Who will win the bid?

woodward

Active Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
166
#21
Labour stuffed it up so why will the tories care about the fallout. If we win the bid there will be a storm in a very small teacup, compared to the shit that will hit the fan if and when the Hammers fail to attract support in sufficent numbers. They have tied themselves to a commitment to keep the track indefinitely.

Any attempted change in that policy will see our lawyers sharpening their pencils.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
16,173
#22
Trying to take emotion out of the issue and looking at things beyond (and arguably excluding) the 5 points of the OPLC and in an ideal world. That's enough caveats I think. This is supposed to represent the public or political thought process to some degree and highlight why opinion polls have us as a distant second ro west ham.

1) The first consideration for the stadium should undoubtedly be athletics. The original purpose is athletics. It should continue being used for athletics after the games. Only if it is proven this is not a viable option then other options need to be considered. I think this has been proven not viable by the athletics community siding with west hams bid rather than the pure athletics stadium.

2) Are there any ways to have a athletics as a secondary sport in the stadium? Will this work for both sports? Can we do football and athletics? Only if not then other options need be considered. This is still an open question and one tottenham are spending a lot of effort on. Spurs really need to show that its very detrimental otherwise this option is very attractive as it retains the Olympic athletics connection.

3) If we have to give it to a football team, and athletics is now no longer a consideration, it should be given to the largest local team. It's nearer to west ham. Spurs have talked about developing the NDP. It should be given to wet ham as a football stadium sans athletics.

4) Fourthly, if none of the above are suitable, we consider other options. I.e. tottenham.


This is why Levy wants to put the focus on the OPLC criteria. Take it out of this context and apply 'common sense' it looks like west ham all the way
I think your instinct is right Hoowl I think it will go with the Newham bid as it will allow the athletics lobby to feel good about themselves having delivered a running track at the stadium, nothing else commends it but I'm not sure common sense will have the deciding vote.
 

Spurz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
2,606
#23
The track would only be cosmetic at best. You think with games coming thick and fast during the season, the spammers would stop 1 weekend for the athletics to hold any event there? even if they do, the FA wouldnt
 

andyw362

New Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
993
#24
What makes me laugh is Wet Spam say they will provide an atheltics legacy. Yet this legacy is only available 20 days in 365.

So athletics have use of the track 5% of the time!

Surely a dedicated rack would be more useful?
 

SpurSince57

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
45,214
#25
You two do know that there's virtually no overlap between the track and field and football seasons, don't you?
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
16,173
#26
You two do know that there's virtually no overlap between the track and field and football seasons, don't you?
True SS57 I was a bit sceptical myself but I suppose it would only be June & july that it wouldn't be used for league football, I read somewhere, it may have been DL's piece, that the relaying of the pitch during the summer would also cause problems and not doubt big show events would be held on summer weekends.
Still not sure that it's relevant though after all the athletics people rejected the football option in the beginning because it wouldn't work yet now they have come to accept athletics will be a white elephant on it's own they want football but with the track.
 

keenu

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
2,289
#27
Would like us to get it and think we obviously have the best bid BUT I think too many people are aganst our bid and that could ruin it for us. I hope I'm wrong though,
 

Samson

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
1,154
#28
International Athletic Championships are nearly always in August, which is now in the football season. As the main motivation for an athletics stadium that large is to host the IAAF Champs in the future, there is a conflict there.
 

bigturnip

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
1,640
#29
International Athletic Championships are nearly always in August, which is now in the football season. As the main motivation for an athletics stadium that large is to host the IAAF Champs in the future, there is a conflict there.
There are many other multi use stadiums, even in the Premier League, they manage to avoid things clashing, it's not like West Ham are going to be using it for more than 1 or 2 days in August, and probably only about 25 days a year. I'm sure a few javelins aren't going to make the pitch unplayable.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
30,313
#30
Don't think athletics would be a problem for them. But keeping Athletics, cricket and Live nation happy? Add to that pre-season games etc... going to be difficult, and I think the pitch may suffer.
What happens if Platini gets his way and the season starts in March?
 

bigturnip

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
1,640
#31
Don't think athletics would be a problem for them. But keeping Athletics, cricket and Live nation happy? Add to that pre-season games etc... going to be difficult, and I think the pitch may suffer.
What happens if Platini gets his way and the season starts in March?

I don't think cricket or track and field are going to have huge impacts on the pitch, track and field just have the throwing sports that use the pitch, for cricket I presume there will be some kind of removable crease and the outfield hardly takes a pounding, maybe the run up areas slightly. Concerts are a big issue, having thousands of people traipsing all over the pitch (well over a floor laid on the pitch), but that is nothing different to DL's bid and they're going to be in the summer months anyway, stadium concerts just don't happen in England outside of the summer months for obvious reasons.
 

Kendall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
38,502
#32
I dont think our proposal is the most ideal for the OPLC. But I think it would be suicide to award the stadium to a club that is currently rock bottom of the table and has a recent, well documented history of financial trouble.

I think we may get it by default.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
16,173
#33
There are many other multi use stadiums, even in the Premier League, they manage to avoid things clashing, it's not like West Ham are going to be using it for more than 1 or 2 days in August, and probably only about 25 days a year. I'm sure a few javelins aren't going to make the pitch unplayable.
Yes but they won't know which 2 days until the month before so how could athletics meetings be arranged?
 

MattyP

Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
13,934
#34
I have to say that based on the two respective Evening Standard articles, I am increasingly fearful that we will win the bid.

I know it is on pretty shaky ground to base it on those articles, but surely this would finally be the time when West Ham would emphasise the positives of their bid, instead of the usual claptrap they've been coming up with.

If that's the best they can do with a blank piece of paper for a newspaper article, I dread to think what load of tosh they've come up with for the bid document.
 

Hoowl

Dr wHo(owl)
Staff
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
6,513
Thread starter #35
David Sullivan has his say in the Evening Standard.
http://www.thisislon...-queens-name.do

What is an Olympic Park without an Olympic Stadium? Do we need the debate to go any further than that?

West Ham are the only ones proposing to stay true to the Olympic legacy with a running track in the stadium - and we know it will work.

I keep reading about 'white elephants' but the only elephant in the room is the one that suggests it is okay to rip up the track and bulldoze the Olympic Stadium to the ground - and in its place build a run-of-the-mill football stadium for a club that is over 10 miles away from the East End. Now, that would be crazy.

Spurs claimed the other day that the decision should not be based on emotion. I disagree.

I know as well as anyone that business is about the bottom line, the numbers and how they stack up - but when you have all that in place in a strong, secure and sound bid as we do, it still has to feel right.

Good financial sense must sit side by side with honest sentiment.

In fact, emotion can often drive a financial plan forward. The legacy of the Olympic Stadium affects us all. We have paid our taxes and have a vested interest in what happens after 2012.

When David Gold and I came home to West Ham United after taking Birmingham Cityfrom the third tier of football to become an established Premier League name, we made the Olympic Stadium our priority.

Initially, I didn't know if it could work but our due diligence, fans and the experts we have consulted at every step soon convinced me.

Everything adds up and we are all now together on the starting line of a fantastic adventure. There is real excitement in the air and we just want to get going.

It is right that we have a proposal that will make it possible for a multi-sports venue to be at the heart of the Olympic Park. Anything else simply won't be the Olympic Stadium.

Anything else runs the risk of damaging the nation's reputation around the world and affecting the commercial viability of the wider legacy vision.

If you believe in something, you will work harder and for longer to make it a success. You have to care. Lord Coe cares. He was emotional and full of sentiment when delivering the Olympic legacy promise which resulted in us winning the 2012 Games, against the odds. He cares as much as us about honouring that promise. Demolishing a feat of engineering and expertise that cost half-a-billion pounds and then knocking up a plain football ground in its place is about as cold and clinical as it gets. And, by the way, doesn't make financial sense.

No wonder those who propose that option want the emotion stripped away and instead are choosing to patronise the tens of thousands of loyal Hammers fans who know a thing or two about atmosphere.

We will be able to answer their desire for affordable tickets and better access at a world-class stadium that is fitting for a club that produced three World Cup winners.

The fact we will be staying in our borough to do so just makes the case even more compelling.

After £90million of conversion, we'll have great sightlines - no seat will have a worse view of the pitch than Wembley Stadium - and a new roof designed to create intimacy. I have no doubt that this stadium will succeed.

The opportunity this country has to take a massive long jump forward will only come round once in two or three generations.

I am a father of two boys and we owe it to young people across London to preserve the integrity of an iconic venue that would be the focus for the aspirations of many.

It won't just be about sport but about education and culture. Are we really going to drive a bulldozer through all of that?

Spurs chairman Daniel Levy said: "All I care about is moving the club forward". I think we all know that is his sole motivation.

Living and working locally, I make no secret of wanting the best for West Ham United but to do that while helping UK Athletics, Essex Cricket, the hundreds of schools that we are already working with and an area that so desperately needs regeneration is a great opportunity. That is what I care about.

Sure I want it to be a financial success because the more it is, the more money will go straight back into the community and to the public purse.

That's why we are equal partners with Newham Council.

This isn't some private plan with offshore banks and tax exile investors waiting in the wings to profit from the UK taxpayer like myself. We all have our own sporting story. My dad, Wing Commander Eddie Sullivan, devoted his life to English amateur boxing and refereed internationally. Made an MBE, he was proud of being given a royal honour for something that he loved doing every single day.

In a way, we as a nation have all been given a royal honour.

With the Games entrusted to this country in Her Majesty's name - the Olympic Stadium at the heart of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park is a medal for us all.

It would lead to money being ploughed in locally while providing a vibrant global destination.

That's why 12 Olympic boroughs and dozens of MPs across all political parties are publicly supporting our bid. They know the importance of matching our financial clout with their desire
to care for their communities is a win-win.

At the same time, my club would grow in a way that our fans - we have 700,000 supporters on our database and a 17,000 season-ticket waiting list - and worldwide name deserves, and national sports like athletics and cricket would get a major lift. This is fundamentally about what it would do to kick-start five regeneration projects in four boroughs. It is all about London.

I spent my formative years in Forest Gate and Stratford and did my economics degree in Mile End. Everywhere you go - now as it was back then - there are people striving to better themselves against all the odds.

People who want to take the emotion out of the East End clearly need a history lesson or two.

We have our field of dreams at last and no one should be allowed to take it away.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
16,173
#36
As I've said before he doesn't even know where the East End is, it aint Forest Gate mate ffs.
 

Samson

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
1,154
#37
I have to say that based on the two respective Evening Standard articles, I am increasingly fearful that we will win the bid.

I know it is on pretty shaky ground to base it on those articles, but surely this would finally be the time when West Ham would emphasise the positives of their bid, instead of the usual claptrap they've been coming up with.

If that's the best they can do with a blank piece of paper for a newspaper article, I dread to think what load of tosh they've come up with for the bid document.
The West Ham piece is excruciating.

Mind you, by my count, West Ham are putting in £15 million to secure a stadium built for £600 million, with a Crossrail station and next to the City. Smart bit of business if the Queen gives them her approval. :wink: