“Today [11th of February 2011] is the day that common sense won”. So says Karren Brady. “The stadium was built on a promise” she continues, “a promise made in the Queen’s name, to have a legacy for athletics in London”, and if, as expected, the Olympic Park Legacy Company’s (OPLC) decision is ratified, West Ham’s owners – Davids Gold and Sullivan – and vice-chairman Brady will be the ones to honour her majesty’s word. In today’s climate it might be a decision I’d later regret, but if ever I met FHM’s 98th sexiest woman 1995, I’d have to tell her she was talking utter shite.
Tottenham Hotspur’s rival bid for the site in East London was dismissed as ‘corporate crime’, and disgraceful waste of the government’s investment, because Spurs wanted to knock down the Olympic Stadium and purpose-build a new footballing arena on the site. West Ham on the other hand will not make any structural changes and will use their new purchase to host athletics, T20 cricket, music concerts and community events, as well as football. Even though the decision has been everything but rubber-stamped, I want to have a quick look at the two bids, and decide if common sense really did win.
At first look, it would appear so. From a corporate point of view, surely it makes much more sense to have a versatile stadium that can be funded and maintained by attracting a wide variety of punters through the electronic, x-ray, SWAT-patrolled turnstiles, rather than narrowing the venue’s appeal and thus potentially risk sustained losses and even bankruptcy by reducing the revenue potentially available? If you’ve got government backing for this Project Mass-Appeal, if the stadium is being built on someone else’s (tax-payers’) money, and if a team of realist Guy Richie extras are at the helm, what could possibly go wrong?
From a footballing point of view too, it has a certain appeal. One of England’s most iconic clubs is in desperate need of rejuvenation: images of Bobby Moore beaming and Paolo Di Canio saluting are less synonymous these days than Avram Grant apologising and Carlton Cole…well doing what he always did, or rather didn’t, do – and that’s before we’ve even mentioned the owners’ inspirational votes of confidence in the manager published in the press. Moving to a shiny new stadium might just be the tonic needed to inspire the players, settle the manager and satisfy the board’s hunger to ‘define an era’. They might start improving. They might even attract more players of Benni McCarthy ability.
Finally, it has a certain appeal ‘for the community’. Assuming such a thing exists in London – which I for one am very sceptical of – it would surely benefit those who live in the run-down areas surrounding the Olympic stadium if it was left as a monument to the unifying power of sport and the omniscient benevolence of the government, a beacon of hope to any visitors, who might feel hopeful that similar changes could be directed their way soon (although this argument seems to overlook the fact that the weekly dole allowance wouldn’t even cover the District Line ticket to the site, let alone entry to any events). Conversely, tearing the thing down as soon as the world’s eyes are diverted would confirm to many that the government doesn’t care about anything except its own reputation.
Considering the three arguments above, it is very easy to agree with Brady that common sense can indeed be considered the victor. West Ham’s bid offered the most viable solution to the problem of ensuring a massive one-off investment is maintained and enjoyed by generations to come, both as an athletics arena, and more generally, an iconic sporting arena.
The problems then. Firstly and most importantly: football and athletics do not mix. Never have, never will. The only point of contact these two spheres should have is the occasion media stunt involving a celebrity fan – although recently players have infiltrated modern football with the belief that being able to run very very fast makes up for a complete lack of talent on or near the ball: Gabriel Obertan I’m (reluctantly) looking at you.
It is impossible to recreate the atmosphere at somewhere like Upton Park, especially when I’m Forever Blowing Bubbles is in full swing, if there is a gap of up twenty metres between the front row of seats and the near touchline. With events like athletics and crickets where a big screen relays all the action to those in the back row, and attending is as much about the experience as it is observing all the action, being fifty metres away is OK; but at a football match…you might as well stay at home, save £70 and watch MOTD.
Secondly, while it’s easy to imagine the Olympic Stadium being sold-out for two weeks straight while the track and field events are taking place in 2012 – any excuse to fly the Union Jack, sing the anthem and get pissed – it’s harder to see the 80,000 seats being filled week in week out. In these times of austerity, will people be willing to pay regularly? Will claret and blue binoculars be made available? West Ham are a team looking odds on for relegation. Can you see anyone paying that kind of money to watch a mid-week Championship game, especially when, for the same price you can watch Champions League football elsewhere in the city?
The Hammers are very well supported within London and this is and always has been built on a sizeable die-hard contingent who would walk from Tower Hamlets or Havering twice a week if needs be. But it’s hard to imagine their number being sufficient to fill an 80,000-seater regularly, especially if their seat was forty feet from the pitch. In order for the stadium to generate enough revenue then, it will have to rely on other sources of income besides football.
OK then, athletics. After 2012, will they make any significant difference? How often are athletics events held that any cares about, and of these rarities, how many are in London? The Commonwealth games and the European Championships maybe, but are these all going to be held in London from now on just to fund the Olympic Stadium? Similarly, T20 Cricket’s popularity is increasing and, marketed correctly, it isn’t unforeseeable that people will watch it at a modern venue rather than the Oval, but unless it was England Australia every week, you’d be lucky to get 10% of the seats filled. And what of the consequences for cricket across the UK if all events must be held in the capital to justify the stadium’s existence?
Plus, cricket and athletic events cannot be held in an outdoor stadium such as the Olympic Park, between October and March because of the weather (and even six months on is an optimistic estimate). Presumably these will be the months in which the majority of outside events are held in order to compensate for the income lost from summer sports. But how feasible is it to expect a decent pitch on Saturday if 50,000 people have been jumping up and down on it on Tuesday, especially in the winter? And what damage will field athletic events do to the grass? Is there not a lesson to be learned from the Wembley ‘turf’ where concerts are staged, and the Emirates’ playing surface, which is only graced by footballers?
Once the novelty has worn off and people have been to it once, the reality is that even when costs are shared between three sports (two of which are seasonal) and supplemented by outside events such as gigs, you’re going to struggle to break even whilst still maintaining the standards required of a modern stadium. As in any capital city, the neutral sports fan’s money is sought after by a variety of big-hitting attractions within Greater London – Wembley, Twickenham, the Oval, Wimbledon, Stamford Bridge, the Emirates, the O2 Arena, White Hart Lane to name a few – and the cold hard truth of the matter is that West Ham aren’t a big enough club to bring in the majority percentage of the requisite income. They don’t make enough money to justify having such a big ground.
So the OPLC made the wrong decision then: Tottenham then were the right choice? Under their proposal the Olympic Stadium would follow the Games themselves and become and memory rather than a physical legacy, with the ground being all but demolished and a new, purpose-built footballing arena built in its place. The massive initial costs would then be recouped through this investment: having a currently state-of-the-art stadium that would theoretically last Spurs the next century or so.
Regarding the issue of the promise made by Lord Coe (you know, the guy who speaks on our behalf without us knowing) in ‘our’ Queen’s name (which none of us would ever dream of taking in vain) about a legacy of athletics in London, Tottenham’s bid’s answer was simple. Instead of manufacturing an entirely new legacy from scratch by sharing British athletics’ flagship arena with a football club, they would instead fund the redevelopment of the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre, the home of British athletics for the last fifty years. Surely rejuvenating history is a more fitting way of ensuring a legacy than manufacturing a new home and allowing a site steeping in history to become even more decrepit?
The lack of a running track and sole ownership of the arena are definitely initially attractive to football fans: Gooners and visiting support alike cannot speak highly enough of the quality of the Emirates, especially now initial claims regarding a lack of atmosphere have been quelled (as exemplified by their defeat of Barcelona there in mid-February). Tottenham are, at this point in time, a better candidate for stadium expansion than West Ham, judging both on their league position and performances on the pitch, but also on their clout in the transfer market and stability of ownership and manager. The Spurs are very much a club in the ascendency while you have to speculate the Hammers’ slide could just be beginning.
Tottenham have the grass-roots support to contribute a significant number of the requisite weekly bums-on-seats, the financial backing to ride-out the initial heavy losses incurred by building a new stadium, and are rapidly building a squad, style of play, and reputation to draw in neutrals on a regular enough basis to think about breaking even eventually. The eastwardly relocation could also prove beneficial as it would separate them slightly from Arsenal – who still have to be considered the dominant North London club – and establish them as an individual entity, rather than a bigger clubs’ neighbours.
This hypothetical move however, would be problematic: it would surely exacerbate the Hammers’ problems further as well affecting other London clubs. Kids growing up in the East End would have the choice of a Championship or Champions League team as their local club, and while family ties may run deep, six year-olds aren’t saints. As Barry Hearn points out about West Ham’s relocation: any club moving within such a condensed footballing city will inevitably hurt the smaller clubs – Leyton Orient, Milwall, Charlton and Dagenham & Redbridge – who cannot possibly expect to pull the punters in if bigger neighbours encroach on their traditional territories’. Who’s to say West Ham won’t one day be counted among the capital’s minnows?
Another problem for Tottenham’s bid, and thus a reason for them to celebrate not getting it, is, funnily enough, the community. I personally believe you’d find friendlier faces in the Libyan army than in the Burgh of Westminster at rush hour, but speaking to a Spurs fan, he says that the only thing holding the district of Tottenham together is the footballing team. Most agree that a new stadium is needed – 36,000 seats do not reflect the club’s ambitions – but that it must remain in the district to work. Moving away from White Hart Lane and ergo Haringey would disillusion fans who believe that a new stadium is not sufficient compensation for relocation.
Personally, I can’t see why either West Ham or Tottenham would want to move. For West Ham is represents a massive sacrifice on behalf of the fans, who would have to watch what is looking increasingly like Championship football played on a pitch torn-up from last Tuesday’s JLS concert and Thursday’s under-19s regional shot-put and javelin trials, from a distance that might serve as a poignant reminder as to just how far away a return to former glory days is. For Tottenham, consolidating their recent resurgence as a major European force by building a 60,000+ seater is as inevitable as it is essential, but a permanent move away from N17 could serve to disrupt all the positive strides made in the last twenty years.
It is the former however which looks most like coming to fruition. With the New Cockney Mafia at the helm and the blessing of the Olympic committee, the government and Boris Johnson, not to mention her majesty the Queen (who surely wouldn’t want anything promised in her name to be taken in vain) West Ham will relocate for the 2012-13 season, irrespective of what level they’re playing at. If the experts above believe it can work, who am I to doubt it? Who are the fans to have reservations? February 11th, 2011: a proud day for common sense indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment