better focused environment than football fans! (and yes befor you start I am one). I have never been to a match where there isn't a clean up to do after of people's litter and crap. Surely non-partisan occupation of the stadium has to be better.

I completely agree and to think all that tax payers money making the park into something living and to have it almost dedicated to a single club of a sport rolling in money and as the above article points out meaning that their investment is removed from poverty sticken Tottenham. It is a disgraceful state of affairs.

I'd still like it to be the 25,000 seater English Institute of Sport and Sports Science like it was planned to be but obviously we now live in a time where the idea of people subsidising positive things to the nation such as sporting success is considered a 'luxury'.

Makes me wonder what we'll actually learn from hosting an Olympics.

Totally agree. Why is football even involved at all?!

Do the above, and add the AEG bit too, for big concerts that cannot fit into the O2.

If those still cannot fund its upkeep then top it up with public funds or sponsers if needs be. I want a proper legacy. Not a pseudo one in the guise of football.

I can see in the future Tottenham renegading on their promise for a crystal palace, sending athletics back again to the doldrums pre Olympics. I agree it should be a combined operation of the stadium, under one body would be better leaving the legacy of athletics as well as football. The lack of imagination by the Government to just sell it off as an 'asset' is short sited and quite frankly disgusting considering it wil be going against all those promises.

Most of the time I think of 2012 as a blessing, but there are others (like this whole unresolved stadium issue) which make me wish they'd give it to Paris, and we could have ours once we are sorted out again!!!

Former mayor Ken Livingstone attacks Tottenham's Olympic Stadium plans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/19/ken-livingstone-tottenham-hotspur-olympic-stadium)
Owen Gibson
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 19 January 2011 00.49 GMT

London mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone Ken Livingstone will stand for election as Mayor of London in 2012.

Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London who in 2005 played a key role in bringing the 2012 Olympics to London, has attacked Tottenham Hotspur's bid to take over the main stadium in Stratford.

However, the chief executive of Bromley council has backed Tottenham's plan to redevelop Crystal Palace to leave an athletics legacy while rebuilding the Olympic Stadium to host only football. West Ham United's rival bid would keep athletics at the Olympic Stadium.

Livingstone, who will stand for mayor in 2012, said the Olympic Stadium had been designed and chosen on sustainability grounds and that to knock it down, as Spurs propose to do, would have "horrendous" consequences.

"If they decide to go for West Ham, then you have football and athletics there, that's fine," he told the local government publication the MJ. "I would be horrified at the thought, if Tottenham get it, that you demolish a stadium we've just spent £400m building – and then build a new one, because the carbon cost of a stadium is horrendous.

"We used half the normal amount of steel and concrete that you would use on a stadium of that size – and there were environmental reasons for doing that. To demolish it? There's a carbon-footprint cost here which is just not acceptable."

Doug Patterson, the chief executive of the London borough of Bromley, which owns the freehold on Crystal Palace Park, said he would meet Spurs officials this week.

"The Spurs plans would be positive for the area because I am not sure what else would happen," he said. "There are not any other significant plans. Nobody has got the money to spruce up Crystal Palace. South Londoners would benefit with the Spurs plans. They would not have any direct benefit from the West Ham plans."

If Spurs win the backing of the Olympic Park Legacy Company, the dilapidated athletics stadium at Crystal Palace will benefit from a 25,000-capacity refurbishment.

On Monday Crystal Palace Football Club declared an interest in moving from Selhurst Park to the athletics stadium. Palace have tried to move to the site before but have not been able to gain planning permission. Only recently, under a consortium led by Steve Parish, have they managed to reunite their ground, Selhurst Park, and the club under the same ownership.

European Athletics has also weighed in on the stadium issue, following the lead of the International Olympic Committee.

"Keeping the athletics track must be part of any future plans for the Olympic Stadium," Hansjörg Wirz, the EA president, said in a statement. "London needs a high-quality venue that has the potential to host future European Athletics Championships and world championships."

Patterson, who said Tottenham would take Crystal Palace, which opened in 1964, back to its "previous standards", said the venue could also be adapted to host the world championships.

IOC's Craig Reedie slams Tottenham Olympic stadium plan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/london_2012/9366610.stm)
BBC London

A key figure behind London's successful 2012 bid has hit out at Tottenham's plan to remove the running track from the Olympic stadium after the Games.

"It would be extremely regretful," said International Olympic Committee executive board member Sir Craig Reedie. "We would lose credibility."

Reedie prefers the rival proposal from West Ham to convert the arena into a venue for football and athletics.

"It seems an ideal use of a converted stadium in the Olympic Park," he added.

Premier League clubs Tottenham and West Ham are competing against each other to become the tenant of London's £527m Olympic Stadium after the 2012 Games.

Spurs, bidding in collaboration with entertainment and sports giants AEG, want to demolish most of the stadium, removing the track to ensure fans are close to the pitch.

West Ham say they will retain most of the structure, although they will reduce the venue's capacity from 80,000 to 60,000 to create an arena for football, athletics, concerts and community use in a collaboration with Newham Council.

The Olympic Park Legacy Committee will make its recommendations on the site's future to the Mayor of London and the government by 28 January.

Reedie, former chairman of the British Olympic Association, said Tottenham's proposal would undermine London's pledge to provide a track legacy for the stadium.

"We would lose all credibility [if the running track was moved]," he added.

"If we have one tenant of a major football club and it is going to keep the athletics track, that is my chosen option.

"It was sport that generated the Olympic Park in the first place.

"The only correct long-term usage is to have a stadium which can be used as the centre of future bids for major sports events, probably concentrating on what is the Olympic Games' leading sport."

Countering the argument that running tracks are incompatible with football, Reedie cited the example of Italian clubs Roma and Lazio, who share the Olympic Stadium in Rome.

The Spurs proposal has already attracted criticism for its lack of provision for athletics, with UK Athletics (UKA) labelling the initiative "completely unacceptable".

I get the feeling West Ham want this for nothing, they give the impression that they don't have a pot to piss in.

Tessa Jowell: Olympics stadium must remain athletics venue (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-olympics/article-23915772-tessa-jowell-olympics-stadium-must-remain-athletics-venue.do)
20 Jan 2011

Former Olympics minister Tessa Jowell insists the Olympic Stadium in east London must continue to be an athletics venue after the 2012 Games in order to fulfil promises made to the International Olympic Committee during the bidding process.

Rival London clubs West Ham and Tottenham are bidding to move to the site, but while the Hammers have pledged to retain the athletics track at the stadium, Spurs intend to rebuild the stadium without a track while revamping the Crystal Palace athletics venue.

If Spurs are successful then UK Athletics would not be able to bid to stage the 2017 World Championships in London, and Jowell warned that would be unacceptable in the light of the Picketts Lock fiasco which forced plans to host the 2005 World Championships to be abandoned.

Jowell, quoted in the Daily Telegraph, said: "We made a promise about the athletics legacy London would offer when we bid for the 2012 Games, and we did not make it simply to see it broken a few years later.

"We made that promise against the background of the 2005 World Championships, which we had to pull out of because we could not provide a suitable stadium (at Picketts Lock) to host it.

"That decision caused a great deal of damage, but the fact that it was substantially repaired was credit to the bid, and tells you a great deal about the importance of the promise of an athletics legacy that we made.

"I think it is a great pity that the only option is a football club but it is more important that the stadium ends up with the capacity for long-term use by the communities of east London."

The Olympic Park Legacy Company has a board meeting on Friday, January 28 when a decision on their preferred bidder could be made.

If they do make a decision at that meeting, their recommendation then has to go to be ratified by two Government departments - the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Department of Communities and Local Government - and the London mayor's office.

It's not viable with an athletics track, Bayern Munich, Schalke 04, Espanyol, SV Hamburg, Eintracht Frankfurt have all moved out of stadiums with Athletics tracks, Juventus are removing the track from Del Alpi , Lazio and Roma would build their own trackless stadia if they could afford too whilst Panathinaikos and AEK can't wait to get out of the Athens Olympic Stadia.

Athletics is a minority sport and cannot hope to regularly fill a stadium of this size.

Architect defends Spurs' stadium demolition plan (http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/architect-defends-spurs-stadium-demolition-plan/5011971.article)
20 January 2011
By Andrea Klettner

Tearing down Olympic landmark “would be sustainable”

The architect behind Tottenham Hotspur FC’s plans to tear down and rebuild the Olympic Stadium has defended the proposals, insisting they are sustainable and not a waste of taxpayer¹s money.

David Keirle, chairman of KSS and lead architect for Spurs said it was “nonsense” to say the north London club’s scheme, which involves moving out of White Hart Lane, would eradicate the £500 million investment made at the 2012 site in Stratford.

But former mayor of London Ken Livingstone joined a chorus of criticism of the Spurs plans, calling them “obscene”.

He told BD: “You can’t spend that much money to then demolish the stadium.

It’s completely unsustainable and nothing could fill the hole Tottenham FC would leave in Haringey, one of the poorest boroughs in the country.”

While the rival bid for the stadium from fellow premier league club West Ham would retain the athletics track and much of the structure, Tottenham’s would replace the Populous-designed stadium with a 60,000-seat arena dedicated to football.

Keirle said his strategy would still make use of the decontaminated land, the podium, the undercroft, the foundations and the roads built around the stadium.

“We would take down about 20% of the value of the project by dismantling the stadium, taking down pretty much everything above ground, which was always the legacy plan,” he said.

Tottenham’s proposals “to build the best football stadium we can” also include recycling parts of the dismantled stadium by using them both in the new stadium and for the redevelopment of Crystal Palace’s athletics track - also part of the wider plans.

“The floodlights, seating, they can all be re-used. So rather than throwing it away we are seeking to use it,” said Keirle.

London Assembly member for the City and East London John Biggs said that the decision over a tenant should be based on the regeneration potential of the bid, rather than past promises or sporting content.

“It was always intended that this should be a catalyst for regeneration and that¹s what we should focus on,” he said.

A decision on a legacy tenant for the stadium is expected from the Olympic Park Legacy Company by January 28.
Tottenham threatens London’s promise

Tottenham Hotspur’s radical plans to redevelop the Olympic Stadium could be a huge embarrassment for London 2012 and in particular for the chairman of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, Seb Coe.

Coe, who is also vice-president of the International Association of Athletics Federations, promised the International Olympics Committee that the stadium would have an athletics track as part of its legacy.

“We made a very strong commitments that this would be a track-and-field legacy,” Coe told the BBC in 2006.

He added that any football club prepared to take over the stadium would have to “play within the confines of a track-and-field configuration”, giving primary usage to the athletics track. Unfortunately for Coe, Tottenham’s audacious proposal, which also involves revamping the athletics stadium at Crystal Palace, has ignored this.

It's not viable with an athletics track, Bayern Munich, Schalke 04, Espanyol, SV Hamburg, Eintracht Frankfurt have all moved out of stadiums with Athletics tracks, Juventus are removing the track from Del Alpi , Lazio and Roma would build their own trackless stadia if they could afford too whilst Panathinaikos and AEK can't wait to get out of the Athens Olympic Stadia.

Athletics is a minority sport and cannot hope to regularly fill a stadium of this size.

Which is why it was built so that it could be downsized to 25,000 seats!!

It's entirely viable with an athletics track if the original proposals were stuck to.

Why are we talking about this as though it's a football stadium with athletics in the way? It's not and was never intended to be as such.

Which is why it was built so that it could be downsized to 25,000 seats!!

It's entirely viable with an athletics track if the original proposals were stuck to.

Why are we talking about this as though it's a football stadium with athletics in the way? It's not and was never intended to be as such.

It's not viable as a 25,000 seat athletics stadium, no-one is interested in athletics as a spectator sport. Apart from a meeting in summer with all the stars, the stadium will remain empty.

A football stadium will bring 40 - 60,000 on at least 19 occasions. It's a no brainer, football is the UK's number one spectator sport and always will be.

there are plenty of other types of sports. AEG even want to host more concerts in a stadium atmosphere, far better than over-using hyde park. Football is actually far too posessive of its stadia, look at the mess of the pitch in Wembley after a few different types of events. Football has enough stadium and limelight as it is let the Olympic stadium be for other events.

AEG also want Tottenham to have the stadium and demolish it.

I agree with you entirely about Hyde Park, that is supposed to be a public space.

London deserves new, state of the art athletics facilities. If another sport wants to use the stadium then fine- but to demolish it completely to build another generic football stadium would be a disaster.

It would be a shame to lose those floodlights but it's going to happen. Athletics cannot sustain a stadium of any significant size in a country were the public are only enthusiastic about the sport during the various Olympic, World and European Championships.

It could host all three of the above and still be less viable than a football club. Football is a major part of British popular culture, it devours all before it because many people identify with it on a very personal level.

I don't really care. Any sport can share the stadium, but if the athletics element isn't retained then it will be a failure.

People working in athletics must be wondering why we bothered to bid for the Olympics in the first place.

The Olympics isn't just Athletics.

Sport is the very last reason a city bids for the Olympics.

Believe it or not but without a decent track and no approved olympic swimming pool, a large part of the bid was about the lack of facilities for Olympic sport in a large modern city like London.

Of course it was not all about sport, but that was the key message.

The Olympics isn't just Athletics.

Sport is the very last reason a city bids for the Olympics.

But after an Olympics cities are inevitably left with stadia, personally I would rather form a plan to share the stadium between the sports that desperately need them and what will keep them running.

And the Olympics is far more about athletics than it is about Football.

quick question: what happened to leyton orients bid?????

Most Olympic stadia are white elephants. Unless the London Olympic Stadium is converted into something else it too will rot under used.

For West Ham to keep the track would be a disaster for them and would result in a half empty stadium slowly becoming a quarter empty stadium with a protest movement to return to Upton Park

quick question: what happened to leyton orients bid?????

What was that bid? to knock the stadium down and build a 5,000 seater in it's place.

What was that bid? to knock the stadium down and build a 5,000 seater in it's place.

hahaha...
i thought it was to us the 25,000 legacy planned stadium,
5000 does sound ok for them, i think their average attendance is only 3000, and will get much worse if one of the premier league clubs get it

hahaha...
i thought it was to us the 25,000 legacy planned stadium,
5000 does sound ok for them, i think their average attendance is only 3000, and will get much worse if one of the premier league clubs get it

It won't change because of that, West Ham is a bus ride away as is Tottenham.

I thought Leyton would do well if they took it down to 25,000 legacy and still atheletics but that means we wouldnt get the world championships as hoping with keeping it at 60,000

Crystal Palace unveil plans for National Sports Centre
National Sports Centre, Crystal Palace Parlk.
The National Sports Centre has seen better days

Crystal Palace have unveiled plans to move from Selhurst Park to a new 40,000-seat stadium at their original home - now the National Sports Centre.

Palace chairman Steve Parish told BBC London: "This is where we started playing in 1905 and we want to bring Crystal Palace home."

UK Athletics have backed the plans providing they include a running track.

The news could have a major impact on plans by Tottenham to relocate to the site of the 2012 Olympic Stadium.

Spurs want to demolish the 2012 stadium and start from scratch while revamping the NSC for athletics.

The NSC in Crystal Palace Park is currently a 15,000-seat athletics stadium and hosts the annual London Grand Prix meeting, but it is in need of major refurbishment work.

Ed Warner, chairman of UK Athletics, said they would back Palace's plans providing the NSC's athletics legacy was retained.

If you build a stadium with football and athletics in mind [at the start] you can arrive at a much better compromise

Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish

"On the proviso that the Olympics stadium retains its athletics track and any redevelopment of Crystal Palace maintains a community athletics facility on or nearby the park, we would be supportive of the plans of Crystal Palace," he said.

Parish added: "We wanted our plans to go into the mix of the decision making process.

"There are issues out of our control over what people deem to be an Olympics legacy.

"Once the decision has been made we'd look to work with whoever else wants to do something here [at the National Sports Centre] and see if we can make those two things compatible.

"It's important people realise what our plans were and that we went public with those.

"We believe we can put the funding in place. We own Selhurst Park which will be the cornerstone of that funding."

The park was the original home of Crystal Palace FC when the club was formed in 1905 and they played there until the outbreak of World War One. They have been at Selhurst since 1924.

Tottenham's plan to build a new football-only stadium on the site of the main venue for the 2012 Olympics in east London has caused controversy as an athletics legacy was part of London's successful bid to host the Games in 2005.

To fulfil that obligation, their plan involves refurbishing the NSC as a 25,000-capacity athletics venue.

However, Parish would not commit to keeping an athletics track at the NSC should the Eagles move happen.

"Everyone in football would prefer a purpose-built football stadium," he continued.

"If you build a stadium with football and athletics in mind [at the start] you can arrive at a much better compromise.

"We would explore all options, but a football stadium would be ideal."

Premier League side West Ham have submitted their own bid for the 2012 stadium, which would involve them retaining the athletics track for use in elite events as well as by local communities.

The Olympic Park Legacy Company has a board meeting on Friday, 28 January when it is expected to decide on its preferred bidder.

Its recommendation then has to be ratified by two government departments - the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Department of Communities and Local Government - and the London Mayor's office.

Palace were taken over by new owners CPFC2010 last June, when the possibility of relocating from Selhurst Park - parts of which are also in need of upgrading - was raised.
------------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/crystal_palace/9364649.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/crystal_palace/9364649.stm
------------

Sounds like it would pave the way for Spurs to knock down the Olympic venue so long as Crystal Palace's new stadium has the running track. The one thing that would leave egg on the face of UK Athletic's is if both plans are allowed, and both the Athletics arenas are torn down, what if Crystal palace run out of money - ther plan will have to be aborted and London will have no top tier athletics stadium... :(

Can I just step back and remind everyone that from the beginning this stadium was designed and built for the provision of athletics and athletics only? Some (and not just on this forum) who are saying that the sightlines will not be good for football are obviously correct - but that's the whole point! It's like trying to put a cycling track inside the Aquatic centre and then complaining the sightlines are all wrong.

The situation is round peg in square hole and I think too many people are thinking the round peg is the only option when it should be more about exploiting the square hole.

when would a bid for the world athletic championships be?
i just feel sorry for orient as they are already in what someone once termed to me as the triangle of death... with west ham, totteham and arsenal surrounding them. putting a big club that close will make it even worse

Round hole square peg. The stadium is (almost) round, the football pitch is (almost) square........

Can I just step back and remind everyone that from the beginning this stadium was designed and built for the provision of athletics and athletics only?

The stadium was designed and built for the Olympics which will last a month at the most. There is no demand for an athletics stadium.

i'm gonna sound like an idiot with this post... but can't the bowl of the stadium be sunk further down, and a solution made to be a convertible stadium?? i'm sure someone else must have asked this already

Not sure if anyone has asked but I have been thinking exactly that, to sink it further down and create a square pitch

That's pretty much what they did with the City of Manchester stadium didn't they?

I think that would place the stadium below the water table, which would make it permanently prone to flooding. also, all the rooms below grade would need to be destroyed and new foundations placed. We would also then end up with a <80,000 seater stadium!

Yep the water table is high in this area (what with being a marsh and all) which is also why the stadium pitch doesn't have a central undercroft like Beijing's.

Part of my love for Archigram's way of thinking wonders if some architect out there could design a two tier stadium - football on the ground level with an athletics track running around the roof. Crazy, but then Archigram were full of weird ideas like that.

Incidentally, this was the image of the stadium in football mode from the World Cup bid.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00113/stadia_stratford_68_113613a.jpg

Football has no right, if this happens we won't ever get a major tournament again cos we are making ourselves out to be lying bastards just to get the olympics and they wouldn't be wrong. i do hope spurs go bust

In other news, some new photos!

From Andy Wilkes on flickr:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5201/5370386718_016cb87d16_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5165/5370386900_d692a5b497_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5284/5370387258_0fd8f92cfd_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5285/5369781603_74d0e1c692_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5123/5370389532_7864b27fec_b.jpg

hospitality boxes look nice.
just had a quick search and i think this is a west ham forum disscussing the same idea.
http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=122794&start=3280
looks interesting, not had a read yet coz i'm late for the pub! also looking for the large cross section of the stadium if anyone knows where it is? not the one a few pages back though....
off to the pub! the life of a student is hard some times! ;P

^^
Some great pictures! landscaping looks ok
hospitality boxes look nice.

hope to come over later in year to have look at the Olympic
site from my little island home!:yes:

Football has no right, if this happens we won't ever get a major tournament again cos we are making ourselves out to be lying bastards just to get the olympics and they wouldn't be wrong. i do hope spurs go bust

Football has every right actually. Spurs and West Ham - like UK Athletics - are both looking after their own interests; why you'd expect anything different from them I don't know.

If you want to be angry, be angry with the tendering process for not including the requirement to keep the athletics track, or Boris, for failing to even try to ensure an athletics legacy in the Olympic Park, or be angry with the government or hell, even be angry with the banks for screwing the economy.

But to be angry with two football clubs who both see an opportunity to move forward is to aim your anger at the wrong target in my opinion. That approach is rather like being annoyed with the people who bought Britains's gold, rather than being annoyed with Gordon Brown for selling it off. Not a perfect analogy, but you get my drift.

And even if the track does get torn up, nobody "lied to get the Olympics". As you well know, the Labour government, Ken Livingstone, and Seb Coe made the promise of an athletics legacy in the Olympic Park. Since then we've had a change of government, a change of Mayor and the OPLC has been installed above the heads of LOCOG and the ODA to deal with legacy. None of the original stakeholders (Labour, Tessa Jowell, Ken Livingstone, Seb Coe etc) have any influence over what happens post-2012 anymore. All of them, however, have recently come out against Spurs' plans to tear up the track. This shows that their promises were sincere and not a lie to win the bid.

Will the park/stadium concourse be open to walk around by the end of year, with no diggers ect.

No Athletics track in the stadium in Crystal Palaces new plans.

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/3961/cpfc.jpg (http://img262.imageshack.us/i/cpfc.jpg/)

Will the park/stadium concourse be open to walk around by the end of year, with no diggers ect.

Apart from official invite-only testing events the public won't be allowed access until the evening of the opening ceremony.

From those pics it looks like what it is, a temporary structure. West Ham fans will hate going to that place, Tottenham believe or not have got the right idea.

From those pics it looks like what it is, a temporary structure.

Yes, that's because it was designed as a 25,000 capacity athletics stadium bowl with the ability to add temporary elements to host an Olympics.

Which means that it is a non starter as a Premiership football stadium which means that Tottenham will win the bid with partner AEG and it will be replaced.

A 25,000 seat athletic stadium is no use to anyone, and 80,000 seat athletic stadium is no use to a Premiership football team. the West Ham solution is a non starter.

A 25,000 seat athletic stadium is no use to anyone

It formed part of the legacy 'package' of London hosting the Olympics presented at Singapore in 2005 and may have swung a few winning votes in London's favour. I'd say it's only fair to honour that pledge.

It formed part of the legacy 'package' of London hosting the Olympics presented at Singapore in 2005 and may have swung a few winning votes in London's favour. I'd say it's only fair to honour that pledge.

I would think the IOC will have forgotton all about it by now as they look to another set of mugs to sponge off.

The Premier League is far more important to the UK economy than any pledge to a kleptocracy by a group of people who have been largely turfed out by the UK electorate.

Keeping the athletics track, allowing west ham to use it for football and incorporating events, concerts etc is the best option all round. The spurs option is the easy, wasteful, unsustainable, negligent and selfish option- unfortunately it might still win.

I would think the IOC will have forgotton all about it by now as they look to another set of mugs to sponge off.

The Premier League is far more important to the UK economy than any pledge to a kleptocracy by a group of people who have been largely turfed out by the UK electorate.

Does the fate of the Premier league rest on spurs demolishing a perfectly good stadium to build a new one on its rubble? no.

If people moan about the state of British sports they should look at decisions like this (well, hopefully not), where money is put in front of the good of society.

Does the fate of the Premier league rest on spurs demolishing a perfectly good stadium to build a new one on its rubble? no.

If people moan about the state of British sports they should look at decisions like this (well, hopefully not), where money is put in front of the good of society.

It's a temporary stadium, not fit for purpose as a Premier/Champions League stadium.

A society not particulary intrested in Athletics outside the major championships which can only be hosted every few decades is not going to gain very much with a 25,000 seat athletics stadium which cannot even host major championships.

The idea smacks of amateurism. When the professionals move in, so will the demolition crews.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12242831

£40m Olympic Stadium loan to West Ham approved

A local council has arranged a £40m loan to finance West Ham's potential move into the Olympic Stadium.

The club is going head-to-head with Tottenham Hotspur to take over the site after the 2012 Games.

Councillors at the Labour-run Newham Council voted in favour of the loan, calling it a "strong package".

A BBC London investigation had raised a series of concerns about how the decision to loan the money was reached.

West Ham will have access to the loan, secured by the council from the Treasury, if they are named preferred bidder by the Olympic Park Legacy Company at the end of January.

Council chief executive Kim Bromley-Derry said: "We are unable to comment on financial aspects of the Newham Council and West Ham United bid for the Olympic Stadium because of a confidentiality agreement with the Olympic Park Legacy Company.

"However our proposal offers a strong financial package with no further call on the public purse."

It emerged before the vote that councillors had been unable to examine all the financial details until the last minute.

A "significant number" of backbench councillors were known to have reservations but were said to be "afraid" to speak out over fear of losing out on highly-paid advisory roles.

There were also impartiality questions over dozens of gifts from the club to Mayor of Newham Sir Robin Wales.

The council has insisted the mayor had "nothing to hide" over hospitality he received from the club, although it meant Sir Robin was unable to take part in the vote.

It did not comment on the advisory roles.

Speaking after the vote, Mike Law, a former Labour councillor who defected to the Conservatives, said: "I am not surprised it went through - the whole vote was just window dressing.

"If you look at the constitution the mayor is the sole decision maker - so it makes a mockery to say he's not involved because he didn't vote.

"Elected members in Newham had not been briefed properly, and they have been hoodwinked into ratifying a decision that had already been made."

After the vote a council spokesman refused to say whether it would be liable for the debt if West Ham defaulted, citing commercial confidentiality.

No Athletics track in the stadium in Crystal Palaces new plans.

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/3961/cpfc.jpg (http://img262.imageshack.us/i/cpfc.jpg/)

yes there is, it's on the right of that picture, UK athletics have asked that they still keep a track on site for community use, not necessarily as part of the stadium. But of course only if the track is kept in stratford too, if Spurs win the bid, then UK athletics will not let crystal palace rip up the second London athletics track withing the space of a few years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/london_2012/9367733.stm

Athletics boss Diack slams Olympic stadium plans

The head of world athletics says London will have told a "big lie" to get the 2012 Olympics if the Olympic stadium is converted into a football ground.

West Ham and Tottenham both want to move to the venue after 2012 but under Spurs' plans the track will go.

"They'll have made a big lie during their presentation," International Athletics Association Federation chief Lamine Diack told BBC Sport.

"There will be no credibility... of a great country like Britain."

And Diack, a member of the International Olympic Committee, suggested that if the athletics track was scrapped Britain's chances of hosting future events would be severely compromised.

"[There would be] no way to comeback as far as my generation is concerned," he stated.

"You can consider you are dead. You are finished.

"This nation has a number of heroes in athletics. I could spend an hour, listing one by one all those who've achieved fantastic things in athletics. They are still there, involved. And this country, this city saying that I'm not able to have a stadium of athletics?"

Tottenham and West Ham will make their final submissions to the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) on Friday.

The OPLC, which can ask either club to provide more details of their proposals, has a board meeting on Friday, 28 January when it is expected to decide on its preferred bidder.

Its recommendation then has to be ratified by two government departments - the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Department of Communities and Local Government - and the London Mayor's office, with a decision expected by the end of March.

West Ham have pledged to retain the running track while Spurs intend to rebuild the stadium without the track.

In an effort to counteract any charge that the Stratford venue would lack the intimacy of football grounds that do not have running tracks, West Ham stated: "There are seats at Wembley stadium (regarded as having great views from every vantage point) which are further away from the pitch than any seat in our proposed stadium."

Labour's former Olympic minister Tessa Jowell has suggested that having a football club as the main tenant of the stadium would not be ideal, though her desire to see the track retained has seen her favour the West Ham bid.

"Newham Council, together with West Ham, commits to keep the athletics track, commits to external community involvement and is apparently commercially viable with partners Essex County Cricket Club and [entertainment provider] Live Nation," she said.

"Therefore, they meet the five tests that we applied for the legacy use of the stadium, to the commitments we made in the bid book and the heavy commitment to community engagement."

When asked how it would reflect on the bid, and Britain as a whole, if the athletics legacy was not kept at the stadium, Jowell simply said: "Badly.

"I had to pull Britain out of hosting the athletics World Championships in 2005 because we didn't have a suitable stadium and we couldn't afford to build a stadium in time.

"When we set about bidding for the Olympics, at the very heart of that was putting that right and making amends by saying part of our legacy will be a world-class stadium that can host world-class athletics events.

"When we made that commitment in the bid book they were carefully considered commitments that were in the interests of sport in this country.

"They were also persuasive in winning the bid for London 2012 so they can't be taken or set aside lightly."

West Ham's proposal of retaining the running track but reducing the capacity of the stadium from 80,000 to 60,000, which had looked a more legacy-friendly option, came in for heavy criticism on Wednesday.

Both Simon Clegg, the former British Olympic Association chief executive, and Michael Cunnah, Wembley Stadium's former chief executive, believe football and athletics cannot both be held successfully in the same stadium.

"It is quite obvious that the only viable model for the stadium is to have a football club as an anchor tenant, but football fans in this country want to be as close to the action as possible," said Clegg.

"I articulated this to Sebastian Coe a couple of years ago but the issue has become even more acute for me since I have been involved in a club.

"The entire bid was based on the principle of sustainable legacy and not creating white elephants and only 17 months out from the Games we have still not resolved the thorny issue of future of the stadium.

"It's madness to suggest we should keep a track just on the basis we may get an athletics world championships or European championships say once every 15 -20 years."

Former Tottenham chairman Lord Sugar told BBC Five Live that he understood why the issue of a possible move was hard for some fans to face up to, but they needed to think about the long-term security of the club.

"I can understand their hesitance, we're great traditionalists but I think what we have to consider is that we have to do the right thing for the future of the football club, to go to the next level," he said.

"To try and do that in Harringey is starting to look financially prohibitive.

"We don't have planning consent [to redevelop White Hart Lane], we have it with lots of caveats, and when you add up the cost of trying to comply with all of them, you see an unviable financial proposition.

"It's not a simple exercise. Fans need to understand that the first priority was to keep home where it is, but if it's financially unviable, what do you do?".

Former BOA boss Clegg prefers Tottenham's bid, but believes that rather than offering to redevelop the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace as part of their plan for moving into the Olympic Stadium, Spurs should be focused on providing a sustainable athletics legacy in east London.

A group of former British Olympians, including double gold medallists Dame Kelly Holmes and Daley Thompson, are against the north London club's proposal to get rid of the track, writing in an open letter: "We urge the decision makers to ensure the track remains post 2012."

UK Athletics head coach Charles van Commenee also warned: "If London doesn't have a stadium where we can organise major championships in athletics, that puts you in a category in Europe that I can't even think of."

There will be a lot of opposition to any major stadium construction in Crystal Palace Park. The footprint of a new stadium will be significantly greater than what is there now and at least one view point will be blocked. The nimbys put a stop to funding the park improvements as they are and that was just a couple of appartment blocks to be built. No chance. Crystal Palace wont be moving there, nor will there be a 25,000 seat athletics stadium. The Olympic park is a can of worms already, why open up another in South London? Therefore I favour, out of the two, West Ham.

A test piece of the wrap has been fitted. Whether they have the money to complete the rest of it still waits to be seen.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5084/5370389076_c8513f4bf0_o.jpg

A test piece of the wrap has been fitted. Whether they have the money to complete the rest of it still waits to be seen.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5084/5370389076_c8513f4bf0_o.jpg

Even with that one strip you can see how much better it will look. Keep going guys. For the sake of aesthetics, keep going!

yes there is, it's on the right of that picture, UK athletics have asked that they still keep a track on site for community use, not necessarily as part of the stadium. But of course only if the track is kept in stratford too, if Spurs win the bid, then UK athletics will not let crystal palace rip up the second London athletics track withing the space of a few years.


THFC plans are to rebuild the current Athletics stadium which is the site Crystal Palace want to build a football stadium without an athletics track . If THFC win next week it scuppers these plans.

The funding of the actual park improvements was never in place which is why the building of housing on some parts of the park was allowed and approved by Mr Pickles last month following a public inquiry.

The LDA own the current Athletics stadium, has no money for either that or the wider park improvements and has pretty much abandoned the area and is concentrating on East London so they must be very pleased that THFC and CPFC are interested in the site.

Interesting render of the original legacy concept on the BBC website today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/stadium595jpg.jpg

Bidders told: Keep pledges or get boot from Olympic stadium (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-olympics/article-23916349-bidders-told-keep-pledges-or-get-boot-from-olympic-stadium.do)
Matthew Beard, Sports News Correspondent Matthew Beard, Sports News Correspondent
21 Jan 2011

The two bidders for the Olympic stadium face eviction from it if they break their promises to create a legacy.

Strict contracts for the winner - West Ham or Tottenham Hotspur - have been drawn up amid concerns they may try to cut costs in future by reneging on their commitments to athletics.

The Olympic Park Legacy Company will insist West Ham deliver on their pledge to retain the running track at the Stratford venue, while Spurs will have to invest in a new athletics facility at Crystal Palace, as they promised. The north London club suffered a setback today as the head of world athletics attacked their "outrageous" plan to demolish the Olympic stadium.

Lamine Diack, president of the International Association of Athletics Associations, said London would be guilty of "big lies" if the proposal for a new national athletics venue was ditched. He said this would destroy Britain's reputation: "You can consider that you are dead, finished."

The Times backed West Ham bid's in an editorial today, calling their rival's proposal "perverse".

The Standard understands legacy chiefs have been working with the two clubs to pin them down to their commitments in re-cent weeks, before today's deadline for final offers.

Watertight legal deals will also ensure legacy promises are kept in case of a change of ownership. It is has been claimed Spurs are keen on the Stratford move to boost their value before a sale to a Middle-East sovereign wealth fund. The legacy company board will vote on the stadium's future next Friday morning, with a simple majority required for either Spurs or West Ham.

They could also decide to reject both and stick to the "base case" of a 25,000-capacity athletics-only venue subsidised by London council tax payers.

The successful bid must deliver value for money for the taxpayer; ensure the venue supports local regeneration and allow the site to be used by the community as well as elite sport.

After the vote, the board will seek approval from their three "shareholders", Boris Johnson, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles and Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, before a press conference to announce the winner.

A letter of agreement will be signed with the winner but initially, a financial bond will not be required, raising the prospect that if Spurs win they could use it to try to lever a better deal out of Haringey council to redevelop White Hart Lane.

Tottenham
Cost: £250 million, which could be raised by the sale of current home White Hart Lane - which would cost £450 million to redevelop. There would be no public borrowing.

Plans: Knock down the stadium to create a football-only arena with a 60,000 capacity - only a third of original structure kept.

Legacy: Spending £20 million to create a 25,000-seat venue at the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace, which could be boosted to a 45,000 capacity for an athletics world championship.

What fans say: An increasingly vocal "No to Stratford Hotspur" campaign is being run by disillusioned fans who see the move as a betrayal of the club's roots. They object to a mass exodus to east London on match days.

Who backs it: Entertainment firm AEG, owner of the O2 Arena, which would host six to eight concerts a year at the stadium, as well as BMX and dance events.

What the club says: Spurs spin doctor Mike Lee, who argued for an athletics legacy in the stadium when running the London 2012 bid, now says "football and athletics combinations don't work", and that a West Ham win would create a "white elephant being further funded by the council tax payer".

West Ham
Redevelopment: cost £100 million, with £40 million borrowed from Newham council (secured against future ticket receipts) and £40 million to be raised by the sale of their current Upton Park ground.

Plans: Retain the running track and most of the stadium. Reduce to 60,000 capacity and add a tier of corporate hospitality.
Legacy In partnership with UK Athletics, the stadium would host up to 20 track and field events, including annual schools competitions.

What fans: say Split on the prospect of moving home but more concerned about survival in the Premier League. Most Hammers fans object to Spurs moving in on their "manor".

Who backs it: Newham council (which last night approved the £40 million loan), entertainment company Live Nation, Essex county cricket club and UK Athletics. IOC president Jacques Rogge and a host of Olympians have also backed the West Ham bid.

What they say: UK Olympians including Dame Kelly Holmes and Daley Thompson have written: "We believe the Olympic legacy HAS to be the Olympic stadium complete with the track."

There would be no public borrowing.

And that's the sole reason why the three deciding Tories will give it to Spurs.

Tickets will have to be cheap to attract football fans to an 80,000 seat athletics stadium.

Spurs have the only viable proposal.

The IOC and IAAF do not have any jurisdiction in this country.

Whoever wins the bid to use the stadium should pay for the wrap.

Even with that one strip you can see how much better it will look. Keep going guys. For the sake of aesthetics, keep going!

:lol::lol::lol:

and to think with just a bit more money invested in a retractable first tier....

They didn't put in a retractable tier because it was never meant to be a football stadium!

The whole project from the beginning was designed as difficult as possible for anyone except athletics to take over the stadium. That was the only way to guarantee an athletics legacy, promised to the IOC. People were well aware that one day someone could come along and try and rip up that track but why would they do that if the spectators aren't close to the central pitch...and I would imagine anyone who suggested demolishing an entire Olympic stadium leaving no memory of the Games taking place there would be laughed out of the picture.

Goes to show how warped as a nation we've become in the last five years now that scenario is very much going to happen.

Spurs option is only viable because they have a shit load of money, it's viable for no one apart from them.

For Spurs to say West Ham shouldn't get it because we'll have a crap view is strange. It's true we will have a crap view but that's our problem not theirs and we'll still come.

Personally I'd rather go down to Divison 4, watch my football through a telescope and fight a herd of hungry badgers than let Spurs into West Ham.

Tickets will have to be cheap to attract football fans to an 80,000 seat athletics stadium.

Spurs have the only viable proposal.

The IOC and IAAF do not have any jurisdiction in this country.

The IOC gave us the olympics on the basis of legacy,so they have a right in that respect and they would be right never to give anything to us again

Football has every right actually. Spurs and West Ham - like UK Athletics - are both looking after their own interests; why you'd expect anything different from them I don't know.

If you want to be angry, be angry with the tendering process for not including the requirement to keep the athletics track, or Boris, for failing to even try to ensure an athletics legacy in the Olympic Park, or be angry with the government or hell, even be angry with the banks for screwing the economy.

But to be angry with two football clubs who both see an opportunity to move forward is to aim your anger at the wrong target in my opinion. That approach is rather like being annoyed with the people who bought Britains's gold, rather than being annoyed with Gordon Brown for selling it off. Not a perfect analogy, but you get my drift.

And even if the track does get torn up, nobody "lied to get the Olympics". As you well know, the Labour government, Ken Livingstone, and Seb Coe made the promise of an athletics legacy in the Olympic Park. Since then we've had a change of government, a change of Mayor and the OPLC has been installed above the heads of LOCOG and the ODA to deal with legacy. None of the original stakeholders (Labour, Tessa Jowell, Ken Livingstone, Seb Coe etc) have any influence over what happens post-2012 anymore. All of them, however, have recently come out against Spurs' plans to tear up the track. This shows that their promises were sincere and not a lie to win the bid.

i'm angry at one club not both at least west ham best serves the legacy in keeping the track. Anyway lets put it this way after this we won't host anything major again for a long time thanks to this, so from me fuck the tories and fuck spurs. sorry if i sound angry but yet again football is gonna get what it wants again, and athletics is getting shit on.

i'm guessing westfields don't have a say in any of this as, but i think they should be try and be as vocal as they can. why would they want 60,000 footie fans walking through the mall on a saturday?? all them yid fans!! what a nightmare! lol

All those purchases.

The IOC gave us the olympics on the basis of legacy,so they have a right in that respect and they would be right never to give anything to us again

Although remember its the London 2012 Olympics. South London has lost International Athletics to Stratford in what has arguably been the home of UK athletics for the last few decades and gained nothing from the Olympics or any legacy. All London taxpayers have paid a levy for the Olympics the last few years and will continue to do so. Why not share a bit of the legacy.

So long as Tottenham are not allowed to do things on the cheap what is wrong with having an Athletics legacy at Crystal Palace. Stratford will still have a fantastic Velodrome, Aquatice Centre, New sports centre, Eton Manor and a football stadium.

Isn't the warm-up track that's going to be built next to the Olympic Stadium being removed after the Olympics? From my understanding, West Ham's bid doesn't include a warm-up track, which is essential to host top athletics events such as the World Championships.

The IOC gave us the olympics on the basis of legacy,so they have a right in that respect and they would be right never to give anything to us again

They'll give you anything if the price is right.

Got to say even as an slightly not concerned outsider that I gasp at the thought that all this public money could be spent on this stadium, only for it be used for a fortnight, then demolished and re-built to provide profits for an American "events" firm.

Better than costing even more public money by not being used and rotting away. It works for a Arab firm in Manchester.

How Olympic Stadium will look if West Ham or Spurs don't move in

-- Link to Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jan/21/olympic-stadium-tottenham-west-ham-athletics) --

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/stadium595jpg.jpg

The windswept 25,000-seat athletics bowl that would have been left behind after 2012 had the Olympic Stadium bidding process not been reactivated has been revealed, as Tottenham Hotspur and West Ham United made their final submissions.

An already fractious process intensified as the Spurs chairman, Daniel Levy, appealed to fans to back the move while West Ham's co-owner David Gold insisted the 2012 legacy promises should be about "more than money".

Newly released pictures show how the stadium would have looked under the original plans inherited by the Olympic Park Legacy Company, which pushed for the process to be reopened when Baroness Ford became its chair in May 2009. At the time, the then Olympics minister, Tessa Jowell, had effectively closed off the debate, after the Olympic Delivery Authority failed to find a suitable tenant. Realising a vibrant legacy for the stadium would be key to its regeneration masterplan, Ford resolved to return to the market.

The 25,000-capacity roofless option, which would involve taking down the external structure and removing 55,000 seats, is still a potential fallback if neither Tottenham's nor West Ham's bid is acceptable. However, a new tenant would still have to be found.

It is understood that West Ham have substantially improved the financial terms of their bid this week in an effort to deal with fears that Spurs, who have partnered with the O2 operator AEG, would offer a better return to the OPLC.

But West Ham's captain, Scott Parker, appeared to score an own goal when he said that "in an ideal world" he would rather not play in a stadium with a track around it.

"Every footballer wants to play in the best stadium. I can only comment on what I'm seeing here and it's a fantastic stadium with good facilities that would move the club forward," Parker said of the joint bid with Newham council, Essex County Cricket Club, the promoter Live Nation and the shopping mall giant Westfield. " if I was being brutally honest, I'd rather not play in a stadium with a track around it."

The pictures go some way to backing the Tottenham case that they are reusing 80% of the investment left behind under the original legacy plans. Their stadium adviser today also hit back at claims that rebuilding the stadium and removing the track would be a waste of £496m of public money and an environmental disaster.

"The temporary structure which we estimate to be about 20% of the total cost will be dismantled and will be reused, partly within our proposed new stadium and partly at Crystal Palace," Paul Mitchell, a director of the consultancy Arcadis UK, said. "This is a sustainable solution in which every single temporary facility will be reused or recycled." But as more athletes joined the chorus of protest against the Spurs proposal to rebuild the Olympic Stadium and refurbish Crystal Palace to provide an athletics legacy, Gold said only the West Ham bid honoured the commitments made in 2005 to win the Games.

"It's a magnificent stadium," Gold said. "A commitment was made in Singapore in the name of the nation and we have to respect that. We believe we can bring together football, athletics and many other sports. I'm an east London boy, it's where I started. I was born here in abject poverty. This isn't just about business, this is about me and who I am. My roots are here. This is more than money."

He added: "The atmosphere at stadiums is what you thrive on the most. Tottenham is the same and Upton Park is the same, it's tight and it sets off a good atmosphere. I'm sure the people involved in trying to get the stadium will be looking to keep that atmosphere." His beleaguered manager, Avram Grant, backed the move. "The stadium is in east London and West Ham is in east London," he said. "We wouldn't build a stadium in Fulham because the area belongs to Fulham. The stadium needs to belong to West Ham." Harry Redknapp, the Tottenham manager, acknowledged that a proportion of Spurs fans would oppose the move if the club are granted preferred bidder status by the OPLC next Friday. "The supporters have a right to an opinion," Redknapp said. "They are the most important people. Without them we wouldn't be here.

"But somehow or other Tottenham need a new stadium because the capacity is about 36,000 now and you can't get a ticket here for love nor money."

In an open letter to fans, Levy repeated concerns about the "viability and deliverability" of an alternative £450m plan to redevelop White Hart Lane, arguing that delays have forced the club to make the Olympic Stadium their No1 priority.
~


[B]Original stadium plan not an option

-- Link to BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2011/01/original_stadium_plan_not_an_o.html) --

This stark image (see above) is what the London Olympic Stadium would look like if the original legacy promise to turn it into an athletics-only arena after the Games was seen through. Gone are the distinctive triangular floodlights which are now such a feature of the east London skyline. Gone also is the Meccano-style steel structure which boosts the basic concrete bowl of 25,000 into the 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium for the Games. Instead a tiny roof, which covers barely one 10th of the whole arena, is the only feature of an otherwise drab, characterless venue.

This is the reason why no sustainable legacy plan was developed by organisers and the Government in the two years after London's bid triumph in 2005. Even UK Athletics, the sport's governing body in Britain, and its marketing partners Fast Track, were unable to find a way of making the stadium work in this mode after the Games. When one sees this image it is easy to understand why no club - not even Leyton Orient - would have been prepared to move into the stadium promised to the IOC after the 2012 Olympics.

All of this explains why Baroness Ford, chairman of the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC), the body which must now choose between West Ham and Tottenham, realised there was no financially sustainable legacy for the venue without a Premier League club on board.

On Friday both clubs and their respective partners submit their final offers to the OPLC. Baroness Ford and her team, headed by American chief executive Andrew Altman, will then spend the weekend going through the fine print before deciding on Monday whether they have all the information they need to make a decision on a preferred bidder next Friday. The extremely strong comments from the head of world athletics, Lamine Diack, in my interview with him on Thursday will only have increased the pressure on the decision-makers.

Whatever they decide must then be rubber-stamped by their own board before being signed off by the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, and the Government - represented by two ministers, Sports Minister Hugh Robertson and Bob Neill, a junior minister in the department for communities and local government. If the OPLC doesn't have enough information, or its auditors Price Waterhouse Coopers have any more questions, then they may put the decision off for another week. Before then, expect a step up in the already intense lobbying campaign by both sides.

On Friday morning, Sir Keith Mills, the deputy chairman of London 2012 (a body which has absolutely no direct role in the decision on the stadium's future) and director of Tottenham, went on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme to put Spurs' case. It is the first time he has done so and his message was clear: Tottenham - and not West Ham - offer the only option which will guarantee the stadium doesn't add to the already high public cost of the Olympics. Mills made the point - highlighted by the image above - that the original legacy plan was not going to work. And he reiterated Tottenham's argument that football and athletics don't mix.

West Ham, of course, deny all this - along with criticisms of the sight lines for football in the Olympic stadium and claims that their numbers don't stack up. To try and prove the point, their £40m loan from joint bid partners Newham Council was approved at a meeting on Thursday night and they will on Friday announce a partnership with Westfield, who will be the consortium's design, construction and major development partners.

As I said in my previous blog, all this noise is unlikely to make a jot of difference to the OPLC and Baroness Ford who must make their decision based not only on community and multi-sport legacy plans but also on hard, cold economic reality. The £5m annual running costs of the stadium need to be paid by someone other than the taxpayer. As you can see, the original plan, contained in the Singapore promise, really wasn't an option.

Update 1845 GMT

Although the key details of the West Ham and Tottenham bids handed to the OPLC are being kept secret, I have been told about a key part of the Spurs proposal which they hope will swing the decision in their favour. In addition to offering to pay a rental income in return for the 250-year lease, Tottenham and their partner, the American entertainment giant AEG, are offering to redevelop land and facilities around the stadium.

Spurs hope this will be attractive to the OPLC for two reasons. The first is that by building new sports and entertainment facilities around the main stadium it will bring the rest of the Olympic Park alive after the Games. The OPLC is known to be concerned about the stadium becoming an isolated visitor attraction in an otherwise under-used park.

The difficulties associated with delivering a legacy for the whole park after 2012 is perhaps illustrated best by the problems with the £265m aquatics centre. Although OPLC chairman Baroness Ford is confident she can find a solution, the elaborate roof design limits her options. Plans to turn the aquatics centre into an indoor water park for the community with slides, restaurants and cafes had to be scrapped because the curved roof designed by Zaha Hadid takes up too much space.

Now, Spurs are not for one moment offering to take over the aquatics centre - in the end the OPLC will convert it before finding a management partner to run it (probably British Swimming and Newham Council). But the aquatics centre illustrates the point that the OPLC has to think about the wider interests of the Olympic Park - not just the stadium.

Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy unquestionably had this in mind in the open letter he published today - emphasising plans for "an exceptional public realm which would host community-focused events and activities". He goes on: "Our plans also include a major tourist attraction based around extreme sports and incorporating specialist sports retailing, restaurants, cafes and bars."

The second reason why Tottenham believe their offer to develop other facilities and attractions around the stadium is significant is because they will share any profits from those ventures with the OPLC, guaranteeing extra revenue which could eventually be used to pay back part of the £500m cost of the stadium. West Ham and Newham Council are, of course, offering something similar. They say the stadium will be a genuinely multi-sport and entertainment venue used 365 days of the year. They, too, will pay a rent for the 250-year lease plus a share of revenue from events.

But Tottenham hope their plan - and ability to invest in the rest of the site - could be persuasive.

tweeted Nick Hope, a BBC olympic reporter, after his meeting with some big wig at the site, asked how hopeful they were about finding a sponsor for the stadium wrap, he said they weren't optimistic at all.

Are we pretty much decided that Spurs will be taking over the stadium, or is there still a chance for either?

from daveypodmore on gamesbids.com

http://i53.tinypic.com/raz0io.jpg

Now I'm not using this as an option, just a back up plan if our worst nightmare of the athletics track being ripped up in Stratford AND Crystal Palace FC redeveloping the national sports stadium in Crystal Palace park leaving no athletics track at all. But Wembley can hold athletics events, in a 2008 interview (a year after the stadium was built) Jim Frayling, Head of Music and New Events, said that they would love and can hold athletics events:

The Race of Champions allowed Frayling to achieve a personal ambition of showcasing a sport for the new stadium that was not featured under the twin towers. Another track sport, for which Wembley was partially purpose built, has not so far been staged, so we asked him whether athletics might feature on the calendar:

We could do it and we meet the criteria needed, They’d build a platform and raise the pitch up. They’d have to raise the whole level of the floor to get an athletics track in and there are support posts built into the stadium to do that, but you’d have to do it in January and leave it like that for the year. You could have England football games here, but they’d have to be at a reduced capacity. We could hold around 70,000 spectators in athletics mode. I’m curious and I’d love to do it. We’re a flexible venue. We’ve had a Tarmac race track down, we’ve had the NFL in, we’ve had music events, but I think there’d now have to be an unusual set of circumstances for us to be first choice for athletics ahead of Stratford.

http://londonist.com/2008/05/interview_jim_f_1.php

Having no track at Stratford could be the 'unusual set of circumstances' that Wembley would need to be first choice ahead of Stratford! Again this is still not ideal, and would be only used I would think to hold big athletic meetings. But if worse comes to worse, we still have an option, as difficult as it could be, let's face it, to the FA, football will come before athletics in their own stadium. Also the Vale Farm Sports Centre is nearby providing warm up facilities.

from daveypodmore on gamesbids.com

http://i53.tinypic.com/raz0io.jpg

:banana:

it was all going so well until the Tories poked their noses in!

They didn't put in a retractable tier because it was never meant to be a football stadium!

The whole project from the beginning was designed as difficult as possible for anyone except athletics to take over the stadium. That was the only way to guarantee an athletics legacy, promised to the IOC. People were well aware that one day someone could come along and try and rip up that track but why would they do that if the spectators aren't close to the central pitch...and I would imagine anyone who suggested demolishing an entire Olympic stadium leaving no memory of the Games taking place there would be laughed out of the picture.

Goes to show how warped as a nation we've become in the last five years now that scenario is very much going to happen.

I know! I actually support a 25,000 seat athletics only stadium as the premier athletics events and training venue in London. Nobody ever pushed for 60-80k in athletics mode, 25,000 was alway the reasonable capacity.

That said, I still have no idea where the other half of the 550m pounds will go i.e. the upper tier, roof and steel structure...Thats a good 150m pounds...

is the cost of changing the stadium to the original legacy mode in the £550 million price? if so, will this be held back if Spurs or West Ham take over?

is the cost of changing the stadium to the original legacy mode in the £550 million price? if so, will this be held back if Spurs or West Ham take over?


I think in Spurs case they want to use this public money to do up Crystal Palace.

Although remember its the London 2012 Olympics. South London has lost International Athletics to Stratford in what has arguably been the home of UK athletics for the last few decades and gained nothing from the Olympics or any legacy. All London taxpayers have paid a levy for the Olympics the last few years and will continue to do so. Why not share a bit of the legacy.

So long as Tottenham are not allowed to do things on the cheap what is wrong with having an Athletics legacy at Crystal Palace. Stratford will still have a fantastic Velodrome, Aquatice Centre, New sports centre, Eton Manor and a football stadium.

ok then they redevelop crystal palace are they gonna stump up money for improved transport links the place is a nightmare to reach, i think not, athletics is best served at stratford, i'm praying west ham get it!

Personally I think it's depressing that football will be the winner of the Olympic legacy. It's depressing because it says to me that as a nation the only sport and communal activity ww can think of is football..... How sad....

Mark my words the public will end up paying for this, the football directors and players will still get their millions.....we scream about lour taxes being used to prop up banks, but we don't bat an eyelid when it comes to propping up football companies for millions too


I think it is sad that football will get the stadium. I think it is sad that this will be Londons legacy of our Olympic......there are so mammy other acrivities that need a large area such as that....

GO ON LORD COE... STICK IT TO 'EM!

Lord Coe backs West Ham Olympic stadium plans

London 2012 chairman Lord Coe believes there is a "moral obligation" to preserve the Olympic Stadium as a multi-sport facility.

Tottenham and West Ham want to move to the stadium but Spurs want to turn it into a football-only venue.

"It's serious we deliver what we said we were going to unless we're prepared to trash our reputation," he said.

"It'd be very difficult for us to be taken seriously in the corridors of world sport and arguably beyond."

A decision on the future of the Olympic Park site is expected to be made on Friday.

West Ham's bid, which has the backing of the local council, would see them move two miles from their Upton Park home to the stadium, and redevelop the venue but keep it as a multi-sport venue, including an athletics track.

Tottenham's proposal would see them move five miles from their White Hart Lane ground and remove the running track, converting the Olympic venue to a football-only venue but instead investing money to redevelop British athletics' current home at Crystal Palace into a world championship-standard venue.

West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady and Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy set out their clubs' case on BBC 5 live's Sportsweek programme before Lord Coe was interviewed, and after hearing them speak, the man who successfully spearheaded London's bid to host the Games in July next year was unambiguous in his comments.

"I remember delivering a vision about a generation of young people being inspired to take up Olympic sports, I remember talking about young people in a poor community in East London fashioning their future through sport," he said.

"I'm prepared to revisit my words but I don't recall a whole heap about bulldozing down a publicly-funded community facility, replacing it with a football club and inspiring a generation of Tottenham season ticket holders, however many there may be on a waiting list."

Brady said the discussion over the future of the stadium "isn't a debate about Spurs v West Ham - it's Spurs v West Ham, the London Borough of Newham, UK Athletics and the promises made and the people of the East End of London and anyone with an Olympic aspiration."

She also said that should West Ham's bid be successful, there was no possibility of the athletics track being removed at a later date as the lease for athletics would be the same length as the club's lease at the stadium, and that Britain's standing in world sport "would take a crashing blow" if athletics was not preserved at the venue.

Brady said that if West Ham failed to get the go-ahead to move to the Stadium, the club would be "incredibly disappointed."

"We'll look at the process to see what has happened and why. The Olympic Legacy Company is making the decision, and the name is in the title.

"Athletics was a huge part of winning the lobbying (to get the 2012 Games) and the promises that were made.

"Just because Tottenham have decided their area's not smart enough and doesn't generate enough money - it's outrageous."

Whilst West Ham are already located in the London Borough of Newham, Tottenham are five miles away in Harringay.

Tottenham chairman Levy said they had opened discussions about moving to the Olympic venue six years ago, and that their proposal made the best use of the facility whilst also promising massive investment in a London athletics facility at Crystal Palace.

"It's very simple - we have a 36,000-strong waiting list for season tickets and we sell out every game, we need a bigger stadium," he said.

"It's exceedingly difficult to find a site to build a new stadium, and the North London Development project [redeveloping White Hart Lane] is not financially viable at the moment.

"We're committed to financing whatever it takes to redevelop Crystal Palace into a 25000 stadium which would be expandable up to 40,000 for a World Championship.

"It will be significantly better than the original legacy promise of a 25,000-seater venue in the Olympic Park.

"It's essential we get a larger stadium or how do we get the next generation of fans to watch our games?

"We believe our plan will not under any circumstances provide any form of white elephant, there will be a return to the public purse and we will underwrite very significant community and athletic legacy.

"We have put an enormous amount of effort in, we hope the people who have to take the decision will make a bold move and the right one."

But former Olympic athlete Lord Coe was unimpressed by Tottenham's Crystal Palace plan, saying "We set up legacy board when we were bidding and there is a viable bid on the table [West Ham'] which is presenting exactly the case we made."

He was also dismiqssive of Brazilian football legend Pele's endorsement of Tottenham's plan, saying "On this case we might as well get the winner of X Factor and Celebrity Masterchef out there."

Although Lord Coe has no involvement in the making of the decision about the future of the venue, he said that were he involved, there was only one way he could vote.

"The West Ham bid meets those commitments, I would have to vote for it," he said.

"I hope the decision supports a community legacy. I think it can work, it's the one we took to Singapore."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/london_2012/9370963.stm

I'm so glad he has come out and said something these decision makers should take note give it to west ham and see the the legacy born and preserve our reputation or give it spurs, have no legacy and ruin our reputation in the world of sport which will take years to rebuild

I'm so glad he has come out and said something these decision makers should take note give it to west ham and see the the legacy born and preserve our reputation or give it spurs, have no legacy and ruin our reputation in the world of sport which will take years to rebuild

But what does this mean, really? What reputation?

But what does this mean, really? What reputation?

EVERYTHING THE BID STOOD FOR READ WHAT SEB COE HAS SAID. We got the olyimpics on the premise of legacy we destroy that we destroy a promise made i for one don't want this country tarnished anymore than it already is i.e world cup bid. Or don't that bother you

Why cant they use the track area as a mosh pit for standing spectators during a football game?

Then it creates an even better rock concert like atmosphere around the pitch!

:lol: Pitch invasion most likely

I know an athletics legacy was always the preferred option, but it would have been so easy to make small adjustments to facilitate a conversion to football. pull down the ends of the upper tier, drop the lower bowl about 2.5m, bring those stands closer to the pitch, then reuse the supports from the olympics to build the new upper tier. Easy...ish. Water table blah blah yeah.
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x11/MartinLeRoy/Conversion.jpg

Interesting point to note: The running tracks in the stadium will be completely paved by the end of play today! No more mud in the stadium; well, if they manage to fill in the "D" at the end of the field as well....

I know an athletics legacy was always the preferred option, but it would have been so easy to make small adjustments to facilitate a conversion to football. pull down the ends of the upper tier, drop the lower bowl about 2.5m, bring those stands closer to the pitch, then reuse the supports from the olympics to build the new upper tier. Easy...ish. Water table blah blah yeah.
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x11/MartinLeRoy/Conversion.jpg

Agreed. Its not rocket science.

Decision postponed

Decision postponed

Oh now that is interesting!

Oh now that is interesting!

Possibly they were going with Spurs but the flak has hot a little too heavy for them.

What date was the decision expected to be made? Maybe they have found both bids to be inadequate.

What date was the decision expected to be made? Maybe they have found both bids to be inadequate.

The decision was originally scheduled for this Friday (28th Jan)

It has to be made before the end of the financial year.

Possibly they were going with Spurs but the flak has hot a little too heavy for them.

I think seb coe coming out and publicly saying something hopefully with his standing hopefully got them thinking, and yeah flak for ther spurs bid made them rethink.

I was thinking maybe they actually asked for more time as they have gone back to the bidders and asked them to look again i.e. telling Spurs they need to keep the track; thus allowing Spurs to change their bid fairly. I have a feeling they prefer Spurs' bid, but can't stand by the removal of the track.

I was thinking maybe they actually asked for more time as they have gone back to the bidders and asked them to look again i.e. telling Spurs they need to keep the track; thus allowing Spurs to change their bid fairly. I have a feeling they prefer Spurs' bid, but can't stand by the removal of the track.

i hope thats the case i really do for me it's all about keeping the track so athletics has a legacy. if spurs do keep the track fine but really they should stay in tottenham they don't belong in stratford and have no right to be there, so west ham still for me

Levy keeping stadium options open

-- Link to PA Sport article (http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/25012011/63/levy-keeping-stadium-options-open.html) --

Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy has revealed that he will continue to look for a new home for the club away from White Hart Lane if their bid to take over the Olympic Stadium fails.

It had been thought that Spurs would definitely push through with the £450million redevelopment of their current ground if they were unable to convince the Olympic Park Legacy Company to back their proposed £250million move to Stratford.

But Levy has now branded the so-called Northumberland Development Project currently "not viable", with costs having spiralled due to demands being placed on Spurs by Haringey Council, Transport for London and English Heritage.

Asked if the club's next home might be outside Tottenham even if the Stratford strategy did not succeed, Levy told Sky Sports News: "Correct. The problem with the situation we're in now at White Hart Lane is that the project currently is not viable. So we would have to go back to the drawing board and that would obviously mean looking at other locations again.

"It's one of those emotive items that, if one had a choice, we would rather be building here; we would rather have fantastic transportation links. But what is clear for this club is that in order to compete at the highest level within the Premier League and European football, we need to solve the stadium [issue].

"We need a larger stadium, and if that means we have to move out of the area, I think the fans will back us."

Why we should be backing Spurs for the Olympics

-- Link to London Evening Standard article (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23917210-why-we-should-be-backing-spurs-for-the-olympics.do) --

I declare an interest. I am not a supporter of Tottenham Hotspur or of West Ham. I merely share with most Londoners a concern for £9 billion being spent on the 2012 Olympics. Within that total, I share a concern for the £600 million being spent on an athletics stadium, which is now double the original cost, not including £87 millon paid to "consultants", laughably, to keep the cost down. I have a concern for the boss of this farrago getting £654,000 a year.

I have a new concern for the £40 million now being requested by West Ham United to use the Olympic stadium for football. The future of this stadium has always been a nightmare. At least the Dome, which cost half as much to build and was used for a year, was sold for real money and is now a roaring success.

Athletics is not a spectator sport. It is all over too soon. Yet it requires a 400m field circumference, stripping atmosphere from any stadium, except possibly for cricket.

For those who want to run, jump and throw things, London has a perfectly good venue at Crystal Palace. In addition, for emergencies such as the Olympics, it has the new Wembley Stadium, which was specifically designed to be converted for athletics by removing some of its seats. The Blair government rejected Wembley since the International Olympics Committee insisted on a stadium and fortified encampment of its own. The IOC had Blair and his spendthrift Olympics minister, Tessa Jowell, wrapped round its little finger.

The plan for the stadium is to reduce its capacity from 80,000 during the Games to 25,000 for athletics afterwards. But there is no money in such a venue. Competition has duly narrowed to two bids, both from football clubs. The obvious new users are the local football team, West Ham, struggling at the bottom of the Premier League.

But they are short of money and many of their fans are doubtful about watching matches so far from the field of play. It would also need to "upsize" the downsized stadium to 55,000, at the reported cost of a further £100 million.

The result is West Ham's bid to their local council, Newham, for £40 million to make the best of a bad job. A private football company would end up with a white elephant stadium that would have cost the British taxpayer little short of £1 billion. That tells you all you need to know about the quality of public administration these days.

The counter bid from Spurs at least makes some sense. It is to tear down the monstrosity and build something new on the site. As an unnecessary sop to the Olympics panjandrums, the club would renovate Crystal Palace for athletes. Spurs would hope to draw some life into what, by all past Olympics experience, will be a ghost neighbourhood.

This is no further public money involved in the Spurs bid. The club are successful and rich and have lucrative property to sell at White Hart Lane. Poor West Ham have only Upton Park. Their suspiciously close links with Newham council are all that keeps their bid alive. Besides, the real "local club" in Stratford is not West Ham but Leyton Orient, who might reasonably feel aggrieved at such favouritism to their rivals.

Now enter the bad fairy. The head of a body called the International Association of Athletics Associations, one Lamine Diack, declared last week that Britain would be "guilty of big lies" if it demolished the stadium. As for "Britain's reputation," he said, "you can consider that you are dead, finished."

The Olympics boss, Lord Coe, agreed, saying that Britain would be "trashed" if the stadium did not stay in being for athletics.

Words fail me, almost. What are the credentials of these men to say such things? Where are their electors and where their cash? Olympic promises are always chaff in the wind. What of Coe's laughable promise, in my hearing, that the Games would "deliver a profit" to Britain?

What of the pledge of the Olympics minister, Tessa Jowell, that the £2.4 billion cost originally agreed for the Games was "robust and rigorous"? What of the pledge to rake in cash to the London taxpayer from legacy? What of the pledge to pour money into London's sporting infrastructure? All these promises have been trashed, to the greater glory of Coe, Jowell and the IOC and the greater cost to Britain's taxpayers.

Most of the pledges have been broken because people such as Diack and the IOC constantly demanded the Games be gold-plated. They wanted special stadiums for equestrian and shooting events, at Greenwich and Woolwich, rather than use existing facilities. They demanded daily freedom of movement through London's streets, which not even heads of state are given. They demanded five-star hotels and 3,000 assigned limousines. Their luxury and plutocracy are outrageous.

To all this racket, Blair, Jowell and Coe capitulated, with not a peep of protest from the Tories or Liberal Democrats. Now the IOC and its footballers' salaries have the cheek to tell London what to do with their white elephants when discarded after a fortnight's use.

The Olympic business is a financial catastrophe. The best to hope is that London can squeeze some modicum of credit from the event when it is over. A dose of sanity in the re-use of the Stratford site would be a first step. If Spurs want it, let them have it.

In praise of … the Olympic stadium

-- Link to Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/26/in-praise-of-olympic-stadium) --

We got the Olympics but not the World Cup, as the whole country is surely aware. But the might of sport's sole imperial power means the 2012 legacy could leave the opposite impression. Tottenham Hotspur are favourites to take control of the bespoke Stratford stadium, with plans to knock it down the moment the games are out of the way and put a flash football ground in its place. Given that the £500m construction is not yet complete, talk of the bulldozer feels ludicrously premature.

Glance at the imposing emerging structure from the A12, and it is obvious that it deserves a longer spell in the sun. Neither Spurs' reuse of Olympic infrastructure nor their consortium's offer to fund a parallel refit of Crystal Palace's running track addresses the central absurdity. At huge expense, the UK is acquiring a facility designed principally for athletics, a sport in which it has had notably more international success than soccer, and yet a great tide of Premier League money could wash this away.

Routine athletics simply cannot draw the 80,000 punters who will pack the London games, so it must be admitted that The Olympic Park Legacy Company, which will settle Stratford's fate this week, is obliged to follow the sporting crowd, and somehow involve football. But there is a rival bid from West Ham which would at least preserve a track to go with the field. Were it picked, the wealthiest game could reach down from Olympian heights and sprinkle this magnificent stadium's future with a richer mix of sports.

This poll leaves little doubt as to what option Londoners prefer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12286340

Of course, most will be wholly unaware of the financial implications - but nevertheless, it just demonstrates the sort of negative headlines the Olympics is going to face if we get to the closing ceremony and suddenly everyone realises that the stadium is to be bulldozed. It'd just be an embarrassment, when we're meant to be celebrating our Games. :ohno:

the person that wrote that article is a muppet

This poll leaves little doubt as to what option Londoners prefer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12286340

Of course, most will be wholly unaware of the financial implications - but nevertheless, it just demonstrates the sort of negative headlines the Olympics is going to face if we get to the closing ceremony and suddenly everyone realises that the stadium is to be bulldozed. It'd just be an embarrassment, when we're meant to be celebrating our Games. :ohno:

Can you imagine if the Chinese had announced they were bulldozing the bird's nest stadium after their games? Thing is, that would have made more sense than London, because they haven't used it since. It's just rusting away.

See, this is why I hate the media a lot of the time (esp. the tabloids). Individuals just use it as soapbox to spout their drivel using selective information and spin to fool the mostly ignorant masses who read their articles.

For those who want to run, jump and throw things, London has a perfectly good venue at Crystal Palace. In addition, for emergencies such as the Olympics, it has the new Wembley Stadium, which was specifically designed to be converted for athletics by removing some of its seats. The Blair government rejected Wembley since the International Olympics Committee insisted on a stadium and fortified encampment of its own. The IOC had Blair and his spendthrift Olympics minister, Tessa Jowell, wrapped round its little finger.

Crystal Palace isn't perfectly good and remains a bitch to get to for the vast majority of Londoners. Wembley was rejected because the broader area wouldn't have been able to accommodate the many other facilities an Olympic Games requires (i grew up 10 mins from the stadium), meaning a large site would still have needed to have been found (with venues spread over too large an area). Stratford was a large brownfield site with good transport links that wasn't on the edge of London.

But they are short of money and many of their fans are doubtful about watching matches so far from the field of play. It would also need to "upsize" the downsized stadium to 55,000, at the reported cost of a further £100 million.

The result is West Ham's bid to their local council, Newham, for £40 million to make the best of a bad job. A private football company would end up with a white elephant stadium that would have cost the British taxpayer little short of £1 billion. That tells you all you need to know about the quality of public administration these days.

The £40m is a loan which WH have said they'll pay back when they sell Upton Park.

The huge cost of the stadium is an independent issue to this and is more to do with the much broader question of why large scale construction projects cost so much here, something Network Rail have mentioned (Wembley, M25 widening, crossrail, HS2, etc).

The counter bid from Spurs at least makes some sense. It is to tear down the monstrosity and build something new on the site. As an unnecessary sop to the Olympics panjandrums, the club would renovate Crystal Palace for athletes. Spurs would hope to draw some life into what, by all past Olympics experience, will be a ghost neighbourhood.

Monstrosity? Says who?

The ghost neighbourhood comment is laughable. Largest urban park in Europe for decades connected with possibly the best public transport outside central London and one of the continent's largest city shopping centres, not to mention new housing.

This is no further public money involved in the Spurs bid. The club are successful and rich and have lucrative property to sell at White Hart Lane. Poor West Ham have only Upton Park. Their suspiciously close links with Newham council are all that keeps their bid alive. Besides, the real "local club" in Stratford is not West Ham but Leyton Orient, who might reasonably feel aggrieved at such favouritism to their rivals.

This is a joke. Has this guy been to WHL? In what way is that area more lucrative than that around UP? Where Spurs call home is a dump (admittedly East Ham is hardly better) with arguably worse transport links than at UP.

West Ham have the 6th most expensive range of season tickets in the England (Villa's most expensive is cheaper than WH's cheapest, exc. the posh seats and boxes) and have struggled the past couple of seasons, yet still average close to a full house. This idea they are some paupers with no fans is nonsense. They, like Spurs, have a relatively large number of wealthy fans out in the Home Counties. Newham is already the council that WH play their home matches in, so is it a surprise they're supporting them over the outsiders spurs?

Most of the pledges have been broken because people such as Diack and the IOC constantly demanded the Games be gold-plated. They wanted special stadiums for equestrian and shooting events, at Greenwich and Woolwich, rather than use existing facilities. They demanded daily freedom of movement through London's streets, which not even heads of state are given. They demanded five-star hotels and 3,000 assigned limousines. Their luxury and plutocracy are outrageous.

What has this got to do with the stadium bid? In what way should WH be discriminated against because of this?

The Olympic business is a financial catastrophe. The best to hope is that London can squeeze some modicum of credit from the event when it is over. A dose of sanity in the re-use of the Stratford site would be a first step. If Spurs want it, let them have it.

The site would still be a urban wasteland otherwise. The money poured into burying power lines, cleaning up the land, CP businesses, transport, etc would have had to have come, at some point, from the public purse. It simply wasn't an attractive area for housing and large scale business which is likely to decamp onto Stratford post 2012, whilst there wasn't political will until the Olympics. Just like the Dome, it is in the long term that the true value will be seen. This clown like so many in this country can only see short-time losses, but not long-term benefits.

West Ham's proposal:

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

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

I like it, shame they'll remove the floodlights, but I like the classic simple look of it. Wonder if they'll pay for the wrap if they win the bid.

West Ham's proposal:


Blimey, and The Shard will *still* not have moved up any by the time they move in!

BTW, what happened to this assertion that the steel-work in the stands is only good enough for a couple of year's use?

Levy keeping stadium options open

-- Link to PA Sport article (http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/25012011/63/levy-keeping-stadium-options-open.html) --

Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy has revealed that he will continue to look for a new home for the club away from White Hart Lane if their bid to take over the Olympic Stadium fails.

It had been thought that Spurs would definitely push through with the £450million redevelopment of their current ground if they were unable to convince the Olympic Park Legacy Company to back their proposed £250million move to Stratford.

But Levy has now branded the so-called Northumberland Development Project currently "not viable", with costs having spiralled due to demands being placed on Spurs by Haringey Council, Transport for London and English Heritage.

Asked if the club's next home might be outside Tottenham even if the Stratford strategy did not succeed, Levy told Sky Sports News: "Correct. The problem with the situation we're in now at White Hart Lane is that the project currently is not viable. So we would have to go back to the drawing board and that would obviously mean looking at other locations again.

"It's one of those emotive items that, if one had a choice, we would rather be building here; we would rather have fantastic transportation links. But what is clear for this club is that in order to compete at the highest level within the Premier League and European football, we need to solve the stadium [issue].

"We need a larger stadium, and if that means we have to move out of the area, I think the fans will back us."

posted this in another forum after hearing gossip at the Emirites about Selhurst Park's future

Tottenham Hotspurs relocating to Selhurst Park/Crystal Palace?

If Spurs are at all serious about their intention to leave poorly accessable 'White Hart Lane.' Then they must be serious or bluffing.

Now given that Crystal Palace have stated they are moving, it leaves Selhurst Park empty.

If Spurs get the Olympic Stadium and rename themselves Olympic Hotspurs, make Selhurst Park Athletics only and, well thats that.

Now if Spurs don't get the Olympic Stadium, as promised because Britain said it would have a multi-purpose legacy and not be a football stadium only. Then Spurs can still redevelop Selhurst Park not for Athletics, but as a football only stadium for themselves.

Tottenham Hotspurs will be happy, West Ham United will be happy and Crystal Palace will be happy.

-personally I was hoping Leyton Oriant would move in @25k capacity, and rename themselves, given that they were the local club for Stratford.

It does seem that like Tottenham, Crytal Palace are planning on doing a Wimbledon

West Ham's proposal

Well those temporary bridges were well worth the investment then.

I think it will go to Tottenham the legacy company are probably waiting for the furore to die down.

West Ham's design is cool.
1) Track stays, yay! Athletics ect...
2) The overall stadium design stays in tact, same shape ect...
3) Wrap design of athletes stays but with traditional 'claret and sky blue' of WHU.

WHU should win as the stadium remains pretty much the same, a constant reminder of the OG in London 2012.



Hopefully the Shard is finished by the time they move in though!

It's a weird render to be honest. What are all the pods doing there still?

So when are Spurs gonna release their images?


O2 bosses reveal ambitious entertainment plans for Spurs Olympic stadium bid

Wednesday, 26 January, 2011
15:10 PM

THE Olympic stadium could become a new hybrid entertainment arena for London after The O2’s operators announced details of its joint bid with Spurs to take it over after 2012.

Share|
Your View Email Print Got a Story?
THE Olympic stadium site could become a new hybrid entertainment centre for London after The O2’s operators announced details of its joint bid with Spurs to take it over after 2012.

AEG Europe has said its bid with the football club would mean the site would also host music concerts, entertainment, international sports, festivals, theatre and expos.

AEG say its plans would stand the test of time and would make the Stratford site an all-year round visitor experience in the ongoing row about how to use it once the Olympics are over.

A decision on its future was due to be made on Friday but has been postponed so the Olympic Park Legacy Company can have more time to decide on submissions from Spurs and West Ham who are also bidding for its use post-Games.

Sarah McGuigan, senior executive director, AEG Europe, said it could help attract 3 million visitors to the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park every year.

“Crucially, our plans will stand the test of time and require no public subsidy. Just take a look at The O2, along with our other venues across the world, and you get a sense of the variety and scale of what we are proposing, from international sports, music and X-Games to Expos, theatre and heritage festivals.

“We would bring this excitement to the Olympic Park and help ensure it becomes a vibrant and sustainable place to live and visit, not just for a year or two, but for the long-term.”

Spur’s bid has been criticised by many people because it plans to knock down the existing stadium and rebuild on the site. West Ham say keeping the athletics track is viable but some public funds will be used if it wins the takeover bid.

AEG, operators of the former Millenium Dome, also own LA Galaxy Football club.

Can they just say.... nobody is getting it.

Which is what I want.

anyone seen this yet??? spurs plans for crystal palace.... seats and i believe some of the roof structure from the Olympic stadium
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/london_2012/9378785.stm

Can they just say.... nobody is getting it.

Which is what I want.

Me too.
Strip football out of the entire thing, bring AEG together with Govt and Sports bodies to create a large capacity entertainments venue and Muli-Sports Acedem(ies) and go big time with it. Make the whole site an intense campus of sport education and training.

What is it with UK athletics stadiums looking like Spanish football grounds - a bowl where one side has a covered grandstand!!

Don Valley, Spurs Crystal Palace plan, as well as the BBC posted 2012 legacy mode stadium all have that same design, reminicant of Nou Camp, Mestalla and Old Espanyol Stadium.

It rains in Blighty and only 25% of the athletics grounds are covered - there's your popularity problem!!

Lack of roofing has never kept people away from cricket.
It's a cultural thing, football is in our blood, athletics isn't.

What is it with UK athletics stadiums looking like Spanish football grounds - a bowl where one side has a covered grandstand!!
Don Valley, Spurs Crystal Palace plan, as well as the BBC posted 2012 legacy mode stadium all have that same design, reminicant of Nou Camp, Mestalla and Old Espanyol Stadium.

It rains in Blighty and only 25% of the athletics grounds are covered - there's your popularity problem!!

More like Spanish football grounds tend to look like athletics stadiums. Afterall, an athletics track is elliptical (bowl) shaped, but a football pitch is rectangular. And many Spanish stadiums lack proper roof cover because they were typically just cheap, steep terracing with a token mini roof covering the rich/vip seats.
It's the roof which is the most expensive part of a stadium, and which dictates the design of the grandstand. They might not have much rain in Spain, but they still need a roof to cover the crowd from the baking sunshine.

The roof of a Spanish stadium is principally for shade.

The dearest seats in a bull ring are those that are in the shade when the sun goes behind nearby buildings.

plus in Spain, games are all played in the evening so sun isn't really an issue either..

from last weekend, starting with some detail of the stadium:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5297/5405159174_a5b0beef49_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5019/5405162698_3cd213a8be_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5177/5404560683_6ef95761a6_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5175/5405166622_9ecaee7271_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5260/5405170374_c84a50f1ac_b.jpg

i was surprised that you can see right into the stadium through gaps:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5405186472_852771daf6_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5177/5405198170_6957be2417_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5015/5404583481_7d92d666ba_b.jpg

and some more:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5255/5404599259_0ed3818f96_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5217/5405196376_6a90168c96_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5299/5404564627_3d41c67ee1_b.jpg

Looks beautiful. Though can again really appreciate the need for the wrap...and also that Spurs don't get their hands on it.

Those gaps are where the big screens will go.

So wind on athletes might actually be a problem if there is no wrap afterall?

According to whom?

It's a question not a statement!

I saw an article a while back where the architect said '...that in order to complete the asthetic design of the stadium, as well as make sure the athletes are unaffected by wind, the wrap must be installed at London Stadium...'

The photo above highlights just how open the stadium is from the outside, but I personally wouldn't have thought it would make a differance - Barcelona 1992 didn't even have a full roof, that would have been worse for wind affecting athletes.


"But the outer look of the stadium will be different during the Olympic Games time because a huge plastic wap of yet to be determined images will embrace the outer structure.

This is to minimise the wind conditions impacting on the competition, but also to give the stadium a distinctive Olympic feel. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/london2012/7749545/London-2012-Olympics-Games-officials-opt-for-black-and-white-stadium-seats.html

The "after all" implied there was some new information about the wind currents without the wrap. Wires crossed. :D

plus in Spain, games are all played in the evening so sun isn't really an issue either..

They weren't when the original stadia were designed. Evening football is a product of TV.

I think that guy got it! These giant holes will be sealed when the two HIGH DEFINITION JUMBOTRONS* are installed at either end of the stadium.

*or dear God, dot matrix scoreboards... we are heading back toward recession. :/

...HIGH DEFINITION JUMBOTRONS...

TV's :nuts:

I like the signpost very retro post war chic.

TV's :nuts:

A scoreboard can be more advanced than those at Rugby Park - with their little animations :lol: - the Arsenal Score boards does HD video - like most modern stadiums, won't the 2012 ones be like that?

I like the signpost very retro post war chic.

isn't the West Ham one pointing in the wrong direction though?

Probably because it's a 4 sided post... it's in that general direction.

On any of the other 4 sides it'd be incorrect as well?


I say this as a Lincolnshirererer who has never lived in London, and picked up everything I know from Eastenders and the Bill.

More to do with following the route of the Greenway.

A scoreboard can be more advanced than those at Rugby Park - with their little animations :lol: - the Arsenal Score boards does HD video - like most modern stadiums, won't the 2012 ones be like that?

Hey, don't dis the animations! We can even put simple pictures up on there!

From what I remember when doing the research for my SketchUp model of the stadium, I think the scoreboard space will be filled with 2 screens. A dot matrix type one for results, and a video one. But that was a while ago, so it's probably just going to be hand operated now.

The cost of shunning Premier League duo (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2011/02/the_cost_of_shunning_premier_l.html)
David Bond
Thursday, 3 February 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have now received information which sheds new light on why this happened.
A sign at the Olympic Park in Stratford

Spurs and West Ham are hoping all roads lead to the Olympic Stadium. Photo: Getty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As good a photo as I could get this morning of the VIP area

http://i1044.photobucket.com/albums/b445/digipal2012/20110205_21.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5099/5423361942_18e4bc744d_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5213/5422789277_2f23d7c928_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5136/5423435444_630ccef2f9_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5100/5422843605_80251f4a97_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5057/5423422412_8f3d497bc2_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5092/5423458308_b5b03376de_b.jpg

Just seen this Tweet:

Log on insidethegames at 10pm for important news on London 2012 Olympic Stadium http://ow.ly/3RUal

Spurs given Olympic Stadium nod

By who? link?

:down:
For Real...
:ohno:

West Ham given Olympic Stadium nod

Tottenham deny they will "demolish" £500 million Olympic Stadium as they unveil plans

http://www.insidethegames.biz/summer-olympics/2012/11895-tottenham-deny-they-will-qdemolishq-p500-million-olympic-stadium-as-they-unveil-plans

By Duncan Mackay
British Sports Internet Writer of the Year

February 7 - Tottenham Hotspur tonight released the first image of how the proposed 60,000-capacity football stadium will look if their bid to take over the Olympic Stadium after London 2012 is successful as the war of words between their chairman Daniel Levy and Karren Brady from Premier League rivals West Ham United continued to escalate.

The two clubs are battling for the right to be awarded the £537 million ($836 million) Stadium after the Olympics and Paralympics with the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) due to meet on Friday (February 11) to discus the rvial bids.

Tottenham's plan, which they put forward with their partner AEG, is highly controversial because it does not fulfil the pledges made during London's successful bid to host the Games when chairman Sebastian Coe promised that the Stadium would ensure the capital of a long-term legacy for athletics.

Tottenham's proposal to rip-up the track as been heavily criticised and this morning West Ham vice-chairman Brady launched another broadside at their plans.

"It's a corporate crime to spend £500 million ($806 million) on a stadium and, just four weeks after the Games have finished, bring the bulldozers in," she told BBC Breakfast.

Daniel Levy, the chairman of Tottenham, tonight denied angirily Brady's claims.

"Accusations that we would 'demolish' £500 million of stadium are hugely inaccurate and highly irresponsible and I want to be very clear on this issue," he said.

"Our proposal will retain around £420 million ($677 million) worth of the Olympic Stadium, and we will re-use or recycle the £80 million ($129 million) that will be dismantled with zero landfill.

"It is also important to remember that two thirds of the Olympic Stadium, under the original legacy plan, was to be dismantled - it was not designed to be a permanent structure.

"Recent scaremongering conveniently forgets this fact."

Levy is confident that what Tottenham is offering will sway the OPLC Board when they meet to make a decision.

"We are proposing one of the most advanced, state-of-the-art stadiums in Europe that will deliver an exceptional spectator experience," he said.

"Fans will be closer to the pitch than at any other comparable size stadium in the UK, while its acoustic design will ensure that the noise from spectators remains within the stadium."

Levy has also tried to counter West Ham's criticism that Tottenham's plans does not offer the same opportunity of local engagement as theirs.

"Our partner AEG would attract and manage a wide range of events for the stadium and surrounding public realm including world-class sport, music, festivals, and exhibitions," said Levy.

"Tottenham Hotspur would also commit tens of millions of pounds for local sports and community projects and our Foundation would work with relevant partners to bring these to life.

"Ensuring the stadium and the surrounding space is sustainable, exciting and viable 365 days a year is crucial to our proposal and to the whole future of the Olympic Park.

As part of its bid to the OPLC, Tottenham Hotspur FC is also proposing the significant redevelopment of Crystal Palace Athletics Stadium that would see its capacity increase to 25,000, with the ability for it to be increased up to 40,000 for major championships.

"We would increase the current capacity of Crystal Palace by 9,500 to 25,000 and a new four-lane warm up track and all weather hockey pitch would also be built," said Levy.

"With these proposals, Crystal Palace would become a re-invigorated dedicated facility, bringing more activity to the area and be available to the athletics community every single day of the year."

http://www.insidethegames.biz/images/stories/thumbnails/images-stories-Olympic_Stadium_in_Tottenham_mode_February_2011-550x370.jpg

Tottenham's plan:

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/2402/olympicstadiumintottenh.jpg

Nope, just more detail of Spurs' plans:

http://www.insidethegames.biz/summer-olympics/2012/11895-tottenham-deny-they-will-qdemolishq-p500-million-olympic-stadium-as-they-unveil-plans

And an interview with Levy:

Accusations that we would 'demolish' £500 million of stadium are hugely inaccurate and highly irresponsible and I want to be very clear on this issue," he said.

"Our proposal will retain around £420 million ($677 million) worth of the Olympic Stadium, and we will re-use or recycle the £80 million ($129 million) that will be dismantled with zero landfill.

If true, that's one issue out of the way for me; it doesn't seem anywhere near as obscene as it first sounded. The two remaining elephants in the room are harder to ignore though. Spurs' proposed athletics legacy doesn't sound bad at all (a 25k athletics stadium at Crystal Palace with the ability to expand for world championships plus a warm up track), but UKA want out of Crystal Palace because of its awkardness to get to. And the issue of moving a North London club into what is West Ham and Leyton Orient territory is even harder to resolve.

There is so much right with Spurs' plans even if on the surface they seem obscene, but there are intractable, historical, political and emotional problems which I can't see ways around.

I'm more torn on this issue than I thought I'd be.

That picture looks pretty rushed to me! The orbit looks like it was made in microsoft paint.

Although I must say that I do like the Spur's stadium, just wish they'd build it where there are now.

It looks about as good and as accurate as West Ham's render which seemed very odd to me, like they'd simply coloured in LOCOG's original graphics claret and blue.

Not keeping the cauldron then?

Did West Ham's render include it?

The fact that we still dont know what it will look like probably has something to do with it not being in the renders.

Oops, might have let a cat out the bag there.

Anyhow, now the stadium potentially is getting demolished, aren't we all glad they didn't go with the original EDAW bid design! Imagine the uproar of having that disappear off the skyline of east London.

Spurs don't belong in East London and we have promises to keep. If Tottenham get this stadium I will not be going to the games. I feel that strongly. And I have an opening ceremony ticket on order.

looks much better than an olympic stadium

Spurs don't belong in East London and we have promises to keep. If Tottenham get this stadium I will not be going to the games. I feel that strongly. And I have an opening ceremony ticket on order.

They haven't even opened applications for the draw yet.

The wrap is officially back.

London 2012 revives branded stadium 'wrap' idea (http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/1053544/London-2012-revives-branded-stadium-wrap-idea/)

The organisers of London 2012 have announced fresh plans for a £7m branded 'wrap' around the Olympic Stadium, with non-sponsor brands able to tender for the project.

The 900m-long, 20m-high wrap will be placed around the base of the East London stadium.

The proposal had been scrapped in October last year, after the government challenged the Olympic Delivery Authority to find savings of more than £20m.

However, London 2012 chairman Lord Coe revealed that brands had expressed an interest in funding the scheme. A tender for 'expressions of interest' will therefore be issued later this month.

Controversially, brands that are not official Olympic sponsors will be allowed to approach LOCOG about bidding for the property.

In November, Absolute Radio launched a high-profile campaign to restore the wrap. The station proposed that the wrap carry 700,000 images of individual members of the public, as part of a wider competition.

LOCOG declined to comment on the tender.

They haven't even opened applications for the draw yet.

I know! :banana:

Great news! do we know how much room for change they will have i.e. can they change the style? Or is the 'zig-zag' wrap the final base and the sponsor will get to choose the lighting scheme. I know we've kinda debunked the idea of an LED wrap, but would they have time to even consider it, plan it and design it?

So, they haven't got a taker yet - this is just Seb Coe saying "Alright, we're willing to let some new party fund it.....as long as they don't expect any branding on or near it".
I wonder if Olympic broadcasters will even be allowed to say "The stadium wrap was actually funded by McVities Biscuits" ?

Id also be annoyed if the bridges were not reduced in size after the games...as planned.

Some of them had grand designs.

So, they haven't got a taker yet - this is just Seb Coe saying "Alright, we're willing to let some new party fund it.....as long as they don't expect any branding on or near it".
I wonder if Olympic broadcasters will even be allowed to say "The stadium wrap was actually funded by McVities Biscuits" ?

Well the BBC wont be allowed, and NBC wouldn't because the americans wont know who McVities are! :lol:

But seriously for this to work it would have to be a global brand, so that broadcasters who do not have such strict advertising guidelines as the BBC will be able to say Coca Cola or Ford or Pfizer sponsored this stadium wrap. Local brands will mean nothing abroad and will not get the nod from the BBC, although during the Paralympics Channel 4 will be able to mention it.