Olympic stadium

A hot potato if ever there was one; I guess it's time I put in my sixpence worth although most readers probably won't like it. Sadly, politics and money get in the way once again.

To go back to square one, the 2012 Olympics should not have been handed to London, they should have gone to Paris where most of the infrastructure was already in place and the total cost would have been within some sort of proportion. The UK Government now has a noose around its neck; it's committed to supplying a fully (i.e. over) funded Games whilst putting the population through severe austerity measures. All for the sake of three weeks sport. As could easily have been predicted when the budget figures were quoted at the time of bidding, the cost of staging this jamboree will be billions above estimate, money that could have been used around the country to fund grass roots sport. Everybody knew that would be the case but of course once the winner was announced it was too late to go back on it. Yes, there will be some regeneration in the East End of London, not before time, but this could have been done at a fraction of the cost of staging the Olympics. Why the excitement at staging the Games? I would far rather hop across to Paris than struggle to Stratford, that's if I could get a ticket. I find it incredible that the British Athletics Supporters Club, who travel all over the world to watch their beloved sport, are not getting any preferential treatment in terms of ticket allocation. How many true athletics (or cycling, swimming, boxing etc) fans will get to see their favoured events?

In a previous blog I've said what I think about the marathon not finishing inside the stadium. Appalling decision.

The bid team apparently promised that there would be an athletics legacy at the Olympic stadium. Well, they have reneged on most things so one more won't matter. Spurs or West Ham? All the top athletes, uk:athletics and other influential people have stated that there can be no argument about which bid to accept, it has to be West Ham's because the stadium must retain an athletics track. Thankfully, one or two of the more intelligent people on this planet - Brian Moore and John Bicourt for example (I know intelligence is all relative) - disagree; I'm on their side. Do the athletes think that they'll be able to turn up and train at the stadium any day of the week? If so they are away with the fairies. Athletics will be the poor relation to football. It will be a football stadium which allows athletics as a secondary sport on some occasions. From an athletics point of view the stadium will become a white elephant.

Why not take Spurs' money and build a brand new stadium solely for the use of athletics? It can become a centre of excellence and be used on a regular basis. Spurs propose to rebuild Crystal Palace. Sounds good but as someone who has travelled there on numerous occasions I think I speak for the majority when I say that it's in the wrong place! As with Wembley (another white elephant) and Twickenham, why do we insist on building these massive stadiums in built-up areas? In America most stadia are built right by major highways. My choice would be just outside the M25 corridor, maybe adjoining the M40. This would still be known as a London arena (important for the perception of foreigners); be a short drive from Heathrow and be easily accessible from all parts of the country via the motorway system. I rest my case.