WestHamIFC wrote:
It clearly was considered!! And subsequently rejected!
You are quoting me out of context and misunderstanding what I said. When you plan a building, you first of all discuss what function it needs to fulfil and yes at this point football may well have been considered and dismissed, then you prepare a brief for the architects telling them what you want, it is at this point I contend that football ceased to be a consideration and that the architects were not instructed to build an anti-football stadium but simply an Olympic stadium suitable for future use as an athletics stadium..
Ours is going to have a retractable roof, retractable lower and upper tiers, be painted claret and blue and the stands are going to be named after our heroes. Clunge saw the plans and he's ITK.
Doc H Ball wrote:Don't know why anyone is worried.
Ours is going to have a retractable roof, retractable lower and upper tiers, be painted claret and blue and the stands are going to be named after our heroes. Clunge saw the plans and he's ITK.
With enough money anything is possible but if anyone believes that they could be in for a disappointment.
It seems to me that the original brief was to build a stadium to suit Olympic track and field....
Along came the Icelandics with a proposal to put in a large sum of money (but not a large proportion of the overall total needed) in return for ownership of the stadium after the Olympics and some design features to make conversion to football use more friendly than would otherwise be the case...
You have to seriously wonder about the seriousness of reception of that proposal as the Icelandics were surrounded by financial questions in 2007 and valued by Forbes in 2008 at $0.
(Bought West Ham June 2006, financial questions 2007, economic collapse in Iceland 2008)
Against that background is there any surprise that those commissioned with the building of the stadium were reticent about the proposal and isn't it a good thing from the point of view of the public purse that they chose not to have anything to do with it because the money that the Icelandics proposed to put in would never have materialised.
Far from being something that they should be criticised for surely it's a rare example of where public purse string holders got it right.
The stadium proceeded to be built as one suited to Olympic track and field, which is the stadium that stands there now.
I don't see anything untoward about any of that, and the stadium certainly isn't one that was either designed or built with it in mind to make it difficult to convert to football use.
Its a stadium designed and built to suit Olympic track and field, nothing more and nothing less.
Pop Robson wrote:Hertia Berlin in the 77,000 Olympic Stadium, averaging last season 45,000.
Be interesting to see what they average next season should they drop, as seems likely , into division 2 in Germany .
The "cheap tickets" argument kind of falls apart once people realise they cannot get a decent view of the match .They may stomach it when a crack side like Bayern Munich roll into town , but when TSV fly in , the response may be rather less .
Interestingly , Hertha is a club on the list to be visted by Brady and Sullivan .
Pop Robson wrote:How many other major teams play in Olympic Stadiums ?
We have Roma/Lazio in the 72,000 Stadio Olimpico, averaging last season 33,000 and 27,000 respectively
Hertia Berlin in the 77,000 Olympic Stadium, averaging last season 45,000.
Any others ?
This season Roma 34,757 which as a percentage of capacity is not far off the Serie A average as a percentage of capacity (48% to 55%), Lazio are up to 31,333, neither club has the worst percentage attendance in Serie A.
The problem using figures like this though is it doesn't tell whether the stadium is too big for their needs or the stadium is keeping fans away. Hertha Berlin despite not filling the stadium still have the 5th highest attendances in the Bundesliga, Roma and Lazio are 4 and 6th in Serie A attendances, with the similar attendances to the latter we were only about 11th in the premiership.
Hammer110 wrote:The problem using figures like this though is it doesn't tell whether the stadium is too big for their needs or the stadium is keeping fans away. Hertha Berlin despite not filling the stadium still have the 5th highest attendances in the Bundesliga,
Hertha Berlin this season - 2nd bottom in the table.
Highest attendances 74'244 Dortmund and Bayern (Stadium capacity ?)
Lowest attendance 36'997 Hannover
Average 53'549
Reasonable to assume that the average attendance would be up given a more successful season.
KB mentioned a number of venues she and DS were going to visit ahead of converting Stratford , one of which was Hertha's ground , another, from memory , was the Allianz Arena .
One of course has a track, the other does not - this was volunteered at the infamous SAB meeting .It was, to my ears, further confirmation of a lack of detailed plans for Stratford, as surely , had any detailed plans existed, there would be no need to visit anymore stadiums .
Just been looking at details of Herthas Olympiastadion, its an old one (1936) upgraded twice (1974 / 2000). Hertha moved there in 1963 from a 35'000 capacity stadium which wouldn't have been big enough for even their smallest attendance this year, and less than half the size of their highest attendance.
All those holding up the Hertha reason as why we should move, how many other pro teams in the top league play in Berlin, who is the biggest team in Berlin.
Hertha may Yo yo like west ham but they are the best Berlin has, we are not the best London has. You can't look at Berlin and say it will work in Stratford totally different demographics.
And before any one mentions Napoli, how many teams play in Naples, they are the kings of their city that's how they can bang out their stadium with a track in place
mywhufc wrote:All those holding up the Hertha reason as why we should move, how many other pro teams in the top league play in Berlin, who is the biggest team in Berlin.
Hertha may Yo yo like west ham but they are the best Berlin has, we are not the best London has. You can't look at Berlin and say it will work in Stratford totally different demographics.
And before any one mentions Napoli, how many teams play in Naples, they are the kings of their city that's how they can bang out their stadium with a track in place
To the best of my knowledge nobody is holding Hertha up as a reason for us to move....
But it sure as hell doesn't look like a reason why we shouldn't move does it.
mywhufc wrote:
so your not trying to use Hertha in the Olympic stadium as a reason why it would work for west ham, because that's how I've read it.
Nope I agree with Ironworx, we are not saying that at all. Pop posted some figures which were for last season and not in any context, we added some context but like Pops original post it proves nothing, except you can sell out an athletics stadium for a league football match occasionaly.