Olympic Stadium for West Ham or Spurs ?

jaykay74

I hadn't heard anything about this story until West Ham complained about Becks to Spurs being a ploy to move things in favour of Spurs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/9353937.stm

The stadium is a lot closer to West Ham than Spurs apparently. Are Spurs/Hammers fans in favour of the move. The Hammers have agreed to keep a running track, upton park has always had an imtimidating atmosphere, running track stadia are notorious for rubbish atmospheres. Any thoughts ? Stratford Hotspur has a nice ring to it

Ground share ala San Siro anyone ?


From wiki....

Post-Olympics

On 12 November 2010, it was announced that two bids had been shortlisted for the stadium post-Olympics. They are a joint bid from Tottenham Hotspur F.C. and Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), with the second bid from West Ham United F.C. and Newham Council.[13] The former bid would maintain the 80,000 capacity, while the latter would reduce it to 60,000. There remains a necessity that the stadium has a running track as part of its legacy.

Bid 1: West Ham United & Newham Council
Following the 2010 takeover by David Gold and David Sullivan, the new owners of West ham expressed their desire to make the Olympic Stadium as the club's new home. With Boris Johnson expressing his desire for a football team to take over the stadium after the Olympics this seems the most likely option.[14] At the opening of the formal bid process, West Ham were considered favourites after having dropping their initial opposition to having a running track and planning a £100m conversion to create a 60,000 capacity venue, which would also host international football, international athletics, as well as Essex County Cricket Club, international Twenty20 cricket matches, NFL matches and Live Nation.

Bid 2: AEG & Tottenham Hotspur
These joint bidders had originally expressed individual interest in the venue but submitted a joint bid to take over. Anschutz Entertainment Group is the company that re-developed the loss making Millennium Dome exhibition venue in South East London into the profitable music venue The O2. When the formal bidding process opened, little was known of AEG's plans for the Olympic Stadium, but they were described as among the front-runners of interested parties, along with West Ham United F.C..[16] On 26 July 2010, it was rumoured that Tottenham Hotspur F.C. may be interested in taking over the Olympic Stadium post-Games. The club have plans to build a new stadium adjacent to their current home, but the capacity could not reach that of the Olympic Stadium, making a move attractive to the club.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adrianwarner/2011/01/a_decision_on_the_stadium_and.html

We should know by March at the latest which club will be offered the stadium after the Games. So expect some tough talking in public in the next months.

West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady has already attacked Tottenham over Christmas for what she called a "smash and grab" raid on the stadium in her "manor". West Ham is the nearest club to the east London stadium.

Yesterday, Spurs responded by appointing PR sports guru Mike Lee to promote their bid and convince fans that they shouldn't oppose what some are calling "Stratford Hotspur".

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jhwu3fV5cy2r0Hwq6f57AazMGFSw?docId=N0425211293982141139A

Sebastian Coe has effectively thrown his weight behind West Ham's bid to move to the Olympic Stadium after the 2012 Games.
West Ham and Tottenham are vying for the right to move into the stadium but the Hammers would keep the running track while Spurs would not - they would instead develop an alternative athletics legacy, possibly at Crystal Palace.
Coe said: "We are told that West Ham are happy to play football within a track and Tottenham have clearly said they are not. Conclude from that what you want."
The Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) are due to make a decision before March and Coe, chairman of the London organising committee, made little secret of where his sympathies lie, although he stressed he has no part in the decision-making process.
Coe said: "We made a commitment to track and field to be a part of the legacy of the stadium so, as vice-president of the IAAF, it's not going to come as a huge shock that I am going to defend and help my sport."
Coe confirmed that West Ham's proposal was in line with the promises London 2012 made to the IOC in Singapore when they won the contest to host the Olympics and he also said the OPLC would in part make their decision based on bid commitments.

Leiva

No doubt wheeler dealer 'Arry has this one in the bag

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

West Ham please God...

Leiva

THFC wrote: »

West Ham please God...

Do you not want it ?

everdead.ie

There is to be a debate in parlamrnt today over this as us leaving Tottenham would be devastating for the area hopefully Goverment funds are made available and we can build our own stadium.

everdead.ie

mixednuts wrote: »

Do you not want it ?

No haven't met a spurs fan who wants it over our own stadium yet

jaykay74

everdead.ie wrote: »

No haven't met a spurs fan who wants it over our own stadium yet

I guess moving to another part of London is the main issue. I don't see a 80000 stadium as a big requirement for Spurs anyway. It would only be filled for games against Arsenal, Utd probably, Chelsea, Liverpool maybe. Wouldnt be great for matches against unattractive teams.

everdead.ie

jaykay74 wrote: »

I guess moving to another part of London is the main issue. I don't see a 80000 stadium as a big requirement for Spurs anyway. It would only be filled for games against Arsenal, Utd probably, Chelsea, Liverpool maybe. Wouldnt be great for matches against unattractive teams.

Well don't know the exact details but we we're supposed to be redeveloping it into a 60,000 purpose built stadium after the olympics conflicting reports as to wether we would nock it own completly or not. Currently there are about 23,000 on the season ticket waiting list so we would hopefully fill a 60k stadium.

Mitch Connor

On Newstalk the other day there was a fella on speaking aboout a book he had researched and written with a friend regarding sporting cliches. One of the issues they looked at was 'home field advantage' and official bias.

Firstly, they found that home field advantage is pretty damned consistent through all major sports and leagues. However, the guy said that the degree of home field advantage and official bias was based almost exclusively on the proximity of the fans to the pitch - so (and this is why I bring it up) any stadium with a running track around the pitch would, seemingly, immediately put the home side at a comparative disadvantage.

jaykay74

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Firstly, they found that home field advantage is pretty damned consistent through all major sports and leagues. However, the guy said that the degree of home field advantage and official bias was based almost exclusively on the proximity of the fans to the pitch - so (and this is why I bring it up) any stadium with a running track around the pitch would, seemingly, immediately put the home side at a comparative disadvantage.

West Ham playing in a stadium with a running track as opposed to Upton Park would be a lot less intimidating for away teams. Upton Park is a great atmosphere for a home team.

The other risk is that West Ham plan to operate as a 60000 capacity venue, seems a lot for them and added to that their yo yo history could find themselves in the championship with a massive stadium and no hope of filling it.

Seaneh

I think if spurs took it, got rid of the track and made is about 60k it would be a good idea. But AFAIK they could build a 65k stadium beside WHL, which would be better for the club IMHO.
I just reckon whoever gets it will have to keep the track, and from experience, stadia with tracks are absolutely abysmal. They destroy the atmosphere. The Delle Apli is a perfect example, soulless, horrid, miserable excuse of a football ground. The Olimplico in Rome isn't much better.

amiable

I think the problem with developing White hart lane is the lack of an underground station nearby. Seven sisters is a good walk. Spurs afaik want the transport links improved in the area otherwise i think they'd have started to develope their own stadium or a new one practically on the site already. I'm open to correction on this. Its a few years since i've been to Spurs

fkiely

THFC wrote: »

West Ham please God...

We're hoping you boys get it to be honest...

fkiely

amiable wrote: »

I think the problem with developing White hart lane is the lack of an underground station nearby. Seven sisters is a good walk.

Always loved that walk as an away fan though, nice bit of 'banter'.

amiable

fkiely wrote: »

Always loved that walk as an away fan though, nice bit of 'banter'.

The walk was fine imo too. But i think they wouldn't like 65000 people doing the walk after games

fkiely

amiable wrote: »

The walk was fine imo too. But i think they wouldn't like 65000 people doing the walk after games

Very true, the police can barely handle it as it is. Whilst I'd prefer if Tottenham got the stadium, it'd be a bit of shame as it's one of my favourite away days in the league.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

fkiely wrote: »

We're hoping you boys get it to be honest...

lol
Ye boys look to be in pole position though what with offering to keep the running track and all.;)
There is plenty of info on this over in the Spurs Supporters Club for any interested.

fkiely

THFC wrote: »

lol
Ye boys look to be in pole position though what with offering to keep the running track and all.;)
There is plenty of info on this over in the Spurs Supporters Club for any interested.

I'd say we'll get it in the end to be honest as we're probably the most viable option. Hate the idea of the running track to be honest and would much prefer to stay where we are. It seems you're only in it to annoy us and use it as leverage to getting what you want with the county council and planners.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

I think I can speak for all Spurs fans when I say I sincerely hope that's the case.

PHB

Tracks ruin football stadiums imo.

everdead.ie

No running track if we did get it but it would probably be 2015 before we could move from WHL

Tottenham Hotspur has confirmed it will demolish most of the Olympic Stadium if it wins 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 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 Tottenham 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."
Public money 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.

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

Leiva

Decision will be made Jan 28th

cson

everdead.ie wrote: »

There is to be a debate in parlamrnt today over this as us leaving Tottenham would be devastating for the area hopefully Goverment funds are made available and we can build our own stadium.

Pay for it yourselves tbh. It'd be complete bollocks if Spurs got a grant when just down the road Arsenal not only paid for the Emirates themselves but spent a fortune redeveloping the surrounding area.

everdead.ie

cson wrote: »

Pay for it yourselves tbh. It'd be complete bollocks if Spurs got a grant when just down the road Arsenal not only paid for the Emirates themselves but spent a fortune redeveloping the surrounding area.

The issue is that we are willing to pay for the entire project but tfl want us to pay for upgrades to the current infrastructure while also adding £50m to the price of the project by making us retain and renovate several Victorian houses beside the proposed new Stadium overall increasing the project by £55-60m

Also remembered they made us reduce the number of houses we could build on the site by 300

theoneeyedman

everdead.ie wrote: »

The issue is that we are willing to pay for the entire project but tfl want us to pay for upgrades to the current infrastructure while also adding £50m to the price of the project by making us retain and renovate several Victorian houses beside the proposed new Stadium overall increasing the project by £55-60m

Also remembered they made us reduce the number of houses we could build on the site by 300

not a spurs fan but my freind is a season ticket holder there and echo's your opinion. he reckoned spurs have made a lot of plans for WHL but every time they do the local council puts up more barriers and conditions in the way to get more £££. his opinion is that spurs are about the only people willing to invest in ths tottenham area and that it has become really run down over recent years, and that the move to wembly is a threat come bargaining chip in the negociations! he also said like someone posted earlier that without the money btought in by spurs to the area that there is fcuk all there and it would be a disaster for the area if they were pushed out of the area

parker kent

Spurs would be crazy to move there. A new stadium would virtually have to built so it is not as if there is a Premiership ready ground to move into. It is lacking an awful lot of basic facilities needed at a Premiership ground apart from the obvious issues such as the running track etc. Then add in the obvious issues of moving to a totally different area.

everdead.ie

I'm really hoping now we have mentioned we plan to knock down their 500m stadium they wont give it to us.

everdead.ie

I really am getting worried aabout this West Hams owners seem intent on causing as much disruption to West Ham as possible and I don't think they will give it to them if they look likely to go down because then there would be no way they would get 60,000 in the doors

Le King

everdead.ie wrote: »

The issue is that we are willing to pay for the entire project but tfl want us to pay for upgrades to the current infrastructure while also adding £50m to the price of the project by making us retain and renovate several Victorian houses beside the proposed new Stadium overall increasing the project by £55-60m

Also remembered they made us reduce the number of houses we could build on the site by 300

The council are making your lot pay for loads of renovations even to the Tube if you build a new stadium.

It's estimated that building in Tottenham would cost an extra £200M with all the stuff the council are saying Spurs would have to pay for. I don't think Levy wants Spurs move out of Tottenham, I think he's playing hard ball with the council. But now there is talk of Spurs being sued and removed of the name Tottenham if they move out of Tottenham.

They could be Stratford Hotspurs playing at Marshgate Lane :P

West Ham will get the stadium though I'd say.

everdead.ie

Le King wrote: »

The council are making your lot pay for loads of renovations even to the Tube if you build a new stadium.

It's estimated that building in Tottenham would cost an extra £200M with all the stuff the council are saying Spurs would have to pay for. I don't think Levy wants Spurs move out of Tottenham, I think he's playing hard ball with the council. But now there is talk of Spurs being sued and removed of the name Tottenham if they move out of Tottenham.

They could be Stratford Hotspurs playing at Marshgate Lane :P

West Ham will get the stadium though I'd say.

Ya the council have put the onus on us to regenerate the entire area we are even redoing some of the old Victorian houses.
I don't think West Ham could fill the stadium either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKCm5uWwtaQ

amiable

Are you double jobbing? Where do you find the time?

everdead.ie

Alan Sugar just gave interview to BBC radio 5 they say will be broadcast about 7pm on Spurs bid
He seems to be pro the move as a business man I'm not surprised though

Mr. Guappa

The IAAF are kicking up a stink about the prospect of the track being removed, good news for Spurs fans:

The head of world athletics says London will have told a "big lie" to get the 2012 Olympics if the Olympic stadium is converted into a football ground. West Ham and Tottenham both want to move to the venue after 2012 but under Spurs' plans the track will go.
"They'll have made a big lie during their presentation," International Athletics Association Federation chief Lamine Diack told BBC Sport.
"There will be no credibility... of a great country like Britain."

And Diack, a member of the International Olympic Committee, suggested that if the athletics track was scrapped Britain's chances of hosting future events would be severely compromised.
"[There would be] no way to comeback as far as my generation is concerned," he stated.
"You can consider you are dead. You are finished.



"This nation has a number of heroes in athletics. I could spend an hour, listing one by one all those who've achieved fantastic things in athletics. They are still there, involved. And this country, this city saying that I'm not able to have a stadium of athletics?"
Tottenham and West Ham will make their final submissions to the the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) on Friday.
The OPLC, which can ask either club to provide more details of their proposals, has a board meeting on Friday, 28 January when it is expected to decide on its preferred bidder.
Its recommendation then has to be ratified by two government departments - the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Department of Communities and Local Government - and the London Mayor's office, with a decision expected by the end of March.
West Ham have pledged to retain the running track while Spurs intend to rebuild the stadium without the track.
In an effort to counteract any charge that the Stratford venue would lack the intimacy of football grounds that do not have running tracks, West Ham stated: "There are seats at Wembley stadium (regarded as having great views from every vantage point) which are further away from the pitch than any seat in our proposed stadium."
Labour's former Olympic minister Tessa Jowell has suggested that having a football club as the main tenant of the stadium would not be ideal, though her desire to see the track retained has seen her favour the West Ham bid.
"Newham Council, together with West Ham, commits to keep the athletics track, commits to external community involvement and is apparently commercially viable with partners Essex County Cricket Club and [entertainment provider] Live Nation," she said.
"Therefore, they meet the five tests that we applied for the legacy use of the stadium, to the commitments we made in the bid book and the heavy commitment to community engagement."
When asked how it would reflect on the bid, and Britain as a whole, if the athletics legacy was not kept at the stadium, Jowell simply said: "Badly.
"I had to pull Britain out of hosting the athletics World Championships in 2005 because we didn't have a suitable stadium and we couldn't afford to build a stadium in time.
"When we set about bidding for the Olympics, at the very heart of that was putting that right and making amends by saying part of our legacy will be a world-class stadium that can host world-class athletics events.
"When we made that commitment in the bid book they were carefully considered commitments that were in the interests of sport in this country.
"They were also persuasive in winning the bid for London 2012 so they can't be taken or set aside lightly."

West Ham's proposal of retaining the running track but reducing the capacity of the stadium from 80,000 to 60,000, which had looked a more legacy-friendly option, came in for heavy criticism on Wednesday.
Both Simon Clegg, the former British Olympic Association chief executive, and Michael Cunnah, Wembley Stadium's former chief executive, believe football and athletics cannot both be held successfully in the same stadium.
"It is quite obvious that the only viable model for the stadium is to have a football club as an anchor tenant, but football fans in this country want to be as close to the action as possible," said Clegg.
"I articulated this to Sebastian Coe a couple of years ago but the issue has become even more acute for me since I have been involved in a club.

"The entire bid was based on the principle of sustainable legacy and not creating white elephants and only 17 months out from the Games we have still not resolved the thorny issue of future of the stadium.
"It's madness to suggest we should keep a track just on the basis we may get an athletics world championships or European championships say once every 15 -20 years."
However, while he prefers Tottenham's bid, Clegg believes that rather than offering to redevelop the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace, Spurs should be focused on providing a sustainable athletics legacy in east London.
A group of former British Olympians, including double gold medallists Dame Kelly Holmes and Daley Thompson, are against the north London club's proposal to get rid of the track, writing in an open letter: "We urge the decision makers to ensure the track remains post 2012."
UK Athletics head coach Charles van Commenee also warned: "If London doesn't have a stadium where we can organise major championships in athletics, that puts you in a category in Europe that I can't even think of."

Link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympic_games/london_2012/9367733.stm

everdead.ie

Thought this was intresting

Madness to keep the track in my opinion don't see why they can't put in a retractable/removable seating that could go over the track because 45 meters is really far.

everdead.ie

Pele has written to the olympic stadium committe throwing his weight behind the spurs bid

amiable

Same man supports Viagra too:D

everdead.ie

Dear Supporter
I write to update you on the Club’s stadium plans. I am conscious that there has been an exceptional amount of coverage on this subject over the past couple of weeks. We submitted our final bid for the Olympic Stadium site at noon today and I should, therefore, like to outline our proposals and to update you on the position of the Northumberland Development Scheme (NDP).
Our proposals for the Olympic Stadium site include an iconic 60,000 seater stadium, the construction of which is fully financially guaranteed. It is designed along the lines of that which we incorporated in our planning application for the NDP, with a single tier end and seats close to the action on the pitch. It would rank amongst the finest in the world and deliver one of the best fan experiences anywhere in Europe. It would also host major concerts and other sporting and cultural events to be delivered as part of a year-round programme by our partner in the bid, AEG, the operators of The O2.
The proposals include the re-use of the existing infrastructure in order to maximize the benefit of the public investment to date. Surrounded by an exceptional public realm which would host community-focussed events and activities, the stadium would benefit from the best public transport and access for any stadium in Britain and our plans also include a major tourist attraction based around extreme sports and incorporating specialist sports retailing, restaurants, cafes and bars.
We proposed a comprehensive athletics legacy which included facilitating a permanent 25,000-seat athletics venue at Crystal Palace, with the ability to convert to 40,000 for a World Championship, along with support for grassroots athletics.
The easiest option for us would undoubtedly have been to bid for the Olympic Stadium site with a retained athletics track. But it would have been the wrong option. The front row seats in the Olympic Stadium with a retained athletics track will be up to 45m from the pitch; in our stadium design they would be 8m from the action.
Football and athletics cannot co-exist successfully in the same stadium. There are examples all over the world of where clubs have removed tracks or moved stadiums simply because of the poor spectator experience and the lack of sustainability in the long-term due to decreasing attendances. We never considered for one moment placing our fans in such a stadium environment.
The decision now rests with the Olympic Park Legacy Company as to who they will select as their preferred bidder, with whom they would then enter into detailed negotiations in order to reach a final agreement. This is scheduled to be announced following an OPLC Board meeting on 28 January 2011. As I have stated previously, should we be selected as the preferred bidder, we shall engage with and fully consult our supporters.
In respect of the NDP, the S106, the planning agreement required before full planning consent can be issued, has been signed by ourselves, Haringey Council and Transport for London and is in the process of being signed by the relevant financial institutions.
That said, I must once again repeat the concerns we have about the viability and deliverability of the NDP. The cost of consent has been high. This is not attributable to any one stakeholder, but is rather the result of the cumulative nature of the various obligations. We have worked well in partnership with Haringey Council and I should like to thank them for their support in reaching this stage in the process.
No progress has been made with the remaining land owners and this is a potentially costly issue. As such, we have yet to conclude the site assembly. Compulsory Purchase Orders are of course one route to resolving this, but that process is uncertain and can take years to conclude.
So, in some ways much has happened and in others, we are still determining new stadium plans.
Our guiding principles remain the same – we are committed to taking this Club to the next level and an increased capacity stadium is central to that intention; and we have to seek a stadium solution which does not undermine the financial stability of the Club or its ability to continue to invest in the First Team.
If you look at the stadium capacities of the top 20 clubs in Europe, they all exceed ours. The new Financial Fair Play rules will mean that we shall only be able to outlay income generated through the activities of the Club – increased match day revenues play a major role in a club’s finances and we need to ensure that we are in a position to thrive and to continue to compete at the highest level.
Perhaps more importantly, we now have over 35,000 fans on the paid for waiting list for season tickets. It is an astonishing figure and a real reminder of the strength of support for this Club and the hunger there is to come and see the team playing some of the most attractive and exciting football in the Premier League and in European competition.
I am ever conscious of the feelings of our fans - on all fronts. I have never made any secret of the fact that I am ambitious on behalf of this Club and our fans. You could say that the one choice we do have , is the choice between standing still or moving forward. I know what my choice is and, judging from the emails we receive at the Club, you join me in wanting to see our Club progress. A new stadium is critical to our continued success. I shall keep you updated and thank you for all your support.
In the meantime we have a season to be getting on with and some fantastic football to enjoy.
Yours, Daniel

Open Letter to fans.

Playboy

I'd prefer to move to Stratford as it stands. If we demolish the OS we will be building the same stadium that we were going to build at WHL which looks to be an amazing stadium. If we win the bid we will basically be in profit with government grants, naming rights and sponsorship, AEG partnerships, selling WHL and surrounding land, and world class transport links already in place. When crossrail is built there will be a direct connection to mainland europe by train into Stratford.

If we stay at WHL it will put enourmous strain on our finances and we would struggle to compete in the transfer market over the next few years. To be honest its only down the road from Tottenham. Traditionally Stratford is a West Ham area but to be honest Tottenham is a sh*thole and a real pain to get to .. I'm not a londoner born and bred so I'm not so tribal that I would prefer to stay in a dump at the risk of our competitiveness. Arsenal arent from Arsenal originally .. they are from Woolwich in South London .. Chelsea arent in Chelsea either .. I dont see the big deal.

theoneeyedman

amiable wrote: »

Same man supports Viagra too:D

or visa-versa.....

Kold

No to Stratford Hotspurs.

_blank_

Playboy wrote: »

Arsenal arent from Arsenal originally

there is no area of London called "Arsenal" :rolleyes:

Their old Stadium was in Highbury, but they moved there from South London early in the 20th Century.

The club is called Arsenal because it was originally set up by workers from the Royal Arsenal where they made guns and other arms for the army, hence The Gunners and the Canon on their crest

Het-Field

Stay out of East London you Saggy Chopped, tapping up, wheeling dealing w****r ! Limehouse, or no Limehouse !

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Des wrote: »

there is no area of London called "Arsenal" :rolleyes:

Their old Stadium was in Highbury, but they moved there from South London early in the 20th Century.

The club is called Arsenal because it was originally set up by workers from the Royal Arsenal where they made guns and other arms for the army, hence The Gunners and the Canon on their crest

Yes because that was most important part of his post...:rolleyes:

Fairly obvious by what he meant tbh...
:rolleyes:

therecklessone

parker kent wrote: »

Spurs would be crazy to move there. A new stadium would virtually have to built so it is not as if there is a Premiership ready ground to move into. It is lacking an awful lot of basic facilities needed at a Premiership ground apart from the obvious issues such as the running track etc. Then add in the obvious issues of moving to a totally different area.

Their plan is to demolish the OS and rebuild a 60k capacity stadium. Most of the cost of building in North London is site-specific, so there are huge savings to be made by moving to Stratford (no historic buildings to preserve, easy access for construction, no need to buy up remaining land as in North London)

In addition Stratford solves the problem of transport into/out of the stadium on match days.

I will be relinquishing my Season Ticket if we move there though, I am totally opposed to the move.

Des wrote: »

there is no area of London called "Arsenal" :rolleyes:

But there is one called Woolwich where the Royal Arsenal was situated, and Arsenal dropped the Woolwich from their name after their move north of the river. They even managed to get Gillespie Road tube station renamed Arsenal the cheeky fúckers.

amiable

i'm pretty certain Chelsea are in Chelsea too.
it's on the Fulham road in Chelsea

parker kent

therecklessone wrote: »

Their plan is to demolish the OS and rebuild a 60k capacity stadium. Most of the cost of building in North London is site-specific, so there are huge savings to be made by moving to Stratford (no historic buildings to preserve, easy access for construction, no need to buy up remaining land as in North London)

In addition Stratford solves the problem of transport into/out of the stadium on match days.

I will be relinquishing my Season Ticket if we move there though, I am totally opposed to the move.

I know those points are what my post was about. I didn't think I needed to list everything!

everdead.ie

everdead.ie wrote: »

Thought this was intresting

Madness to keep the track in my opinion don't see why they can't put in a retractable/removable seating that could go over the track because 45 meters is really far.

+1

To be honest i find this 'legacy' talk a load of bull. The world is in recession and these bunch of airheads expect a football club to keep a running track for merely nostalgic purposes. they should be glad to get occupants and not have it lying there idol like a big white elephant waste.

However i also think it would be a bad move for Tottenham. The vast majority of the demographics of their local fans are a far far cry from the streets of Stratford (Not suggesting people from Stratford don't support Tottenham now but i'm not so sure the Die Hard's from Haringey would fancy commuting to a very different part of London to watch their beloved team).

Also personally, I think West Ham and Stratford are of Newham and should get the stadium.

Seaneh

amiable wrote: »

i'm pretty certain Chelsea are in Chelsea too.
it's on the Fulham road in Chelsea

Isn't the bridge on kings road, in fulham? Which is why when Chelski play fulham the fulham fans always sing 'you're just a **** club in fulham...'

amiable

Seaneh wrote: »

Isn't the bridge on kings road, in fulham? Which is why when Chelski play fulham the fulham fans always sing 'you're just a **** club in fulham...'

I think they say that cos their address is actually

Chelsea Football Club,
Stamford Bridge,
Fulham Road,
SW6 1HS
London

and because the nearest underground station is Fulham Broadway.
As i said before i'm pretty certain they are in Chelsea.
Fulham and Chelsea are beside each other in the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham hence people saying they are in Fulham too.
If that's the case QPR are in Fulham too because they are also in the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

Le King

Stamford Bridge is in Fulham Road, Fulham.

Loftus Road is in Hammersmith.

amiable

Le King wrote: »

Stamford Bridge is in Fulham Road, Fulham.

Loftus Road is in Hammersmith.

QPR's offices are on South Africa road.
Loftus road is not in Fulham. Its in Shepherds Bush which in turn is in the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.
I lived in Shepherds Bush and still have family there and stay there at least 10 times a year.
Stamford Bridge is in Chelsea on the Fulham road.
Why would a place be on the Fulham road but in Fulham?

http://www.chelseafc.com/page/ClubInfo/0,,10268,00.html

Chelsea Football Club
Stamford Bridge
Fulham Road
London
SW6 1HS

Taken from link above to Chelsea website