According to the Olympic Minister.


news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/..._ham_utd/8519515.stm

He wont be Olypic Minister for much longer - come the election it will all change.

West Ham are the only local club willing to take on the stadium. Orient will not and there is no rugby club in East London and certainly no athletics club.

Once again New Labour show themselves out of touch with the people of East London.

More EASTENDERS attend UPTON PARK each weekend than will ever attend a single Olympic Event because the tickets will be brought up by "the great and the good" . Locals will generally be priced out and allowed in only when events are empty.

BR wrote:

More EASTENDERS attend UPTON PARK each weekend than will ever attend a single Olympic Event

Simply wrong!

Gold and Sullivan - very wealthy men from their soft porn businesses - should put their money where their mouth is and develop the Boleyn Ground and not expect charity.

In any event, although the Olympic Stadium will briefly hold 80,000, it has only been designed to cater for 25,000 longterm; no premiership team has this small a ground and none could survive with it!

The STADIUM for 25,000......who would want such a small ground ? Even Championship teams want 30.000 capacity grounds.

Tessa wants it for athletics. When was the last time 25,000 people wanted to watch athletics events >?

It has to go to WEST HAM. The BOLEYN GROUND is past its sell by date and in the middle of housing - this is not acceptable in 2010.

The OLYMPIC STADIUM should go to a Premier League team - the capacity can remain at 60,000 I believe if they want. This is an ideal capacity for a London Premier League club.

Without West Ham the Olympic site will become a WHITE ELEPHANT. The dome only started to be decent once they let a big entertainment company gut it and rebuild it rather than have a soppy community use.

Sorry but being PC about the Stadium is rubbish. My TAXES paid for that stadium - and I want something in there of quality that will benefit the East End - like WEST HAM.

Can anyone name another club or organisation in the EAST END that could take over the stadium ( Even if it is reduced to 25,000 capacity )...........

I can understand you not liking GOLD AND SULLIVAN - but at least they are English, Most premier league teams are owned by foreigners who have no love for our game or country - just money.

BR wrote:
the capacity can remain at 60,000 I believe if they want

I can understand you not liking GOLD AND SULLIVAN


It can't. (The infrastructure of the new stadium is not compatable with a permanent 60/80,000 stadium which is designed specifically to cater for 80,000 for a few weeks and includes a massive press centre etc. - and for 25,000 thereafter.)

What made you think that? (G&S are here for the main chance; that's obvious to all - at least.)

The infrastructure for the Olympic Site actually will still be in place afterwaards - the tranport links - and road links.

Any new tenant of the stadium will need to put in their own admin block - that is only obvious.

The Stadium only has ONE offer at the moment. Sorry but that has to be taken.

Gold and Sullivan have taken on a club with a massive debt - I cant see them cashing in for many years.

Thought the idea of having the Olympic Games in the UK was to get people interested in sports OTHER than football.

BR wrote:
The infrastructure for the Olympic Site actually will still be in place afterwaards - the tranport links - and road links

Correct.

But, the building techniques in erecting a stadium for a 3 week use are immensely different from those for a 100 year life. The Horse Guards Parade stand (for volleyball) employs similar methods and no trace of that edifice will exist a few days after the Olympic event.

Health & Safety Regulations will require the downsizing to a 25,000 capacity - the basis on which planning permission was granted. London does not need another large football stadium, not least because of their low usage.

Out of 365 days, how many 90 minute periods is the Emirates Stadium utilised for?

30 or 40?

Aha - that is where you are wrong. The EMIRATES is used every day of the week for conferences and loads of events take place there - not least concerts in the summer and so on. It is a very well used space and set of suites.

It does not take much to re-inforce a ground to make it suitable for a 25 year use and planning permission would certainly be granted for West Ham - not least because the Police would be in favour of moving the club because at the moment Policing is hard because of the urban streets that hem in the current West Ham ground. This area would then provide much needed housing in that area - so everyone would win.

We have to face facts. There is not one other sport in the East End that could fill a 25,000 seater stadium - that was surely known when they made the bid. If they had put the Stadium in North West or West London then potentially you would have had Rugby clubs interested in a 25K stadium - but not in the East End.

I can see that if New Labour got into power they would create a "club" to fill the stadium - that would fail. I am confident that the Tories will see the logic in utilising the Olympic site for the MAX number of people after the games - otherwise WHY have the infrastucture.

BOth West Ham and Chelsea need new grounds. Both are old and not suitable for modern football.

BR wrote:
The EMIRATES is used every day of the week for conferences and loads of events take place there - not least concerts in the summer and so on. It is a very well used space and set of suites.

Aha - its not!

Yes, there are a few summer concerts and some conferences (which could be held in 1,000's of hotels/centres etc.)

But are you trying to justify the creation of another London football stadium for such usage - where the pitch is just a backdrop? Football is actually played in these modestly used venues no more than 40 times a year.

Football grounds, like racecourses (Aintree has only 7 meetings a year) are for the core businesses - football and racing.

Currently, London has 13 Premiership/League grounds - quite apart from Wembley, Twickenham, Crystal Palace and literally dozens of other sports venues. Enough already.....

Ground sharing is the answer (like Milan) - with 'asset sweating' required; there's a recession you know BR ?

BR wrote:
The OLYMPIC STADIUM should go to a Premier League team - the capacity can remain at 60,000 I believe if they want. This is an ideal capacity for a London Premier League club

West Ham only average 33,000 which does not even fill their existing ground.

The main problem with ground sharing is the attitude and morale of the fans. They like to have a ground they call their own; the home of their own club. People are basically tribal, from nationalism down to sport club, or even local pub level. From a purely business viewpoint, ground sharing can make sense, but there is far more to football than just business, despite the wheeling and dealing of several Premiership clubs.

Ron wrote:
BR wrote:
The OLYMPIC STADIUM should go to a Premier League team - the capacity can remain at 60,000 I believe if they want. This is an ideal capacity for a London Premier League club

West Ham only average 33,000 which does not even fill their existing ground.

The plan is to reduce the cost of going to around a TEN POUND TICKET ( it was announced in a press conference )

I think this would be very popular and most games would sell out at that price when you consider that Premier League football in London is usually priced nearer £50 a ticket and theatre.

Arsenal had a 36,000 capacity at Highbury - but filled a 60,000 capacity Emirates Stadium.

Most of London's grounds are awful : Crystal Palace is a dump - Brentford is a real dump - Barnet is hardly worth calling a stadium - Chelsea is a mess and too small for a big club - Spurs current ground is awful. There are only TWO decent stadiums in London : Wembley and Emirates. For a city of 10 million people that is very poor. In the past we had 80,000 capacity grounds like WHITE CITY - which have now gone.

There is a massive need for another 60,000 plus ground in London and possibly 6 of them. Otherwise London's football will suffer. Even Manchester has TWO massive new grounds ( Man City and Old Trafford ) and it is only a 2 million population. Why should London not have at least that ratio ?

Are there any "Eastenders" left in the East End? I thought it was all posh flats and coffee shops since Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair exterminated the working class.

Arsenal outgrew Highbury. West Ham have yet to outgrow the Boleyn Ground, or even fill it!

Six new 60,000+ grounds for London? Ludicrous. My case is made.