|All you need to know about West Ham United FC's potential move to Stratford.
Interesting article about the matchday experience at Espanyol, Barcelona's 2nd team, when they were forced through financial problems and political pressure to move to the 1992 Olympic stadium.
http://www.worldsoccer.com/blogs/olympi ... r-football
One point to remember, as far as I am aware little attempt was made to adapt any of the continental Olympic stadiums for football, so the comparison may not be as relevant as it would at first seem.
Is there anywhere where an athletics stadium is used for football and it has temp seating across the track for us to compare against
There was one that someone posted images on here of a while ago, but again not quite the same as if I remember correctly it was a more traditional athletics stadium like Crystal Palace not a stonking great Olympics sized one with a roof, but they simply had a stand built over the oval end of the track.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/bren ... -co-exist/
Do they still play in an Olympic stadium ?
So some journo did one game there, what was the European Cup Final and a German team playing in it
Do any league clubs play at the 3 stadiums mentioned ?
Quite simply because it isn't practical to 'adapt' an athletics stadium for football. If you believe it is, you will believe anything.
Not another one, we have an awful ****ing lot of structural engineers, architects and other building experts on here, personally I wont pass judgement on what I am not qualified to do/knowledgeable enough about and I probably know more about building and construction than average!
And it might be relevant to point out that while many observers have said the O/S is unsuitable for football, I don't believe anyone suitably qualified to do so has said it cant be made suitable.
You are blind to the facts. Any number of architects and stadium consultants have been quoted in public as saying that the OS is not suitable for football. It was built not to be suitable for football. The commisioners and designers went out of their way to make it unsuitable for football.
When there was a chance of ownership and getting rid of the track there was a possibility, with major investment, of redeveloping it to become a football stadium, but not in the present circumstances. I have worked with building plans all my working life, 'seeing' the possibilities in three dimensions is part of the job. You, and many other fans, are being strung along into believing that significant changes will make this into a viable football stadium.
It ain't going to happen !!!
I don't believe that for one instant....
It beggars belief that anybody would actually expend additional effort and expense to make a structure not suitable for something....
I doubt that has ever happened anywhere....
Built to suit Olympic track and field yes, built not to suit football - I've never heard such b*llocks in my life.
That is what I said, I also said that " I don't believe anyone suitably qualified to do so has said it cant be made suitable.".
The stadium was not purposely built to be unsuitable for football the brief was to build an Olympic stadium to hold 80,000 people, that could be subsequently reduced down to a 25,000 seat athletics stadium, football was just never a consideration!
There was never a chance of ownership and only a remote chance of getting rid of the track. Funnily enough I can read and visualise a set of plans too, but that doesn't make me qualified to make a judgement on the feasibility of converting the O/S for football while retaining the track.
For someone who has only made a handful of posts therefore I would assume a new-comer to KUMB you are making a very big assumption about me, the fact is I have may have said that anything is possible with enough money thrown at it, I have never given any support to the move nor have I said that it will be successfully converted for football, I am just keeping an open mind about things.
I am not going around this loop again but I have put up more than once on here plenty of examples whereby athletics type stadia have been converted for american football by digging down, and before anyone starts ~ yes below the water table and yes beside rivers. The Olympic stadium architects Populous have designed several of these conversions.
So yes it can be done ~ can we afford to do it ... that's a different matter.
Prior to Building work commencing in Dec 2006 and Jan 2007 West Ham (under the Icelandics) approached the Olympic Committee with a proposal to contribute £100 million to the building, but only on the condition that the plans were modified to include:
* Being granted the freehold for the stadium
* Becoming the sole operator
* A retractable seating design
* A 500-space car park
This article outlines the whole episode:
The proposal’s rejection largely driven by Seb ‘2-faced c**t’ Coe’s apparent fear that it would mean the stadium’s ‘primary’ use would be Athletics rather than Football.
After the rejection Seb ‘2-faced c**t’ Coe passed a directive stating the ground should not be shared with a Football Club. And instead focus was given to finding a Rugby Club or some other tenant (Seb was less ‘fearful’ of these overshadowing his beloved Athletics).
Richard Cabon was the only one to oppose Seb ‘2-faced c**t’ Coe’s approach, as detailed here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/fe ... ic-stadium" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Subsequently a non-football tenant could not be found. So the process was opened out again. This time is between only West Ham and Tottenham. As Tottenham’s proposal involved demolishing the stadium altogether, Seb ‘2-faced c**t’ Coe suddenly became West Ham’s best friend and backed our bid.
Of course by this time building was almost done, and so severe limitations were in place with regards to how the stadium could now be modified for football..
What you've posted shows that a proposal was made to design the stadium so to some extent accommodate football after hosting the games....
But for whatever reason, it doesn't matter what, that wasn't done and the stadium was designed as it is now....
That doesn't make the stadium purposely designed not to suit football, it makes it designed to suit the Olympics.
A) the point being discussed was whether the stadium was deliberately designed to be anti football of which there is no evidence.
B)Yes you are correct but that has nothing to do with the design brief which did not include football usage, that was a proposal made by a third party and was rejected. and so not included in the design brief. I didn't say football usage wasn't considered at all!
If the stadium was designed specifically so as NOT to suit football.....
That is as opposed to being designed to suit Olympic track and field events....
Then there should be at least one aspect of there only to put a spoke in the works of football that can be pointed out....
It looks pretty much like any stadium that's been designed for track and field events to me, but I'm happy to be proven wrong by anybody who can point out just one aspect.
Well it was anti Premier League football - deliberately implemented to by-pass the needs of a Premiership club:
"Remarkably, PMP was told to ignore Premier League football and look only at other sports including rugby and athletics, and lower league clubs "
- Like I said Coe did not want any Sport that was potentially big enough to eventually dis-place Athletics as the primary use of the stadium.
How is that evidence that the stadium has been altered from what it would originally have been so as not to suit football ?
Their remit was to build a stadium to suit Olympic track and field, it was then suggested that such a stadium might be made more football friendly at extra expense / inconvenience but that wasn't taken up - It doesn't really matter why it wasn't taken up. They then went on to built a stadium to suit Olympic track and field as per their original remit...
It was suggested in an earlier post that the stadium was in some way designed or built specifically not to suit football, that's the question in hand not anything else.