Original stadium plan not an option
This stark image is what the London Olympic Stadium would look like if the original legacy promise to turn it into an athletics-only arena after the Games was seen through.
The BBC has obtained previously unseen designs for what the stadium would look like if the promise made in Singapore was kept
Instead a tiny roof, which covers barely one 10th of the whole arena, is the only feature of an otherwise drab, characterless venue.
This is the reason why no sustainable legacy plan was developed by organisers and the Government in the two years after London's bid triumph in 2005.
Even UK Athletics, the sport's governing body in Britain, and its marketing partners Fast Track, were unable to find a way of making the stadium work in this mode after the Games.
When one sees this image it is easy to understand why no club - not even Leyton Orient - would have been prepared to move into the stadium promised to the IOC after the 2012 Olympics.
London Olympic Stadium, July 2010. Photo: AP
All of this explains why Baroness Ford, chairman of the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC), the body which must now choose between West Ham and Tottenham, realised there was no financially sustainable legacy for the venue without a Premier League club on board.
On Friday both clubs and their respective partners submit their final offers to the OPLC. Baroness Ford and her team, headed by American chief executive Andrew Altman, will then spend the weekend going through the fine print before deciding on Monday whether they have all the information they need to make a decision on a preferred bidder next Friday.
The extremely strong comments from the head of world athletics, Lamine Diack, in my interview with him on Thursday will only have increased the pressure on the decision-makers.
Whatever they decide must then be rubber-stamped by their own board before being signed off by the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, and the Government - represented by two ministers, Sports Minister Hugh Robertson and Bob Neill, a junior minister in the department for communities and local government.
If the OPLC doesn't have enough information, or its auditors Price Waterhouse Coopers have any more questions, then they may put the decision off for another week.
Before then, expect a step up in the already intense lobbying campaign by both sides.
On Friday morning, Sir Keith Mills, the deputy chairman of London 2012 (a body which has absolutely no direct role in the decision on the stadium's future) and director of Tottenham, went on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme to put Spurs' case.
It is the first time he has done so and his message was clear: Tottenham - and not West Ham - offer the only option which will guarantee the stadium doesn't add to the already high public cost of the Olympics.
Mills made the point - highlighted by the image above - that the original legacy plan was not going to work. And he reiterated Tottenham's argument that football and athletics don't mix.
West Ham, of course, deny all this - along with criticisms of the sight lines for football in the Olympic stadium and claims that their numbers don't stack up. To try and prove the point, their £40m loan from joint bid partners Newham Council was approved at a meeting on Thursday night and they will on Friday announce a partnership with Westfield, who will be the consortium's design, construction and major development partners.
As I said in my previous blog, all this noise is unlikely to make a jot of difference to the OPLC and Baroness Ford who must make their decision based not only on community and multi-sport legacy plans but also on hard, cold economic reality.
The £5m annual running costs of the stadium need to be paid by someone other than the taxpayer. As you can see, the original plan, contained in the Singapore promise, really wasn't an option.
Update 1845 GMT
Although the key details of the West Ham and Tottenham bids handed to the OPLC are being kept secret, I have been told about a key part of the Spurs proposal which they hope will swing the decision in their favour.
In addition to offering to pay a rental income in return for the 250-year lease, Tottenham and their partner, the American entertainment giant AEG, are offering to redevelop land and facilities around the stadium.
Spurs hope this will be attractive to the OPLC for two reasons.
The first is that by building new sports and entertainment facilities around the main stadium it will bring the rest of the Olympic Park alive after the Games. The OPLC is known to be concerned about the stadium becoming an isolated visitor attraction in an otherwise under-used park.
The difficulties associated with delivering a legacy for the whole park after 2012 is perhaps illustrated best by the problems with the £265m aquatics centre.
Although OPLC chairman Baroness Ford is confident she can find a solution, the elaborate roof design limits her options. Plans to turn the aquatics centre into an indoor water park for the community with slides, restaurants and cafes had to be scrapped because the curved roof designed by Zaha Hadid takes up too much space.
Now, Spurs are not for one moment offering to take over the aquatics centre - in the end the OPLC will convert it before finding a management partner to run it (probably British Swimming and Newham Council). But the aquatics centre illustrates the point that the OPLC has to think about the wider interests of the Olympic Park - not just the stadium.
Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy unquestionably had this in mind in the open letter he published today - emphasising plans for "an exceptional public realm which would host community-focused events and activities".
He goes on: "Our plans also include a major tourist attraction based around extreme sports and incorporating specialist sports retailing, restaurants, cafes and bars."
The second reason why Tottenham believe their offer to develop other facilities and attractions around the stadium is significant is because they will share any profits from those ventures with the OPLC, guaranteeing extra revenue which could eventually be used to pay back part of the £500m cost of the stadium.
West Ham and Newham Council are, of course, offering something similar. They say the stadium will be a genuinely multi-sport and entertainment venue used 365 days of the year. They, too, will pay a rent for the 250-year lease plus a share of revenue from events.
But Tottenham hope their plan - and ability to invest in the rest of the site - could be persuasive.