Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
HoldenV8 wrote:I have to agree with Cam. Why wouldn't they use Wembley as the main stadium? After all, isn't it being built to be able to accomodate an athletics track anyway? Wouldn't it make more financial and logical sense to use Wembley rather than spend countless millions on a new, and possibly temporary stadium?
the whole idea sounds pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Having a stadium that can hold 90,000 with provisions for an athletics track in London then go and built a temporary 80,000 seat stadium to be downsized after the games? Doesn't make sense.
Wembley going to have providions to build a running track in it. Each time it would take 6 weeks to set up and 6 weeks to remove. It would also reduce the seating capacity by 10K from memory.
This idea was scrapped and as Wembley is the English national football stadium the new design (the one they are building) is now focused on football. There is scope to hold other events there but not a running track.
What to do with the Olympic stadium after the games is a major problem for London. There was talk of West Ham moving there but they did not seem interested (and a good thing I feel)
The city want to pour funds into East London. It will be difficult to justify this if they use existing stadium.
If the city was serious about pouring money into East London they would commit (and fund) the following projects:
Build crossrail by 2012,
Expansion of Docklands Light Rail (including Capacity Enhancement)
Improve the proposed level of service on the East London Line
Thameslink 2000 (an upgrade of overland lines that will run through the city - some from the South East of England)
At the moment transport is one of many concerns for the bid, yet only the East London Line expansion is funded.
These improvments would also allow Gordon Brown (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to move ahead with his plan to build 1000's of new houses in the east part of the Thames estuary.
All of this could be achived without the Olmpics and I wonder how much could have been achived using the money spent on the bid?
Hmm obviously people are doing an England World Cup Thread.
London arent getting the 2012 Olympics...an official has conceded that no matter what they do they won't have a chance to even beat Paris.
But it would be great,on a pure speculation front it could be Englands massive Cricket Stadium that they have needed. It would be able to be used as a Test venue...take one away from Old trafford
a 70,000 Cricket Venue is well needed in England especially when they have individual grounds for individual sports, it would never take away from Lords, but for a series like the Ashes, it would mean more Common Folk can attend the matches.
Tancred wrote:If the city was serious about pouring money into East London they would commit (and fund) the following projects:
Build crossrail by 2012,
Expansion of Docklands Light Rail (including Capacity Enhancement)
Improve the proposed level of service on the East London Line
Thameslink 2000 (an upgrade of overland lines that will run through the city - some from the South East of England)
At the moment transport is one of many concerns for the bid, yet only the East London Line expansion is funded.
Public transport is poor in that part of the city but there are many buidling developments etc going on around there. Similar to Melbourne's Docklands.
Egan, what does a 70,000 cricket venue have to do with the Olympics?
No, I generally dont like big stadiums much as they dont do much for sport, but I always thought it should be kept as a combined cricket/athletics/speedway/whatever venue after the games.
It could never really get more than one test, though, and cricket should not take on any financial risk but it was a possibility until the, probably more sensible, idea of not making it permanently big was followed.
A 25,000 quality athletics stadium would have been good for London. Its big enough with far less running cost and could be used for getting good crowds to various smaller events which would have drowned in a big empty stadium.
At first it was supposed to be taken over by either Tottenham or West Ham but I could never see that happen. Its not possible to rebuild into a football stadium without knocking most of it down, thats why I thought there was hope for it hosting cricket even if it was never considered.
I also do not think London 2012 ever had much chance and I think thats probably good. How tiresome if there were to be focus for years before on an over-hyped event which is over in a fortnight.
Britain generally dont do well when dealing with this world of elected committees etc., where I think they are perceived as arrogant and perhaps dont do favours for the right people.
They deal better with big business, which is pretty much what british sport is today with its enormous wealth (created by the huge passion for sport) London will probably spend more on sports facilities than the 2012 host but it will be for permanent events. Even now there is ongoing construction of 3 new 60,000+ venues.
Another reason for London not winning is probably that the population isnt all that keen and have had to be "bought" by promises of massive transport investments etc.
Though it can sound a bit negative this attitude impresses me.
They dont feel they have anything to prove to anyone (unlike for instance some greeks) and hosting the olympics seem quite a pissing contest. If its about the actual events, well Paris is 2 hours away.
Its the same with the recent Formula 1 GP issue, where the british government flatly refused to invest just a few millions in track improvements "ordered" by F1 with the threat of ditching the event. China and others had spend zillions on getting a GP desperately seeking attention and prestige.
Britain flatly refused to waste tax-payers money on this plaything of the millionaires funded by insecure attention seeking nations.
Britain generally dont do well when dealing with this world of elected committees etc., where I think they are perceived as arrogant and perhaps dont do favours for the right people.
So how come Paris are so far in front
You have to realise that a bid wouldn't even be sought if the majority of the population didn't want to watch it.
Mate England must be the most faultess and brilliant country in the world they are just an A Perfect country
Last edited by Egan on Sat Feb 05, 2005 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think I probably agree with Swede. How could you not be a proud and confident nation when your the nation that has brought so much to the world good or bad but always great. England truley has nothing much to prove.
