Does the stadium move really suit either club?
Last Thursday West Ham United expectedly submitted their joint bid, in conjunction with Newham council, to move into the Olympic Stadium. Scott Parker, Carlton Cole and Mark Noble delivered their plans to the door of No 10 Downing Street. Integral to the club’s plan is to reduce the capacity to 60,000 seats and prepare the venue for the spectre of Premier League football. Nearby rivals Tottenham Hotspur surprisingly emerged as candidates to run the Stadium too, submitting their proposals just before the agreed deadline. West Ham co-owner David Gold insisted, on Match of the Day 2’s illuminating day in the life segment, their declaration of interest was merely because they were defeated at Upton Park last week. Should the Hammers fear Spurs’ late entry and more importantly does the move suit either side?
The West Ham hierarchy have been dismissive of Tottenham’s rival bid, partly because the north Londoners had their Northumberland Park Development Project approved by Haringey council last week. Planning application was granted for a 56,250 capacity stadium to be constructed on a site adjacent to White Hart Lane. The £400 million project is an ambitious one which is set to incorporate a single tier stand to compete with Liverpool’s legendary Kop. But with the London Mayoral Office yet to rubber stamp the proposals, Spurs’ chairman Daniel Levy described their Olympic interest as “prudent” and “good management.” Harry Redknap was uncharacteristically diplomatic when quizzed on the club’s future plans: “The new stadium or the Olympic Stadium would be great. I’m only the employee – I don’t want to say the wrong one.”
He proceeded to suggest that the issue would be particularly divisive for West Ham fans. However the Tottenham crowd would presumably be far more resentful of moving to a ground outside of their borough. West Ham are the PL side situated closest to Stratford and therefore remain favourites to move into the Olympic site. Their proposed tenancy did not seem as likely when the club’s abrasive co-owners discussed the move with a discernible arrogance. Talk of a potential white elephant and the minimal appeal of athletics in comparison to PL football did not gain favour with Lord Coe or the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC). Nevertheless moving to the Olympic Stadium remained a fundamental tenet of their enduring vision for the club’s future. Utilising the negotiation skills of vice-chairman Karen Brady the club sought to foster relationships with the local council, Essex County Cricket Club and embrace the notion of an athletics legacy.
The OLPC obliged all candidates to retain the running track. The Hammers duly acquiesced and have gone further by suggesting that the two sports can work in tandem. West Ham’s Olympic Park director Ian Tompkins said, “There is a great opportunity for us to work with athletics to develop sports talent and there is obviously a crossover with helping to attract kids into athletics.” Although other actors including Tottenham have lodged their interest, UK Athletics chairman Ed Warner has spoken glowingly about West Ham’s proposals, making them firm favourites to become the permanent tenants.
The supporters are not as enamoured by these plans. Keen to assert his credentials as a fan first and foremost, Gold has expressed how difficult it will be to depart from the Boleyn Ground. Leaving a stadium steeped in football history and tradition is difficult enough but attention has turned to what will await them at the Olympic site. The fear expressed by many is that the stadium will represent a generic bowl shape, too far removed from the pitch and not conducive to the creation of a boisterous atmosphere. Fan site, West Ham Process conducted a survey on the proposed move which boasted a sample of over 1,000. Results showed that 47% of those asked expressed a preference to redevelop Upton Park’s East Stand and a comprehensive 85% said no to a running track.
Atmosphere is the primary concern for fans who additionally worry that huge sections of the 60,000 seater ground will be left empty. However the most revealing aspect of the aforementioned results is that a majority of those polled felt the club’s consultation with them had been inadequate. The scale of the charm offensive waged by the club to propel them into first place will now have to be repeated for the fans. The co-owners will have to demonstrate that the move is about more than business imperatives. It is a difficult task but one that will be immeasurably easier than selling the prospect of a ground share with Tottenham.
Football News 24/7
I doubt I will not be on my own when I say let the Spammers have it, I want to see the Northumberland project unfold, what a stadium to be! We will probably have more fans in the olympic stadium on match day anyway unless the Spammer curb the amount of tickets we can have as an away team which is probably the case. I just wish Gould would use one of the ball gags he sells so he would shut the F**K UP!
Reply
Surely Levy’s bid wasn’t genuine, but tactical to warn Haringey Cllrs that the club have other options.
The Spuds might not be that far away as a miserable,deluded, doom laden crow might be able to fly, if it wasn’t too depressed.
But East is East and North is sh%te, even though those Spuds seem to like it. Takes all sorts. Anyway, if Martin Samuels’ article in the Mail is true, it might be that PL rules wouldn’t allow it anyway.
Reply
The more I think about this, the more I want to see Wet Sham get this stadium. Imagine paying Premiership wages when they are in the Championship, and the rent on this site. They could never afford to buy it.
Reply
I’m not the only west ham fan by a long chalk who is against going to the olympic stadium. the shape of the place is bad enough with it being a rose bowl so most are nowhere near the pitch but to then insist on keeping a running track that will only be used once or twice a year is as stupid and small minded as the usual spurs fans comments on these sites. i, like most, would prefer to further develop the boleyn ground and retain the tradition and atmosphere and prevent gold and sullivan’s further future planned exploitation of our club.
Reply
the olympic stadium would need an internal refit for football use…..
although its question of money well spent/used etc
the investment at white hart lane once repayed would remain a thfc asset …consider 50 years time if we dont own a ground….futrre spurs generations would be let down if the new spurs ground built for the supporters did not go ahead so………it will
Reply
I am more concerned that Gollivan have sold us down the swanny to make a huge pay day for themselves … all the promises they made aboout consulting the fans and under no circumstances will there be an athletics track haven’t materialised. Why spend £190m to redevelop a tenancy agreement when you are already £100m in debt ? why go against the fans and leave us looking like a half filled JJB stadium with gaps everywhere and the only atmoshere coming from the away fans … at least Arsenal had a season ticket wating list of 20 000 prior to moving to the Emmirates .. we at present can’t even’t fil Upton Park …
Reply