I do think it's simply a case of her and West Ham being unprofessional, naive and stupid.
==========================

you missed out 'rubbish at football'

I am not as well informed of her football skills as I preume you to be.

by my count you have wasted 11 words in that post.

myhammers............................................It wasn't £1868, the OPLC have acknowledged that it was just over £20,000, throws a different light on the subject would you not agree.

Conjecture (both from me & you) is all we have, until things become clearer.

Incidentally, if as you say both her & West Ham have behaved unprofessionally, why only her being punished?

The Bid process has lost its integrity & therefore needs to be looked at again. I am not saying that WHU should not have got the stadium by virtue of your location, however this was an open ITT, therefore it should have been a level playing field for all. It patently was not.

I have always liked WHU & the way they played football, however I do not like the way this has been conducted & I would trust G&S as far as I could throw them.

greaves: Yes, £20,000 would make a difference. Most football fans are united in their loathing of Gold and Sullivan (and Brady).

I have no doubt that West Ham won the bid on merit. Let Levy embarrass himself further by re-starting the process. The bottom line is that Tottenham had absolutely no right whatsoever wanting to move to east London in the first place. For that reason alone, they deserve all the scorn and humiliation that is being heaped upon them in their shameless pursuit of the OS.

The bottom line is that Tottenham had absolutely no right whatsoever wanting to move to east London in the first place.
--------------------------------------------
Says who? You? Your's in an opinion. Thats all.

Actualy THFC were invited by the OLPC to bid.................................
the key point in Levy chasing this down is that if we had no chance of winning & they knew we would not keep the running track, and decided to insert that as key to any bid, then we should be re-imbursed our expenses & costs for a bid that was never going to be allowed.

Bearing in mind that the criteria for marking the bids was changed ONLY 2 days prior to the bid closing, with finances being downgraded.

If finances had counted, then with WHU's current state they could not compete.

Incidentally did you know that UK Athletics will be given a 250 year lease on the OS as part of the agreement?

So don't think that 5 years down the line, G&S can just rip up the track etc................................you will be stuck 25-30 yards away from the touchline & even further away behind the goals!!

genius - Future wetspam fans may see that as a benefit

The running track is written into the lease. This is old news. Maybe in time, they will do away with it. Or maybe we'll mitigate it's impact through retractable seats.

However, having a running track is a very, very small price to pay for having such a wonderful stadium. And it's practically free. I'm planning to go on a tour of it soon, before the whole world descends upon it next year

However, having a running track is a very, very small price to pay for having such a wonderful stadium.
-----------------------------
Not for football though. Lucky that.

myhammers..........
The running track is written into the lease. This is old news. Maybe in time, they will do away with it. Or maybe we'll mitigate it's impact through retractable seats.

However, having a running track is a very, very small price to pay for having such a wonderful stadium. And it's practically free. I'm planning to go on a tour of it soon, before the whole world descends upon it next year.
______________________________________________________

Up to now you were responding with a modicum of intellect, but your comments above beggar belief!

This lease will be watertight, its a 250 year lease.................................retractable seats will not work without spending around £100m reconfiguring the stadium & the foundations. The current seats at trackside are slightly below
ground level.................

As for your comment re the running track being a small price to pay, you don't really understand the ramifications do you?

I have been in the OS, it is designed purely for athletics and athletics only, which is why Levy's plan was to rebuild it.

The track itself will be at least 30-35 yards from the NEAREST spectators.......
.http://www.london2012.com/images/media-manager/2009/03/olympic-stadium-field-of-play-60578.jpg

There are NO spectator facilities inside the stadium, that means you have to go outside onto a perimeter pod to find the toilets, food & drink etc...................................another reason for rebuilding.

The top tier is only temporary, with bottom tier holding 25,000, that is 55,000 seats to be removed before the stadium is rebuilt. If you then started messing around with the foundations you can add that £100m I mentioned earlier!

I think you will soon find that the OS being your home ground will not be any advantage at all.

genius :

Not a word to be associated with the Spammers.

Re the 30,000 "temporary" seating.
Can the OS not retain them, or is their lifespan/maintenance costs too high re the HS requirements etc.

That would be funny if the Spammers only end up with a 25,000 stadium a mile back from the pitch, because once the temporary structures expire, they cannot afford to replace them.

RDBD..............................Not sure of the exact logistics, however as there are NO Corporate boxes or facilities at all within the stadium, these need to be factored in & the cannot be just added into the existing top tier.

This in itself requires major construction & architectural design work. It would be cheaper to get rid & rebuild, the lower tiers also have no facilities which again creates difficulties. That is why DL's plan was to level the stadium & just use the foundation work to rebuild.

This could become West Ham's folly.................................they will not have the money to fund it & their football will suffer, mind you its going to be dire with Big Sam in charge anyway, I think!!

Greaves: West Ham are planning to spend £100m to redevelop the OS once the games are over. Or so I believe. But it will be quite different after 2012.

The running track lease may or may not be watertight. I remember when the stadium was being built that Calamity Coe and his cronies said that a football club would not move into the OS and it would be reduced to 20,000 solely for athletics. So much for that. My gut feeling is that, within 10 years, the running track will be gone.

Myhammers.......................................

The lease to UK Athletics is for 250 years, you can bet that not only will Levy make sure that it is watertight, the OLPC will have to also do so to retain any credibility whatsoever.

Yes I believe the figure WHU quoted was £90m, of which £40m is coming from Newham Council. However this would not enable them to re-structure the stadium in the manner I eluded to earlier.

Even 10 years at a stadium with a track would not help WH, you also have to get back into the PL, which is easier said than done these days.

In all honesty, I think we have now done this argument to death, we are not going to agree & only time will tell who is right in their views & assumptions.

Off to relax with a nice glass of wine!!

OLPC have just announced there will be an Independent Review of the Bid process for the OS!

What a waste of tax payers' money as they're so confident it was "robust"

Greaves: This topic has been done to death. Let's wait and see whether the bidding process is re-opened. And also what the OS will look like after 2012.
Of course, any futher developments on the OS will invariably lead to the usual flood of articles and comments! The bottom line is that the OS is a topic which deeply touches the fans of both clubs. I'm off to have a

myhammers..................................enjoy!