Tottenham Chairman Daniel Levy admits the club are simply covering themselves as they continue to look for a new home, saying: “It is only prudent and good management that we ensure that we investigate all possible options.”
But Karren Brady, Vice-Chair at West Ham feels that the Hammers are the most sensible choice. Earlier this year she told BBC Sport: “We are a natural, logical solution. We want to create a positive, vibrant ongoing legacy.
“We’ve made no secret of the fact we would be the best tenant and make the best use of the site where we can not only incorporate Premier League football, we can add athletics and we’re in discussions with international cricket and rugby as well.”
It is the fact that Ms Brady feels that a football stadium should incorporate other sports that is causing the debate. Lord Sebastian Coe, the man behind bringing the games to London, has already insisted that the Arena will be used as the countries number one athletics venue after the games, meaning the running track will remain in place.
I can understand why Lord Coe is insistent on the Stratford stadium retaining its Olympic heritage after the games, and for this reason both West Ham and Tottenham would be foolish to move in to the stadium.
Yes the facilities would be a vast improvement for both clubs, and I’m sure they would be able to attract more fans by moving in to the new arena, but the fact is that the spectator will only lose out with a running track in place.
Away from the pitch it is hard to generate an atmosphere; you almost become detached from the game itself. The atmospheres at Upton Park and White Hart Lane are amongst the best in the country. If either club moves in to the Olympic Stadium, you can guarantee that the fans would suffer, and this impressive vocal support would be diminished.
What do you think? Would a multi-use stadium really work in the Premier League?
