Olympic Stadium

Seems like we've upset the UK Atheletics people with our proposals. Shame . . . . . .



Tottenham'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.
"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."

"I would like to see Spurs and AEG come up with something equally exciting."


I'm rather excited about them being 'flipped the Bird' and we all carry on with the Northumberland Project.

After reading the article below Ion it seems as if there maybe a bit of substance should dirty money rear it's ugly head . . . . .


London 2012 Olympics: Tottenham stadium victory 'would be a betrayal of Olympic legacy'
Tottenham will begin formal negotiations to take on the Olympic Stadium next week with the head of British Athletics warning that if their bid is accepted London risks “reneging” on its promises to the Olympic movement.

Tottenham face competition from West Ham to inherit the stadium after the 2012 Games, with the Upton Park club, backed by Newham Council, long considered the frontrunners because of their commitment to meeting the Olympic promise of an athletics legacy by retaining the track inside the stadium.

That commitment has won the support of Ed Warner, chairman of UK Athletics, but the increasing seriousness and financial strength of Tottenham’s bid has prompted concerns that the athletics legacy promised by Lord Coe in London’s Olympic bid may be compromised.

Tottenham and their partners AEG, which owns and operates the O2, have said they will rip out the athletics track after the Games and build a new stadium on the site, but they are yet to articulate what alternative they will offer athletics. Warner believes that given the strength of the West Ham proposal, they will not be able to compete.


“We have come down in support of the West Ham-Newham bid for very good reasons,” he told Telegraph Sport. “It ticks all the boxes in terms of the legacy for athletics, both at an elite level and in the community. I cannot conceive of an athletics legacy that Tottenham can come up with that would be acceptable given that West Ham would give us the ability to stage the championships and make the stadium the iconic home of British athletics in the long-term.

“It is a very credible bid that follows the legacy promise London made to the IOC in the long term and anything less than their offer would be a capitulation and would be to renege on the promise we made when the Games were awarded.”

Warner’s disquiet over the athletics legacy betrays the growing conviction in Olympic circles that far from being a fall-back position for Tottenham in the event of complications with their existing development plans in Haringey, the Stratford site could become their favoured option. Spurs’ interest has hardened in recent months after the cost of their favoured new stadium development adjacent to White Hart Lane increased by at least £50 million because of planning and development issues.


There is a belief within the club board that the Olympic Stadium site offers a viable and potentially cheaper alternative. The Spurs bid is now described by sources close to the process as “deadly serious”.

“Some people have said that the Olympic bid is just a means of getting leverage over Haringey, but the club is committed to running this process in parallel with that development. If they are successful in winning the bid for Stratford they will have to make a decision, but it is deadly serious,” said a source with direct knowledge of the deliberations.

Tottenham have hired investment bank Goldman Sachs as advisers in negotiations that will open with the Olympic Park Legacy Company on Monday.

In a sign of the club’s interest Sir Keith Mills, deputy chairman of the London 2012 organising committee and a non-executive director at Tottenham, has absented himself from Olympic board meetings until the issue is settled to avoid any conflict of interest. Tottenham’s ultimate owner, Joe Lewis, the billionaire speculator, is also understood to have taken an interest in the project.

The club are yet to articulate their athletics legacy but are understood to have been in touch with Warner in recent days, and are said to be considering a number of options. These are thought to include revisiting the possibility of redeveloping the Crystal Palace site, an option rejected previously.

While Tottenham’s bid is weak on legacy it is considered financially strong. “Tottenham would score 10 out of 10 on finance but nought out of 10 on legacy, while West Ham get 10 out of 10 on legacy and do less well on finance,” said one source.

The OPLC’s tender documents make it clear that long-term financial viability is a prerequisite for the successful bidder, and Tottenham believe they can offer a more attractive offer than West Ham.

West Ham counter that they have a robust proposal that would mean Newham Council borrowing less than £80 million, secured against football club revenue, to fund the transformation of the stadium. The key to winning the bid, however, will be convincing the OPLC and the Government that their bid is viable in the long term, even if the club are relegated this season.

West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady said she had no doubt it would. “It is ridiculous to say that just because we are bottom of the league our bid is less strong than Tottenham’s,” she said. “Newham will borrow the money and we will pay it back at a rate we can afford, whether we are in the Premier League or the Championship. We have modelled both situations and we can afford it. This is not an arrogant football club coming along to write a cheque, this is about a proper legacy and that is what we are going to deliver.”

The key to West Ham securing a stadium they have eyed for five years rests in their proving that the financial case stacks up in the long term, avoiding any future call on the public purse.

If they do that, given the commitment to an Olympic legacy that all the key decision makers, including London mayor Boris Johnson and culture secretary Jeremy Hunt have endorsed, it will be hard to refuse.


Head to head: how the rival bids compare

»West Ham

Aim: Convert Olympic stadium into a 60,000 seat stadium that will retain the running track and be long-term home for British athletics as well as venue for future World and European Championships. Would also host Twenty-20 cricket.

How: Bid is backed by Newham Council and concert promoters Live Nation. Sale of Upton Park will help raise funds.

Chances: If this was decided on legacy alone, West Ham would win. The bid meets the expectation of an Olympic athletics legacy but there are doubts about viability of the financial plan.

»Spurs

Aim: An alternative to Tottenham’s planned new ground next door to White Hart Lane, in partnership with AEG. Would demolish Olympic Stadium and replace with 60,000 seat arena, with no running track. Athletics legacy unknown.

How: Spurs would borrow the money to build the new stadium, hoping that the clean site, excellent transport links and straightforward planning issues would make it cheaper than the Haringey option.

Chances: The bid badly needs a plausible athletics solution but if the decision comes down to money they have every chance.