BBC BLOGS - Adrian Warner
« Previous | Main | Next »

West Ham gets 2012 stadium nod but it's not perfect

Post categories:

Adrian Warner | 21:21 UK time, Wednesday, 9 February 2011

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.


So we have finally got a decision. West Ham will be the preferred bidder of the Olympic Park Legacy Company to take over the 2012 stadium.

As I've said before in these blogs, I've always regarded West Ham as the favourites.

The fact is that Tottenham's plans to rip down the stadium and build a football ground in its place were not only unpopular with athletics fans but also with the public, as our BBC poll last month suggested.

But West Ham's plans are not perfect.

They will need £40m of public money in a loan from Newham Council to help pay for the conversion.

That won't be popular with everybody in the poorest borough in London.

But what also wouldn't have been popular was Tottenham's plans to dismantle a £500m stadium after the Games.

That is what the government and London Mayor Boris Johnson would have found hard to sell to the public.

More: BBC London 2012
Twitter: BBCLdnOlympics

Comments

Page 1 of 3

  • Comment number 1.

    Extremely happy to have got the Olympic stadium, as you said, Newham is the pooorest borough in London and ticket prices at the moment are extremely high at Upton Park. Lower ticket prices = More West Ham fans so everyone's happy!

  • Comment number 2.

    HOOT HOOT!!!

    Now get the team sorted out to befit the stadium!!

  • Comment number 3.

    I'm a UK taxpayer and have part funded this Olympic Stadium for the Olympics. Please can I have my money back or free West Ham season tickets? (lets face it, gonna be plenty of empty seats)

  • Comment number 4.

    Why does every1 quote the stadium as '£500 million' when its turned to us as tearing it down? We are not 'tearing £500million down', we are tearing down £80 million, re-using it, and then re-investing into Stratford as a whole.
    Can see things going horribly wrong for West Ham, yeah I'm a Spurs fan, but the atheletics track...just not gonna work, isit?

  • Comment number 5.

    coccy kid

    maybe when you grow up you can come to a game

  • Comment number 6.

    @#1: Yes, everyone is happy. Well, except us Orient fans who face the prospect of losing our club when you move on to OUR manor. But who cares about us, eh? Certainly not the BBC, who have been almost entirely negligent in its coverage of us (not least, I hasten and am sorry to add, Adrain Warner himself), not the Premier League who are contravening their own regulations in allowing West Ham to move to the OlSt, and certainly not the Football League who have washed their hands of us in a manner comparable to Pontius Pilate.

    Expect a raft of legal challenges and judicial reviews to appear once Boris inevitably gives his go-ahead.

  • Comment number 7.

    And with misinformation like "£500m stadium" (£80m stadium, the rest is on the surrounding area being untouched) being propagated by BBC it's no wonder that Spurs lost the bid.

  • Comment number 8.

    "Commercial sense 0 - emotional sense 1
    Logic 0 - ranting board memebers 3
    and finally a pools panel result just in:
    the game of politicising vs misrepresentations was decided as a score draw."

    Of all that's said and done, we still have to pay even more for a stadium that 99% of the population will never see.
    Would rather have had the private money pay for it at least.

    Although given the above comment, it is funny how 'tearing up the stadium to return it to a 25,000 athletics track is now not so much of a hard sell', compared to say having someone else pay for it. When I say 'funny' I'm not laughing.

    Decision defies logic on so many levels.

    Feel sorry for Crystal Palace and the O's on this one. Now both will suffer.

  • Comment number 9.

    And the impact on Leyton Orient will be what ?
    Both the Premier league and the football league rules state, in effect
    that any club move " would not adversely affect clubs having their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location"

    The O's are closer to stratford than the hammers are.

    Will West Ham still be allowed to call themselves West Ham, as they will be playing at Stratford. ( I cite wimbledon/MK Dons here ).

    In these days of economic austerity, why should a local borough pay £40M for this move. How many local jobs will have to go to finance that ?

    Dont get me wrong, Spurs plan was even worse.

  • Comment number 10.

    As a Spurs fan - I'm very happy - well done to WHUFC. Spurs' ideas on the site were ridiculous and walked over the long history associated with the club at N17. I hope we can develop our own stadium in Tottenham with or without Mr Levy and his group.
    COYS!!!

  • Comment number 11.

    Neither a Spurs or a West Ham fan, but can't imagine this stadium being very full when only 15,000 are watching West Ham play in the Championship. As a football fan, I'd of wanted to see Spurs get it and it not be a white elephant.

  • Comment number 12.

    The 'political' bleating by West Ham, rousing hysteria of the London population in derailing what would ultimately be the most cost effective solution for the taxpayers will soon rebound on them.
    Have they the nouse to recognise that seats will have to be sold ultra cheaply to keep attendances up - it'll need it to fill the empty space.
    As a taxpayer I trust that there will be a covenant in place to ensure that the running track remains for the life of the stadium - this is our promise I believe !

  • Comment number 13.

    The official BBC take on the Olympic Stadium decision, not even a passing mention of the impact on Leyton Orient FC.

    Adrian Warner: you should be ashamed of yourself.

  • Comment number 14.

    As a West Ham Fan i am against the move! Nothing to do with the athletics track but West Hams home for over 100 years has been Upton Park! It is not going to be the same and i think its disgraceful they can do this to the fans!

  • Comment number 15.

    Very pleased to have the stadium, but will miss the Upton Park atmosphere! I have had season tickets to West Ham since the age of 6 and have very very fond memories of the ground. I will be very sad at our last game at the ground, but hopefully we will have greater memories to come from the Olympic Stadium! By the way CroatianKranc, you need to get your tenses correct, I believe you mean "were" tearing down a stadium worth £500mn of taxpayers money, instead of "are" tearing down!!!! Back to N17 you go!

  • Comment number 16.

    Don't care about either plan - both have got massively negative sides to them, although this decision will probably be quite bad for WHU as they will never fill a ground with such a lack of atmosphere and such poor facilities

    Really feel for Orient though - they've been totally ignored in this whole process

    What I also care about is the fact that my money has been used to build a stadium for a football club - I'd like to have my cash back, please (& before magicfloridahammer says anything - I'd rather not have a discount on WHU tickets as I'm not that interested in watching Championship football to be honest)

  • Comment number 17.

    I think it's crap. Gonna be miles away from the action, specially compared to Upton Park.

    Feel sorry for Os fans too.

  • Comment number 18.

    I'm sure everyone's really looking forward to seeing football half a mile from the pitch in a half-full stadium in the Championship.

    Awful solution, the stadium has been designed as a temporary structure and now it's suddenly going to become permanent?

    Doesn't make sense.

  • Comment number 19.

    Very glad West Ham won the right to take over the Olympic Stadium post 2012 - geographically, Stratford is far closer to the historic and spiritual home of West Ham than Tottenham. This will also force Tottenham to remain where they should be in - in North London. It will be interesting to see how they create an arena with the same atmosphere as Upton Park (one of the best football grounds in that respect in England IMO) at an athletics arena. It'll be a challenge given the track will force fans to be much further away from the action as they'd like. I hope this will not change the experience of watching a West Ham football game as it is one of the great experiences in English football.

  • Comment number 20.

    @ xpl0de

    Don't be surprised if that rule is hastily changed to "would not adversely affect PREMIERSHIP CLUBS having their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location"

    It's League One. No-one cares, it would seem, not even experienced journalists paid a silly salary to supposedly impartially bear all of these aspects in mind.

    Once again, Mr Warner: SHAMEFUL.

  • Comment number 21.

    #6...of course there will be judicial reviews, so many people had a say who were in positions of authority with connection to one party of the other. Levy has already said as much in a previous interview.

    To be fair, if I were a reident of Newham I would bring into question the process over the 'loan' from what has publicly said about the voting process already (and minuted in the notes from the meeting I would envisage - a matter of public record for sure), that in itself is probably case in point for JD.

    I am fortunate that my local authority would dream of loaning £40 million to a football club.

  • Comment number 22.

    @dave

    If "the historic and spiritual home of West Ham" is West Ham, why should they move ?

  • Comment number 23.

    Yet again another BBC report without mentioning Leyton Orient - I suspect those in power will wish they had never heard of Leyton orient by the time this saga is finished.

    How come the BBC has a report not available to other Media organisations - someone not recognising embargoes from within The Government or Olympic Park Legacy Company whose guidelines are flawed in not being required to take account of the existing legacy of sporting and community ventures?

    Interesting to note there is no statement about seeking to compensate Leyton Orient and find ways to ensure the Leyton Orient Community Sports Programme does not lose out if Orient can't function viably.

    West Ham have been advertising tickets for Premier League matches and Carling Cup Semi Finals, admittedly the Olympic Stadium will give them am extra attraction but it won't last unless the football is good.

    Just see all the empty seats at the England International in Copenhagen tonight, I predict that unless West Ham can play in the top half of The Premier League and get to later stages of knock-out competitions they will be in a similar position.

  • Comment number 24.

    Very happy the athletics track will be staying. Football gets far too much of a look-in whenever sport is mentioned. Also, once folk set their minds to it, look how the Dome / O2 has revolutionised the London concert & indoor sport scene. It is one great destination. The Olympic Park should be the same for outdoor sport.

    The sooner this country 'gets' the idea of ground-sharing, the better. Lazio/Roma, Genova/Udinese, Inter/ACMilan, Juventus/Torino - they all do it and it works for the clubs. The rivalry is just as bitter in Italy as it is here. Financially it makes sense. From the fans' point of view it would provide better stadia. Given tv companies' sway over schedules, there would be no fixture clashes. (United/City - Liverpool/Everton - Villa/City - Chelsea/Fulham - West Ham/Orient - Celtic/Rangers - Hibs/Hearts - Bristol City/Rovers - Forest/County - you know it makes sense.)

    Multi-sport arenas too - Stade de France = football, athletics, rugby. If the Irish had got their act together then Croke Park could have continued with Gaelic sports, football and rugby. Murrayfield could host Hearts & Hibs as well as the rugby - Hampden = Celtic, Rangers & internationals.

    It's the way forward - let's stop being so damn parochial.

  • Comment number 25.

    A decision based on false information in the public it seems. Spurs were never planning to knock down 500 million worth of stadium, they were going to move 80 million worth of stadium to crystal palace for an athletics track that could have been used all year round. However now athletics is stuck with a stadium that will be used for football for most of the year and will only be free for around 20 days.

    The fact that Spurs were planning to borrow no money from the public and west ham are borrowing 40 million makes me wonder how this is a hard sell to the taxpayer.

    What we now have is a stadium that will belong to west ham, a club who's own chairman has been on record stating that an athletics track with a football stadium does not work.


    I am also slightly amused by the bbc's bias in this, where they appear to be printing a lot of rubbish by a woman called 'karen brady' who appears to have been given the right to make things up as she wants and publish them on your website. Whereas i have seen absolutely no pro Spurs articles. If she is representing women everywhere in the business world, she is doing so very very badly.

  • Comment number 26.

    Do West Ham think they can really make this work! The owners are clowns as is Miss Brady. As stated before they will borrow yet more money from a local council to fund their plans. Surely it is in the interest of the locals that any money raised should be through the owners and and a finance house. Indeed this deal has come at a price to the locals.
    Lets hope Levy takes legal advice on every aspect including a change of name, not biased as I actually want West Ham to remain in the premiership, its not the clubs fault they have such terrile owners

  • Comment number 27.

    Why are we, the taxpayer, giving West Ham a 60,000 seater stadium for free?

    Why are we loaning them money to convert it into a stadium fit for their use?

    Why are we helping Gold & Sullivan get rich off a public project?

    I don't understand why the likes of Arsenal and Tottenham and possibly Chelsea as well in the future are expected to build their own stadiums within their own means while West Ham are effectively bankrolled by the government to grow beyond what they're capable of doing on their own?

    Let's hope there are no problems with the atmosphere, let's hope they don't get relegated so that the Olympic Stadium isn't playing host to Championship games, let's hope they can fill the thing, let's hope they don't destroy Leyton Orient by stealing their base of young fans with cheap tickets.

  • Comment number 28.

    Ditch the athletics track and you'll have one fine football stadium.

  • Comment number 29.

    The distance from the pitch may not be as significant as is being made out - apparently WHUFC will be supplying home fans a bull-horn and pair of binoculars.

  • Comment number 30.

    @bobwarrington

    And the BBC biase in not even mentioning Leyton Orient ?

    p.s. Agree about Karen Brady

    p.p.s. and agree about Mr Warner should be ashamed and BBC biase

  • Comment number 31.

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

  • Comment number 32.

    No real surprise. However to say that Tottenham planned to rip down (you later say dismantle) a £500m stadium is inaccurate and amounts to exceptionally poor journalism.

    The true value of the stadium is considerably less. That aspect of this matter has been covered in considerable detail, particularly during the last few days.

    However at least you didn't go down the road of using phrases like "corporate crime".

    I do hope that West Ham supporters will get the benefit of cheaper tickets and that BBC London will really push this issue. Sport for all has to encompass ticket prices. There is no point in having an Olympic Stadium if people can't afford to watch the sport it offers.

    Good luck to West Ham and its supporters in their new home, most of whom have behaved with tremendous dignity in campaigning for their team. That is more than can be said for some occupants of Upton Park.

    They should be ashamed of their behaviour.

  • Comment number 33.

    How ironic that West Ham's ground at Upton Park which was the most intimate ground in top flight football and in the heartland of the true eastend support, is now to be replaced with a cavernous distant arena in a disconnected part of town. This is a disgraceful marriage of convenience between embarrassed politicians and ex brummie porn barrons.

  • Comment number 34.

    The Olympic stadium should never have been offered to a football club. The UK has enough football stadia already. What we're short of are decent athletics facilities. Keep it as an athletic stadium and we may stand a chance of hosting the European and World chanpionships. That's not going to happen with the football World Cup is it? (You may have guessed I'm not a football fan but I'm not an athletics fan either).

  • Comment number 35.

    " East London is ours, East London is ours
    Go back to Tottenham
    East London is ours"

    After watching France V Brazil at the Stade De Paris tonight, I was reminded of how good our view was there for the Champions League Final I went to. Didnt even notice a track

  • Comment number 36.

    Adrian,

    your profile states

    "I report on every aspect of the preparations for 2012."

    so how come you missed the impact of this result on Leyton Orient ?

  • Comment number 37.

    I also agree that the bbc have been wrong and based there views on false information in the public it seems. Spurs were never planning to knock down 500 million worth of stadium, they were going to move 80 million worth of stadium to crystal palace for an athletics track that could have been used all year round. However now athletics is stuck with a stadium that will be used for football for most of the year and will only be free for around 20 days so try telling the truth for once bbc.

    The fact that Spurs were planning to borrow no money from the public and west ham are borrowing 40 million makes me wonder how this is a hard sell to the taxpayer seeing as this country is on its knees if a football club cant afford a stadium then they shouldnt move i dont want to pay for west ham to make millons when i will get no benefit from it.

    What we now have is a stadium that will belong to west ham, a club who's own chairman has been on record stating that an athletics track with a football stadium does not work.


    I am also slightly amused by the bbc's bias in this, where they appear to be printing a lot of rubbish by a woman called 'karen brady' who appears to have been given the right to make things up as she wants and publish them on your website. Whereas i have seen absolutely no pro Spurs articles. If she is representing women everywhere in the business world, she is doing so very very badly.

  • Comment number 38.

    The loan is not public money, is prudential borrowing and it comes from the bond market not the public purse.

    West Ham will not be the owner of the stadium, it will be jointly leased by the club and Newham council who will get a half share of the stadium and share of profits just for setting up the loan.

    Last time West Ham were in the championship our average gates were in excess of 27,000.

    While I agree something needs to be done to protect Orient, the Olympic Stadium is not in their manor it is in the same borough as the Boleyn Ground, Newham.

    As for the name we are not in West Ham at the moment but Upton Park and the Olympic Stadium is nearer to West Ham and our original home than our current home.

  • Comment number 39.

    Excuse me if I'm missing something here. But West Ham are already on Leyton Orient's doorstep. The O's only get 4,000ish fans. Most of them diehard O's fans. Why are they suddenly going to change to West Ham because of this decision?

  • Comment number 40.

    Probably prefer West Ham to get it over Spurs because of the track but it's appalling that West Ham are getting public money on top of a free stadium.
    With the money swilling around the premiership in obscene media contracts and player salaries it is offensive for West Ham to require extra public money. They're a private concern and should not be getting money from a council.

  • Comment number 41.

    xpl0de:

    Your comments regarding the East End geography aren't accurate.

    - Stratford is in the old London Borough of West Ham
    - The 2 Parliamentaty ditricts covering the area still have West Ham in their name
    - Upton Park is actually in the old London Borough of East Ham
    - The old London Boroughs of East Ham and West Ham joined to become NewHam, where both West Ham and the Olympic Stadium are based. Orient are in the next borough, Waltham Forest
    - The Bolyen Ground is only 0.3 miles further away than Brisbane Road



  • Comment number 42.

    why is my moderation taking sooooo long ?

  • Comment number 43.

    Kamagliore

    The wording of the rule is as follows: "would not adversely affect clubs having their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location"

    Taking this wording literally, the move is adversely affecting Leyton Orient, due to the 60000 capacity of the new ground and subsequent cheap student tickets, regardless of any geography. Anyway, London is a heavily condensed City. 0.3 miles, if that figure is correct, is still a lot.

  • Comment number 44.

    @ kamagloire - Spot on...

    Although I do wonder why West Ham are looking for a new ground at this time? - Better them get it than the Spuds tho from every angle, least of all with it being at least in the same traditional Borough as West Ham. It's good they got it, at least when any player at that ground scores a goal they'll prolly think twice about ripping off the shirt and running to the crowd, it'll too far away hey ;o)

    Well done to The Hammers on this one, you deserve it.

    From a Gunner :)

  • Comment number 45.

    To dispell one incorrect assumption, I have to point out first of all that West Ham wer named so when the London borough of Newham was known by the same name, therefore, a move to Stratford does not instigate any need for a change in name - besides, West Ham currently reside in East Ham.

    From another viewpoint, Leyton Orient fans are - from my experience - passionate and loyal. Most West Ham fans I would suggest, are from the Essex area in recent times, and I don't see the O's struggling too much - and hope they don't.

    I'm obviously a Hammer and have always lived round the corner. It would be amazing for us fans to have an affordable way to get to the games and support the team...

    It's getting hard to try and sound so professional. Scepticism's been smashed by excitement and hope. Spurs 0 - 60,000 Hammers. COYI!!!!

  • Comment number 46.

    38 ++While I agree something needs to be done to protect Orient, the Olympic Stadium is not in their manor it is in the same borough as the Boleyn Ground, Newham.++

    It is less than 15 minutes walk from Orient to the Olympic Stadium. The Boleyn is three or four times further away, admittedly the Stadium is within the London Borough of Newham but part of the Olympic Park is actually in the London Borough of Waltham Forest the same borough that Orient's ground is in and has been (allowing for GLC changes) since 1937.

  • Comment number 47.

    39 ++Excuse me if I'm missing something here. But West Ham are already on Leyton Orient's doorstep. The O's only get 4,000ish fans. Most of them diehard O's fans. Why are they suddenly going to change to West Ham because of this decision?++

    alphaharps is missing the fact young people looking to go to their first football matches from the Stratford area are inevitably going to be drawn to the new Stadium at the centre of the best transport links, probably in the UK & are unlikely to go to Orient especially when tickets are given away and discounted as seems likely.

    Despite advertising on National radio Stations West Ham still cannot fill their existing Stadium - they will be doing all sorts of deals to "drag" spectators in - Orient will be disadvantaged.

  • Comment number 48.

    Over the moon to see Spurs fail. They really have turned into a nasty piece of work - club and supporters.

    And that's even considering West Ham's board of porn peddlars.

  • Comment number 49.

    Bluto1978 wrote: Probably prefer West Ham to get it over Spurs because of the track but it's appalling that West Ham are getting public money on top of a free stadium.

    It's not public money, it's Newham/Goverment are merely acting as a broker to raise the money on the bond markets and the council will own half the lease anyway! And it's not free we will have to pay aren't for it!

  • Comment number 50.

    SJyelsnyA:

    That's a proper argument that needs looking at. xpl0de and others were talking about 'spiritual homes" and "manors". The East End belongs to West Ham, Orient and Dagenham. I would have welcomed Tottenham adding to that club as it can only be good for the area to have 4 rather 3 strong, established clubs - it's not the smash and grab everyone is making it out to be. West Ham have more claim to Stratford as an area than Orient, and I don't think it will hurt Orient one bit, but should that possibility be considered? Of course it should.

    The West Ham hating is just getting on my nerves and I'd like to see us out of the press more since the Tevez dabacle.

    Read post 24 which is the most sensible one on here. It'd be nice for a World filled with mature football owners and fans, but it's not around the corner is it?

  • Comment number 51.

    Ok a few facts.
    1) This is West Ham moving back into the old borough of West ham. So it is their spiritual home.
    2) Though I have sympathy for Orient West Ham's original ground was slightly to the north of orients present ground so they cant claim that West Ham are moving into their territory, or that FA rules would come into operation.
    3) Either decision would have bee bad for Orient but Tottenhams would likely have been far worse for it.
    4) This is supposed to be development for the east end not a north London Billionaire to exploit developments there for his and his clubs personal benefit.
    5) Man City were an insignificant Championship side when granted their stadium. look where they are now. Oh and doesn't Levy know that and sniffed the possibilities even if it means selling out his own fans and community.
    6) This still nearly 5 years away even if West Ham are relegated. They have never been out of the top flight for more than a couple seasons in a row since 1959.
    7) This stadium will be used by all sorts of sports thus making it a valuable asset to the whole community not simply an 'alien' football club.
    8) Crystal Palace has been run down for years because it is the wrong stadium in the wrong place. That just might be why the plan was to build a new athletics stadium in Edmonton rather than do up that one.
    9) Who would have financed the £5million a year cost of keeping the proposed upgraded but in practical terms useless (as history already proves) Crystal Palace stadium after Spurs initial convenient help?
    10) Anyone know how much it costs to build a football stadium in London? Ask Arsenal, Ask Wembley Ask West ham who previously planned a stadium by West Ham station, a stones throw from the Olympic site? Well its a lot more than what Tottenham proposed to spend. So how come? Because we teh taxpayer will have coughed up the rest for Mr Levy's folly.
    11) How did Tottenham plan to continue its moral commitment to local development in Harringey/Enfield while keeping to the promise to support local development in Newham/Tower Hamlets especially as West Ham would have been all but eliminated by the move. Would Tottenham have developed all those young players that the hammers have contributed to the England team over the generations? As my partner's son works as a coach for Tottenham and through him I know their present superficial commitment to youth football in North London I rather doubt that the 'Academy of Football' would have survived their transplant into the area.

  • Comment number 52.

    Adrian Warner,

    Can I ask that if this goes wrong for West Ham and UK Athletics you don't act surprised and report it as if it's simply news to you? You have had the opportunity to use your noggin along the way, but you've given a very shallow portrait of the issue and in my opinion one often lacking in insight.

    No hiding behind the fact that others predicted it would go wrong when you make reports in the future, you swallowed it hook line and sinker, it won't only be the OPLC who are complicit in a future fiasco but the BBC as well and it's journalists who have made such a shoddy effort at getting beneath the skin of the issue.

  • Comment number 53.

    Why would West Ham need to change their name to Stratford?
    Stratford and West Ham are both places in Newham, in fact the Town Hall for the Borough of West Ham which merged with the borough of East Ham to form Newham was in Stratford. West Ham United first played at a ground which is next to the current West Ham Station which is one stop from Stratford Station on the Jubilee Line.
    So being called West Ham United if based in Stratford is probably more relevant than it is now.

    Now on to Leyton Orient. I lived in Newham for 35 years and actually in Stratford for 10 of those and outside of the train station platforms on matchdays I hardly recall ever seeing an Orient fan. At school between 1975 and 1986 I never encountered a single Orient fan, I would be astonished if things are much different today. Orient have for decades had a hardcore of 2-3k who more likely to travel from Essex/London borders than Stratford, in the same way the likes of Rochdale, Bury, etc survive alongside the Manchester giants so will Orient. As is currently the case West Ham and Orient rarely clash home fixtures so I am sure many fans will be free to watch Orient and possibly even more than now with extra cash in their pockets with fans paying West Ham's proposed lower prices.

    In truth a Chairman giving the O's 10k capacity stadium will hinder their progression much more than either West Ham or Spurs moving into Stratford could ever do. I think Orient were hoping on Spurs getting it as their arguments were more valid against them than they were against West Ham especially as Barry Hearn has said he is happy to relocate closer to the OS into the Hockey Stadium, which kind totally undermines his argument totally.

  • Comment number 54.

    Spurs fan here. Delighted for West Ham and hugely relieved Levy's plan to take Spurs there has failed. He has done Spurs' image no favours at all during all this. Got to feel sorry for the O's though.

  • Comment number 55.

    As a Spurs fan i'm over the moon at this news.

  • Comment number 56.

    Not a football fan but a sports fan

    Good - West Ham got the stadium at least the £500 million will go on a stadium that is going to be used.

    you can't take £80m out of a £500m stadium when it is built what sort of argument is that. Spurs wanted to replace the stadium when essentially meant dismantling most of it which probably cost more than £80 mill to put up!!!


    Post 24 is spot on football stadiums are empty for most of the year not at 34 said free for 20 days??!!!

    3 options were available 1 only made sense financially and morally.

    O's worry about losing fans its a 15/20 min walk between the 2 stadiums before so what now 10/15 mins! Move to the Hockey stadium which is a possibility. Get the FA to help as they have plenty of money or the premier league if they want to help support wider football and not just avoid paying the tax man AGAIN.

  • Comment number 57.

    40M of public money can be repaid via the increased revenue and taxes that West Ham will generate and pay. In the long term, new stadiums are cost effective.

  • Comment number 58.

    11:14pm to now at 11:37 - Why does it take so long to moderate?

    Step away from that deep-pan-pizza & get back to the job that we, the license payers, are paying you for ;o)

  • Comment number 59.

    Sorry for spelling errors. I'm an ex-Forest Gate man sneaking personal use of a work computer in Sydney and have to move fast.

    Just want to add that unless Orient are putting themselves forward, the Spurs move would have been much worse under adversely affecting other clubs, wouldn't it? Additinally, they could accused of actively wanting to adversely affect West Ham - think back pre-Redknapp years when the clubs were a lot closer in the league year after year. The difference now is they have learned how to run their club properly again. All this talk of West Ham in the Championship is silly as they just need to be run properly again as well.

    Look at Newcastle, Everton and Liverpool - all have turned it around off the pitch first. West Ham have been relegated before, but have only spent 8 out of the last 50 years outside the top division (and they're not down yet this year). Some fans are just talking out of jealously and fear of the potential not handed to their clubs. Where is Man. City's criticism? They are inthe same situation and yet their owners don't need a public owned hand out.

    Spurs' move had the added benefit of keeping West Ham's potential down. With Arsenal and Chelsea moving forward so strongly, the last thing Spurs need is a stronger West Ham too. The Stratford move was ideal for them, but could they survive an Orient, Dagenham, West Ham legal challenge?

  • Comment number 60.

    xpl0de wrote:
    "And the impact on Leyton Orient will be what ?"
    Probably not a lot - are really expecting hoardes of fans to defect to West Ham just because they move a mile or so closer?

    "Both the Premier league and the football league rules state, in effect that any club move " would not adversely affect clubs having their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location" "
    Correct, but, as above, what is the 'adverse effect'? There are a number of league grounds in close proximity to others (e.g. Liverpool Everton, the two Nottingham clubs) these do not seem to suffer an adverse effect from the other.

    "The O's are closer to stratford than the hammers are."
    So what, they are not looking to move are they?

    "Will West Ham still be allowed to call themselves West Ham, as they will be playing at Stratford. ( I cite wimbledon/MK Dons here )."
    Of course they will - I don't see Manchester United changing their name to Stretford United just because their ground is not actually in the City of Manchester (yes I am a City fan, but the point is still valid)

    "In these days of economic austerity, why should a local borough pay £40M for this move. How many local jobs will have to go to finance that ?"
    They're not paying, they are lending the money, justifying that by the community benefits, and the jobs that will be maintained.

    "Dont get me wrong, Spurs plan was even worse."
    Finally, something I can agree with!


  • Comment number 61.

    Slightly better than one other option, but time will show just how bad a decision this was. The stadium should have been kept as it was for the Olympics, ripping off the upper tier is a huge mistake and letting ANY football team anywhere near it is a much bigger one. I'll bet their old ground yields massive profits for a property developer whilst the public purse provides this stadium at next to zero cost.

  • Comment number 62.

    This decision is typical of many made by people related to non-commercial entities where emotion and rhetoric are considered over hard commercial facts. Athletics has been a commercial disaster for a very long time and this just re-enforces many of the reasons why. It loves to blame government for a lack of support instead of looking in the mirror.

    Just look at the budget of the whole Olympic project - it is miles over estimates and full of empty promises. It is not difficult to see legal action putting this whole farce into a very ugly mess in the near future.

    It is worth remembering Tottenham were invited to put in a bid without the running track, and did so in the most commercially viable way. The misreporting of the facts on their bid has been astonishing - BBC included. The lack of challenging of the statements made by the West Ham owners has also been extraordinary - when so many are blatantly untrue.

    That all said, the OPLC were left with an impossible decision - so went with the least damaging option given the media circus. Tomorrow is a different story as the knives will be out. How long before BBC Panorama digs up some dirt and the truth is told?

    Good luck to West Ham. They might just need it.

  • Comment number 63.

    Watch out PICKET'S LOCK, Enfield, there's a newish athletics centre, cinema, indoor bowls club and camping site just the job to be knocked down to make plenty of space for a new football stadium. It's not that far from an existing Premier League Club looking for a new venue. Or is this just a Cockerel and Ball story.

  • Comment number 64.

    This is a complete shambles.

    The decision taken is the easy option - but it will end in tears. West Ham are a great East London club but even as a premiership outfit they would struggle to fill a 60,000 stadium let alone in the Championship. Fans will soon moan about the athletics track. And what is this athletics track actually there for? When will athletics ever fill a 60,000 stadium? - it barely fills the crumbling Crystal palace arena even now. A World Championships? Possibly, for the 100m - but are we seriously saying West Ham fans have to endure a track for an event that lasts 10 seconds!

    I appreciate the Tottenham bid was controversial - but it was actually the Get Out of Jail Card for the Olympic bosses. It knocked down a White Elephant Stadium, restored the Crystal Palace stadium - which would be the perfect sized arena for athletics (and could even be expanded for a world championships) - and best of all - all done without any public money.

    Ultimately, the Olympic Management have a lot to answer for in terms of the original design of the stadium. They have spent a staggering amount of public money on a featureless bowl which was designed to be torn down after the games to be replaced by a wind swept athletics track. So desperate were the crazed athletics lobby to deny a premiership football club a tenancy at the stadium they never considered a stadium similar to the Stade de France in Paris which has a retractable athletics track and so answers all the problems regarding proximity to football action etc... It is this flaw in the original design, which lies at the centre of this shambles, and with the decision taken today there will be a lot more pain to come in future.

  • Comment number 65.

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

  • Comment number 66.

    38. -, Mogwyth wrote:
    The loan is not public money, is prudential borrowing and it comes from the bond market not the public purse.

    West Ham will not be the owner of the stadium, it will be jointly leased by the club and Newham council who will get a half share of the stadium and share of profits just for setting up the loan.
    --------

    - Actually the £40m loan comes from Newham Council and unless they have a secret Icelandic bank account, the cash will come from council taxes- ie public money.

    - As with all leases this money will have to be paid back. I cant believe that West Ham supporters truly believe that tickets will get cheaper. You need to earn more money to be able to pay back a mortgage, not less. If West Ham get relegated and the gate receipts do fall ( no more PL income either) then will Newham have to step in again with more cash just so they dont lose their original investment?

    - Alongside £40m from Newham, ( in addition the £500m tax payers contribution) how much will Brady and Gold invest in the Stadium? Their investment figures have been conspicuous by their absence

    - As a Spurs supporter I am genuinely relieved that we lost the bid, all the biased reporting and disinformation was a shame. What an unnecessary drama this whole process has been.

    And finally...Thank you to Lord Coe et al for your incredible lack of foresight in the first place.

  • Comment number 67.

    it has to be wrong that public money (from newham) will be funding west ham

    and if west ham are relegated from the PL and end up in the championship for a couple of years (or more), this will break west ham financially and gold and sullivan will walk

    the worst possible decision for all involved

  • Comment number 68.

    Why is it that the media including the BBC have constantly claimed that Spurs bid was based on ripping up a £500million stadium when this was clearly never going to be the case??

  • Comment number 69.

    Surely permission will be required from the Football rather than Premier League?

  • Comment number 70.

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

  • Comment number 71.

    I don't get why Leyton Orient didn't bid for the ground as they would probably have been the most logical tenants. I feel if they were considering giving the stadium to a Premier League club they should have planned for it from the start and designed it like the Stade de France with a retractable track. Orient are closer to the ground than West Ham or Spurs and the club is in major need of some progression.

    The stadium was especially designed to be reduced to 25,000 so why not let it be reduced, original bidding promises would be kept, Orient move into a modern ground, Spurs wouldn't leave Tottenham and West Ham wouldn't play Premier League football in some hybrid stadium ruining the fans' experience.

    This is doomed to failure from West Ham's point of view. There will be empty seats galore and a poor atmosphere. Big clubs in Europe like Juventus, Panathanaikos and Espanyol have been desperate to leave these athletics track behind, can't help but feel West Ham will be in a similar situation 10 years down the line.

  • Comment number 72.

    Ignoring above perceived skewed BBC coverage and economics for a second, I'd like to dwell on what the stadium decision means for those it's allegedly meant for. Regardless of the BBC coverage, I think it's a poor decision. Athletics as a legacy is more from 2012 than Bricks and Mortar. It SHOULD be about maintaining and preserving what London brought to the games and what the games means to young people than simply a stadium. Much less a stadium available for only several days per year. Where's a viable, inspiring legacy in that?

    Despite their words, what good do Lord Coe et al. think that will do for the games (and niche sports) in the long run??

    It seems short sighted. Moreover, the OPLC has obviously given the park to football as it's only viable long term tennant. It seems as though England/ GB is doomed to repeat the mistakes of previous Olympics holding nations. Worse than that - and I stress it's my own view - I don't trust the words, the noises coming from West Ham United's owners (based on noises made surrounding internal club affairs in the past).

    I fear they will be granted the use of the stadium, realise falling attendances (admittingly offsetting them with cheap tickets to those in surrounding areas) and rip out the running track at any rate. The public will be indignant for a month, and then a new football season will come along, and everyone forgets/ ignores this, rendering this current bidding process pointless - and does the global public even care?

    SPURS, Leyton Orient or those who hold no interest in the Olympics or won't be able to go, for me, are paying the price, for beaucrats, and Lord Coe et al., promising a legacy they simply couldn't deliver - playing with taxpayers money with perceived bottomless pit - only made worse by another £40million from Newham Council as aid for the West Ham bid.

    If everyone (UK taxpayer) who either didn't want the olympics - or didn't care, or can't go wanted to ask what the point was - who could realistically say we'd more than return the taxpayers money saving us GBP net? Or even that these things were glorious and made us the envy of the world long term (for athletics, or football stadia and its atmosphere) based on this decision?

  • Comment number 73.

    This decision is the result of compromise. The stadium was clearly ill-conceived in terms that it was not designed with a valid compromise in mind, but demolishing the stadium entirely is of course pretty dim-witted.

    The move will not suit West Ham for two reasons: the obvious one of having a running track will remove the one benefit of the Boleyn Ground, the proximity of the stands to the pitch and the intimidating atmosphere that results. The second issue is that pitch level at the Olympic stadium is below ground level so no air movement will be possible over the pitch so the grass will struggle to grow well. So no atmosphere and a poor pitch, both will not be good.

    The plus for West Ham fans is that the site will be easier to access than the Boleyn ground, public transport links for the current ground are pretty dreadful whereas Stratford has infinitely better links (apart of course from those West Ham fans living close to District line stations).

    Obviously a bigger stadium potentially means more income for the club and the potential for cheaper tickets so every West Ham fan that wishes to, should get tickets for all but the biggest games.

    This is appalling news of course for the Mighty Leyton Orient, it should be disallowed under league rules or at least West Ham should annually pay a substantial compensation fee to the O's if there is a negative impact on O's attendances. Given the corporate nature of Modern football this is highly unlikely to happen.

    This is also bad news for West Ham fans wanting a pre-match drink, most of the pubs local to the stadium have closed, so unless new outlets open as part of the Olympic developments they will have to be fleeced by the beer prices in the stadium.

    This is of course also bad news for the developers wishing to sell apartments next to the stadium, the prospect of thousands of West Ham fans descending upon their neighbourhood 30 odd days a year will hardly be a good selling point, except of course to West Ham fans.

  • Comment number 74.

    The whole idea of Leyton Orient getting any less fans than they do now is entirely laughable, its not like the people in stratford have far to go watch West Ham or there is shortage of premier league clubs within easy distance is there? It will have about as much as effect on the club as it does now, its a silly argument.

    To those going about tax and the goverment bank rolling a team, what about Man City, I think most you are probably bitter spurs fans or other teams fan bitter we are getting a world class stadium. So it was ok for Man City to get bank rolled but no ok for west ham, its 40m loan because it will also be community hub and the club are strengthening there links with the local council which can only be good thing.

    Considering West Ham have at least 18000 season ticket holders with 17000 on the waiting list. (I can't remember exactly how many tickets we allow for season ticket holders). I'd like to know we 're with cheaper tickets going to have attendances of 15000, even in the championship we average close 30000. Another myth busted.

    In recent years I've noticed Upton Park getting less and less intimidating for away teams as the crowd slowly dies along with most football crowds but this could rejunivnate by letting true supports in who can now afford it. It always been the supporters more than the stadium.

    So here we have a world class multi purpose stadium and not just football stadium or just a small athletics stadium that for most of the year will go unnoticed but one one that will provide world class sports and entertainment events in area that desperately needs the investment.

  • Comment number 75.

    71 ++I don't get why Leyton Orient didn't bid for the ground as they would probably have been the most logical tenants++

    Fans were told 4 or 5 years ago by the club' owner back before stadium was designed that the Olympic Authorities were not prepared to adapt the design so that seating could be right next to the football pitch and over the athletics track - there may have been other difficulties as well.

    I think Orient have only said they are willing to consider the Hockey Stadium but that almost seems a non starter to me because Hockey is played on Astro Turf and Football on grass.

    I can't see much scope for compromise, also just because Orient might agree to be in the Hockey Stadium (coincidentally due to be re-sited in the Olympic Park corner that is located in Orient's existing Borough of Waltham Forest, I cannot see that they will readily agree to move even nearer to West Ham than they will be already.

    The main issue that remains is that the Premier and Football League rules that say clubs should not relocate to the disadvantage of another club. The Premier League have somehow found justification for approving West Ham's move, so unless O's are appropriately compensated I can see the whole business ending up in court!

  • Comment number 76.

    Orient fans, thanks for your comments. I didn't mention Orient tonight on the blog because it was a breaking news story and I didn't have much time to write it as well as complete our reports on radio and TV. BUT I did mention the club on BBC London Radio 94.9 FM tonight and BBC London TV has covered the Orient question in a special report on the effect of the 2012 stadium on the Games. We understand the story, don't worry and we are covering it.

  • Comment number 77.

    @Mark #34 wrote
    -----
    The Olympic stadium should never have been offered to a football club. The UK has enough football stadia already. What we're short of are decent athletics facilities. Keep it as an athletic stadium and we may stand a chance of hosting the European and World chanpionships.
    -----

    Why are we short of decent athletic facilities? Could it be because there isn't the demand for it? UK Athletics have already shown they can't maintain existing stadia (Crystal Palace) because the demand for athletics just isn't there. Did you see them dipping into their pockets to make a bid for the stadium - even in its original intended form, a 25k athletics stadium? That would be a no, because it just isn't viable.

    And so what if we miss out on hosting the European and World Championships? At best it would be two events that could fill a stadium in what, 30 years?

    The stadium should have been built with football in mind in the first place, that it wasn't is am enditement of Lord Coe.

    As a Spurs fan I'm pleased we didn't get it. I'd rather win the occasional FA Cup and parade it around Tottenham than sell my soul to the devil.

    Hopefully Lamy and Harringey will now pull their fingers out to make the NDP a viable proposal.

  • Comment number 78.

    As a lifelong Spurs fan I can honestly say that I am delighted that we are staying at the lane. Levy is normally spot on as a chairman but he had his finger miles off the pulse on this one. He claimed that "the vast majority" of fans supported the move to Stratford yet all my family and most of my mates are all Spurs fans and not one of them wanted to see us moving to East London. Redevelope our real home the lane as was originally planned and it's best for the club, the fans and the Tottenham area. Everyone's a winner on this one. Congrats to West Ham! Come on you Spurs!!

  • Comment number 79.

    76 ++At 01:47am on 10 Feb 2011, Adrian Warner wrote:

    Orient fans, thanks for your comments. I didn't mention Orient tonight on the blog because it was a breaking news story and I didn't have much time to write it as well as complete our reports on radio and TV. BUT I did mention the club on BBC London Radio 94.9 FM tonight and BBC London TV has covered the Orient question in a special report on the effect of the 2012 stadium on the Games. We understand the story, don't worry and we are covering it.++

    It is not just a mention I want, it is some proper journalism.

    Questions of Premier League about their rule breaking.

    Questions of Politicians and Olympic Legacy Company about objectives NOT including maintaining and sustaining existing community legacy, rather than plant another one that dashes what is in place aside.

    That is just a start!

  • Comment number 80.

    I love all this talk about not filling this stadium while in the Championship. Has no one read that this ground will not be ready till at least the 2014/15 season. That's 3 years people for the hammers to get back in the Premier league IF they go down. I for one welcome the move. I know most of the hammers fans where I live will be going to games more often coz it will be so easy to get to the ground. One train no underground for us coming from the coast!

  • Comment number 81.

    Look at Spurs before Redknapp got there. Coupled with the risk they have to take to try and stay with the big boys, they could get relegated before 2015 - it's happened to them before.

  • Comment number 82.

    76 again ++I didn't mention Orient tonight on the blog because it was a breaking news story and I didn't have much time to write it as well as complete our reports on radio and TV.++

    Piffle, hardly a late breaking story - this report which reveals the decision was filmed well in daylight -

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12413138

    So before - about 5pm. Orient were not mentioned. The blog and other stuff was prepared to go live on the website seconds before 10pm, presumably some sort of news management - hiding the report from other news outlets, presumably principally ITV and SKY as well as print newspapers first editions, there was plenty of time to mention that Orient are impacted in written stuff on the website.

    Who leaked it to you,and why - you are obviously not going to say, maybe Mihir Bose or David Conn will dig that out eventually.

    Anyway, as I have said above there has been plenty of time in recent weeks since I and others started answering BBC blogs with info about broken Premiership rules and flawed objectives of Olympic Park Legacy Company.

    And why was not John Whittingdale questioned about this stuff on Monday lunchtime on BBC2's Daily Politics Programme about Football Inquiry of Select Committee? It was a perfect issue to show up the dominance of Premier League as came out in the questioning of the Committee on Tuesday - Minutes are due by Friday I have been told.

    http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=7632

    What about asking FA what part they have to play in overseeing conflicts between members and Leagues? - There is stuff in their rules, which I can't get to grips with, but I am not a trained journalist with the resources of a team of colleagues at BBC all blogging about the same thing with not much coherence between them.

    Roger Mosey, Matt Slater, David Bond and Gordon Farquhar are all ploughing in the same furrow, but going in different directions - do you have a strategy to work together and pool information or are you all competing with each other?

    Above all, remember the current mess has its origins back before the bid for the Olympics was made, or at least from the design stage of the main Stadium - at which time there had already been consultations with Orient, that dragged on for ages. What about the politicians involved? - In recent years Governments have changed Ministers and policy as frequently as some of us change shirts!

    Then there are all the consultants to the Olympic Legacy Company and other Quangos and Government with their scoping evaluations gobbledegook, and yet there seems to be no thought of the existing community activities that have been developing incrementally since London spread east with the factories and railways.

    So, what about the Local Authorities contribution to the aims and objectives, did they think about what is already done in the names of and by their existing communities or were they just scrabbling to get some of the Olympic cake?

    I have only looked and really thought about this since I realised that really daft decisions were about to be taken as a consequence of irreconcilable commitments of ages ago.

    This is the stuff journalists are supposed to be investigating, instead of just getting pap stories about aged footballers - Pele or Jimmy Greaves, as if what they think is of great significance unless they have really been part of the process and/or are closely involved with the communities and organisation affected.

    And finally - for now, Many, many millions of pounds is being spent on this stuff by a nation that uses charity to care for children in desperate need, fund ambulance helicopters etc. etc.. while many of us get cushy lives with little real risk or are even privileged to earn a living writing about other peoples sporting activity!

  • Comment number 83.

    Wow! You make some very good points there. Unfortunately, I missed too many them in between the hostility.

    Are you more concerned about the stadium, process and ethics around the whole thing? Or about privileged journalist not doing there jobs? The first is being discussed here, and you could run for public office and try to make sure such a debacle never occurs agains. Similarly, you could train to be a journalist and do something about raising the bar in that profession too.

    Anyone can criticise. What are you going to do about it. If you're active already, give us some measured insight.

  • Comment number 84.

    I look forward to the debacle that ensues. It will be rather farcical.

  • Comment number 85.

    Agreed! Much like the Tevez Affair, everyone will fight their own corner and ignore all other points of view.

  • Comment number 86.

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

  • Comment number 87.

    Are the UK govt going to help out all struggling football clubs from now on???

  • Comment number 88.

    For those who dispute the 0.3 difference between West Ham, Orient and the Olmpic Park.

    DISTANCES BY ROAD:
    Orient-Stratford: 2.1 miles
    Upton Park-Stratford: 2.4 miles
    Orient-West Ham: 4.2 miles
    Spurs-Stratford: 7.1 miles

    (Distances: AA route planner)

    The clubs get closer, but it's not much different to clubs in cities like Dundee, Liverpool, Sheffield, Bristol etc...

  • Comment number 89.

    @ 88 The AA distances are not to the Olimpic Park.They are to Stratford Broadway.Everyone just look on a map and never believe what alcohlics anonymous tell you.

  • Comment number 90.

    I'm not a football fan, and see only a face saving botch job to create the impression that an olympic legacy has been maintained, when the truth is that dual use always means that athletics comes second best. For much of the time the facility won't be available to athletes, because of matches and pitch maintenance, and hammer throwers for example, will hardly ever be able to use the outfield area to throw into for obvious reasons - gouging holes in the turf. The WH solution would have created an exclusive athletics stadium which, though, not in the same location would have amounted to a genuine athletics legacy . . . this compromise serves no-one well, and all those famous athletes who threw their support behind it weren't thinking about the practical benefits to athletics . . they'd been primed to follow the party line . . or they didn't really appreciate the consequences of their support. My interest as a world ranked athletics veteran is to see the widest possible participation in athletics. This "legacy" decision won't help in that direction at all.

  • Comment number 91.

    Oops . . . Should have said the "Spurs" solution would have amounted to a genuine athletics legacy . . . .

  • Comment number 92.

    Adrian Warner is just one of the many BBC biased journo's ,who have no business sense and are in the pockets of Lord Coe etc.
    This decison is wrong we are chucking money into this money pit and we will get nothing in return.
    Athletics will get this for 20 YES 20 days a year what the hell will that do for the young prospects in this country , NOTHING !
    If you live in Newham and are struggling to make ends met go along to Upton Park and see if they can lend you some of your hard earned money back.

  • Comment number 93.

    Some of you people are so easily conned. The track will stay for a couple of years and when all the hype has died down it will be ripped up just as was always intended by whoever got the ground, plus if left as is W.H. wont even half fill it................I see another "dome" coming up. The truth is all the people involved in this don't really give a t*ss what happens to it afterwards, they're just playing the game

  • Comment number 94.

    Gold, Sullivan and Brady take note- you want a war, so now you will have one. Your lack of consideration for teams below the Premier League is a disgrace for owners of a club that may be in one next season.

    The Olympic Commitee have now sealed the fate of the O's, and maybe that if we do go, you will realise just what you have done.

    @michelle

    We did not bid for the stadium because:

    a) we did not want a running track

    b) our crowds average about 4000. In a 25000 seater stadium (as per the original plans) that would be ridiculous.

  • Comment number 95.

    Funny to hear Leyton Orient fans bleating about West Ham encroaching on 'their' patch. Were they not based in Clapton before deciding to uproot and move into West Ham's area? If so, why should West Ham's ambitions be limited by the narrow self interest of Clapton Orient?

  • Comment number 96.

    As a Hammers fan I say 'Well done Spurs!'
    This will be a disaster for the Hammers, lower ticket prices my backside, we'll have to spend millions to turn it into a football venue, turnstiles etc. Delboy,Rodney & Marlene Brady have stitched us right up. Cheers.

  • Comment number 97.

    kikujiro

    You sound like another one of those Premier League fan boys who don't care about a lower leagues, and a club that has put so much into the community.

  • Comment number 98.

    As an athletics fan, and having already bought my tickets for the Aviva London Grand Prix next August. I continue to receive emails from UK Athletics urgeing me to buy tickets. The latest offering a 15% discount. If London's biggest meet of the year is struggling to fill Crystal Palace, why on earth does London need a 60,000 athletics venue?
    Buffoons like Seb Coe should own up, and admit that there will be no massive appetite for athletics, as now, and stop all the posturing. West Ham do not have the resilience to support the venue, they'll pull out, and the good people of Newham will see £40m sail off into the sunset. As the athletics community have failed to even raise a viable bid, the only financially sound option is Tottenham. If the West Ham bid is accepted, the decision makers must be held to account when the taxpayers have to pick up the tab!

  • Comment number 99.

    It's a shame that "athletic fans" as mentioned in the blog haven't at any point questioned UK Athletics over the way they've behaved in this entire situation. Despite all the bleating, the stadium was offered to UK Athletics - they turned it down. They turned it down because they didn't want to have any responsibility for paying or maintaining it. Part of the reason a new athletics stadium is needed is because the people in charge of UK Athletics have allowed it to become run-down. That's the real disgrace in this and which people should be angry about, not criticising West Ham or Spurs who were the only options. Barry Hearn, of Orient, made it clear that the club would have been interested in taking it, as they should have been first choice, but were basically snubbed by those in charge who completely ignored his suggestions for how it should be set up to get the best for both athletics and football. Instead people like Lord Coe made all sorts of promises to the IOC that they had no right to make and that they were unable to live up to. People should be asking why they made those promises, but that seems to be another issue swept under the carpet.

    As a Spurs fan I'm glad we're not getting it, but I have to say the Spurs bid has been utterly misrepresented by a whole host of people who haven't bothered to look at the bid itself or even listen to the club when they've tried to explain it.

  • Comment number 100.

    I find all of the O's related comments hilarious. Everyone is related to having a dig at West Ham... the only other feasible option was Spurs, so the argument is kind of mute. That's why it hasn't got any attention, because when you think about it, it's tough luck. I feel sorry for the O's, I really do, but think about the argument, there isn't one. If a little music store has hmv move in next to them on the high street, it's tough, you feel sorry for them, but deal with it and move on.

    Now to the real point at hand, I'm a hammer and I really wish this decision had been left til the end of the season and you all know why. If we stay up, brilliant move; attract new players, more fans (even if they may be plastic and further away from the pitch...), more revenue, more media attention and tv coverage. HOWEVER. If we go down, we are in serious trouble, they will have to renegotiate the deal no doubt and West Ham will have gone from owning a stadium to renting. If we get relegated, this will go down as the worst decision possible. I want to rant more and make more points, but I'm getting disheartened as I type!

 

Page 1 of 3

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.