Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy
Oh yes Spurs was by far the better bid, to rip down a brand new stadium and screw up several other major developments would have made sound sense, there is a reason 12 London Boroughs supported the hammers bid and that has nothing to do with running tracks and the £40 million public money was already set aside for the conversion and is less than Arsenal recieved when they moved to the Emerites.
|
Spurs had a better bid because it's easy to understand how they will fill the Stadium and how they will make it economically viable. Taking down the Stadium would be embarrassing but then the initial idea, when the stadium was being designed, is that the Stadium would be knocked down to 25,000 seats anyway. It wasn't designed as a Football Stadium, it wasn't designed to be a long term 60,000 seater Stadium. While people have been admonishing Spurs for the great crime of rebuilding it they are forgetting they are only going slightly further than the initial plans were in the first place.
The £40 million was not 'already set aside' this is money loaned from Newham to West Ham which was not available to Spurs. Remember the Stadium and area was built with public money in the first place. Whoever got it would benefit, the £40 million (which is a loan anyway) is not the end of the public investment. All of which totals more than Arsenal got.
The Spurs bid had bit the bullet. Remove the running track, move out of Tottenham. They had acknowledged the flaws in their bid and how to remedy them. I still don't see how West Ham plan to fill the stadium or how all the finance will work (the owners have said they will underwrite any losses in the event the Hammers go down, is this promise legally binding?).
I would rather they made it the athletics only stadium they had planned too of course. I also find it quite funny that Spurs are back to the drawing board on their Stadium plans. However if it's going to be a Football Stadium, I preferred the Spurs plan.