nobby_solano Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I'd rather whoever gets it has to keep the stadium, not demolish it to build another one in the same fucking place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I'd rather whoever gets it has to keep the stadium, not demolish it to build another one in the same f***ing place. This. I'm not even English so couldn't care less who gets it, but this sounds incredibly wasteful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I'd rather whoever gets it has to keep the stadium, not demolish it to build another one in the same f***ing place. This. I'm not even English so couldn't care less who gets it, but this sounds incredibly wasteful. That is what they are doing. The question is that Spurs want to rip-up the running track for more seats and also to make sure the atmosphere is better. West Ham want to keep it and use as multi purpose sports arena including hosting T20 matches for Essex. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEEJ Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Why should either get it? They've hardly got tiny stadiums as things stand at the moment, and Spuds have planning permission to redevelop WHL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattypnufc Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Couldn't give a fuck. Both are fucking shithouses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Why should either get it? They've hardly got tiny stadiums as things stand at the moment, and Spuds have planning permission to redevelop WHL. I think the main reason is that for the 'Olympic Legacy' they need to give the stadium over to something other than one or two athletics meets a year. I would hate to see Spurs leave Tottenham, it's a bad enough area and the football club is pretty much the only thing it has going for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Lol Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I'd rather whoever gets it has to keep the stadium, not demolish it to build another one in the same f***ing place. This. I'm not even English so couldn't care less who gets it, but this sounds incredibly wasteful. On the face of it, it's an awful option, but the truth of the matter is that the British Olympic Committee got it totally wrong when they opted for an 'ecological blueprint' for the Olympic Stadium which amongst other things involved using less than 50% of the amount of steel that would normally be required for a structure of this size. Yes, it may look great now but using inadequate materials will severely affect the longetivity of the stadium. The Millenium Dome had a life expectancy of 25 years before its conversion into the O2 and by all accounts the Olympic Stadium's lifespan isn't expected to be much longer. One of the people involved in the Olympic project summed up the situation when said "The Olympic Park is amazing. The other venues are all astounding and built with very sound futures ahead of them, either through continued use or revised use following the games. The Olympic Stadium is not. It is poorly designed and badly thought out. It will be phenomenal for the experience of a few weeks of summer sport - after that, it needs to be pulled down if it isn't to become a shabby wasteland that blights the Elizabeth Park (what the Olympic Park will become after the games)" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Spurs. Better club, pushing for champions league, and I dislike West Haym. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Burn it down and build houses Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I'd rather whoever gets it has to keep the stadium, not demolish it to build another one in the same f***ing place. This. I'm not even English so couldn't care less who gets it, but this sounds incredibly wasteful. On the face of it, it's an awful option, but the truth of the matter is that the British Olympic Committee got it totally wrong when they opted for an 'ecological blueprint' for the Olympic Stadium which amongst other things involved using less than 50% of the amount of steel that would normally be required for a structure of this size. Yes, it may look great now but using inadequate materials will severely affect the longetivity of the stadium. The Millenium Dome had a life expectancy of 25 years before its conversion into the O2 and by all accounts the Olympic Stadium's lifespan isn't expected to be much longer. One of the people involved in the Olympic project summed up the situation when said "The Olympic Park is amazing. The other venues are all astounding and built with very sound futures ahead of them, either through continued use or revised use following the games. The Olympic Stadium is not. It is poorly designed and badly thought out. It will be phenomenal for the experience of a few weeks of summer sport - after that, it needs to be pulled down if it isn't to become a shabby wasteland that blights the Elizabeth Park (what the Olympic Park will become after the games)" i thought "legacy" was a major part of the bid in that the stadium had to stay as it was for the furtherment of sport in general, particularly track and field. can't see how letting a football team have it would fulfill that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 5 miles from White Hart Lane, 2 miles from Upton Park. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest optimistic nit Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I care as much about this as I do when I hear the London Underground is closed due strikes. lucky that whether you care or not has absolutely no importance then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I wrote an essay on this in 2007, at the time I said I wanted West Ham to use it as a multi purpose venue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggs Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I'd rather whoever gets it has to keep the stadium, not demolish it to build another one in the same f***ing place. This. I'm not even English so couldn't care less who gets it, but this sounds incredibly wasteful. On the face of it, it's an awful option, but the truth of the matter is that the British Olympic Committee got it totally wrong when they opted for an 'ecological blueprint' for the Olympic Stadium which amongst other things involved using less than 50% of the amount of steel that would normally be required for a structure of this size. Yes, it may look great now but using inadequate materials will severely affect the longetivity of the stadium. The Millenium Dome had a life expectancy of 25 years before its conversion into the O2 and by all accounts the Olympic Stadium's lifespan isn't expected to be much longer. One of the people involved in the Olympic project summed up the situation when said "The Olympic Park is amazing. The other venues are all astounding and built with very sound futures ahead of them, either through continued use or revised use following the games. The Olympic Stadium is not. It is poorly designed and badly thought out. It will be phenomenal for the experience of a few weeks of summer sport - after that, it needs to be pulled down if it isn't to become a shabby wasteland that blights the Elizabeth Park (what the Olympic Park will become after the games)" i thought "legacy" was a major part of the bid in that the stadium had to stay as it was for the furtherment of sport in general, particularly track and field. can't see how letting a football team have it would fulfill that. Most of the Stadia from previous Olympic games are not used apparently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 West Ham would have the biggest stadium ever seen in League One. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 What's the current capacity BTW? If a club could use it while keeping the running track and also allowing it to be used for athletics, I would go for that. I know a running track's not ideal in a football ground, but it's not the end of the world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Lol Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 What's the current capacity BTW? If a club could use it while keeping the running track and also allowing it to be used for athletics, I would go for that. I know a running track's not ideal in a football ground, but it's not the end of the world. Spurs' plan is to spend £20/30m making Crystal Palace a world class athletics venue. I think that is a more sensible solution instead of keeping a running track between the fans and the pitch ..................... as much as I dislike the idea of moving to Stratford. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 The Crystal Palace idea is alright, but I'd much rather the benefits went directly to east London. I'd actually like to see a West Ham/Leyton Orient ground share, although I know that is highly unlikely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 What's the current capacity BTW? If a club could use it while keeping the running track and also allowing it to be used for athletics, I would go for that. I know a running track's not ideal in a football ground, but it's not the end of the world. Spurs' plan is to spend £20/30m making Crystal Palace a world class athletics venue. I think that is a more sensible solution instead of keeping a running track between the fans and the pitch ..................... as much as I dislike the idea of moving to Stratford. Will the Spurs solution mean the taxpayer gets 100% of the cost back? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Might also have a bearing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/crystal_palace/9364649.stm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hardy_Bucks Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Why should either get it? They've hardly got tiny stadiums as things stand at the moment, and Spuds have planning permission to redevelop WHL. Exactly, whats wrong with Upton Park especially if they developed the east stand neither it or WHL are falling apart and spurs have planning permission to redevelop WHL anyway! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Why should either get it? They've hardly got tiny stadiums as things stand at the moment, and Spuds have planning permission to redevelop WHL. Exactly, whats wrong with Upton Park especially if they developed the east stand neither it or WHL are falling apart and spurs have planning permission to redevelop WHL anyway! I agree, the only opposite point is that they have to do something with the thing after the Olympics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hardy_Bucks Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Why should either get it? They've hardly got tiny stadiums as things stand at the moment, and Spuds have planning permission to redevelop WHL. Exactly, whats wrong with Upton Park especially if they developed the east stand neither it or WHL are falling apart and spurs have planning permission to redevelop WHL anyway! I agree, the only opposite point is that they have to do something with the thing after the Olympics. There's plenty of alternative uses for it... Monster trucking, garden centre, a Running Man venue, Witherspoon's, public executions... Tesco express? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Might also have a bearing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/crystal_palace/9364649.stm Is their any reason why Palace can't move there, with it also hosting athletics, and having a minimum capacity of 25k? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro111 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Lots of teams play outside their regions of origin. Pretty sure the Rebook isn't inside Bolton city limits for example. Doesn't stop me giving s*** to Espanyol for moving out of Barcelona, mind. At least we don't have to put up with the stench. Still within the Metropolitan Borough of Bolton though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now