Topic: Olympic Stadium v New Anfield

[royhendo]

no contest..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/7081346.stm

very poor eh? taxpayers' money and all that... it's garbage

[Garstonite]

Bullshit stadium with no character. It'll fit in with the Emirates, the City of Manchester Stadium et al perfectly.

[¡Basta Ya!]

1/2 a billion.

That's a joke.

[ds2190]

Bullshit stadium with no character. It'll fit in with the Emirates, the City of Manchester Stadium et al perfectly.

You can hardly compare them (well, I guess you could with the City of Manchester but it isn't quite the same) as they are for completely different purposes.

[Chivasino]

Also, expecting it to be finished 6 months before the games start is cutting it extremely fine!

[royhendo]

i'd go as far as to say it's a disgrace. I was happy we got the olympics but if this is indicative of the half-assed approach we're gonna takewhy bother ?

[laddo]

The problem with the Olympic stadium is the need to reduce capacity after the Olympics, you couldnt do that with a stadium design similar to ours etc.

[Commie Bobbie]

I find the idea of reducing the stadium's capacity after the Olympics as typically British.

Could not see any other country worth it's salt doing that.

[bryanod]

I find the idea of reducing the stadium's capacity after the Olympics as typically British.

Could not see any other country worth it's salt doing that.

well atlanta removed teh athletics track so the baseball team can play there, not sure of the capacity.

Sydney also removed the track and did remove capacity after the games.

[mikeb58]

Bullshit stadium with no character. It'll fit in with the Emirates, the City of Manchester Stadium et al perfectly.

It's the perfect souless bowl !!

Isn't great how we ( Gillette and Hicks ! ) had the vision and the guts to buck the trend, and go for something as radical and unique as our new home.

I'd hate to have something like that pile of shite as a permanent home, because capacity wise that monstrosity is only 4k higher than the new Anfield, so if we were going for a huge 'bowl ' type Stadium it could have looked something like that.

I know for the purpose of The Olympics, it has to be an oval / bowl shaped arena etc, but for football alone it doesn't, so thankfully our club never went down that road.

[stjohns]

They're using the resizing post olympics argument as an excuse for mediocrity. Why didn't they build a beautiful stadium that Tottenham could have used in the same way that City have in Manchester?

[mikeb58]

Seb Coe was given an easy ride yesterday on the telly ( forget which programme ) talking about this project.

Wish I'd been asking the questions ! Plus don't like Coe anyway, comes across as a smarmy, brown nose type to me.

[stjohns]

Fuckin' tory twat he is Alloy.

[Commie Bobbie]

well atlanta removed teh athletics track so the baseball team can play there, not sure of the capacity.

Sydney also removed the track and did remove capacity after the games.

But decreasing from 80,000 to 25,000...

Why?

[mikeb58]

Fuckin' tory twat he is Alloy.

Yes, Lord Coe certainly is, just didn't want mix politics /sport.

But a Thatcher loving twat he is ( now that you've mentioned it  )

[Ged the Red]

Is Cardiff, the New Wembley, Allianz in Munich, Maracana, Berlin In the World Cup Final, River Plate, Napoli, Roma, Benfica and Celtic Park all souless Bowls too? must be something in the design of a stadium with no gaps because for me the stadiums mentioned hold arguably the best Atmosphere's in the game.

[arfy05]

would it not be wise for them to build a roof seeing as it'll probably rain when the olympics are on.

[Roady]

But decreasing from 80,000 to 25,000...

Why?

coz athletics is shite and noone is arsed about it other than for the olympics

[filopastry]

They're using the resizing post olympics argument as an excuse for mediocrity. Why didn't they build a beautiful stadium that Tottenham could have used in the same way that City have in Manchester?

Would Spurs even have been interested in moving out of North London and would they have had the finances to repay the additional expense required on building it and converting it afterwards.

Given the capacity and the fact its in London I'd say its surprisingly cheap personally (or in other words it'll cost a lot more in the end!)

[Aldridge 8]

 the new stadium does look very interesting to say the least  , but the best stadium i have been to and seen are the millennium and allianz in munich and they have no gaps and are totally enclosed , plus i think its too late now but surely a retractable roof could have been put in the plans IE  cardiff  .

[shanklyboy]

But decreasing from 80,000 to 25,000...

Why?

If they want to save a few bob on the cost of removing the seats, they could always let Milwall play there.

[Matt S]

what are they doing with it after the Olympics? Why do these things have to cost so much over here.

[Mrfabulous]

so when the capacity is reduced to 25,000 it would have only cost £20,000 per seat. bargain

[stueya]

But decreasing from 80,000 to 25,000...

Why?

Makes sense to be honest- if it remained at 80,000 you would have 3 stadiums in the one city all with 80,000+ capacity as well as the Emirates at 60,000. The only 2 sports in this country that can attract those kind of numbers are Football -which will use Wembley(90,000) for it's major occaisions and Rugby Union which will always use Twickenham(82,000) so away from that there would be little call for it at 80k. Originally they may have kept it at that level if a Premiership club capable of getting near to filling it had come in but both West Ham and Spurs felt 80k too big so weren't interested.

The other issue was the Sydney Olympic stadium which had massive problems after the 2000 games and those led to the operators going bust.

[Razor™]

Surley if 55k seats are 'demountable' then is basically going to built from scaffold 80k to 25k seems a hell of a difference! And then it is 25k plus a running track.

[ptyson]

One of the things this Olympics will have is some of the best football stadia around.

Hopefully New Anfield would get a gig!

[Commie Bobbie]

Makes sense to be honest- if it remained at 80,000 you would have 3 stadiums in the one city all with 80,000+ capacity as well as the Emirates at 60,000. The only 2 sports in this country that can attract those kind of numbers are Football -which will use Wembley(90,000) for it's major occaisions and Rugby Union which will always use Twickenham(82,000) so away from that there would be little call for it at 80k. Originally they may have kept it at that level if a Premier League club capable of getting near to filling it had come in but both West Ham and Spurs felt 80k too big so weren't interested.

The other issue was the Sydney Olympic stadium which had massive problems after the 2000 games and those led to the operators going bust.

They could have allowed the Mancs to have access to it as all their fans are in the stockbroker belt of Surrey...

[Swoop]

How much - for a tent??

[Mal]

How much - for a tent??

Upwards of £1750 according to this.

http://www.mongolianyurts.co.uk/

But if you want a bigger one they won't tell you