|
Post by Macmoish on Nov 17, 2010 7:46:51 GMT
This is the antithesis of Loftus Road. Uggg!BBC
Spurs stadium plan 'unacceptable' to UK Athletics Warner has urged Spurs and AEG to rethink their proposalTottenham's proposal to take over London's Olympic Stadium with AEG after the Games in 2012 is "completely unacceptable" to UK Athletics (UKA). Along with West Ham, Spurs have been named as a preferred bidder, but their plan to "rip up the athletics track" is anathema to UKA chairman Ed Warner. "It is [essential] for Tottenham and AEG to go back to the original promise made in 2005," Warner told BBC Sport. "That was about UK Athletics being at the heart of the Olympic Park." While Tottenham plan to make the east-London stadium an 80,000-seat venue, West Ham want to create a 60,000-capacity arena for football, athletics, concerts and community use in a collaboration with Newham Council. The Tottenham bid has been submitted in collaboration with AEG, which runs the O2 Arena beside the River Thames in Greenwich, south London. "Tottenham and AEG have made it clear that they will rip up the track and make it a football only venue and that is hugely concerning to me," added Warner, who was unequivocal in his support of the bid made by West Ham and Newham Council. "There was a promise made back in 2005 by London 2012 chief Lord Coe to bring the Olympics to London. 606: DEBATE I really do not see Spurs going to the Olympic Stadium, and they are probably just using this as a bargaining tool to pressurise the local council to give them the planning permission Techno Trousers "The greatest city in the world deserves a facility that is capable of hosting world championships and major athletics events. That is really the legacy we need from the Games for our sport. "We've had sporadic conversations with AEG over the course of the year and one brief conversation with Spurs. "Anything they might propose for an athletics legacy has to be a compromise to the stadium continuing to operate at a world-class level. To my mind that is completely unacceptable." Warner suggested that the Spurs and AEG bid would look to offer something to athletics by either adding a "small" amount of seating to the warm-up track or upgrading an existing facility elsewhere, both options he described as "very inferior". He also expressed concern that relationships with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) could be adversely affected if the stadium was left without the capacity to cater for athletics. "Britain has a history of letting down the IOC and the IAAF in not delivering on promises on athletics," stated Warner. "I think it was instrumental in the Games coming here that that promise was made and if Britain reneges it would be a very sorry state of affairs." And Warner urged Spurs to rethink their proposal. "There is an important opportunity here to invest in a whole range of sports to sustain them for the future. West Ham and Newham have shown that they can embrace that opportunity and work with athletics with a very credible proposal. "I would like to see Spurs and AEG come up with something equally exciting." newsvote.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/9196681.stm
|
|
|
Post by The Scooter on Nov 17, 2010 9:52:18 GMT
UK Athletics are nothing more than a pressure group with a vested interest in the process. Anyone want chapter and verse on this is welcome to PM me.....
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Nov 17, 2010 10:48:15 GMT
Forget what you say or the "merits" between West Ham and Spurs, I just think it's a shame that any club should be moving far from its roots. And of course, most especially QPR. I'd rather have a smaller QPR in the Loftus Road area than a super QPR in a totally different part of London - Irrational as that obviously is, given my own geographical distance.
|
|
eskey8
Dave Sexton
www.cycle2austria.com
Posts: 2,274
|
Post by eskey8 on Nov 17, 2010 11:16:55 GMT
If the running track remains the stadium itself will have very little atmosphere for a football stadium as the fans are miles away from the pitch.
|
|
|
Post by The Scooter on Nov 17, 2010 13:17:14 GMT
Forget what you say or the "merits" between West Ham and Spurs, I just think it's a shame that any club should be moving far from its roots. And of course, most especially QPR. I'd rather have a smaller QPR in the Loftus Road area than a super QPR in a totally different part of London - Irrational as that obviously is, given my own geographical distance. Completely agree but it's still a far cry from taking the Colts to Indianapolis in the dead of the night or the Dodgers to LA. London clubs have often and, in our case, frequently, moved small distances as they have grown and progressed. Queens Park Rangers playing in Shepherds Bush, Millwall (E14) playing in New Cross, West Ham playing in Upton Park, Woolwich Arsenal playing in Islington. If Stratford remained exactly where it was but had an "N" postcode - the furore wouldn't be half as loud.
|
|
gavqpr77
Neil Warnock
WWW.QPR-DVD-COPY-SHOP.CO.UK
Posts: 556
|
Post by gavqpr77 on Nov 17, 2010 19:27:43 GMT
Tradition means bugger all to businessmen, has anyone asked the Spurs and West Ham fans what they think??
|
|
obk
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,516
|
Post by obk on Nov 17, 2010 19:40:49 GMT
According to my West Ham supporting friend this site is actually more in the West Ham territory than their current ground. On the other hand he really really despises the tracks around the pitch and is very much against the move.
|
|
|
Post by Zamoraaaah on Nov 17, 2010 20:01:25 GMT
Obviously a good business move for whoever moves there but it will be a real shame to see the end of WHL or UP. Both great grounds.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 13, 2010 7:33:11 GMT
Guardian/David HillWest Ham or Spurs to the Olympic Stadium? Neither seems right
Is it fair to sacrifice the fans' sense of place and tradition for the demands of modern football clubs and their owners? Should West Ham fans want their club to move to the Olympic Stadium? It's a philosophical question. That's why a Hammers devotee has invoked Edmund Burke: "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation." The quote graces an eloquent case made in favour of the East End club shifting a short distance across Newham to larger and plusher premises. The author heaps scorn on fellow West Ham supporters who've sounded off on Facebook against shifting an inch from the ground the club has occupied since 1904: "The comments on the petition are worryingly incoherent. The strapline could almost be: "You don't have to be illiterate to sign here, but it helps." Illiterate or not, there always are objectors when football clubs ā well, their filthy rich owners ā decide it's time to vacate a space that once encased the half-time Bovril age and embrace the modern leisure experience. Sentiment, habit and a profound, not to say stubbornly fixed, sense of place have long been part of what sustains the game. Yet a string of famous old clubs have abandoned historic homes for greener fields of dreams: Manchester City, Arsenal, Derby County, Southampton, Sunderland, Middlesbrough. Even Liverpool, whose ground has been quite literally a shrine to its fans, would like to relocate. West Ham's proprietors are already testing the market for potential buyers of the Boleyn Ground. Only two things can stop them uprooting a couple of miles to Stratford: their own finances and a competitor from another part of town. And that's where heels are really digging in. Tottenham Hotspur, you may have heard, are not from east London but north London and have been since Queen Victoria's time. As well as being West Ham's rivals for the Olympic bowl after the 2012 Games they have plans and permissions to redevelop their present one. Most reckon they're second favourites in the Olympics race, in part because the London bid team promised a world-class athletics venue as a post-Games legacy. West Ham say they'd retain the track, while Spurs say only that they'd build another one elsewhere. Yet some Tottenham locals, including MP David Lammy, suspect the club secretly favours moving east and could yet become the preferred bidder when one is named early next year. With public money tight it has the advantage of being wealthier than West Ham and will become still more so should the latter be relegated from the Premier League, as seems extremely possible. But supporters have yet to be consulted on the Olympic option and a campaign is underway to squash it. "Say NO to Stratford Hotspur," it cries. There's that stubborn sense of place again. Should Burke's dictum also be applied to Spurs? It's worth noting that their north London rivals Arsenal only became so in 1913. Before that they were Woolwich Arsenal, based south of the Thames. True, they were broke and moribund. Even so they moved to Highbury because new owner Henry Norris sought a bigger market, just as the businessmen running Spurs are today. That precedent suggests a change of name to simply "Hotspur" should Tottenham move to Stratford. Unlikely? So how about just "Spurs"? The north London derby would be mislabelled and atrophied, but most of the fans would get over it ā many of them live miles from Tottenham already. If they were augmented by residents of the new homes that will sprout in the Olympic park then the aim of a football club having a binding effect on a brand new neighbourhood would be met to some degree. But, you know, it wouldn't seem quite right. Though West Ham's bid is being made in partnership with its local authority and it majors on linking with the community, the club's present location is an important part of East End history. Maybe Burke should guide you only so far. West Ham United and Tottenham Hotspur have expressed an interest in moving to the Olympic Stadium in 2012. Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/12/west-ham-spurs-olympic-stadium
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Dec 13, 2010 11:18:51 GMT
This issue goes to the heart of what English football is to a supporter. Tottenham is Hotspur. Highbury is Emirates. Wimbledon is Milton Keynes.
What is the priority here? There isn't one. That's the problem.
I can see the reasoning at Spurs to an extent. They are a very small club, have hardly any support, and have never won anything. They are in a non-football area, with attendances which hardly ever rose above 60,000 even in their heyday.
So they must move to another ground in the middle of nowhere because ....
.... what?
It is often said that QPR moved any number of times. And?
Well, there is no doubt that it did us good.
We are big. We have an enormous ground. We arrived in an area which would provide us with no other Clubs to compete against within a 100 mile radius, and our consequent massive local support underlines this.
When we moved, the Ground got bigger every time. It would, wouldn't it? And we were not like that old Jim Gregory's club, whatever they were called, who redeveloped THEIR Ground until it was half the size.
And Loftus Road is big, and it is always full. Thats why we kept on moving, to get more of everything. So, after 12 moves, it's 12 times 5,000 or whatever size it was once it was more than just a pitch in a park.
The PR always shows that everything in the future is bigger and better. Spurs in the Olympic Stadium - it must be 80,000. Never mind that it holds 60,000. Call it 80,000.
But what if it is. It won't be bigger and better for Arsenal, will it? Who, if THEIR PR is to be believed, moved to Drayton Park because it would give them the edge over their rivals. Even though it is smaller than United's, and will now be smaller even than Spurs.
With Liverpool to build a bigger one if they sort out the financial mess they're in from being so successful, so marketable, so well-supported and so global.
The PR pretends everything will go well. It pretends the day-to-day reality will be at the level of the most optimistic estimates. It fails to take into account the impact of what all the OTHER Clubs do. And it fails to take into account that footbal is always and everywhere overwhelmingly about failure.
But most of all it fails to take into account that it is a Club's LIMITATIONS which make it interesting and competitive. Not just to its own supporters, but in reality. That is why we aren't all glory hunters. That is why there are so many well-supported small Clubs.
Assuming that Hot - I doubt that 'Hotspur' will last very long, as the Chinese will have the devil of a job pronouncing it, and they're the audience that matters, so let's call them the 'Hoes', as that sounds more Chinese, fulfil all their potential in East London.
What is it? That potential? The usual football confusion is that a Club's potential is one thing and one thing only. MORE. And when more doesn't materialise on the pitch - which is very unlikely indeed, and very unlikely to happen for long, ask the Club that used to be called Spurs - it metamorphoses off the pitch into change.
And change for change's sake. When you haven't the talent to do it in footballing terms, you need a distraction. A new ground, a new strip, a new away shirt, a new programme cover. New 'investors', a new manager, a new team.
Having said that, I'm inclined to say that the real motive is probably quite different. The beauty of a stadium which is already built is that you can dump the Club in it - promising all sorts of changes which may never materialise - and sell off the old one, pocketing the proceeds.
As long as all attention is focused on the the distraction, the new ground, which probably won't make them any more successful than rebuilding the old ground did, there is every chance that nobody will notice.
And, like Sugar in his last spell at the Club, you can pocket your Ā£50 million, and leave a scene of devastation and chaos behind. Because all the attention will have shifted to some new distraction.
|
|
w12
Ian Holloway
Posts: 266
|
Post by w12 on Dec 13, 2010 13:12:03 GMT
Ingham sorry mate,were you on drugs,or drunk when you wrote that article?Spurs a very small club,badly supported,and not won anything?i,m astonished you wrote this.I,m no spurs supporter but i think they,ve won euro cup,fa cups,carling cups,or has that all been a massive dream for them all?i think if this got onto various spurs forums,you would be,excuse the pun LITERALLY murdered.I cannot see the point of them moving there,it would antagonise the intense feeling of west ham supporters to spurs even more.West Ham should have it,its in their "Manor" as they would say,Spurs should stay where they are with new ground in their area.
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Dec 13, 2010 13:56:44 GMT
Ingham sorry mate,were you on drugs,or drunk when you wrote that article?Spurs a very small club,badly supported,and not won anything?i,m astonished you wrote this.I,m no spurs supporter but i think they,ve won euro cup,fa cups,carling cups,or has that all been a massive dream for them all?i think if this got onto various spurs forums,you would be,excuse the pun LITERALLY murdered.I cannot see the point of them moving there,it would antagonise the intense feeling of west ham supporters to spurs even more.West Ham should have it,its in their "Manor" as they would say,Spurs should stay where they are with new ground in their area. W12, I believe Ingham is being facetious with that comment. As for him being on drugs or drink, both probably. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 13, 2010 15:44:31 GMT
And the Scottish Footballer Jack Ross's BBC BLOG
Grounds for saying new stadiums lack old atmosphereJack Ross | 11:49 UK time, Monday, 13 December 2010 I am sure that most people would not consider making a house a home as being something that could be relative to the world of football - and yet, in an era when more and more clubs have moved to purpose-built stadiums, is it easy to make these new grounds appealing to both players and supporters? As much as recent headlines in Scotland were dominated by fixture cancellations and managerial changes, the news that Clyde had made the decision to leave Broadwood Stadium stirred my interest - and not just because they are one of my former clubs. I acknowledge that Clyde do not own their stadium. But, when they first moved to Broadwood in 1994, I am sure that they imagined this modern, all-seated arena with close motorway access and a large catchment area for potential new fans would help provide a platform for future success. The reasons for the dream not quite becoming a reality cannot just be laid at the door of new stadiums lacking the soul of traditional football grounds, but it is certainly raises the question as to how popular and profitable a move to fresh surroundings are for a football club. Supporters will have their own opinion as to their preference of terracing over seats and traditional "ends", where fans congregated, against the modern-day identikit stands that surround the pitch, but what do players think of new stadiums? I am in a reasonable position to give an opinion on this as, during my own career, I played at Falkirk's new ground only a year after their initial move and then was at St Mirren when they made the short journey from Love Street to Greenhill Road. The first point I must make is that, in terms of the dressing-rooms and other facilities, both of these modern stadiums were far superior to their previous homes, so initially the impressions are good and enjoyable for a player. However, I must admit that the atmosphere at Brockville and Love Street was in my view better than that generated within the new grounds. In fact, when I was with other clubs, both of these stadiums were among my most enjoyable to go and play in because of the noise that could be generated. It is also worth noting that both Falkirk and St Mirren suffered from a lack of home victories in the Scottish Premier League during the initial months of residence in their new homes. This lack of positive results at the new stadiums perhaps reinforced the point that new grounds are more pleasant to visit and less intimidating to play in for opposition players. Whether there is direct correlation to be found with the comfort of surroundings and the subsequent intimidation factor I am not sure as visiting Ibrox or Parkhead provides players with excellent facilities but also daunting arenas that can act as a definite advantage to the respective home teams when filled to capacity. These two grounds are probably exceptions in the grand scheme of Scottish football and, taking them aside, my own favourite stadium to visit as a player is Tynecastle, where the proximity of fans to the pitch make it a great venue to play football in as well as receive an unbelievable amount of criticism (all good natured of course!). Plasma TVs on the wall of the dressing-room and your own locker, or not being able to hear your own team-mate and feeling the rush of adrenaline the roar of a crowd can generate? There is only one winner! www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jackross/2010/12/i_am_sure_that_most.html
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Dec 14, 2010 18:18:29 GMT
Sorry w12. markqpr is right, of course. I seem to have over-egged the pudding and added a pinch too too much po-faced facetiousness. Apologies.
The Clyde article raises that interesting question of atmosphere. Knowing what the old grounds were actually like, or even lovable Loftus Road today with its scalpel-like seat backs, we might ponder whether the old stadiums had more than just character and history going for them.
After all, so many of them were chucked together, and not exactly impressively maintained.
But that was the point.
At football, there were no distractions. The only thing anyone could sensibly go to a football ground for was football. Not comfort, not convenience, not facilities.
Without architecture, elegant proportions or opulent accommodation, 'atmosphere' meant supporters, crammed in, whipped up by the game, and intent only on the game, because there was nothing else to be intent on.
Those old grounds kept your mind firmly on what mattered - the football, and the people it mattered to - the supporters.
I began to wonder about the priorities of the people who purported to tell us what we needed when we were told we needed 'half time entertainment'.
I expect to be 'entertained' - or whatever the brutal experience turns out to be - at any point in the afternoon APART FROM half-time. At half-time, I was preoccupied with what had happpened, and concerned at what was about to happen - ON THE PITCH.
But now, football clubs are about anything and everything except football. Investment, sponsors, advertising, even 'involvement in the local community'.
Clubs have always been involved in their local communities. As football clubs. That is what they are, and the best way of involving themselves is to do what they're supposed to be doing to the best of their abilities.
Football.
It is something of a joke that small Clubs like ours which are capable of LOSING Ā£20 million in a single season presume to set themselves up as exemplars for the local community.
As what, precisely? Losers? Incompetents?
Once, it was just the football. But that is too real, too stark for the losers who occupy almost every League boardroom in the country. If they are judged by their football, or their financial management of the Clubs, they are condemned.
So they must have something else. Some 'project', some irrelevance. Some other competition. Win this, win that. Just don't win on the pitch.
When a Club's home is not its castle, and it must house all sorts of other activities 'to pay the rent' while the people supposedly in charge are LOSING the Club's money at a rate of millions and tens of millions every year, it's a racket, not a football club.
On that basis, the new stadiums springing up all over the country - far from commemorating a brave new chapter in the history of the game - look more like headstones commemorating the demise of the 'football' part of the game in the minds of those who purportedly represent it.
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Dec 14, 2010 18:36:34 GMT
Great post Ingham.
|
|
|
Post by toboboly on Dec 14, 2010 19:05:29 GMT
Interesting to see what happens when West Ham are (possibly) relegated.
Besides they couldn't get 60k a week if they sold 'em for a pound. I saw West Ham v Arsenal last year as part of the M25 trek and there were shedload's of seats free.
|
|
|
Post by Zamoraaaah on Dec 14, 2010 19:38:47 GMT
Sorry w12. markqpr is right, of course. I seem to have over-egged the pudding and added a pinch too too much po-faced facetiousness. Apologies. The Clyde article raises that interesting question of atmosphere. Knowing what the old grounds were actually like, or even lovable Loftus Road today with its scalpel-like seat backs, we might ponder whether the old stadiums had more than just character and history going for them. After all, so many of them were chucked together, and not exactly impressively maintained. But that was the point. At football, there were no distractions. The only thing anyone could sensibly go to a football ground for was football. Not comfort, not convenience, not facilities. Without architecture, elegant proportions or opulent accommodation, 'atmosphere' meant supporters, crammed in, whipped up by the game, and intent only on the game, because there was nothing else to be intent on. Those old grounds kept your mind firmly on what mattered - the football, and the people it mattered to - the supporters. I began to wonder about the priorities of the people who purported to tell us what we needed when we were told we needed 'half time entertainment'. I expect to be 'entertained' - or whatever the brutal experience turns out to be - at any point in the afternoon APART FROM half-time. At half-time, I was preoccupied with what had happpened, and concerned at what was about to happen - ON THE PITCH. But now, football clubs are about anything and everything except football. Investment, sponsors, advertising, even 'involvement in the local community'. Clubs have always been involved in their local communities. As football clubs. That is what they are, and the best way of involving themselves is to do what they're supposed to be doing to the best of their abilities. Football. It is something of a joke that small Clubs like ours which are capable of LOSING Ā£20 million in a single season presume to set themselves up as exemplars for the local community. As what, precisely? Losers? Incompetents? Once, it was just the football. But that is too real, too stark for the losers who occupy almost every League boardroom in the country. If they are judged by their football, or their financial management of the Clubs, they are condemned. So they must have something else. Some 'project', some irrelevance. Some other competition. Win this, win that. Just don't win on the pitch. When a Club's home is not its castle, and it must house all sorts of other activities 'to pay the rent' while the people supposedly in charge are LOSING the Club's money at a rate of millions and tens of millions every year, it's a racket, not a football club. On that basis, the new stadiums springing up all over the country - far from commemorating a brave new chapter in the history of the game - look more like headstones commemorating the demise of the 'football' part of the game in the minds of those who purportedly represent it. Great post.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 16, 2010 7:55:22 GMT
Telegraph London 2012 Olympics: Premier League sanction Tottenham switch to Olympic Stadium The Premier League will not block Tottenhamās potential move to the Olympic Stadium after ruling that neither Spurs nor West Ham would be in breach of the organisationās rules if they move to Stratford. Inside view: David Beckham and Sebastian Coe, chairman of the London 2012 Organising Committee, visit the main Olympic stadium in London Photo: AP By Paul Kelso, Chief Sports Reporter 7:32PM GMT 15 Dec 2010 Both clubs, competing to take on the stadium after the 2012 Olympics, sought clarification from the Premier League that there would be no barrier to relocation, and were told earlier this month that they would not face any objection. The Premier Leagueās ruling comes with negotiations between the two clubs and the Olympic Park Legacy Company, owners of the stadium, set to extend into the new year. The OPLC had initially set itself a deadline of Dec 31 to select a favoured candidate. That deadline has now slipped however, with the preferred bidder expected to be selected next month. A spokeswoman for the OPLC said they remained on track to sign final contracts with the stadium tenant by the final deadline of the end of March 2011. The Premier Leagueās decision will be welcomed by Tottenham Hotspur, who are pursuing the Stratford bid at the same time as working on their initial Northumberland Park development next door to White Hart Lane. West Ham had hoped that given the distance Spurs would be moving ā 5.3 miles as the crow flies according to the Premier Leagueās measurements ā they might be prevented from relocating. With West Ham already based in the same borough, Newham, as the Olympic Stadium they were unlikely to face any opposition from the league. After considering the issue, however, the league board has ruled that it would not object to either club moving. Any club moving ground requires league approval. The Premier League will only allow relocation if a number of criteria are met, including whether the new location is āappropriateā bearing in mind the ārelationship between the locality with which by its name or otherwise the club is traditionally associatedā. It also considers whether the new location will āadversely affect [Premier League or Football League] clubs in the immediate vicinity of the proposed locationā. West Ham United believe that were Spurs to get the stadium they would be encroaching on their traditional territory. Meanwhile, Tottenham and England defender Ledley King has been banned from driving for 56 days after being clocked at more than 100 mph in a black Mercedes CL. King, 30, of Cuffley, Hertfordshire, had previously admitted speeding on the A14 near Newmarket, Suffolk, in June, and was sentenced when he appeared before magistrates in Sudbury. www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/tottenham-hotspur/8204652/London-2012-Olympics-Premier-League-sanction-Tottenham-switch-to-Olympic-Stadium.html
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jan 15, 2011 9:24:35 GMT
UKA chief backs Hammers stadium bidBy PA Sport January 14, 2011 The head of UK Athletics claims there is a clear moral choice to be made over the future of the Olympic Stadium: to take Tottenham's "filthy lucre" or keep the promises made when London were bidding for the 2012 Games and go with West Ham.
Ed Warner, UK Athletics chairman, is firmly in West Ham's camp with the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) expected to make a decision at the end of the month. Tottenham claim their plan to demolish the stadium and rebuild a purpose-built football ground, plus redevelop Crystal Palace athletics stadium, would be far more sustainable. But Warner said: "The decision-makers have a choice of taking the filthy lucre offered by Tottenham or doing right by the Olympic Movement and standing by the promises made by London in Singapore. In my mind it's an easy decision to make." Warner also denied that West Ham's economic case does not stack up. He added: "I think West Ham's economic case is rock solid and based on them being a Championship club in the first instance. So they are not being imprudent, they would have a loan from Newham council and there is no public subsidy, no drain on the public purse." Tottenham are aware of the need for London to have an athletics legacy after the 2012 Olympics and have identified a renovation of Crystal Palace as their best option for the sport. But Warner described that as "a meagre consolation prize", adding: "It's not in the best part of London, it is not in the Olympic Park and we don't think it could be turned into a stadium we could take the World Championships to." UK Athletics are intending to bid for the 2017 World Championships being based at the Olympic Stadium. The need to express their interest by March. However Rick Parry, the former Premier League and Liverpool chief executive, has expressed major doubts about West Ham's bid to take over the stadium due to their plans to keep the running track. Parry said: "Football-specific stadia are far more suited to the needs of the football-going public than stadiums with an athletic track round it. My experience of stadiums around Europe is that when you have a track you lose atmosphere, and the further from the pitch you are the less intimate the experience." Copyright (c) PA Sport 2009, All Rights Reserved. www.givemefootball.com/premier-league/uka-chief-backs-hammers-stadium-bid
|
|