"The UEFA administration may grant an exception to a specific structural criterion
for the stadium category in question in cases of particular hardship and upon
reasoned request, for instance owing to the current national legislation or if the
fulfilment of all the required criteria would force the club to play its home
matches on the territory of another association. An exception can be granted for
one or more matches in the competition or for the whole duration of the
competition. Such decisions are final."
Not sure if this has been posted before, but worth a look anyway.
I am glad we get our own proper stadium, but the process that led to West Ham getting the Olympic Stadium virtually rent free, and with most of their match day expenses covered by the tax payers money, has been a disgrace... Hopefully, it will be an investigation in the aftermath of this, by the EU commission (provided no Brexit) or other legal instances.
The best example of a comparable stadium is the Stadio delle Alpi which really did Juve no favours. They moved in in 1990 and it was a football and athletics stadium able to seat a little under 70,000 (later reduced to 67k), an enormous great bowl (with a roof). They were gone by 2006 to a smaller much more compact stadium.
The stadium was regularly more than half empty, the atmosphere was poor and people didn't want to come because there was a poor view for football and it was windy and cold. The running track also did Juve no favours although West Ham have largely combated that issue with the moving lower tier, but fans in the top tier will really be quite some distance away.
The parallels are uncanny, except for the fact Juve have far more tradition and success than West Ham.
They've done the right thing with pricing, they really struggled to fill Upton Park, but unless they get some real and quite substantial success in the near future people simply won't want to go there to watch football. They are paying a low rent, so the business case is sound and allows them to price at a level which would be suicidal for many clubs, but even low prices won't save them if the footie is crap and it's unpleasant to sit and watch it.
We won't really know how it works out for a good 10 years, but I remain utterly convinced that a stadium which is not designed for atmosphere, where fans are miles from the pitch and where many of whom are only there because it's a cheap way to see football (as opposed to being West Ham fans), will not provide either the financial edge or swell of support that the fans seem to think it will. If they do up it to 70k, after a couple of years it will fail to sell out so often that they will look stupid. Better to at least appear in demand.
I am sure West Ham will pick up more fans through kids being able to go to games, hell, I might even go up there and watch one if it's that cheap, but I'd choose to be doing what we're doing every time.
To what distance is the lower tier going to cover the running track? That seems a long way away but with most large stadia it could seem far away from an upper tier? Dont get me wrong, Im fully sure this will be an absolute shambles to watch football in but without seeing it fully set up and a game going on its tough to say for sure. Far too much spin and propaganda from the dildo brothers about it at the moment.
There have probably already been some but are there any accurate comparisons between this ground and other grounds around the country?