West Ham to get Olympic Stadium

[Guest neesy111]

Haringey council deserve shooting if they allow Spurs to leave the area.

[Guest neesy111]

Interesting Map on all the different locations of London clubs.

 

http://londonist.com/2011/01/mapped-londons-moving-football-clubs.php

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Interesting Map on all the different locations of London clubs.

 

http://londonist.com/2011/01/mapped-londons-moving-football-clubs.php

 

Interesting map, just goes to show that only Arsenal have completed a move anywhere similar to the one proposed by Spurs, and they change their name to do it.

 

Another problem is that Stratford is already bang in the middle of West Ham and Leyton territory.

[Dokko]

Interesting. Where's the new stadium going to be? Have I missed it?

 

Fulham are a joke like.  

 

Edit: Found it. Should go to West Ham if they want it.

[wormy]

Interesting. Where's the new stadium going to be? Have I missed it?

 

Fulham are a joke like. 

 

Edit: Found it. Should go to West Ham if they want it.

 

Was going to mention Fulham. Crazy.

[Dokko]

Aye they are like, proper squatters. 

 

Heard Orients view on this and apparently there's a law stopping either club from moving in to their borough, and if they do they'll mount legal action against everyone!

 

 

I reckon this is why it has all been put on hold, to test the case legally and see where they stand. Be brilliant if Orient get it, Spuds have to move away anyway pissing of their fans and WHU get no freebies.

 

 

 

"We're only 750 yards from the edge of the Olympic Park, while West Ham are four miles away and Tottenham seven miles round the North Circular - yet nobody has bothered to ask little old Leyton Orient for their views," he is quoted by the Daily Mirror.

 

"Never mind that we're the second oldest Football League club in London, with a mere 130 years of history - we've become the lost tribe of East London, the elephant in the room nobody dares to mention.

 

"But we're not going to go away quietly. Leyton Orient may live in the shadow of two Premier League giants, but we've a right to be heard, especially when those giants could kill us off.

 

"I can't believe the legacy of London's 2012 Olympic bid was supposed to include one of the country's oldest clubs being railroaded out of existence. We may be a little club, but we're flag-bearers for our community, proud of our reputation as London's second favourite club and deserve to be heard.

 

 

 

 

 

[ElDiablo]

In the interest of going as a football fan, as I tend to get along to both each year, I'd much rather go to a proper purpose built stadium that Spurs would provide. Being 45 metres from the pitch sounds shit, and WH will probably be playing Championship football in it which means it would be half full at best. No ta.

[Guest KeithKettleborough]

Think its cut and dried.... anagram of "The New Stadium" is West Ham United.  Though whoever gets it should pay whatever it cost to build.

[Martin Lol]

The correct decision based on the OPLC own rules for assessment in accordance with the bid should be for the Olympic Stadium to be scaled back to 25000 capacity as originally proposed with a running track and invite Leyton Orient to adopt it as their new home.

 

That's what should happen.  Whether it will is an entirely different question.

[Martin Lol]

A good article in the Telegraph today which highlights just how badly the whole question of the future use of the Olympic Stadium has been managed.

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/8282275/London-2012-Olympics-football-was-ruled-out-of-Games-legacy-by-Olympic-board-in-2006.html

 

London 2012 Olympics: football was ruled out of Games legacy by Olympic board in 2006

The seeds of the current uncertainty over the future use of the Olympic Stadium were sown in 2006, when the Olympic authorities ruled out deals with West Ham or Tottenham in favour of legacy that was to prove financially unsustainable.

 

Within 18 months of winning the right to stage the Games the Olympic Board had rejected offers from both clubs, and instead planned to reduce the £500 million stadium to a 25,000-seat mixed-use arena with a permanent track.

 

The desire to find an alternative to top-flight football even led to the Olympic Board, led by Tessa Jowell and Ken Livingstone, explicitly ordering consultants working on the stadium business model to ignore Premier League football.

 

The result, according to documents seen by Telegraph Sport and interviews with sources involved in the process, was that London committed to a stadium legacy that it could not deliver without public subsidy.

 

Only when Livingstone had been replaced in office by London mayor Boris Johnson was the possibility of a Premier League club occupying the stadium reopened, and next month the Olympic Park Legacy Company will, after all, choose between Tottenham and West Ham.

 

The design constraints of the commitment to a 25,000-seat arena mean that neither is an ideal solution. West Ham, bidding jointly with Newham Council, would retain the track, meeting London's bid commitment, but there are doubts as to the viability of football being played in major athletics arenas, and the club's financial position.

 

Tottenham claim to offer a more financially robust solution, but only at the price of ripping up the athletics track, a step too far for many, including Lord Coe.

 

Richard Caborn, sports minister at the time of the negotiations with West Ham, said that the failure to engage with football earlier was a missed opportunity.

"I think we dropped the ball," he said. "We went around the world after winning the Games and looked at all the previous Olympic hosts, from Sydney to Barcelona, and they all said the most important thing is to find an anchor tenant.

 

"In my view that was always going to be football, and there was an opportunity missed. We did a lot of work with West Ham, who were willing to take on the stadium but wanted retractable seats built into the design. They would have put money in, kept athletics in without compromising on the football side, and it was a win-win situation."

 

The crucial decisions were taken in the 18 months following the July 2005 victory in Singapore, when the commitment to athletics, the desire to start construction, and pressure from the Treasury to cap the rising budget combined to ensure the 25,000-seat option was favoured.

 

Both Tottenham and West Ham approached the Olympic Board in 2006 to discuss a potential move. Tottenham, who wanted to get rid of the track, were first to be dismissed.

Club sources claim they were told they would have to cover the cost of demolishing and rebuilding, plus the redevelopment of Crystal Palace –a central part of their current bid.

 

Former government sources say the bid was rejected primarily because of concerns raised by Sir Ian Blair, then commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who advised he would not grant Spurs a licence because of the potential for trouble caused by fans crossing into West Ham's territory.

 

Tottenham withdrew their interest in late 2006, but West Ham remained interested. In January 2007 they made a formal offer, a copy of which has been seen by The Daily Telegraph, to take on the stadium if Stade de France-style retractable seats could be built into the initial designs.

 

The offer, sent by West Ham's finance director Nick Igoe to the ODA's stadium project manager, Ian Crockford, states that the club were interested in taking on the arena if the design brief could be amended, and would put up £100 million to buy the stadium and consider a revenue sharing agreement.

 

"Our favoured solution would be a stadium without retractable seating which could cover much of the running track in football mode but be withdrawn when in athletics mode," Igoe wrote. "I can confirm our chairman's [Eggert Magnusson] offer of £100 million as a capital payment in order to acquire the stadium."

 

At a private meeting between club chairman Magnusson, Jowell and Livingstone in January 2007, the bid was rejected. The Olympic board formally dismissed the offer the following month, with Caborn the only observer present arguing for it to be pursued further.

 

Jowell said that West Ham's bid was rejected because it was financially flawed. "The West Ham bid was closed off because we were going to have to put in about £97 million more of public funds to make it work," she said.  "West Ham simply did not have a proper plan. We could not get them to commit to finance it, there was no business plan. Nobody took their offer seriously."

 

The rejection of West Ham coincided with the Olympic Board taking receipt of a report from consultants PMP Legacy. Remarkably, PMP was told to ignore Premier League football and look only at other sports including rugby and athletics, and lower league clubs including Leyton Orient.

 

Peter Mann, then executive chairman of PMP, told The Telegraph it received enough interest from clubs, including Wasps and Orient, to make them believe the 25,000-seat option was viable.

 

Unfortunately the board's confidence in the PMP model was misplaced, and did not withstand concrete negotiations with potential tenants, or the economic downturn.

The ODA, which commissioned the report, has consistently refused requests to publish the PMP report and rejected a Freedom of Information request, citing commercial confidentiality.

 

Orient chairman Barry Hearne insists he made it clear that he would not countenance playing in the stadium with a permanent track, and rugby clubs including Wasps and Saracens could not be persuaded.

 

Even among Olympic sports there was no demand. The British Olympic Association hoped to create an "Institute of Sport" with the stadium at its heart, but governing bodies were reluctant to relocate to London without guarantees over future costs and access to facilities.

 

With no sign of the 25,000-seat option being viable, the ODA had no choice but to return to football, and West Ham were approached to see if they could be persuaded to take on the stadium at a 60,000 capacity with running track. The Icelandic owners said no.

 

West Ham's new owners, David Gold and David Sullivan, have now returned with essentially the same offer, and Jowell is among those who believe, it will vindicate her approach.

"It is a great shame that we have only football clubs at the table but I firmly believe that none of the community and legacy uses built into the West Ham-Newham bid would have been there without the approach we took. If they get the stadium it will be a great result for the project."

 

Additionally AEG have confirmed that they rejected an approach from West Ham to collaborate in the the future usage of the Olympic Stadium but declined as West Ham's plans were not commercially viable.

 

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/premier-league/2011/01/26/2323755/tottenhams-olympic-stadium-backers-aeg-west-ham-bid-is-not?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Good article, I always wondered why the retractable seats thing wasn't done during construction.

 

Anyway, it seems any outcome is a bad one for someone now really. If Spurs win they have to leave Tottenham, if West Ham win they have to play in a stadium with a running track.

[colinmk]

Give to Leyton Orient if they want it?

[Guest neesy111]

Orient have said they don't want the stadium, though they are open to the hockey stadium which was expected to be a temporary 16,000 seater stadium.

[Martin Lol]

Orient have said they don't want the stadium, though they are open to the hockey stadium which was expected to be a temporary 16,000 seater stadium.

 

Not quite right.  They don't want it if there's a running track.  Though maybe that means they don't want it ...................

[Martin Lol]

Good article, I always wondered why the retractable seats thing wasn't done during construction.

 

Anyway, it seems any outcome is a bad one for someone now really. If Spurs win they have to leave Tottenham, if West Ham win they have to play in a stadium with a running track.

 

Although West Ham say they are happy to have it with a running track.  If that is the case then fair do's, they should have it.  Provided that they raise their own finance and not get public money from the Council.  Admittedly, Arsenal got money from their Council to help build the Emirates but just because a poor decision has been made once, that's no reason why it should be done again, especially in the current financial climate.

[Village Idiot]

To be honest nobody knows what to do with Barcelona's Olympic Stadium now that Espanyol aren't polluting it. It's fine for the odd big athletic event (like the European C'ships this summer) but way too white elephant-ish for the regular athletic events we host throughout the year. To see it make by as a concert venue is a bit sad.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Good article, I always wondered why the retractable seats thing wasn't done during construction.

 

Anyway, it seems any outcome is a bad one for someone now really. If Spurs win they have to leave Tottenham, if West Ham win they have to play in a stadium with a running track.

 

Although West Ham say they are happy to have it with a running track.  If that is the case then fair do's, they should have it.  Provided that they raise their own finance and not get public money from the Council.  Admittedly, Arsenal got money from their Council to help build the Emirates but just because a poor decision has been made once, that's no reason why it should be done again, especially in the current financial climate.

 

Yeah I know the club say they're happy, I was thinking more about the fans and the experience of watching football there.

 

[Martin Lol]

Good article, I always wondered why the retractable seats thing wasn't done during construction.

 

Anyway, it seems any outcome is a bad one for someone now really. If Spurs win they have to leave Tottenham, if West Ham win they have to play in a stadium with a running track.

 

Although West Ham say they are happy to have it with a running track.  If that is the case then fair do's, they should have it.  Provided that they raise their own finance and not get public money from the Council.  Admittedly, Arsenal got money from their Council to help build the Emirates but just because a poor decision has been made once, that's no reason why it should be done again, especially in the current financial climate.

 

Yeah I know the club say they're happy, I was thinking more about the fans and the experience of watching football there.

 

 

AEG have issued a statement saying that the customer experience is of paramount importance.

 

http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=34104

 

Spurs and AEG Hit Back in Bitter Battle for London Olympic Stadium

 

Tottenham Hotspur's flagging bid to take over the 2012 Olympic Stadium received a boost after AEG Europe outlined its plans to create a viable and sustainable legacy in London’s Olympic Park.

 

Sarah McGuigan, senior executive director of AEG Europe, this afternoon revealed that through the entertainment giant's joint submission with Spurs, it would manage and market a host of stadium and public realm events that, with football, would attract three million visitors to the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park every year.

 

The timing of AEG's announcement was designed to overshadow the results of a BBC poll earlier today that revealed 81% of Londoners opposed Spurs' plans to dismantle the Olympic Stadium and rebuild a bespoke football venue on the site.

 

“Alongside Tottenham Hotspur FC, we have some exciting and innovative plans for the stadium and surrounding area that would ensure an amazing visitor experience all year round," McGuigan.

 

"Crucially, our plans will stand the test of time and require no public subsidy."

 

McGuigan cited the example of London's AEG-operated O2 arena, the busiest sports and entertainment arena in the world.

 

"Just take a look at The O2 [operated by AEG], 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," she said.

 

"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."

 

In a thinly-veiled attack on West Ham's plans to retain the athletics track in its bid for the Olympic Stadium, which would put spectators at a distance from the pitch, she said: "For us, the customer experience is of paramount importance.

 

Looking at The O2 and our other leading venues worldwide, they are characterised by a first-class guest experience with focus on sightlines, customer service and proximity to the act."

 

Under Spurs plans, the 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium would be demolished and reconstructed to 60,000 seats, putting fans right on top of the action.

 

"We chose to work with THFC as we believe that, as a partnership, we can have a stadium tailored to reflect its customer’s needs that will be filled week in week out," McGuigan added.

 

"We know the importance of getting this decision right has huge implications not just for the stadium site, but for the long term success and viability of the Olympic park as a whole."

 

McGuigan said that in addition to the development of the stadium site itself, AEG would work with Spurs to explore a series of further mixed-use developments including a major tourist attraction linked to hotels, retail and some residential housing. She insisted the employment opportunities and other benefits that these additional developments offer for the local community were significant.

 

"All in all, the plans we have are very exciting and together with THFC, we know we can deliver something very special, as well as being commercially viable, that the whole country can be immensely proud," she added.

 

West Ham's plans for the Olympic Stadium call for reconstruction work to downsize it to 60,000 seats. It would host football and athletics as well as other major sports, concerts and community events.

 

Last Friday, the Olympic Park Legacy Company postponed its decision on appointing a preferred bidder to seek clarification on plans from both bidders. The OPLC's decision is now expected in the coming two weeks.

[OzzieMandias]

What a mess.

 

Tottenham moving out of Tottenham and into a different quadrant of London while demolishing the stadium in order to build a new one would be unspeakably ridiculous. West Ham have a better claim but I still don't like it. My sympathies are with Orient, a decent little club about to get hammered by having a much bigger club start squatting on their doorstep. If they want the stadium, they should have it. If not, it should continue as an athletics venue and whatever else they can think of to do with it.

[Rob W]

No Olypic Stadium has ever been a post Game success without massive reconstruction

 

no-one will stand up and say "we're spending zillions on a stadium for 3 weeks of entertainment" so the taxpayer gets hammered

 

SPurs are the only logical choice

 

Interesting there is no sign of a bid from Lord Coe and Teresa Jowell

[Martin Lol]

No Olypic Stadium has ever been a post Game success without massive reconstruction

 

no-one will stand up and say "we're spending zillions on a stadium for 3 weeks of entertainment" so the taxpayer gets hammered

 

SPurs are the only logical choice

 

Interesting there is no sign of a bid from Lord Coe and Teresa Jowell

 

Spurs are the logical choice given that their bid is the only one that does not involve using public money.  That still doesn't make Spurs the right choice.  There are 3 available options, Spurs moving across London, Wham borrowing £100m+ of public money to keep the running track or the stadium being scaled down to 25000 capacity to be used for athletics (and maybe Leyton Orient).

 

The simple fact is that there isn't a good option available and the Olympic Park Legacy Company are now realising that.  The fault lies squarely with the Olympic bidding team, they should have established before the bid went in exactly how the stadium would be utilised after the Games and whether that would be financially viable.  They decided before the bid that the stadium would be scaled down to a 25000 seater  but had no idea whether that would be financially viable, how often it would be used.  Bunch of incompetents, the lot of them.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Basically agree with that MJ, there is no good option.

 

I still think Spurs getting it would be a travesty though, there's no way they should be moving away from Tottenham.

 

Not that I know what the solution is.

[Martin Lol]

Basically agree with that MJ, there is no good option.

 

I still think Spurs getting it would be a travesty though, there's no way they should be moving away from Tottenham.

 

Not that I know what the solution is.

 

I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that they don't decide that Spurs is the least worst option!

[Guest toonlass]

So if Spurs were to move there it would be like Newcastle building their mew stadium in either Cramlington or South Shields?

[Martin Lol]

So if Spurs were to move there it would be like Newcastle building their mew stadium in either Cramlington or South Shields?

 

More or less, yes.  Except there isn't a League 1 team within a mile of Cramlington or South Shields.