It's an Oval stadium, it should be used for cricket as well.
Instead of 28,000 at Lords, with many of the seats reserved for the MCC members (a private club) you could get much bigger crowds and hence more available tickets if the Olympic stadium's used.
Interestingly the Melbourne Cricket ground was used for the Commonwealth games, the athletic track was buried and a drop in cricket pitch was used.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, athletic events don't happen that often and the stadium would be left idle the majority on time. But it is also not that ideal for football as the seating is set back from the 'would be' pitch. Shame it couldn't of been designed with the end use already known and agreed.
I think it will be used for both if West Ham end up getting it. At the end of the day they have loads of debt so can't really afford to build a new stadium & beggars can't be choosers so they may have to put up with the track. I can't see Seb Coe lettig the track get ripped up.
It's an Oval stadium, it should be used for cricket as well.
Instead of 28,000 at Lords, with many of the seats reserved for the MCC members (a private club) you could get much bigger crowds and hence more available tickets if the Olympic stadium's used.
Interestingly the Melbourne Cricket ground was used for the Commonwealth games, the athletic track was buried and a drop in cricket pitch was used.
Who wants to watch football in an Oval stadium?
I am sorry but that is ridiculous, why on earth would you move cricket from its home to an athletics stadium?
You seem to have some vendetta against Lords, have you actually ever been there?
Also there is already an Oval in London used for cricket (which is also a fantastic venue), there is no need for another.
It's an Oval stadium, it should be used for cricket as well.
Instead of 28,000 at Lords, with many of the seats reserved for the MCC members (a private club) you could get much bigger crowds and hence more available tickets if the Olympic stadium's used.
Interestingly the Melbourne Cricket ground was used for the Commonwealth games, the athletic track was buried and a drop in cricket pitch was used.
Who wants to watch football in an Oval stadium?
You wouldn't get bigger test match crowds as the stadium capacity is to be reduced to around 25,000 after the Olympics.
Is there any reason why they are reducing the capacity so much - other than to spoil the stadium for future use by the likes of West Ham or other football clubs?
Major football teams all over Europe play in athletics stadiums. No, it may not be ideal, but not that great a hardship. However I'd like to see somebody design a moveable stand for behind the goals that can be used in football games.
The old Wembley was an athletics stadium, and there weren't too many complaints about that. Ironically the old stadium allowed standing areas in the past , but now because of all seater rules many spectators are much further from the action than used to be the case.
It seems a huge pity to bulldoze half of the Olympic stadium., why not just leave it as it will be, even if half the seats are empty. I'm sure the Barcelona Athletics stadium will be full at some point in the future, even if not this week.
Surely you can adapt stadiums , more corporate boxes, even flats and shops without knocking the place down.
With the amount of money being spent on it, it would be pointless post 2012 to have the stadium used only a few times a year when it can get good usage from West Ham adopting it as their new home
I'm sure the Barcelona Athletics stadium will be full at some point in the future, even if not this week.
Didn't Espanyol use the Olympic stadium in Barcelona for a while before they decided it wasn't worth it?
Keeping the London Olympic stadium for athletics only would be a bad idea simply because it would barely ever be more than 1/10th full and would never in a million years manage to pay for itself.
It's an Oval stadium, it should be used for cricket as well.
Instead of 28,000 at Lords, with many of the seats reserved for the MCC members (a private club) you could get much bigger crowds and hence more available tickets if the Olympic stadium's used.
Interestingly the Melbourne Cricket ground was used for the Commonwealth games, the athletic track was buried and a drop in cricket pitch was used.
Who wants to watch football in an Oval stadium?
There has been no mention of international cricket being played at the Olympic Stadium, nor does there need to be. London has Lord's and The Oval, two perfectly good grounds. Not to mention the fact that the way the ticket prices are these days they will struggle to fill those, least of all a bigger stadium.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, athletic events don't happen that often and the stadium would be left idle the majority on time. But it is also not that ideal for football as the seating is set back from the 'would be' pitch. Shame it couldn't of been designed with the end use already known and agreed.
This was discussed on Tuesday on Radio 5live and they said even though there is a running track you feel a lot closer to where a would-be football pitch would go than you do in other athletics stadiums, e.g Brighton's ground. In fact, they said you are closer to the pitch at the back of the Olympic Stadium than you are at the back of Wembley Stadium.
Maintain it as an athletics stadium, hold training there as well as the London Grand Prix and if we manage to get other athletics events here then we will have a ready made venue.
Give it to West Ham to play on during the football season, it is in a perfect position for them.
Allow Essex to play their Twenty20 cricket matches there. There aren't many of them a year and would give a good platform to showcase cricket.
Meanwhile, allow the people who now own the O2 arena to use it as a concert venue, etc. to fill in the time when it is not being used for sport.
There has been no mention of international cricket being played at the Olympic Stadium, nor does there need to be. London has Lord's and The Oval, two perfectly good grounds. Not to mention the fact that the way the ticket prices are these days they will struggle to fill those, least of all a bigger stadium.
Allow Essex to play their Twenty20 cricket matches there. There aren't many of them a year and would give a good platform to showcase cricket.
Meanwhile, allow the people who now own the O2 arena to use it as a concert venue, etc. to fill in the time when it is not being used for sport.
There was mention of it being used a few years ago, by Michael Atherton in the Times and it was discussed on Five Live.
Two perfectly good cricket grounds? But with small capacities, especially when compared with down under.
At Lords cricket ground members and debenture holders get 55 - 60% of the seats in a stadium that hold 29,500.
The capacity of the Oval is 23,500.
Try getting a ticket for the Ashes.
More seats in a stadium means you could charge less.
The Aussies have the MCG for cricket with a capacity of 100,000. Big crowds on Boxing day for the test match and for one dayers and Twenty20s.
When England tour, many of the fans are England supporters because they've more chance of getting seats. Their ticket prices are low compared to over here.
I don't think Essex should use the stadium for Twenty20, they'd barely fill it.
There's a book called 'Pommies' from a few years ago that makes a good case for using the Olympic stadium.
Personaly I think watching football in an athletics stadium would be a horrible soul destroying experience. Assuming there are only 3 or 4 athletics meetings per annum what does the OP suggest we do with the stadium for the other 361 days per year??
Personaly I think watching football in an athletics stadium would be a horrible soul destroying experience. Assuming there are only 3 or 4 athletics meetings per annum what does the OP suggest we do with the stadium for the other 361 days per year??
Perhaps remove the upper stands (and reduce capacity) for football in the winter. But then football in an Oval stadium, if you're behind the goal, you're well behind the goal.
And return the stands in the summer for international cricket?
Outdoor gigs in the summer? But then Wembley's not far away.
It seems that even the prospective football tennents (West Ham) are talking about retaining the track in some capacity, even if just for the London Grand Prix and to allow the staging of major Athletics tournaments in the off-season. I think that's positive and about the most athletics could reasonably demand given the need to get the stadium financing itself.
It'd be good to check out the other options though. The firm that runs the successful O2 have registered their interest, IIRC. If they think they can run it at a profit as a mixed entertainment / sports venue, then that could offer greater flexibility for what athletics it can host.
With regards to athletics, supposedly Wembley has an option where they can stick a platform in and run it as a 60,000 seater track and field venue. Obviously it is good to have the Olympic Stadium as an athletics venue rather than going down the US route (do they actually have a big stadium with a permanent track?). One thing I heard about the Olympic Stadium was the possibility of either Wasps or Saracens playing their home games there.
Just found this thread.
A ramble I posted on another thread if you don't mind.
As far as I know the definite thing is that is will be used instead of Crystal Place for the Diamond League, but tiers removed to reduce to 25,000 capacity. Not big enough for football. may be okay for Saracens rugby.
West Ham like the capacity but not the running track, But why should we lose another Athletic Stadium (eg City of Manchester). Also now rumours that Spurs new ground has planning issues. So Spurs are threatening to move their. If they do, then it would be used in the 2018 World Cup if the bid is successful.
Closer to 2012, London will find out in November if it has won the bid for the World Championship Athletics for 2015. However with 2011 in South Korea, 2013 in Moscow, and Beijing bidding for 2015 as well I think it is fairer if it is held outside Europe so maybe Beijing. 2017, maybe IAAF could come back to Europe but I think to allow some space, I would think London should aim for the 2019 World Championships. With them being every 2 years maybe the IAAF should only allow Europe to host the World Champs evety six years.
If a football team, and football is realistically the only sport that could use an 80,000 seater stadium then keep the current configuration. Although for ateam like Spurs and the World Championships a 60,000 capacity be more realistic
Of course if it keeps the 60,000 capacity and is used by a football club, it would surely be good for bringing rock concerts to East London. That is the real challenge, does London need a new stadium for Spurs or can sustain one.
As it is, it would leave London with four major (50,000+) stadia.
Twickenham (Rugby Union) Harlequins and Wasps
Wembley (International Football. club Rugby Union/League, concerts) Saracens occasional
The Emirates (club football) Arsenal
Olympic Stadium (Athletics, Football, Rugby) Saracens or Wasps. Spurs or West Ham
Funny that the football club that is top in London at the moment are Chelsea, but if they went to the Olympic Stadium or Wembley (Stamford Bridge being restricted by Geography for expansion) they cannot take the name with them. The Chelsea name is owned by some group called the Stamford Bridge Pitch Owners..or similar.
Anyway sorry for the interruption, lets get back to the European Championships,
One of my main problems against football taking over is who do West Ham expect to pay for turning it into a football stadium given they don't want to keep the track? Last report I heard was that it could cost over £100 million.
Interesting how Lord Coe was asked a question last night.
Some people, who have via dream number contributed to the stadium/olympics feel that the money was for an ATHLETICS stadium.
So if, West Ham bought the stadium. or lease it, I think we need complete transparency over how much they pay for the stadium.
Given the abount of lottery money that has gone into this stadium I don't thing anybody will be happy if West Ham are seen to be getting it on the cheap.
Comments
Instead of 28,000 at Lords, with many of the seats reserved for the MCC members (a private club) you could get much bigger crowds and hence more available tickets if the Olympic stadium's used.
Interestingly the Melbourne Cricket ground was used for the Commonwealth games, the athletic track was buried and a drop in cricket pitch was used.
Who wants to watch football in an Oval stadium?
I am sorry but that is ridiculous, why on earth would you move cricket from its home to an athletics stadium?
You seem to have some vendetta against Lords, have you actually ever been there?
Also there is already an Oval in London used for cricket (which is also a fantastic venue), there is no need for another.
You wouldn't get bigger test match crowds as the stadium capacity is to be reduced to around 25,000 after the Olympics.
It seems a huge pity to bulldoze half of the Olympic stadium., why not just leave it as it will be, even if half the seats are empty. I'm sure the Barcelona Athletics stadium will be full at some point in the future, even if not this week.
Surely you can adapt stadiums , more corporate boxes, even flats and shops without knocking the place down.
With the amount of money being spent on it, it would be pointless post 2012 to have the stadium used only a few times a year when it can get good usage from West Ham adopting it as their new home
Didn't Espanyol use the Olympic stadium in Barcelona for a while before they decided it wasn't worth it?
Keeping the London Olympic stadium for athletics only would be a bad idea simply because it would barely ever be more than 1/10th full and would never in a million years manage to pay for itself.
Maintain it as an athletics stadium, hold training there as well as the London Grand Prix and if we manage to get other athletics events here then we will have a ready made venue.
Give it to West Ham to play on during the football season, it is in a perfect position for them.
Allow Essex to play their Twenty20 cricket matches there. There aren't many of them a year and would give a good platform to showcase cricket.
Meanwhile, allow the people who now own the O2 arena to use it as a concert venue, etc. to fill in the time when it is not being used for sport.
There was mention of it being used a few years ago, by Michael Atherton in the Times and it was discussed on Five Live.
Two perfectly good cricket grounds? But with small capacities, especially when compared with down under.
At Lords cricket ground members and debenture holders get 55 - 60% of the seats in a stadium that hold 29,500.
The capacity of the Oval is 23,500.
Try getting a ticket for the Ashes.
More seats in a stadium means you could charge less.
The Aussies have the MCG for cricket with a capacity of 100,000. Big crowds on Boxing day for the test match and for one dayers and Twenty20s.
When England tour, many of the fans are England supporters because they've more chance of getting seats. Their ticket prices are low compared to over here.
I don't think Essex should use the stadium for Twenty20, they'd barely fill it.
There's a book called 'Pommies' from a few years ago that makes a good case for using the Olympic stadium.
Perhaps remove the upper stands (and reduce capacity) for football in the winter. But then football in an Oval stadium, if you're behind the goal, you're well behind the goal.
And return the stands in the summer for international cricket?
Outdoor gigs in the summer? But then Wembley's not far away.
It'd be good to check out the other options though. The firm that runs the successful O2 have registered their interest, IIRC. If they think they can run it at a profit as a mixed entertainment / sports venue, then that could offer greater flexibility for what athletics it can host.
A ramble I posted on another thread if you don't mind.
As far as I know the definite thing is that is will be used instead of Crystal Place for the Diamond League, but tiers removed to reduce to 25,000 capacity. Not big enough for football. may be okay for Saracens rugby.
West Ham like the capacity but not the running track, But why should we lose another Athletic Stadium (eg City of Manchester). Also now rumours that Spurs new ground has planning issues. So Spurs are threatening to move their. If they do, then it would be used in the 2018 World Cup if the bid is successful.
Closer to 2012, London will find out in November if it has won the bid for the World Championship Athletics for 2015. However with 2011 in South Korea, 2013 in Moscow, and Beijing bidding for 2015 as well I think it is fairer if it is held outside Europe so maybe Beijing. 2017, maybe IAAF could come back to Europe but I think to allow some space, I would think London should aim for the 2019 World Championships. With them being every 2 years maybe the IAAF should only allow Europe to host the World Champs evety six years.
If a football team, and football is realistically the only sport that could use an 80,000 seater stadium then keep the current configuration. Although for ateam like Spurs and the World Championships a 60,000 capacity be more realistic
Of course if it keeps the 60,000 capacity and is used by a football club, it would surely be good for bringing rock concerts to East London. That is the real challenge, does London need a new stadium for Spurs or can sustain one.
As it is, it would leave London with four major (50,000+) stadia.
Twickenham (Rugby Union) Harlequins and Wasps
Wembley (International Football. club Rugby Union/League, concerts) Saracens occasional
The Emirates (club football) Arsenal
Olympic Stadium (Athletics, Football, Rugby) Saracens or Wasps. Spurs or West Ham
Funny that the football club that is top in London at the moment are Chelsea, but if they went to the Olympic Stadium or Wembley (Stamford Bridge being restricted by Geography for expansion) they cannot take the name with them. The Chelsea name is owned by some group called the Stamford Bridge Pitch Owners..or similar.
Anyway sorry for the interruption, lets get back to the European Championships,
Some people, who have via dream number contributed to the stadium/olympics feel that the money was for an ATHLETICS stadium.
So if, West Ham bought the stadium. or lease it, I think we need complete transparency over how much they pay for the stadium.