Filed: Friday, 4th February 2011
By: Staff Writer
Tottenham chairman Danie Levy has insinuated that he is prepared to take legal action should his club lose out to West Ham in the battle for the Olympic Stadium.
Levy - whose club only entered the bidding as the eleventh hour having become disparaged by the progress made with Haringay Council over a redeveloped White Hart Lane - appears to be fighting a losing battle with West Ham's bid favoured by most politicians, sportsmen and the relevant authorities.
However he maintained that should West Ham win, he is prepared to challenge the decision-making process in the courts.
"The process has been fine, but I only hope that the decision will be based on sound financial criteria and not by political forces," he told the Telegraph. "It is no different to a shopping centre; if you donít get the right anchor tenant to start with, it is destined to fail. If you get the right business model, the legacy can thrive.
"I guarantee you that if you have a stadium which is athletics and soccer together and, as a consequence it will not be full, it will affect economic viability and end up being a white elephant. It is only a matter of time. You only have to look at experience across Europe. It does not work.
"Why do people go and watch a live football match? You go because of atmosphere. The minute you lose that people donít come."
The decision to name the preferred bidder was postponed last week, possibly until the end of March. However it is now thought that a decision could be announced as early as next week.
April Fooled? [1st Apr 2014]
Brady: fans undermined Allardyce [29th Mar 2014]
New deal for young striker [27th Mar 2014]
The opposition view: Hull City [27th Mar 2014]
Coming home [26th Mar 2014]
A new home [11th Feb 2014]
Diame demands parity with top earners [21st Jan 2014]
McAvennie: it's time for change [7th Jan 2014]
Sullivan and Gold call for United front [6th Jan 2014]
12:43PM 4th Feb 2011
''Levy has a point. Particularly across Germany and Italy where stadiums have moved from being with a running track to without.
If West Ham think that they can just remove the track in 10-20 years time when the stadium becomes unviable, they are now mistaken. What Spurs have ensured is that West Ham will be locked into an agreement to retain the track or face financial punishment and a possible suit by Spurs.
Keeping the running track is the only reason why West Ham are the favoured bidder. You are stuck with it. ''
12:25PM 4th Feb 2011
''Not a fan of the idea of moving but your lot getting it would be a disaster. Surely you lot don't want to play in a half-emtpy stadium, watching 45 metres away from the pitch! I have to admit you always create a good atmosphere but this will be lost under your plans.''
12:00PM 4th Feb 2011
''It strikes me that every quote mentioned in this article is correct - The plans submitted by West Ham's board will result in a white elephant and will ultimately inflict serious damage on WHU - If I were a West Ham supporter, I would be extremely unhappy at the possibility of watching games across a running track in a half-empty stadium devoid of atmosphere. Why are the WHU board doing this if not for profit? You have a great atmospheric stadium, which with a small amount of renovation, would more than meet the needs of supporters. It's Gold, Sullivan & Brady who's motives you should be questionning!''
11:58AM 4th Feb 2011
''It makes you wish our owners cared as much for the fans' experience as the money. Without one you will not get the other.''
11:50AM 4th Feb 2011
''Sounds like the man's getting desparate. According to him it's about money, and money alone. He's resorting to scare tactics, even with his own supporters. ''
comments powered by Disqus