SPORTS ANALYSIS John Goodbody reports on
A conflict of use at the Olympic Stadium
S
o we’ve ended up with an Olympic Stadium that, after the Games, is not ideal for football, nor athletics; or Leyton Orient,
certainly not for Tottenham Hotspur and probably not even for the local resi- dents of Newham. After the rebuilding of Wembley, to which the word fiasco will always be attached, it might have been thought that lessons would have been learnt for the Olympic Stadium. Wembley may now be a superb 90,000
seat arena, but for nearly 10 years there were parliamentary inquries, delays in the building, leading figures losing their jobs, escalating costs, public money ill- used and ministerial disputes. With the Olympic Stadium, it should
have been clear that the ideal legacy stadium would have been a smaller version of the 80,000-seater Stade de France, near Paris – a venue with retract- able seating that would accommodate 50,000 fans for football, when the seats are rolled over the surrounding track, and about 35,000-40,000 for athletics. It’s true that the sightlines for athlet-
ics may not be ideal because the slope of the stands prevents some spectators from seeing all of the lanes. However, the Stade de France staged the 2003 World Championships and annually holds a Grand Prix, sometimes just a week after hosting a football match. One senior official in UK Athletics has privately expressed his surprise to me that such a plan was not carried out. One reason was that the Olympic Board
and the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) had to get approval of a design in 2007 in order for the stadium to be built in time for the Games. Richard Caborn, the Minis- ter for Sport at the time, has stated of the board: ”There was a massive bias against Premier League football and every ob- stacle was put in the way. They weren’t being realistic about the long-term legacy and it became athletics at all costs.”
It should have been clear that the ideal legacy stadium would have been a smaller version of the Stade de France
It may also be true that the consultants
commissioned by the ODA to conduct an Olympic legacy plan were told to ex- clude Premier League football, because of what Seb Coe promised in Singapore when London got the Games. There’s no doubt that several leading figures in the International Olympic Committee, who were also officials in international athletics, were swayed in their voting by the fact that up against Paris in the final round, they would get a large stadium in London, whereas the Stade de France was already up and running. However, it’s also true that West Ham,
the local Premiership club was less than completely enthusiastic about their in- volvement at the new venue. The club was unstable, having been taken over by the icelandic millionaire Eggert Magnus- son in November 2006, and, when he ran into difficulties, the club went to David Gold and David Sullivan, who moved from Birmingham City. In addition, the negotiations over Westfield, the massive shopping centre close to the Olympic Park, were at a delicate stage and it was felt that the frequent presence of
6 Read Sports Management online
sportsmanagement.co.uk/digital
thousands of rival football fans might jeopardise completion of the deal. As for Tottenham Hotspur, they
were nowhere near as forthcoming in their enthusiasm to move from White Hart Lane as they have been in recent months. At the time, the concern at the club was more about ensuring a decent position in the Premiership, rather than competing in the European Champions’ League, which this season has given im- petus to the desire for a bigger venue. It may be that Karren Brady, the West
Ham vice-chair, will be proved right when she says that she’s been advised that retractable seating can be installed at a cost of £10m after the Games. And West Ham may be able to get 60,000 spectators by drastically reducing prices. But that depends on them staying in the Premiership. However, except for the World and conceivably the European Championships, a stadium of more than 40,000 is, in any case, too big for athlet- ics on a regular basis. In the end these problems are no
one’s particular fault. It’s a matter of timing and changing circumstances. ●
Issue 1 2011 © cybertrek 2011
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84