Rob W 0 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Should we leave it with the Athletics track or turn it into a football ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 38556 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Greyhounds. And why do we have to do it in secret? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom_NUFC 0 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I think the Athletics track should stay. There needs to be a stadium in the UK capable of hosting big Athletics events. At the same time, those events aren't really numerous enough to have a stadium solely for that purpose. So really you're looking at having a stadium that will be used regularly for Football/Rugby that can also be used for top end Athletics meetings. I would have thought it would have been sensible to have included retractable seating, like at the Stade de France and that way you have a stadium that suits both a Football/Rugby configuration and an Athletics configuration. Of course it also jacks the cost of the stadium up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3960 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Area wise it's right for West Ham but they won't fill 60k and grounds with tracks are fucking shit. A lot has been made about "Athletics legacy" but that's shite as well - no way will it be filled for Athletics apart from the proposed World championship. The best of both worlds would be for West Ham to pinch Spurs' plan but with a smaller capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Make it a theme park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13806 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Neither will fill it but it'll be funny watching the two clubs battle it out to be the first to erode their club history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 The athletics track has to stay. We promised it would stay as a legacy, and if we go back on that we're no more trustworthy than FIFA giving the world cup to Qatar or Russia. Why not move all the concerts, NFL games etc that ruin Wembley's turf there? The parking, rail links and infrastructure must be a million miles better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3960 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 The athletics track has to stay. We promised it would stay as a legacy, and if we go back on that we're no more trustworthy than FIFA giving the world cup to Qatar or Russia. Why not move all the concerts, NFL games etc that ruin Wembley's turf there? The parking, rail links and infrastructure must be a million miles better. Wembley needs all the events to pay for itself so wouldn't give them up easily. Not sure on parking as the area around it is still a tip/building site (I pass it every day) and you're right about the good rail links but the area itself is pretty much a shithole in terms of bars etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac-Toon 1 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I can understand Spurs plan as they've got a larger fanbase, which is likely to grow now they're in a period of stability and success but their plan to demolish the stadium and build another is never going to win plaudits. West Ham would be out of their minds, understandable with the Devil bitch running the show, to move there. The atmosphere created would be pitiful in a half empty stadium. Upton Park is a shithole, but it's their shithole and the majority of fans don't want to move. All in all, grounds with tracks 'round them are hopeless for premier league football and whoever gets it must have proposals to bring the fans closer to the pitch on matchday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 definitely covert, just in case it rains. [/thick mick & deadman] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac-Toon 1 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I can understand Spurs plan as they've got a larger fanbase, which is likely to grow now they're in a period of stability and success but their plan to demolish the stadium and build another is never going to win plaudits. West Ham would be out of their minds, understandable with the Devil bitch running the show, to move there. The atmosphere created would be pitiful in a half empty stadium. Upton Park is a shithole, but it's their shithole and the majority of fans don't want to move. All in all, grounds with tracks 'round them are hopeless for premier league football and whoever gets it must have proposals to bring the fans closer to the pitch on matchday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flair 0 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I think Manchester United should get the Olympic Stadium, most of their fans won't have to travel far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Transfer 0 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 The main problem I have with Spurs getting it is that it's quite simply not in Tottenham. I just don't like the idea of moving a club out of the area they take their name from. When a football club is such a big part of a local community it doesn't seem right to remove it from said community. They literally would no longer be Tottenham Hotspur in anything other than name and history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia 0 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 The athletics track needs to stay. It's a huge part of the legacy plan which was part reason we got the games. Any club that applies need to come up with a plan to use the track area for seating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Transfer 0 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I originally thought that West Ham planned to use retractable seating that could be brought out during the football season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14527 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 The athletics track needs to stay. It's a huge part of the legacy plan which was part reason we got the games. Any club that applies need to come up with a plan to use the track area for seating. Thing is it holds 80k and the top athletics meeting in the summer is held at Crystal Palace which can be extended from 15k to 24k which is more than enough for the UK's athletics watching public. The Spurs plan makes a lot more sense and with the added bonus of them moving 9 miles round the north circular to Stratford, and thus consigning 106 years of history to the dustbin....fuckin Levy wants shooting for that. There were Spurs fans going round with "Keep Spurs in Haringey" petitions before the game at their place last month and there was some sort of protest in the last couple of weeks which turned a bit nasty by all accounts. Any good work that Spurs have benefitted from during Levy's tenure may well be undone by this so I think its a great idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shackbleep 0 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 We don't retain the track - at Stratford, not at Crystal Palace then we can kiss goodbye to any future events in our lifetime. All common sense - locality, intentions, logistics, etc point to it being a no brainer that West Ham will get it. All financial reasons point equally towards Spurs. Sadly I think money will win the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Transfer 0 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Vast majority of Spurs fans are against it as well it seems. Purely a decision based around the fact that's it cheaper from a Spurs point of view, that and they don't have to bother with the apparently troublesome local council. Like the president of the IAAF said, removing the track would represent a lie. Also don't forget that there's a third club involved in this bid now - Crystal Palace themselves, who want to take over the National Sports Centre for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3960 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 We don't retain the track - at Stratford, not at Crystal Palace then we can kiss goodbye to any future events in our lifetime. All common sense - locality, intentions, logistics, etc point to it being a no brainer that West Ham will get it. All financial reasons point equally towards Spurs. Sadly I think money will win the day. It's 64 years between Olympics and there's no chance of the football WC for at least 17 years assuming the criteria change (and that decision wouldn't give a shit about the Olympics anyway). I realise this "legacy" was a selling point but I'd like to know if its been used by other countries and whether they've stuck to it. Having a 60k stadium that's filled for Athletics once a decade isn't a sensible legacy in my view which is why Spurs' plan makes more sense as I said but is just the wrong club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Totally agree with NJS. It's not like future major events will be decided on the basis of fair play anyway. Also,we were iirc, supposed to hold the world athletics championship a few years back but had to pull out as the stadium funding never materialised. The IAAF had to find an alternative and the talk was we'd never get another event but we subsequently got the Olympics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 23, 2011 Author Share Posted January 23, 2011 Make it a theme park. that's what it will in summer 2012.............. the Lord Smug Sebastian Coe theme Park Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 23, 2011 Author Share Posted January 23, 2011 We don't retain the track - at Stratford, not at Crystal Palace then we can kiss goodbye to any future events in our lifetime. All common sense - locality, intentions, logistics, etc point to it being a no brainer that West Ham will get it. All financial reasons point equally towards Spurs. Sadly I think money will win the day. Bollocks - we just pay $$$$ and it'll come Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shackbleep 0 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Totally agree with NJS. It's not like future major events will be decided on the basis of fair play anyway. Also,we were iirc, supposed to hold the world athletics championship a few years back but had to pull out as the stadium funding never materialised. The IAAF had to find an alternative and the talk was we'd never get another event but we subsequently got the Olympics. Aye you're right about that one - the farce that was the Lea Valley sports complex. Remember it well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 24, 2011 Author Share Posted January 24, 2011 Historically Olympic stadia have always been white elephants - the one in Beijing has only been used six times in the last couple of years and I've been to the one in Sydney - even with a remarkable demolition job and sliding front seats areas its still a very soulless spot Link to comment 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