91热爆

This is what happens when you end up with two football clubs vying to prove they offer the best athletics legacy; you end up with a football stadium and very little athletics legacy to speak of.

The original plan for a 25k world class athletics stadium in an accessible area to replace Crystal Palace should have been given a chance. Instead we have a botched stadium legacy. Thanks Boris!

More and more we see the nonsense and the lack of transparency behind this decision. Athletics has walked into a very raw deal. There cause would be served 365 days per year at their own purpose-built facility at Crystal Palace under Tottenham's plan. Before it is all too late a full judicial review must be allowed to proceed and the OPLC decision and practices halted. We need to pause and go back and start the process again. If we get a new OPLC board and new bidders- fine. This process must be thorough and we need to take the time needed to get the best overall solution we can.

I guess the whole thing proves that Britain is unable to do anything properly.
We've know we'll host the games for nearly 6 years, we knew the stadium would be a white elephant as just an athletics stadium, but no-one thought to design it for multi purposes and what do we get?
We get a ground virtually unfit for football, but needing another sport to guarantee it doesn't end up like Athens .
We all know that football is king and every other sport put together can't compete financially with it, but that doesn't mean we should push them all aside just to fall at the feet of a 'large' football club, yet this is exactly what Newham Council has done.

If it wasn't so sad, it would be a farce of 'Carry On' proportions.

Tessa Sanderson worked with Newham Council and was on the OPLC board. She, I think, was not allowed to vote in the decision on the stadium because it was said she would be biased, presumably in favour of the way Newham Council were going to vote? Newham Council were in favour of a dual purpose football/athletics stadium and now she says it will not work? Too late I鈥檓 afraid.
There are many people watching this decision very closely especially as it is a Council loaning government money to a commercial enterprise which is already in debt. It appears it was voted through with many misgivings as you reported in these two articles from the 20th January 2011.

/news/uk-england-london-12227069

/news/uk-england-london-12242831

As we know West Ham were chosen as the tenant on the 11th February 2011.

/news/uk-england-london-12424549

Interestingly it now appears that Newham Council taxpayers will be liable if this venture fails as you reported on 3rd March 2011. As far as I can tell nobody outside the very upper echelons of Newham Council were aware of this when the loan was approved on the 20th January as per your articles above?
Your last report on the 3rd March below has raised many interesting questions considering Newham Council have just finalised 拢100m of cuts over the next three years and possibly up to 1600 Council staff being made redundant. Newham Council have no idea how long the loan will take to be paid back. In your article dated 3rd March the following was stated:

Mike Law, a former Newham Labour councillor, said: "If Newham staff later wind up on nice salaries at West Ham serious questions will need to be asked. "The stadium producing a profit after the loan has been repaid in 10 to 20 years time is cold comfort to the council employee who is laid off today. "Yet again, it's the people of one of the country's most deprived boroughs paying for the extravagances of others."

/news/uk-england-london-12637508

I suspect Mike Law maybe alluding to some of the higher officials from Newham Council who may do well out of this venture whilst others lose their jobs due to the 拢100m of cuts. Presumably the OPLC must have known when they made the decision on the 11th February that Newham Council taxpayers would be liable for the loan in case of default?

Many, many questions are being raised about this. Might be a good one Panorama? Sorry, I forgot, you are the 鈥淥lympic Broadcaster鈥�, mustn鈥檛 rock the boat.

There is no legally binding agreement on West Hams debt holders to retain the track. A fatal flaw which will come back to haunt the blazers who authorised this calamity. But by then they will be long gone and will pass the buck of responsibility onto others. No wonder Pedigree Chum is one of the Olympic sponsors.

The Olympic Games always conjures up sport and participation on the grandest of scales. The Palaces, the Halls and Arenas all promote sport for all; but do they become Mausoleums. The London Olympic Site cannot afford to become a Necropolis to a hugely flawed endgame. London cannot afford to have that amount of land idle, after the games have concluded.
The question is; how many sports people, new or established, will actually turn out and use the facilities after the games have finished ?
Permanent sports accommodation for all is naive. Who is going to utilise the space 24/7/365. This where the commercial money spinning sports come into their own, football, rugby and cricket. Football especially will wring the last drop out of any facility. Football is big money.
I would love to see "LEGACY" for all sports. The problem is, you can't fill the facilities for enough of the time, to make the buildings commercially viable.
There will be sports, who will have no "LEGACY" from the Games.

Enjoy the Games. AK

All the talk around this topic has been of funding and finances as if money will create a legacy.

Sad really simple things like providng tickets for clubs with young competitors in Olympic sports could've inspired so many instead we have to compete to buy these luxury items. The kids will rarely get a lookin for the high profile events.

We argue over the future use of the venues whilst sports struggle to survive without a proper base & funding. We then sell them off to a professional business (who happen to run a football club) funded by public money. That money would do far more good spread across a wide range of sports.

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

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