91Èȱ¬

Polls on subject matters like this are misleading.

There are a range of complex issues to consider, and unless you take an active interest in the site or the sports involved, then the answers given to the polls are almost inevitable, especially after misleading headlines that have surrounded the whole matter.

The biggest issue, and area where many will be mis or under-informed, is thematter of "The deomlition of a £500m stadium".

This implies the total watse of £500m, but this is wrong. Annoyingly its a statement that goes uncorrected, even in 91Èȱ¬'s reporting.

The original plan was to reduce the stadium to a 25000 seater stadium. It would have 1 tier, and would lack a roof for the majority of the structure. It would look NOTHING like the Olympic Stadium as most people recognise it. That was Plan A. So Plan A involved stripping the building down at the further cost of £35m (taxes).

The large bit of the stadium above ground, the most visible bit, is the least expensive. Anywhere from 10-20% of the total cost. Its the ground preparation, the foundations, the sub structure, the under croft structures, and the fitting of such, that cost the most. All these would stay in place, the same in Plan A as in the Spurs proposal. Items such as seats, steel work, lighting can all be re-used on this or other projects.

Most peoples understanding is that the Spurs bid = demolishing a structure that the tax payer spent £500m on. Not only is this not correct, it is also lacking appreciation of Plan A.....a plan that many like Lord Coe and countless athletic stars have conveniently forgotten about when making their opinions very public.

The fact is that UK Athletics, in their snobbery, scoffed at the prospect of a football club taking over come 2013 and built an unadaptable athletics only white elephant which they could not afford after the game. They cannot even make the reduced stadium a viable project. When they once dismissed football out of hand, they are now totallty reliant on a football club to piggy back on so they can have a home.

People who do not attend matches or have a big intetest in football will also fail to realise that in this country, the passion of the fans makes the game what it is. It creates an atmosphere that is the envy of the world and the reason why our game is so popular. Fans want and demand to be close to the action, when they are not, that atmosphere is diluted....Theatre lovers would not want the front row seats to be 30 or more metres from the stage, same at the cinema or music concerts. If you took Spurs out of the matter then 99% of West Ham fans would not want to move. Those who do (reportedly now 50/50) simply want it so Spurs don't get it.

Therefore asking the bloke on the street about it will produce some very predictable answers because unlike the minority, there is not as full appreciation of the history, facts and wider circumstances.

One final point, may of the structure are temporary. The polo pool (£25m), the Hockey stadium (£20m), the basket ball centre (£15m)....i am sure if you asked people " should £50m worth of facilities be deomlished after the Olympics?" you would get 7 or 8 out of 10 people saying NO to that as well!

not one question in the poll, as far as i can see, asked whether the respondents would be prepared to pay extra taxes in support of their answers. Any conclusions are therefore worthless!

This could only happen in Britain. We spend 500 million pounds of tax payers money do build a fantastic multi use arana, then demolish it as soon as the games are over. It would be totally wrong. Spurs should build their arena in their own area and leave the tax payers arena alone.

I always thought the 91Èȱ¬ was impartial but in matters of the Olympic Stadium future it appears not to be so.
I live in Brighton and follow neither Spurs or West Ham. Following this current news event, I have become suspicious that the 91Èȱ¬ are not reporting both sides of this very complex story evenly compared to reading it from other sources. This story now pushes things too far.
Firstly it says that " Tottenham Hotspur's plans to dismantle the £500m Olympic Stadium and build a football ground are not supported by most Londoners, a 91Èȱ¬ poll has found". 1001 adult Londoners were polled. If we take it that probably over £3 million adults live in London this is less than .001%. How can this be most Londoners?
As you know you can always get the answers you want from any poll depending on how you ask the questions. The way these questions have been presented is so biased that it makes you look at best foolish or have an agenda. If these questions were asked in the order as shown, the only answer people could give would have to be consistent to what they have said in the questions before even if they do not agree with it.
If this question "Stadiums should not be used for both athletics and football, as an athletics track would make football less enjoyable: 28% agree, 59% disagree " had been asked first and in a different context I suspect you would have had very different results.
Here are some questions that you could have asked:

Would you be happy for your taxes to pay for an athletics stadium if it could not pay for itself?

Is it right for one of the poorest Councils in England to lend £40million to a commercial football club to fund its ambitions?

Would it be acceptable to fully refurbish Crystal Palace to a much better athletic legacy than was promised if the Olympic Stadium was converted to a football only stadium but it guaranteed a return for the taxpayer?

Why didn't you ask those questions? Simply because they are just as biased as the ones you have asked.

The OPLC has already made it clear that they are going to make a decision based on the five main criteria that they working to and will not be swayed by anybody with obvious political or commercial interest.
This raises the very interesting question as to where your interest lies and why?
I would be interested to know others opinions of your coverage?

How about they stop ignoring the fact that Leyton Orient are less than a mile down the road and the fact that the FA's own rules take into account any move will certainly adversely affect them as a club.

Well said Hankiesjh !One question the poll failed to ask is "Are you,the rate payers of London,prepared to continue to pay to support the upkeep of the stadium in order to keep the legacy"
If the answer is yes then the West Ham bid must win,but we must also think of the rate payers of Newham who could be left with looking for another partner if West Ham fold.
Gold & Sullivan own 50% of a club that is £100 million in debt,the other 50% is owned by the Icelantic Banks,why is a poor London borough,which is having to make cuts allowed to borrow £40 million to a club in such poor financial state.

@ 3 , ALAN VINEY

Read my post (no.1).

Spurs are not demolishing the entire stadium (£500m). The majority of the structures and the most expensive parts (at least 80%) will remain under the THFC bid or the original plan (reduce to 25000 seater)

Devonshirespur

You completely miss the point concerning demolition of the stadium. Sure, the visible bit might account for just 20% of the cost, BUT NO ONE CARES about the invisible 80% that remains in place underground. Its what emerges above ground that counts and for a football team from North London to disenfranchise a sports loving public in the East End of London, depriving it of a facility it could be proud of for future generations is simply unacceptable. One thing I can guarantee you is that Spurs will be no ones second favourite London football team if they succeed in this disgraceful venture!

SleepingPoundMan, if you are going quote facts at least get them right Gold & Sullivan now own 60%, others 3% and the Iclandic banks the balance. The club's debt has been reduced from £110 million at Jan 2010 to just over £80 million now with a target of debt free set for 2014. The loan from Newham is not council money it will come as I understand it from central government monies raised by the issue of government bonds. Gold & Sullivan have also offered personal surities to cover any shortfall in income.

Hankiesjh, the survey was carried out by an independent company using accepted sampling methods to get the views of a cross section of Londoners. As to your points about ongoing costs see above. On the point of the criteria if you actually read the criteria the Spurs bid no matter how financial viable doesn't actually meet any of the criteria because they all based on the premise of reusing the Olympic Stadium not building a new stadium over it's grave. In fact number 4 suggests totally the opposite "To ensure that the stadium remains a distinctive physical symbol", number 1 mentions "a long term solution for the Olympic Stadium", no 3 says "reopen the stadium as soon as possible".

Actually devonshirespur, none of the polls have ever shown 99% of West Ham fans against the biggest negative polls were in the low 70% and the polls have swung from initially in favour to against and gradually to back in favour and its 56% in favour on the latest polls. I notice that you make no mention of the fact that the majority of Spurs fans are against the move or the fact more than 3 times as many Spurs fans have signed a petition against the move as West Ham fans.

peejkerton, the powers feel that asking a few fans and sitting in a room having a chat, gave them enough information to decided that whichever club move there it will have no effect on Orient or West Ham, personal; I feel the decision could be open to legal challenge on the grounds that the process leading to the decision was flawed.

Have you seen the questions in that survey? They were clearly devised by someone with an axe to grind in favour of West Ham/Athletics - I don't think Karren Brady or Sebastian Coe could have done better!

Clearly, if you go up to someone in the street, who hasn't been following the story, and ask them "what do you think of building something for £500m and then knocking it down" they are only going to say one thing.

But the very questions are loaded with assumptions, eg that the stadium was built to last; that because we've decided to blow £500m on it that it is now worth £500m to the taxpayer; or that athletics in a football stadium is a viable proposition. Anyone who knows anything about finance or sport, or who has followed the story properly, knows these things are simply not true.

There wasn't a single question about viability or value for money - which is what this is all about. The OPLC wouldn't be going cap in hand to a football club in the first place if the original plan (to keep a 25,000 athletics stadium) was viable or affordable.

@ 8.

Not missing the point. UK Athletics Plan A was to reduce it a a 25000 seater stadium....have a look at the images and tell me whether that represents a symbol of the Olympics 2012 or whether it looks like an empty basic build bowl with no discernable reference to the Olympics... /blogs/davidbond/2011/01/original_stadium_plan_not_an_o.html

UK Athletics cannot even make this horrible solution viable.

They are totally reliant on football, and are effectively selling their soul, an option they totally dismissed in 2005.

@9. Again look at the picture/link above. How can their Plan A, a 25k seater stadium, be defined as either "a distinctive physical symbol", or "a long term solution for the Olympic Stadium".

That was their plan. Their plan doesn't work, anything different from that is effectively a broken promise or a U Turn. There is no moral high ground here for UK Athletics. They have their begging bowl out, they want to piggy back on the investment of a football club and get a new home for free and they want the best outcome for them....They want it all and have nothing to give, they want to have their cake and eat it!

Hi Mogwyth,

In regards to the survey I have no complaint that they used a reputable outside company to carry the poll using accepted sampling methods. My objection as raised is the wording and order of questions. If these were used in the courtroom after about three questions the judge would intervene to tell council that he was leading the witness and to find a more appropriate line of questioning. A good look in any basic selling technique book will show you this as ways to move the sales process onto usually your favoured conclusion. He/She who asks the questions dominates the debate.
As far as I can see looking at the OPLC website the five criteria do not mention that it has to be the existing stadium structure above the ground and is not explictly mentioned? Indeed most of what is above ground as I understand it is a temporary structure and will not be retained after the games thus the symbolic meaning of the stadium seems to a moveable feast.
If Tottenham Hotspur did not meet any of the criteria there would be no tender process and everybody could save a great deal of time and money in the short term.

Well I am not sure why The 91Èȱ¬ would want to load the poll in favour of West Ham.

As for the Criteria at some point they have been changed, no 1 used to say: "To achieve a viable long-term solution for the Olympic Stadium that is deliverable and provides value for money". But that aside it still implies the existing structure by saying "the stadium" not "a stadium" the use of the implies a particular one not any one, taking it further "re-open the stadium" you can only re-open something that closed, it also says "To ensure that the Stadium remains a distinctive physical symbol" it can only "remain" it it already existed. I believe the Spurs bid is there as a fall-back if the west Ham business plan doesn't stack up to be honest as there is no way LA or government is going to subsidies it as a 25,000 seat running track.

As for the upper structure, it is not really temporary as in only suitable for short term use, it is dis-mountable and the plan was to use it elsewhere, the West Ham bid is to retain the basic structure as is with an extended roof.
Artist impression here:

I don't really care who gets the stadium, (happy for spurs to stay near WHL but also happy for the improved links and cost effective option the Olympic Stadium would bring) and I am not a London ratepayer so after 2012 I will not have to pay for the upkeep. However I do object to misleading statements such as 'most Londoners don't want the stadium demolished' when less than 1000 out of 3million or so Londoners have made that statement or 'most spurs fans don't want to move' when an equally small number have signed a petition and I can tell you from the blogs (on 606 91Èȱ¬ so take a look)the support is very divided on a move. I am also not sure that this Olympics is being paid for by Londoners' Didn't all of our taxes help pay for it

But worst of all this 'we don't want it demolished so West Ham' should keep it'. Well they are not keeping 80000 seats so I'm afraid part of it is going whoever is 'successful' and I don't think it will be the lower 20000 seats they are losing.

Maybe one day the 91Èȱ¬ will get the people who made the decision to build it in the first place to justify why they wasted so much money instead of trying to make Spurs the fall guys for trying to offer a stadium purpose built for football, and a custom athletics stadium out of their white elephant.

I believe the five stated criteria being used by the OPLC to assess the rival bids are/were:

• To achieve a viable long-term solution for the Olympic Stadium that is deliverable and provides value for money.

• To secure a partner with the capability to deliver and operate a legacy solution for a venue of the stadium's size and complexity Both claim to be that partner

• To re-open the stadium for operational use as rapidly as possible following the 2012 Games

• To ensure that the stadium remains a distinctive physical symbol supporting the economic, physical and social regeneration of the surrounding area

• To allow flexible usage of the stadium, accommodating a vibrant programme of events allowing year‑round access for schools, the local community, the wider public and elite sport.

Assuming that the first criteria has remained to include "Olympic Stadium", then the rest of the references of "stadiumn" relate to that.

Under Spurs plan the Olympic Stadium simply wouldn't be there & would be THFC football ground.

Well being a London rate payer, tax payer , lottery player & actually living quite local to the area I find the Spurs plan totally abhorrent.

Totally unacceptable on several levels , let alone the likihood of all the fallout actually still being a main focus of the Olympics when it's taking place.

The irony is that the OPLC itself situated in West Ham Lane & West Ham Town Hall is about 200 yards from the stadium. Tottenham Hotspur in Straford, East London - in the old Borough of West Ham would simply be another farce.

I_was_there_when, they don't pick a 1,000 people at random, they use properly sampling techniques so if 49% of the population is male, 49% of the sample will be male, if 10% are social group B then that's how they are represented in the sample, using this method gives you a good indication of the opinion of the public at large within a given confidence range usually something +/- 5%. BTW you are missing about 5 million Londoners.

I wouldn't call the 7,000 spurs fans who have signed the petition as a small number, it's 3.5 times the number that have signed the West Ham one.

London council taxpayers paid a surcharge on their council tax to help pay for the Olympics.

And West Ham are not changing the basic structure of the stadium they are removing 20,000 seats, to install corporate boxes and space the remaining seats out.

You are quite right that the idiots who dismissed both spurs original approach and West Ham's back when the stadium could have been made into a truly multi-purpose stadium like the Stade de France need holding to account.

201259, they appear to have dropped "Olympic" from the first line, but I personally do not believe that it changes the implication of the criteria, that they are talking about the stadium that is on site at present.

I have cut and pasted the exact wording from the OPLC website below:

* To achieve a viable long-term solution for the Stadium that is deliverable and provides value for money
* To secure a partner with the capability to deliver and operate a legacy solution for a venue of the Stadium’s size and complexity
* To re-open the Stadium for operational use as rapidly as possible following the London 2012 Games
* To ensure that the Stadium remains a distinctive physical symbol supporting the economic, physical and social regeneration of the surrounding area
* To allow flexible usage of the Stadium, accommodating a vibrant programme of events, allowing year round access for schools, the local community, the wider public and elite sport.

Nowhere in any of these five criteria does it mention the existing Olympic stadium structure.

Mr Warner, Perhaps you would like to expand on how the questions were formulated for your scientific poll?
Who formulated the questions?
How were they formulated?
Who externally vetted the questions?
Were any changes made to the questions after any external vetting?
If this was a scientifically formulated poll please could let us know what other controls were put in place?

I like everybody else in this country am a compulsory tax payer to fund the 91Èȱ¬. I like to get my news from the 91Èȱ¬ because you are impartial? I would like you to report things accurately reflecting the whole story so that I can make my own opinion based on the facts. This story I'm afraid seems to be trying to lead opinion, something I guess working for an impartial organisation, you should not be doing?

Hankiesjh, they did originally, but even so I would argue they still imply an existing structure rather than the site or a new structure. If it doesn't imply the existing structure how can you "re-open" it and how can it "remain" a distinctive physical symbol. Even the word "the" is implicit, if you sent your friend to get your car you would say get "the" car because it's a particular one you want, your car. I would suggest the correct wording should have been "Stadium Site".

"they appear to have dropped "Olympic" from the first line, but I personally do not believe that it changes the implication of the criteria, that they are talking about the stadium that is on site at present."


Mogyth, it appears so, but I totally agree that undoubtedly the implication remains the same & is in the context of the stadium presently on site.

If they referred to "a stadium " then that would be different.

Does anyone know if Tottenham's proposals to upgrade Crystal Palace also extend to rebuilding the local station and buying up & knocking down the local houses in order to build an appropriate new road network and general transport system?

Anyone that's been there knows what a nightmare it is to get to.

If they have factored that in, it might be seriously be worthwile for Tottentahm to move there & use that land for their own purpose bulit stadium.

Adrian I saw you on tv talking about West Hams plans to hold cricket matches at the OS,but knowone,including Mr Gooch ,has been able to explain how they intend to cover the running track with grass,becouse the track has to become part of the 'cricket pitch' if this is to happen,also what is the cost of adapting the track to allow cricket?

Mogwythe,so West ham are according to you £80+ million pound in debt,and a major share(37%)is owned by the Icelandic Banks,well thats put my mind at rest.There is a very good article on this site about the loan,and how the mayor is trying to push the agrrement through without giving councilors time to look at the documents before being asked to vote.It would appear if West Ham went into administration the Council would be liable for the debt,whoever makes the loan available to the council is not the point,its the fact that the council could be responsible for the debt if WEST HAM FOLD.

Adrian, you say that you and the 91Èȱ¬ are totally impartial in this, and I have to take you for your word, but how can you defend the questionnaire used for this survey?

The headline of your article is "ignore the taxpayer at your peril", so you have correctly identified that there is a "public money" issue here. This is far more important than the issue of keeping the athletics track at Stratford (if indeed the latter is a criterion for the OPLC in the first place, which is far from clear).

So where in the survey are the questions about funding and commercial viability? Please could you let us know - I have looked at the questions again and I really can't find them.

Anyone truly impartial would be disowning the survey, not standing beside it.

I believe there is a mechanism called Prudential Borrowing which can only be used for capital projects like this and it involves either the government selling bonds to raise the money or the Local Authority going to the money markets directly, the first method is the usual way as it's cheaper.

No doubt a public finance accountant would explain it better.

It is not public money, much in the same way RBS is not loaning people public money even though the public technically owns 90% of RBS.
Indeed, if you don't want to look at it that way then depending upon which bank/banks are loaning the money to THFC , possibly the far greater sum at risk would be being funded by a bank propped up & owned via public money. Thus, if THFC plan goes wrong then the public would possibly have lost out by an even a greater amount.

Newham council are not taking any money from the existing public purse for the proposal & by doing so will own 50% of the lease/freehold for 200 years. The only difference between loaning the money from Newham or RBS is that Newham will get charged cost interest say 3%, where if an individual/organisation goes for a loan to RBS then it would come at cost plus the RBS cut, so more than likely around 9%.
As to Newham council taking the risk with the loan, if something goes wrong then will Newham council/the tax payer be responsible?
That'll depend entirely on what’s written in to the contract, but wasn't there an article saying that the WHFC owners would be guarantor to the loan , thus removing any risk for the council ?
Presumably that's what Ford & the OPLC are looking in to & trying to tie down at present & hence the delay?

On the far wider point & highlighted previously, Tottenham have no history whatsoever in the area, simply no affinity to either it & or the local East End community situated there.
Even if their numbers stack up by every other conceivable angle their proposal is abhorrent be it legacy, dealing with local community,environmental etc.

Quite simply, if West Ham’s bid was anywhere near as strong as Spurs financially, the decision would have been made today and West Ham would have won.
Of the five criteria that the OPLC are working to, proper financing both capital and more importantly revenue are the foundations that support all the other OPLC criteria. Without proper financing they will all collapse.
There are a number of questions over West Ham financing in both capital and revenue, which I suspect are causing major worries for the OPLC. Firstly for the amount of capital debt West Ham will have to take on added to their existing £80 million debt to complete the project.
Secondly revenue streams to service the debt, the project and all it’s criteria. This will be particularly relevant if West Ham are relegated and they lose the revenue from premier league status. I know there are parachute payments but that may not be enough if they do not get promoted again in time. I think there is a real danger that West Ham could end up going into administration and that would be disastrous.
We are in the grip of one of the worst ever recessions and I hope good financial common sense prevails. Spurs get the stadium, the OPLC get a good return from the thirty thousand Spurs season ticket holders on the waiting list and take advantage of that money, athletics gets a decent stadium that it can use whenever it wants, West Ham stay at their spiritual home till happier times come round again and they improve Upton Park. Let us also remember Leyton Orient who will not have to worry about a team reducing ticket prices to fill a stadium.
On an emotive point, I lived in Germany in the 1980’s and London for some time. I watched games in Hamburg, Shalke 04 and Bayern Munich in their old stadiums with running tracks. I have also been to Upton Park many times. The atmosphere in Upton Park with a smaller crowd was ten times better than any of the old German grounds. Good luck to all the teams including Leyton Orient.

sleepingpoundman, the loan will be paid back out of the profits from all ventures at the Stadium, Messrs Gold & Sullivan are prepared to offer personal sureties to make up any shortfall in the loan payments. As for the debt issue it's irrelevant (although as I say the club is on target to be debt free in 3 years) it's paying the bills that counts and West Ham are expected to be one of the few PL clubs (along with Spurs and Arsenal) to make a profit this year, there is no reason under the club's current ownership to expect that to change.

201259 they call that plagiarism and you left out the bit about the offside rule LOL

I'm not sure what the fuss is about keeping such an architecturally unremarkable stadium intact. It's just metal terracing bolted onto a steel skeleton. There's nothing iconic or inspiring about it and there should be no anguish about taking it down after the games end.

The whole plan proposed under West Ham's bid requires a successful football team as the anchor tenant. It's not going to happen unless Londoners are seeking another stadium fiasco as we saw with Wembley. This whole debate about the unfeasability of such a stadium configuration has long been settled with many examples elsewhere.

Atlanta, with a baseball retrofit, and Sydney, tightening up their configuration for rugby and soccer, deliberately abandoned their Olympic athletics legacies and now have viable, well-used, profit-making stadiums.

On the other hand, Beijing's cavernous Birdnest Stadium is virtually unused and Panathinaikos, using Athens 70,000+ Olympic stadium, draws less than 20,000 crowds for football, while other Olympic venues sit empty and unused.

American and Canadian football teams have abandoned the Olympic stadiums in Los Angeles(twice) and Montreal, the latter, nicknamed The Big Owe, also seeing scant crowds attend major league baseball before the team moved to Florida.

There's simply no doubt football in a track and field environment is unsustainable, as we're seeing, or have seen in many cities. Of the top 50 clubs in attendance in Europe, only one has a stadium with an athletics track - the aptly-named Frankenstadion in Nuremberg, Germany, which is doing well when 30,000 fans show up in it's 50,000 capacity.
Roma and Lazio both have plans in the works to move from their groundshare at Stadio Olimpico into football-specific grounds. Juventus are abandoning Turin's Olympic stadium for a tight, 41,000 capacity football stadium. Espanyol struggled with low attendances at Barcelona's Olympic stadium before moving into their own football-only park.

Even when such stadiums are played in, the crowds are thin and absent of success on the pitch.

In Moscow, two clubs share the 78,000+ Luzhniki Olympic stadium -Spartak, who haven't won title in over a decade, average crowds of only 21,000, while Torpedo, forced to move after being bought by the stadium corporation, average 11,000. Dynamo temporarily groundshare with Lokomotiv, having abandoned their track-encircled stadium and await completion of their new football-specific stadium.

Bayern Munich's attendances have soared since leaving their former Olympic home for the sensational Allianz Arena. Stuttgart and Werder Bremen will complete conversion of their track circled stadiums this year into football only grounds.

In a cautionary tale for West Ham fans, Hertha Berlin players were so inspired playing to an often 2/3 empty Olympic stadium that they were relegated last year and are struggling with debt.

Ignore the real world at your peril. And at the taxpayer's very real expense.

Norfsider, a brilliant factual entry well researched. You’ve done the legwork which perhaps other journalists should have been doing. It proves what it seems most people according to this so called scientific poll do not want to hear, basically reality.
I suspect being typically British we will think that we can make something work when everybody else has tried and failed. Somebody once said “to keep doing the same things time and time again and expect a different outcome is one of the first signs of insanity.�

I see a lot of Spurs propaganda in the replies on here, makes you wonder what they're are worried about.

A lot of Spurs propaganda, eh? Been some good factual responses on here. Professionally, I'm more interested in stadiums than clubs. Wembley, of course, was already a massive fiasco for England and, sadly, it seems to have afflicted the national football team. This project is certainly shaping up to be controversial, regardless of the outcome. But does it need to be?

On the one hand, there's an emotional appeal from UK Atletics and West Ham and some lofty reputations on the line. But the business underpinnings have a lot of questions attached, with the likelihood of future dips into the public purse resting almost solely on the wobbly fortunes of a last-place football club facing relegation. Managed by a man who, last year, led Portsmouth to relegation. To say nothing of the optics of giving a landmark stadium site to two football club owners who made their fortunes marketing pornography.

On the other hand, you have a solid business proposal from Spurs and AEG that offers two stadiums tailor-made, and sensibly sized, for each sporting interest and a club likely to continue rising toward the top of the game, and increase its long-term profitability, as a result of the move. But it faces an emotional backlash from several sides: rival supporters from West Ham to be sure, but, more quietly, Arsenal, who would face a stronger competitor for crucial corporate support in the second half of this decade just as they hit renewal periods for shirt sponsor and stadium naming rights deals; from politicians using a hot-button debate to boost and burnish their own and their party images in advance of an impending civic election; and even a number of hardcore Spurs fans who want the club to remain in Tottenham, the club's historic, but squalid and crime-ridden, home. All of it fueled by a media happy to stoke the flames that draw readers, listeners, viewers and, best of all, comment makers like us.

There's even the consideration that Spurs' manoeuver ruffles feathers because it runs counter to the long-held English notion of remaining at one's station in life.

Having looked evenly at both clubs situations, I'd have to say the media slant has been strongly pro-West Ham, but there's been little critical analysis of that bid compared to Spurs' bid. While we've seen and heard plenty every time an anti-Spurs move protest takes place, we are failing to see very much on the results of polls done with West Ham fans who may well be quieter, but are equally worried and anxious about their club moving to the Olympic Stadium and floundering. Several West Ham fan websites have done this and the Hammers fans are quite negative about the move.

There's has been absolutely no mention made of actual, tangible benefits to greater London to follow in the wake of certain developments. If Spurs win, it means a great deal of new work to be performed dismantling the current stadium and building their new one. It also means a great deal of work dismantling the current National Sports Centre stadium, transporting the recycled Olympic seats and grandstand components and buiding a new 25,000-seat athletics stadium at Crystal Palace.

That work means jobs. Lots of them, probably well-paying, too.

It would also mean that Chelsea FC would be prompted into action to build a comparably sized stadium in order to maintain competitive balance with Arsenal and Spurs because UEFA's financial fair play rules kick in soon and that club can no longer rely on the largesse of owner Roman Abramovich to buy top players on a whim, running deep financial losses. They'll be banned from Champions League play if that happens.

That stadium project would mean even more jobs.

If West Ham get the stadium, there will be some work created by their re-fit, but it will be a smaller portion than what the Spurs bid would create, certainly only short-term work. There might be a new football stadium built by Crystal Palace FC, but this is a club that less than a year ago was days away from dying from deep debt.

Because of the 2006 World Cup, Germany built several new football stadiums that have met with great success. Other stadiums were or are in the process of being rebuilt or vigorously upgraded for football. The net effect is that fans have responded with increased attendances. You don't read about handwringing over needing the public purse to keep things afloat. They were in a strong competitive position before the World Cup and have used that event to springboard sensible stadium development to grow that strength. Their World Cup performance in South Africa is a harbinger of things to come.

London won't host World Cup games. Instead it got the Olympics. The choice here is about making the aftermath of that event launch equally positive developments. The key element to the whole equation is football. Nothing in either bid adds up if football doesn't work.

One bid offers a very solid business and competitive prospectus and the strong likelihood of giving both football and athletics solid, stable facilities to make progress from while creating a substantial number of skilled, high-paying jobs at the outset and many more sports and entertainment related jobs to follow.

The other stands almost entirely on the legs of a club deep in long-term debt, battling relegation, and facing even graver uncertainity because professional football will not work - as outlined in my previous post - in a stadium configuration that has proven to fail and is being abandoned across the length and breadth of Europe.

Because UK Athletics can't pay for any of this project, West Ham's imminent failure will plunge the entire enterprise into the care and keeping of stressed taxpayers already on the hook for sums already spent on the Olympics plus tens of millions more for this bid's crucial financing element. It could also leave UK Athletics without any tangible benefits in a few short years if the white elephant meets a humane end.

This isn't propaganda. This is simply common sense and thinking through the situation with regards to what best benefits the sporting interests involved and, especially, the working people of London.

And if that means bruising the egos and reputations of people who made unsustainable promises, maybe it will prompt some common sense and clearer thinking in advance of similar projects in future.

Mogwyth,you state that the loan from Newham Council will be paid back out of the profits from all ventures at the staduim.A major backer of the West Ham bid is Essex CCC,who have stated they intend to hold cricket matches at the stadium,but have failed to say how they intend to cover the running track in order for the game to comply with cricket ground regulations.Also the club have a capacity of just 6500,but fail to fill the Chelmsford ground on a regular basis,so where is the profit from cricket?And how much to adopt the ground to accomadate the sport ?

Not Spurs propaganda you're having a laugh.

Spurs have had one season in the Champions League, a year from now their manager could be inside and it could be them fighting relegation.

I don't want to burst any ones bubble but they're not one of the giants of European football. :)

As for saying it would be best for Londoners, no it wouldn't this whole bid is about what's best for Spurs and them not wanting to pay a couple of hundred million more to build at White Hart Lane.

There's been no thought towards the people of Haringey or those of East London or even any discussion with UK Athletics or the athletes themselves with regard to Spurs bid.

As for the paint job using TAX PAYERS MONEY at Crystal Palace as an athletics legacy it's pathetic and cheap.

Spin, spin spin I'm afraid and a constant attempt by Mike Lee and his cronies to rubbish a rival bid with falsehoods.

34. Becton 01
There are some good, well researched factual entries replying to this poll. They are not spin. Why are they falsehoods? Can you present your evidence about successful dual stadiums in recent times to counter these falsehoods?
You do a discredit to those people making these entries by calling them spin.
I am nothing to do with Spurs, West Ham, Leyton Orient or Athletics. I do not know Mike Lee or even what he looks like. I have made my own opinions by reading many articles across a wide spectrum including financial publications. This piece unfortunately has been one of the least balanced out of all the articles that I have read which prompted my response. If it came from one of the politically aligned publications I wouldn’t have cared less.
I agree with you about Spurs on the pitch however they are in the top 12 richest clubs in the world according to Forbes and have been up there for some time. West Ham do not now make the top 25 as far as I am aware? Sorry but this is a fact.
Fact - Spurs have 25,000 plus registered for season tickets (I am not one of them!) who cannot buy because their current ground is too small. This is a massive loss of income just not for Spurs but also the Olympic Park and London tax payers. This is wasted money.
The £35 million of TAX PAYERS MONEY as you put it will be spent as far as I am aware anyway if West Ham win the bid to help them with the conversion?
Also to be fair I think it’s perhaps a bit more than a paint job at Crystal Palace looking at the proposals.
Somebody once said “Sport and football in particular seems to think that it can operate in a vacuum where good financial business sense doesn’t need to apply.�
Lets take all of the high emotions out of this decision and for once make a good business decision which in the long term will be win/win for everybody concerned.

beckton; Good of you to point out Spurs only having one CL season, an exciting one by all accounts and still on-going at this point.

They've only won one trophy this century, in 2008, the relatively-insignificant-until-Arsenal-win League Cup, Spurs first trophy of any real insignificance since the Anglo-Italian League Cup of 1971. They haven't won the league since 1961 and have only recently emerged as a top-four contender in the last six years, after more than a decade of truly inept mismanagement by their owners.

Yet, as surveys such as that done two years ago by The Telegraph show, they continue to closely rival Arsenal as England's third-best supported club(behind ManU and Liverpool).

Despite the lack of relative success, they have routinely posted financial numbers to put them in the top 15 in Europe for well over a decade.

It's easy to think of them as a smaller club when one sees the size of 36k White Hart Lane, but a better reflection of their support comes when they play at Wembley. In their League Cup win in 2008 over Chelsea, their fans easily occupied two thirds of Wembley's 90,000 seats.

Not giants of Europe? Not on the record books, certainly, but despite their lack of success, they are unquestionably a well-run, profitable business - not that there's anything wrong with that - and remain one of the two best supported teams in Europe's biggest city.

What's best for Londoners? Not sticking them with an even greater tax burden, for a start. Every borough council is grappling with recent, serious budget cuts, threatening jobs or quality of services. And you think the way to go is by giving tens of millions in taxpayer handouts to a pair of mega-millionaire porn barons to run a dodgy football club in an unworkable stadium configuration.

As for the people of Haringey, how many Tottenham area residents have the funds to buy Spurs tickets? Most of Spurs support travels an average of 40km. Haringey council has chosen to bargain hard with Spurs over rebuilding at White Hart Lane and Spurs have responded by looking elsewhere. What other jobs or economic stimulation or urban renewal have council created for Haringey? Something to consider next election.

Appropriate to see you put 'pathetic' and 'athletics' in the same sentence. No one is bigger in world athletics today than Usain Bolt, the fastest man in the world. When he broke the world 100m record in Berlin's Olympic Stadium in 2009, there were about 33,000 people in the 78,000-capacity stadium that day. And that was a good day for that world championship meet. Nine days, fine weather, weak attendance. Look at average attendances for the past few European athletics championships. They can't fill 35-40k stadiums and would never fill Olympic stadium. Spurs offer is completely realistic for UK Athletics. They can't pay for anything and, even with the awarding of big events, have little hope of making the Stratford site do anything but leak more taxpayers money.

If the day finally comes - many years from now - that something bigger and grander is needed - and justified by demand - build and install the long, lost steel and concrete floor that Wembley Stadium was supposed to have that would allow major athletics events to be held with a 68,000 capacity. It certainly won't cost the price of a new stadium.

There's nothing perfect about Spurs bid. Hell, there's nothing perfect about Spurs. But their offer is leagues above what West Ham/UKA are offering because it will pay for itself. If it's appropriate to use the word 'spin' it should be part of the phrase 'spin-off benefits'.

It will create, or cause to be created, many construction industry jobs, it will create circumstances where London will have three clubs in large, profitable stadiums that will let them fairly compete annually for the league and European titles. More big games means more activity in the hotel and hospitality sector, including more jobs. More visitors means more user fees paid to ride public transport. And how do you put a value on the global image boost London receives whenever one of its clubs is hosting a crucial game in Champions League?

It will also create a modern, expandable athletics facility to give its competitors, and even young hopefuls, everyday access. They'll receive control of a fine facility to develop athletes and a stable foundation to grow their marketing and management skills from. And hopefully share the sporting spotlight with football someday.

Or you can take West Ham/UKA's offer to take taxpayer's money and gamble.

To me it's not rocket science. The 'legacy' buzz word was used countless times during the pitching process and was becoming a bit cringe-worthy, however, they managed to hammer home the importance of it.

I can only suspect that kids in the area have been looking forward to the prospect of holding their schools sports day in the Olympic Stadium ground (which I believe still stands in the West Ham bid). I can't imagine that it would go down well telling them that if Spurs take the ground over, kids over by Crystal Palace would benefit instead!!!

It's simply not fair and does not honor the legacy that was promised...

The best option for me is to let West Ham get it, and let the kids of Stratford and the surrounding area enjoy the benefits once the Olympics has gone!

School sports days can be held in all sorts of venues. That stadium might cost those kids, and generations afterward, more important things like libraries.

I'm not sure what's etiquette on here, so I'll refrain from pasting the whole article, but here's a link to an interesting article that digs into the details of what we're being told about athletics interest and participation in Britain.



However, the link to this article doesn't seem to work, so I've excerpted part of it. From the This is London website:

31 Jan 2011

A row has broken out between athletics bodies over the future of the Olympic Stadium.

The Association of British Athletics Clubs (ABAC) have claimed that retaining a running track at the stadium - as West Ham would do - will provide little useful legacy for the sport.

They are instead backing Tottenham's rival bid to rebuild the venue as a football-only ground and redevelop the Crystal Palace athletics stadium.

UK Athletics, however, are right behind West Ham's bid, saying London 2012's promise to the International Olympic Committee to maintain athletics at the stadium should be honoured.

John Bicourt, an ABAC officer who competed in the 3,000metres steeplechase for Britain at the 1972 and 1976 Olympics, said: "Saying that there would be a proper athletics legacy merely by keeping the track at the Olympic Stadium is a myth and a sham.

"The true reason for those touting the legacy myth is to save face over the wholly unrealistic promises made in Singapore by the Olympic bid team.

"West Ham, should they win the bid, would almost certainly demand the right to remove the track after a few years on the basis that the stadium is barely used for athletics enough to justify keeping it."

Bicourt said the ABAC viewed Spurs' bid as a "realistic alternative" in that it would see the home of British athletics at Crystal Palace rebuilt as a 25,000-seat arena with the possibility of increasing the seats to 40,000 if needed.

He added: "There is no point keeping a 60,000-seater stadium for athletics, and in Spurs we have a football club willing to pay for the privilege of knocking it down to build a proper football stadium and a proper athletics stadium."

Never heard of him or his organisation and I doubt anyone on here had heard of him before today.

I guess this was the best Mike Lee could come up with, "in Spurs we have football club willing to pay for the privelege of knocking it down"

You really couldn't make it up!

An Olympic Stadium we haven't even finished building yet, to be knocked down for the benefit of Spurs.

It's vandalism, shakes head in disbelief.


You'd have thought they could get a world renowned person to back the Spurs bid, someone with their finger on the pulse regards the legacy promise for East London, you know someone like Pele. :)

38 Norfsider
Actually this article was in both the Daily Telegraph and Guardian newpapers today. It seems that the Association of British Athletic Clubs (ABAC)are taking a completly opposite view to UK Athletics? I couldn't believe it so I went to the ABAC website to look for myself. Its on a PDF page. Link below.
Why is the 91Èȱ¬ is not to reporting this on their Olympics page?

As we the rate payers of London have helped pay for the stadium I think we have a right in how it is to be used after the games.Whatever way you look at it the only bid that is not a burden to ratepayers is the Spurs bid.The residents of Newham have had no say in the council making a £40 million loan to a club that is so much in debt.

I'm happy for kids to train and run at the OS,I'm happy for uk atheletics to insist on a legacy,I just don't want to be paying for the dreams of fools for years to come.

How did we come to this mess?

devonshirespur, you make some valid points. Most people seem engaged in this arguement seem to have long-since forgotten that when this stadium was first being conceived and designed, there was a blanket refusal to countenance any possibility of the stadium one day being taken over and inhabited by a football club, and therefore, no adaptability was designed in.

As a consequence of this arrogant, short-sightedness, and subsequent lazy and hurried approach to the design, we are left with a stadium that is unsuitable for football but which athletics cannot afford.

You are also right that most West Ham fans were against the move but have only chamged their minds after being faced with the prospect of Spurs moving into the area - myself included.

There is impending mess that will take years to resolve with legal challenges inevitable whichever way the OPLC decide.

If Spurs are allowed to move/remove the athletics legacy from the Olympic Stadium - presumably it would no longer be referred to as the "Olympic Stadium" - then there will be a raft of actions over the broken promises, however you want to spin the original wording of those promises.

West Ham are no doubt already preparing to take action against someone for being misled over the last couple of years by the OPLC over the necessity to retain the athletics track: if you look at very public statements from the OPLC and associated figures from two years ago, it was always made very clear that omitting the athletics track was not an option that would be considered, and hence the sudden late entertainment of Spurs' proposals would be seen by those at Upton Park as unfair to say the least.

West Ham could have better spent their time concocting a similar proposal to Tottenham's if there were not previously stark and clear warnings that such thinking wouldn't even get them onto the shortlist! It's comparable to England 2018 and Australia 2022 bid teams focusing all their efforts on proving that they could meet and exceed the technical criteria for hosting the World Cup only to find out that they were barking up the wrong tree!

And if West Ham get it, Orient will sue someone (the league, the OPLC) if a Premier League club are allowed to move in so close to their patch.

I personally am still holding out for the hope that any prospective deal collapses and that they revert to Plan A. Let the stadium rot for a few years, bankrupt UK athletics, and teach all involved a valuable lesson - as if the Millenium Dome hadn't taught us already. In 10 years time, the OPLC (or whoever the owners will be) will be begging West Ham or Orient to take the stadium outright for a few pounds, no strings - or running track - attached.

Copy of Submission to Olympic Park Legacy Company
=================================================


To: info@legacycompany.co.uk

Your Aims and Objectives

Greetings,

I have been looking at these on your website,



They do not seem to specifically recognise that the Olympic Park is
being built within an area that has been part of many generations of
human habitation, with all that is thus entailed for the community and
social development that already exists, which has grown incrementally
and been developed as the interests and concerns of residents and
employees and employers have changed.

For example, the site is part of a Victorian Railway Industry Centre - a
nearby pub is even called the Railway Tavern Hotel

Adjacent and overlapping the Olympic Park, at Eton Manor, where there
have long been sports fields and sports clubs, is Leyton, an area that
grew as London spread east with the railways. Part of Leyton since 1937
is Leyton Orient Football Club which has existed in east London
(previously in Hackney) since 1881. Leyton Orient is a comparatively
small London professional football club that has impacted on the lives
of hundreds of thousands and so has a lot of loyal followers, not that
all of them regularly spectate or are actively involved!

The Football Club itself has provided employment, and sporting and
leisure opportunity for many Londoners in rivalry with other Football
Clubs such as West Ham, Tottenham, Arsenal and others further away like
Barnet, Millwall and Dagenham and Redbridge. Each club has loyal
supporters and needs to keep on generating new supporters as well as
casual spectators.

Not surprisingly, therefore, in order that no one football club might
destroy the opportunities for the supporters of another nearby club the
Premier League and Football League, one or other of which, all English
senior clubs belong, have a rule that requires the approval of the
League if one club proposes to move into the vicinity of another.

Somehow, notwithstanding this rule, The Premier League has authorised
either West Ham or Tottenham Hotspur to move to the main Olympic Stadium
if you, The London Mayor and Government approve either of their tenancy
bids.

However, notwithstanding the apparently perverse decision of The Premier
League, it seems right that you should also consider in your aims and
objectives the effects of any decisions that you take on the community
ventures in the vicinity of the Olympic Park, that were in existence
before there was ever any expectations of the Olympic Games coming to town.

In addition to actually running a professional football team - since
1989 Leyton Orient has encouraged the now named, Leyton Orient Community
Sports Programme to operate under the banner of "Leyton Orient" and they
occupy a modern building with adjoining outdoor sports playing areas on
the opposite side of Oliver Road, Leyton, E.10 to the Football Club
itself. They provide sporting and community opportunities for hundreds
of thousands throughout the six London Boroughs that were formerly in
the Essex County area plus Tower Hamlets.

Last night, on my way home I walked from Leyton Orient to Stratford
Station and it took around 30 minutes - that was going right around the
Olympic Park - from back to front - and into the only public entrance to
the station now open. Once the Olympic facilities are finished the
journey will be more direct, with footpaths across the Olympic
Park.Consequently, then I suspect that it will take less than 15 minutes
to walk from Leyton Orient to the Olympic Stadium.

Before you, take the decisions that you are required I urge all the
decision makers and their consultants and professional advisers to take
that same walk between Stratford Station, (which is part of the public
transport route for many visitors to Leyton Orient and I suspect also
the L.O. Community Sports Programme) and Leyton Orient so you can truly
experience the nearness and the likely effect of an additional and
larger Football Club in the vicinity.

I fear that if a move to the Olympic Park is permitted for another full
time football club it will effectively spell the death knell of Leyton
Orient and certainly with Leyton Orient's community ties in the Leyton
and Stratford area as almost inevitably uncommitted young, and new
residents will be more attracted to a football team in the Olympic Park
with its superb infrastructure, right at a transport hub, than to Leyton
Orient.

Yet your aims and objectives seem to ignore, a requirement that by your
letting policy, you should actively seek to enhance the good
things already in operation?

Please review and amend your aims and objectives so they take better
account of the importance of protecting and improving what exists,
rather than risking their very survival, by allowing larger and newer
ventures overwhelm.

Please advise if I and others connected with supporters of Leyton Orient
Football Club might answer any queries my remarks might prompt or any
others that occur to those who are appointed to take these decisions
that will be critical to many thousands of people for generations to come.

Regards,

XXXXX

PS, I first spectated at Leyton Orient in 1962 when I was a resident of
what is now the London Borough of Waltham Forest. Prior to retirement
significant periods of my working life were spent based in The London
Boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Newham, so I am fairly familiar with the
wider east London area.

42. At 00:21am on 03 Feb 2011, hammer44 wrote:

How did we come to this mess?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By not planning ahead.

Those who fail to plan, plan to fail.

This should have all been sorted before the design was clarified, at that time Leyton Orient considered moving in as they were apparently invited, but after quite a lengthy period withdrew because they could get no agreement on having a stadium suitable for football spectating.

However we are where we are,and what has gone before is almost irrelevant to planning a long term solution NOW.

If some consortium primarily involving an Athletics Organisation run it then there needs to be a Government Company run it for public benefit, with an athletics facility as versatile as possible aiming to have events that attract suitable audiences.

The transport links are superb and better than the Dome at Greenwich, so if that can be commercially viable so can the Olympic Stadium.

Then it can be passed on to a commercial organisation and hopefully us taxpayers can get our investment back eventually without a football tenant unless it can be made suitable for Leyton Orient.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

Sorry, but Adrian Warner's comment is incredibly misguided. The notion that opinion polls represent "science" is totally bogus.

The 91Èȱ¬'s reporting may not be biased but it is resoundingly inaccurate.

Please check the answers to Q3. Just 4% of people say they want the stadium to be used as West Ham's bid intends, for a mixture of football, athletics and concerts. And yet (Q5) 72% say they think West Ham's bid should win.

These two responses are contradictory. They reflect the fact that what people say in opinion polls is not well-considered, or well-informed and is little more than the by-product of the context in which it is conducted and the unconscious influence of the questions used.

It is a tragedy that the 91Èȱ¬ continues to waste licence fee payers money on surveys of this kind. It's cheap journalism and it perpetuates the simplistic polarisation of complex debates.

Incidentally, I don't mind who gets the stadium or how it's used after the games.