Afternoon:
11°c
Olympics chiefs are determined that they will not to be beaten by the British weather and are appointing a team of expert forecasters to minimise disruption to the 2012 Games
More...
Building work is well advanced on the Olympic Stadium. Of all the 2012 venues it's by far the biggest but also the one racing ahead on construction. Some 33 buildings have been demolished to make way for it, 800,000 tonnes of soil have been removed and 3,500 of the 4,000 piles have been sunk. And that is the problem.
For the stadium that the Olympic authorities have ordered - and promised the IOC they would supply when London bid for the Games - does not make economic sense.
They said it would be an athletics centre but apart from a couple of international events such as the world and European championships there is little prospect of people turning up to watch in large numbers.
Much of the time the stadium, even one reduced in size from 80,000 capacity to 25,000, will lie empty and not yield any revenue. A UK athletics meeting will be lucky if it attracts a few hundred spectators, let alone tens
of thousands. This is Lord Coe's blindspot. The chairman of the London organising committee does
not accept there is little popular demand for athletics. Even if he did, he is stuck, as he and his colleagues told the IOC they would provide a permanent athletics facility.
Enter Boris Johnson, who has none of the baggage of Coe and his team. The obvious solution, and one that should have been sewn up before the 2012 bid, is to turn the stadium over to Premiership neighbours West Ham or not-too-distant Tottenham, as Manchester did with the Commonwealth Games centrepiece, now the home of Manchester City.
But there is wariness at handing over a state-of-the-art stadium to a football club at what is bound to be a bargain price. And the clubs weren't keen on a running track around the pitch putting distance between the fans and the action.
It still is the best hope of avoiding a white elephant. Other options, such as inviting a leading rugby side to share the stadium with athletics are unlikely to get off the ground. The East End does not have a history of top-class rugby, and it is hard to see a leading club relocating from west or north London. Another, that nearby football club Leyton Orient should move in, also carries little potential - the Division One team currently attracts crowds of around 4,000.
What should happen is that a Premiership club move in, but construction of a 80,000-capacity venue to be cut back to 25,000 is already under way. Hence the suggestion by Boris's advisers to knock it down completely and build one both in keeping with the football club's blueprint and able to host athletics. That, though, is a drastic and hideously expensive measure.
Before then every effort must be made to bang heads together to try to change the scheme to accommodate a top football club. London's financial legacy demands it.
Reader views (1)
Sorry Chris, Football is not the right way to deal with this. Football is the only sport that has had any investment in London for about 40 years! It's wallowing in cash, and, funnily enough it's not the only sport there is!
Athletics in London is a joke, why? because there are no facilities! Good facilities and the ability to train in them will attract top athletes and coaches, these in turn will attract more people into the sport.
If we want to invest in sport then we need to do so over a long term.
Football, if it is allowed in will take over the entire site.
You wont be able to train on match days, nor will you be able to run events in the aquatics stadium.
London has more football stadiums than any other major city in Europe, and less of any other type of sporting facility. Do we need another one and lose what will be the only top level athletics stadium in the south of England?
- John Whitby, Peterborough, Cambs
