Olympic stadium design announced

They've actually come up with a bowl design. Pity they're reducing it in size to 25,000 we could've had a 40-50,000 cricket ground in there

Hasn't it got movable seats? They could put more in after the Olympics finish.

eowyn wrote:Hasn't it got movable seats? They could put more in after the Olympics finish.

I know Coe wants it as our main athletics stadium but wants another sport to share.

Don't know if the reduction is set in stone.

Not sure I'd want another cricket ground in London anyway, if we ever get a 40-50,000 ground i'd want it elsewhere

Can anyone explain (cos I honestly don't understand this) how you can reduce the capacity of an 80,000 stadium to 25,000?

What do they do, slice of the top tier or something?

Shoeshine wrote:Can anyone explain (cos I honestly don't understand this) how you can reduce the capacity of an 80,000 stadium to 25,000?

What do they do, slice of the top tier or something?

Dunno, but I think a lot of the top tiers is temporary seating which doesn't look like temporary seating but is easy to remove.

(Clear as mud huh?)

Wasn't the Sydney stadium reduced in size too?

The Sydney stadium was about 90,000 for the Olympics and reduced to 70,000 afterwards, but it is Sydney's only 50,000+ seat stadium.

I guess the argument is that London doesnt need another huge stadium on top of Wembley, the Emirates, and Twickenham.

Have they got small willies?

Henry wrote:The Sydney stadium was about 90,000 for the Olympics and reduced to 70,000 afterwards, but it is Sydney's only 50,000+ seat stadium.

I guess the argument is that London doesnt need another huge stadium on top of Wembley, the Emirates, and Twickenham.

More to the point, they want one specifically for athletics, and a running track doesn't work in a football or rugby stadium. And an 80,000 seat stadium is far too big for athletics post 2012.

Henry wrote:The Sydney stadium was about 90,000 for the Olympics and reduced to 70,000 afterwards, but it is Sydney's only 50,000+ seat stadium.

I guess the argument is that London doesnt need another huge stadium on top of Wembley, the Emirates, and Twickenham.

Thats why. There's simply no use for another 80k stadium in that particular area. It would be a white elephant and underused

Batfink Begins wrote:Have they got small willies?

Who?

Are those saucer like objects around the stadium put there in anticipation of Alien life being in attendance at the games by 2012?

Henry wrote:Are those saucer like objects around the stadium put there in anticipation of Alien life being in attendance at the games by 2012?

They are the retail/food stalls.

JKLever wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:Have they got small willies?

Who?

People in London.

People wont have willies in 2012.

Shoeshine wrote:

Henry wrote:The Sydney stadium was about 90,000 for the Olympics and reduced to 70,000 afterwards, but it is Sydney's only 50,000+ seat stadium.

I guess the argument is that London doesnt need another huge stadium on top of Wembley, the Emirates, and Twickenham.

More to the point, they want one specifically for athletics, and a running track doesn't work in a football or rugby stadium. And an 80,000 seat stadium is far too big for athletics post 2012.

Hah, you obviously haven't seen the bigger Indian football stadiums (and by big I mean a capacity of 100,000+).

That's quite a small stadium for something like the Olympics. I presume ticket prices are going to be astronomical?

It's not very English to build the biggest stadium ever seen just for the sake of it.(Something the Americans will no doubt do when they next host the Olympics). Just as long as it's the best....

Besides, apart from the opening and closing ceremonies, the main stadiums are never full during the games.

Henry wrote:People wont have willies in 2012.

Good point. I'm going to try and keep mine. I think I'll smuggle it.

Batfink Begins wrote:

JKLever wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:Have they got small willies?

Who?

People in London.

No idea...
Why are you interested?

bliksem wrote:That's quite a small stadium for something like the Olympics. I presume ticket prices are going to be astronomical?

Its 80,000

JKLever wrote:No idea...
Why are you interested?

There's a grandest penal chord competition in London, wondered if I could win it.

doremi wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

Henry wrote:The Sydney stadium was about 90,000 for the Olympics and reduced to 70,000 afterwards, but it is Sydney's only 50,000+ seat stadium.

I guess the argument is that London doesnt need another huge stadium on top of Wembley, the Emirates, and Twickenham.

More to the point, they want one specifically for athletics, and a running track doesn't work in a football or rugby stadium. And an 80,000 seat stadium is far too big for athletics post 2012.

Hah, you obviously haven't seen the bigger Indian football stadiums (and by big I mean a capacity of 100,000+).

The general consensus in this country is that a running track dilutes the atmosphere. No club side will move to a new ground with a running track

yeah grounds with running tracks are hardly football grounds, they are athletics grounds with people playing football on it once in a while. very poor for atmosphere, the traditional english and german grounds are way better

Why have they ruled out the idea of the Olympic stadium becoming West Ham's home gound? Surely it would save money rather than having another stadium being built.

Henry wrote:It's not very English to build the biggest stadium ever seen just for the sake of it.(Something the Americans will no doubt do when they next host the Olympics). Just as long as it's the best....

Atlanta was very bland.

More piccies...