The Olympic Stadium

All the latest breaking news,important match topics and great discussion can be found right here!

Moderators: Steely Hill, Moderators

The Olympic Stadium

Postby Big Jono » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:15 am

This issue/story has been rumbling along for quite a while now with minimal discussion on this forum, I think its time it had its own thread as it looks like either West Ham or Spurs are going to be moving there.

So... What do fans of those two teams think about the potential move? What do other fans think? Does anyone else care?

At the moment it is a major issue amongst spurs fans, there are some pretty vocal groups of supporters deadset agianst it and others which are for the move. It looks like this proposal which was seen at the start as the bioard hedging their bets regarding the redevelopment of WHL has infact become the preferred option of the powerbrokers at Spurs and one they are intent on pursuing to its fullest. This was further highlighted this week with the appointment of Mike Lee. A man whose achievements include persuading the International Olympic Committee to award the Games of 2016 to Rio and convincing FIFA that a summer temperature of 40 degrees Celsius makes Qatar the ideal venue for the 2022 World Cup.

I dont know much about West Hams bid and their fans view on it but a poll on the popular Hammers website currently sits on 72% against, with 18% for, and 8% undecided. That has had 410 votes. (and no i dont know what happened to the other 2%)

So, are these clubs going against their fans wishes in order to make a better business model?

Is an option like this preferable to getting into the type of debt Arsenal has to get a new stadium?
User avatar
Big Jono
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 30478
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:22 pm

Postby Steely Hill » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:35 pm

my view is that Spurs are a joke for pursuing this bid.

as the stadium is not located within the area of Tottenham i presume they will be required to change the name of their team?

there are whispers the whole Beckham thing is partly related to the bid for the stadium as AEG are working alongside Beckham and also Spurs with their bid.

as a fan, i do not want the Olympic stadium. i think it would present an unnecessary change and it is not something the majority of the fanbase want. from a business sense, i can see the point though.

moving to the OS will mean we can sell the land the current stadium sits on which will earn us tens of millions of pounds almost wiping our debt completely. however, this is something that can only be done once and is a dangerous game to play which could one day leave us homeless and in big trouble.

Jono - did you know that Mike Lee is also a former West Ham employee?
User avatar
Steely Hill
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 39659
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:14 pm

Postby Big Jono » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:24 pm

Yea i read recently he was the PR guy surrounding the Magnusson takeover.... right?
User avatar
Big Jono
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 30478
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:22 pm

Postby Steely Hill » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:41 am

Big Jono wrote:Yea i read recently he was the PR guy surrounding the Magnusson takeover.... right?


pretty much.

he ended up becoming a director heavily overseeing the Tevez farce and the appointment of Zola. i wouldn't imagine he would consider his time at the club a roaring success.
User avatar
Steely Hill
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 39659
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:14 pm

Postby Big Jono » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:46 am

Fascinating.
User avatar
Big Jono
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 30478
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:22 pm

Postby Steely Hill » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:39 pm

Big Jono wrote:Fascinating.


the point being he is not quite the PR messiah that he seems to have been portrayed in some sections of the media when his appointment was announced.

anyway, back to the actual meat of the topic - West Ham are obliged to forever remain in the borough of Newham. i presume Spurs do not have a similar agreement with Haringay.

regardless, the social impact of Spurs moving would be massive. the area is a total shitehole as it is and with matchday income no longer available i expect the endless rows of fried chicken shops would be hit hard and poverty would hit even harder.

meanwhile, every weekend you would haev to ensure that West Ham and Spurs never played a home game on the same day. Ever.

the logistics of it is madness and i can not believe that this move would even be allowed considering the implications it would have on the hell hole Spurs would leave behind.

frankly, i'd be amazed if Spurs moved to Newham. am i correct to state they would need to change their team name as well?

a century of history thrown away for the pursuit of more Jew gold.
User avatar
Steely Hill
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 39659
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:14 pm

Postby Hams » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:49 pm

Tottenham could change their name to Newham Hotspurs if they moved to the Olympic stadium.

I'm all in favour of us moving to Stratford as it would mean I only have to travel 3 stops on the tube to get there.

While it would be shame to leave all that history behind at Upton Park I certainly wouldn't miss anything about the area.

If we do get the new ground I'll certainly consider attending more home games in the future health permitting of course.
User avatar
Hams
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 39597
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London Supports West Ham United and Atletico Madrid

Postby Steely Hill » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:25 pm

Hams wrote:Tottenham could change their name to Newham Hotspurs if they moved to the Olympic stadium.

I'm all in favour of us moving to Stratford as it would mean I only have to travel 3 stops on the tube to get there.

While it would be shame to leave all that history behind at Upton Park I certainly wouldn't miss anything about the area.

If we do get the new ground I'll certainly consider attending more home games in the future health permitting of course.


:lol:

Stratford is hardly a beacon of high living! i have witnessed, on more than one occasion, scumbags being chased by security guards through the Stratford Centre after shoplifting from the Pound shop, no less.

if you live in Leyton, the 58 bus goes direct to the ground, it couldn't be easier.
User avatar
Steely Hill
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 39659
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:14 pm

Postby Big Jono » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:59 pm

I am still suspicious that this is all a form of brinkmanship by Spurs. They have been seeking support and public money to help them build and stay where they are and now that they can say "well we have this other option you better give it to us or else we are going and this place will be left in the sh!t".

And ofcourse Spurs wouldn't change their name Steely, you are being facetious with that comment.

Hopefully this PR guy is as bad as you say and West Ham 'win' this bidding process. The building of a new stadium at White Hart Lane is the preferred option for me, but only if it is not going to bankrupt the club. As long as the club will not release any information on the relative financial pros and cons of each option the fans can not really make any well informed decision. (not that they are being asked their opinion anyway)
User avatar
Big Jono
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 30478
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:22 pm

Postby ClearWhiteLight » Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:29 am

As a neutral with no affinity with either Club I reckon it will be a decision taken by politicians involving money when all is said and done with neither set of supporters views making much difference. Based upon that premise whoever is the most unlikely to receive it will end up getting the Stadium, probably Spurs.

Image
User avatar
ClearWhiteLight
Youth Academy
Youth Academy
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Right Here Right Now

Postby Steely Hill » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:37 am

Big Jono wrote:I am still suspicious that this is all a form of brinkmanship by Spurs. They have been seeking support and public money to help them build and stay where they are and now that they can say "well we have this other option you better give it to us or else we are going and this place will be left in the sh!t".

And ofcourse Spurs wouldn't change their name Steely, you are being facetious with that comment.

Hopefully this PR guy is as bad as you say and West Ham 'win' this bidding process. The building of a new stadium at White Hart Lane is the preferred option for me, but only if it is not going to bankrupt the club. As long as the club will not release any information on the relative financial pros and cons of each option the fans can not really make any well informed decision. (not that they are being asked their opinion anyway)


at first i thought the same thing. but Spurs are puttnig so much into their bid that it can only be considered a very serious offer and spurs have every intention of taking up residence in Stratford.

i am not being facetious at all, i am being serious. how can the team continue to be called Tottenham when they are not based in Tottenham? indeed, you would not even be in North London.

i am not saying the PR bloke is terrible, as such. he has a good CV and i believe played a massive role in getting Qatar the World CUp, among other things. but when it was announced there was much fanfare about him over here (in the London media at least) so i was just offering some perspective.

the thing is, from what i can gather, the majority of both clubs fans do not want to move to the OS. my pre match routine would be destroyed and, in all honesty, i do not think we would fill the thing anyway meaning the place would become a half empty soulless bowl. the beginning of the end for real fans.
User avatar
Steely Hill
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 39659
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:14 pm

Postby Big Jono » Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:44 am

Because that's the team name, it's the identity of the club. They aren't gong to change it and you know it. You are stirring.
User avatar
Big Jono
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 30478
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:22 pm

Postby Steely Hill » Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:16 pm

Big Jono wrote:Because that's the team name, it's the identity of the club. They aren't gong to change it and you know it. You are stirring.


it is the team name because that is where they are based.

the ironic thing is that you would become the very thing you can legitimately criticise Arsenal for being. Squatters.
User avatar
Steely Hill
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 39659
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:14 pm

Postby ludi_jazavac » Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:20 pm

Steely Hill wrote:
Big Jono wrote:Because that's the team name, it's the identity of the club. They aren't gong to change it and you know it. You are stirring.


it is the team name because that is where they are based.

the ironic thing is that you would become the very thing you can legitimately criticise Arsenal for being. Squatters.


I don't understand what that word Squatters have to do with Arsenal :?
User avatar
ludi_jazavac
Young Pro
Young Pro
 
Posts: 1783
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:03 pm
Location: Serbia

Postby Steely Hill » Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:30 pm

ludi_jazavac wrote:
Steely Hill wrote:
Big Jono wrote:Because that's the team name, it's the identity of the club. They aren't gong to change it and you know it. You are stirring.


it is the team name because that is where they are based.

the ironic thing is that you would become the very thing you can legitimately criticise Arsenal for being. Squatters.


I don't understand what that word Squatters have to do with Arsenal :?


Arsenal were originally located in Woolwich (South East London) and were called Woolwich Arsenal.

their corruption, amongst other things, saw them move North of the river to Highbury where they dropped Woolwich from their name as they were obviously not in Woolwich anymore.

Spurs were already in the area so, essentially, Arsenal were squatting in Spurs territory.

Steely Hill

Educating and Informing Since 2006


Forum Honours:
Record Number of Member of the Month Awards
Record winner of Member of the Year (and reigning champion)
Record winner of 'Funniest Member' (and reigning champion)
Creator of Best Topic/Thread 2010
Undisputed Member of the Decade


Predicting Honours:
Second Division 2008 - autumn
Champions League 2008 - autumn
FA Cup 2008 - autumn
Davis Cup 2009 - spring
Overall Ranking 2009 - spring
Prediction Award 2009
Prediction Award 2010
User avatar
Steely Hill
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 39659
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:14 pm

Postby Big Jono » Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:02 pm

Spurs 'would demolish Olympic Stadium after Games'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12173663

Tottenham Hotspur FC has confirmed it would demolish most of the Olympic Stadium if it won the bid to take it over after the 2012 Games.

Stadium architect David Keirle said the club would use its own money to redevelop the stadium for its use.

Tottenham Hotspur and West Ham United have both submitted bids to occupy the facility after the Olympics has begun.

The Olympic Park Legacy Committee (OPLC) will recommend who will take over the stadium by 28 January.

The decision will then be agreed by London mayor Boris Johnson and the government.

Tottenham Hotspur FC says it would demolish the stadium because it feels the venue is not suitable for football with seats being too far away, for example.

Architect David Keirle said: "It's not entirely demolition. We will be using some of the undercroft (cellar) but we're not using much.

"We may be taking some elements to Crystal Palace for its redevelopment."

He said it would be an easier and cheaper solution for Tottenham to go to the Olympic Stadium rather than redevelop its ground White Hart Lane, as the club would spend around the same but get more for its money.

If West Ham wins the bid, it has offered to reduce the 80,000-seat venue in Stratford, east London, to a 60,000 capacity after the Games.

It would cost the club between £150m and £180m to convert the venue by extending the roof, creating a pitch, turnstiles, toilets and space for corporate hospitality. The club would borrow £40m from Newham Council.
User avatar
Big Jono
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 30478
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:22 pm

Postby Steely Hill » Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:16 pm

that represents the most insane waste of public money ever.

if Spurs win with that bid there has to have been some serious brown envelopes being passed around.
User avatar
Steely Hill
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 39659
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:14 pm

Postby Guest » Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:36 pm

Steely Hill wrote:
Big Jono wrote:Because that's the team name, it's the identity of the club. They aren't gong to change it and you know it. You are stirring.


it is the team name because that is where they are based.

the ironic thing is that you would become the very thing you can legitimately criticise Arsenal for being. Squatters.


You beat me to it!

I was reading down this thread and was about to have my say and you've done it already.... but I shall add.....

It's laughable that Spurs always refer to Arsenal as the scum because when Arsenal moved to North London from Woolwich, Spurs saw it as an encroachment on their patch.

But surely if they move to East London they will not ONLY be pikey caravan hypocrites but they will be encroaching on West Ham's patch so Spurs will then be the Scum!? Hm?

It actually doesn't matter, even if they don't move it's enough that they've tried to condemn them as the hypocrites they've always been.

AND!! Tottenham was part of Middlesex from 1850 to 1965. True, it was part of the London postal area (London N17) and the Met Police District, but in terms of administration and local government it was in Middlesex, not London. So we were in fact the North London team!

Arsenal came here to save the North Londoners from the shame and embarrassment of being represented by Middlesex Tottingham. Now we have become the team of North London. We came, we saw and we conquered. It's ours and always has been.

Anyway....I have to be honest and say that I don't agree with any football club having the olympic stadium after 2012, we don't have many really great sports venues for Athletics in this country so it should stay as one, anyway we are helping pay for it, I dont want to help the scum get a brand spanking new stadium.

Stratford FC. :lol:
Guest
 

Postby Johaldo8 » Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:19 pm

Once upon a time there was a beautiful paradise called North London, occupied by the Mighty Tottenham Hotspur FC. Everything was sweet, until these dirty, stinking gypos from Woolwich moved their caravans into the area, stunk the place out, and called it home. Even when Hitler blew up their tincup stadium, they still wouldn't budge! Thanks to these Scummers, the place became, and still is, a shlthole, and now the greatest football club in the world has to make a very important decision.

Do we stay and redecorate the place at a ridiculously high cost, or do we leave the arse in that dump and move to East London where Stratford is the future?

To be honest, it's a tough call. As much as I love Spurs being N17, I'm also open minded. Sure, we'd lose some of our heritage and history, but in this day and age, what does that count for? Liverpool have been crowing about their history for years, but look at them now - they have a crap team and an ageing stadium (no offence). When you stack everything up, the Olympic bid ticks every other box.

As a regular matchgoer, I personally look at it as a win-win situation. Stay; and we'll get our stadium on our own patch, we'll preserve our history in North London, so nothing changes at all, from my perspective. Move, and the Club saves £200M, transport by rail will be a doddle for me, the potential for the Club to make a LOT of money will be huge, we'll be saddled with far less debt, there's great transport links to Central London and to the Continent, and there's even Europe's biggest shopping mall right next door!

I'm more for it now than I ever have been, now that I know that the stadium designers will stick to the same design they have for White Hart Lane. They'll simply demolish the Olympic Stadium and plonk the new WHL stadium slap bang on top of it. From an athletics perspective, I couldn't give a monkeys toss!! The sport is rubbish, unless Usain Bolt is running, let's be honest. After the 2012 Olympics, no Athletics event is going to sell out a 60,000 seater stadium, so what's the point in preserving it in that form? In this day and age, Athletics and Football do not mix, as far as top class stadia are concerned.

Here's the tale of tape, between the two bids:


-----------------------------------------------West Ham---------Spurs

Capacity--------------------------------------60,000------------60,000

Redevelopment cost-------------------------£100m------------£250m

Distance from front row to goal-line-----------45m------------8m

Farthest seat from pitch-----------------------205m------------175m

Public borrowing--------------------------------£40m------------£0

Athletics legacy--------------------------Track stays------------No track


Whatever happens, I'll laugh if West Ham get it - how they can fill a 60,000 seater is beyond me. Even if they do, they'll be sat so far away from the pitch, they'll need binoculars to watch the likes of Obinna kicking someone's balls.

The Olympic Stadium site has a lot of potential, but out of the two Clubs, only Spurs have the capacity to maximise that potential.
User avatar
Johaldo8
World Class
World Class
 
Posts: 9859
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:37 pm

Postby Johaldo8 » Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:46 pm

Steely Hill wrote:
Big Jono wrote:Because that's the team name, it's the identity of the club. They aren't gong to change it and you know it. You are stirring.


it is the team name because that is where they are based.


Cool. That means the team you support should really be called East Ham United FC or Upton Park FC, since your stadium is based on the border of those two districts.

You are definitely NOT based in West Ham.
User avatar
Johaldo8
World Class
World Class
 
Posts: 9859
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:37 pm

Next

Return to Barclays Premier League

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests