Olympic Stadium Bid: The Winner Is ....
I am a Tottenham Hotspur fan. I am neither delighted with the Spurs planned move from Tottenham nor disappointed that the planned move to Olympic Stadium didn't materialize. I am one of those fans who can't make up his mind to move out of Tottenham. So, I believe you can expect as unbiased an article as possible from me.
Friday the Feb 11, 2011 12:15 PM.
Olympic Legacy Company made a unanimous decision and proposed West Ham United as their preferred bidder. The next step is to get the decision ratified by the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson and the Government. I really don't expect any change in the decision. West Ham are getting the Olympic Stadium on lease for the next 100-125 years.
I ask the following questions:
1) Was a correct decision made?
2) Who was the loser?
3) Who was the winner?
4) What does this mean to UK athletics?
5) What did the Spurs lose?
Was a Correct Decision Made?
1 of 5
I would say an easier and popular decision was made. Only time will tell whether it was a correct decision. But the fact is, this whole bid of West Ham was based on one thing only—Olympic Legacy.
A recent BBC poll showed that the majority of Londoners felt West Ham should get the stadium as they are an East London club. Londoners also didn't want Spurs to demolish the show piece stadium. Sadly, Spurs' idea of demolishing only a part of the stadium, say 80 million instead of 500 million, fell in deaf ears. Nobody wanted to hear it. It was a taboo. Both the media and the general public were against Spurs' bid.
In these situations, there is no place for hard facts and cold logic. Spurs had the better bid. Taking the emotions out, Spurs were the right team.
But politicians, one of the key stakeholders in this process, generally go by emotions. So, it's hardly surprising that they went for West Ham. The people who are part of the process, from London Mayor to OPLC board members to David Lammy(Tottenham MP) to Karren Brady, are around now. But will they be in the same role five or ten years down the line? There is no accountability in the process. If it's a failure, the only stakeholder affected will be West Ham fans and tax payers. All the process owners had to do was take the decision that looks right in the public eye and leave the tough decisions to the next generation.
It would be a great achievement for West Ham, if they can make it work. Only time will tell.
Who Was the Loser?
2 of 5
To me the loser is not Spurs, perhaps West Ham in the long run, but most definitely it is Lleyton Orient.
Lleyton Orient is located just 1.5km from Stratford stadium. To me, if there was a club that should have got the stadium in the first place, it was Lleyton Orient. But Lleyton not getting the stadium is understandable, as they will not be able to get the revenues in. The fact is they are the biggest loser.
One of the arguments that their chairman Mr.Barry Hearn put in was, it would be better for them if Spurs gets the stadium. The reasoning was that the Spurs will not affect their fan base or their ticketing price. Since Spurs already have a huge waiting list, they would be able to fill the stadium with their fans and not eat into Lleyton's fan base. But in the case of West Ham, they will be in direct competition to Orient in terms of ticketing.
Hammers were not able to fill Upton Park this season, even in their cup semifinals. They had to cut down their ticket prices, provide free tickets to kids to attract the family and so on. The argument is ,if they can't fill up Upton park on Cup semis providing free tickets, how can they fill in a 60,000 sear stadium? Obviously by providing tickets at lower rates and eating into Orient's.
Lleyton could still play spoiler role for West Ham through FA. They may ask for compensation or funding to build a new stadium at a nearby place.
Who Was the Winner?
3 of 5
The winner at this stage is surely West Ham and Karren Brady. Her PRs were successful. Sometimes her statements were too emotive, saying things like "In Name of the Queen," but it was fair play. West Ham won the preferred bidder fair and square.
What does this mean to West Ham? It means they have a stadium with 60,000 capacity with the best transport link in whole UK. They need to spend just 95 million to reconfigure the stadium. In that, 40 million is shed out by New Ham council, meaning they have to take just 55 million from their pocket.
They can recoup this investment easily by
1) Selling the naming rights for the new stadium.
2) Selling the Upton Park ground and surroundings for millions.
The downside is
1) New Ham is part of the bid, so they can't make any key decisions without the council's will.
2) They can't take out the Running track. From what I see from Spurs' reaction is that they will go all the way to ensure that West Ham is legally bound to keep the running track for the entire lease tenure.
3) They are relegation candidates. What happens if they get relegated now and are in championship for next 2 or 3 years?
4) The largest crowd attendance for West Ham was 42,670 in 1970, against you know who, Tottenham Hotspur. They never touched the 50,000 mark, let alone 60,000. This is a massive gamble which could back fire very badly.
This decision could turn the fate of West Ham for the good or worse. I just hope this historical London club comes out well.
.jpg?w=256 "Colts Jaguars Football")
What Does This Mean to UK Athletics?
4 of 5
It means that UK athletics are able to keep up their promise made in Singapore when bidding for the Olympics.
But to what extent?
From what I understand from the West Ham bid is that there will be only 22 days allotted to athletics in a year. Is this the Olympic Legacy?
Olympic legacy is not only about the running track. Olympic legacy is about every sport connected to the Olympics. It's about sports like Hammer throw, Javelin throw, High Jump, Long Jump, Pole Vault, Discus Throw, etc. If there are only 22 days allotted for athletics, what purpose does it serve the athletes?
Spurs bid had 25 million complete renovation of Crystal Palace Stadium. They were ready to increase the size to 40,000 if a World Championship were won by England. In Crystal Palace the athletes would have had 365 days in a stadium where they could practice and complete.
In the West Ham bid, all they got was a Name Sake Olympic Stadium which they can showcase to the world and a Stadium useless to athletes.
Another big puzzle for me is T20 Cricket. Is Cricket a regular sport in Olympics? It could be in the coming years. But what would they do for a cricket pitch? Would West Ham allow their grounds man to dig up the playing surface for laying the pitch for one international game?
Other than getting a name sake stadium, it seems UK Athletics stands to lose out in long run.
What Did Spurs Achieve?
5 of 5
For Spurs, to compete year after year in Champions League, a big stadium is mandatory. If there is big stadium, there is substantial match day revenue, which in turn means the ability to compete with big clubs over player wages. This is not rocket science.
Daniel Levy a the Spurs board have been on the look out for a new stadium for years now. Levy is a shrewd businessman. Spurs fan trust him because he is a Spurs fan first, but his role as a Chairman & Businessman takes to the forefront when it comes to Club future. He genuinely believes that moving out of Tottenham is the only way of getting a stadium. Some of them agree, some of them don't.
Spurs have been trying to get a good deal from Harringey Council over its proposed NDP project, but there are a lot of demands put down by Harringey Council, Transport of London, and London Heritage, which make it financially nonviable to build in Tottenham.
Levy sees a chance in Stratford. In fact, according to Lord Sugar, ex-chairman of THFC , it is the OPLC (Olympic Park Legacy Company) CEO who invited Levy to bid in first place. So, from what Lord Sugar said, THFC genuinely believed that they had a chance. But now with a unanimous decision taken by OPLC, it is clear that they were never in the race. Many believe that OPLC used THFC as a Bargain chip to scare West Ham to accept the running track as part of their bid.
Now the Question is what did Spurs achieve?
1) They lost the bid miserably.
2) They lost time and money, but they used this as an example to show that THFC is ready to move out of Tottenham if there opportunity presents itself. It is possible that, after seeing THFC's readiness to move out of Tottenham, David Lammy and Harringey Council could cut back on their demands for the NDP/WHL project.
If Harringey cuts back on its demand, even by a small extent, it could mean millions of savings for THFC. Though Levy may look like a villain now, I believe he has played a good high stakes game of poker. He has made his move. He is waiting for his council's reaction. I'ts time for Harringey to show that they want Spurs in their land.
Spurs are a loser today, but this bid may prove to be good time and money spent in the long run.
.jpg?w=480 "Colts Jaguars Football")
