Premiership sides eye Olympic Stadium

[TRF_Cymro]

Two Premiership rugby clubs have sounded out the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) about the possibility of using the Olympic Stadium following the London 2012 Games, according to reports.

http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership-2011-12/rugby/story/156343.html​

 

[stus768]

Rugby games played in football stadiums that are too big are terrible. Saracens or Wasps??? Neither regularly get over 8000 to games = no atmosphere.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Yup, was going to say probably Wasps and Saracens

Sarries may get a good crowd at Wembley but they aren't going to pull in 80,000 every week

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Rugby games played in football stadiums that are too big are terrible. Saracens or Wasps??? Neither regularly get over 8000 to games = no atmosphere.

Whilst it's true that Wasps do nto regularly get 8000+, I'd say part of the very problem is that the ground is in High Wycombe. Noone wants to go there, it's an awful place.We'd pull in a better crowd in a better location. So the problem is part of the solution.

 

[Seaton]

Seen some pics of the field from certain seats in the ground.

You literally need binoculars to distinguish between players and the grass when on the far side.

Ridiculous stadium if you ask me, wouldn't want my team to play there.

 

[powerfulduck]

I think that stadium will be a disaster for whoever gets it tbh.

 

[Teh Mite]

It's a laudable ambition, but has no one from Saracens or Wasps been to Murrayfield when Edinburgh are playing at home?!​

 

[Nielsch]

Wouldn't it be better for Saracens (or Wasps) to have a ground share with Leyton Orient FC at the Matchroom Stadium? A little less than 10.000 seats. Sounds perfect to me.

 

[Teh Mite]

Sarries may get a good crowd at Wembley but they aren't going to pull in 80,000 every week

They don't manage that for the one off games. The Saints and Springboks games (the early ones when the crowds at Wembley were bigger) didn't either go over 45,000 when most of the tickets were given away to schools etc.

Wouldn't it be better for Saracens (or Wasps) to have a ground share with Leyton Orient FC at the Matchroom Stadium? A little less than 10.000 seats. Sounds perfect to me.

No, because they want 15,000+ due to the HEC knockout stage rules. Sarries are looking at Copthill because they've got the backup of Wembley when necessary.

 

[McTallshort]

Rugby games played in football stadiums that are too big are terrible. Saracens or Wasps??? Neither regularly get over 8000 to games = no atmosphere.

Agree! There is an article about the rugby world cup and the size of the grounds required. Its a joke, always better to play in a smaller fuller ground than an big half empty one. its a bad idea if a rugby team gets this stadium, people need to be realistic about what crowds they are going to get.

 

[gingergenius]

It's a laudable ambition, but has no one from Saracens or Wasps been to Murrayfield when Edinburgh are playing at home?!
​

completely agree (and I am a Sarries fan who has been to Edinburgh at Murrayfield).

The Olympic stadium needs to be used regularly, and it needs to remain an athletics stadium. As I understand it, that is what will happen with West Ham winning the race out of the self-interested little nancyball shits who've also bid (Spurs and Orient). The athletics track will remain, and the stadium will be used regularly, by an East London team, so I'm satisfied.

There's not too much point in Saracens using it. Rugby Union is popular in West and South London, not so much North and East. Saracens are planning a move to Barnet Copthall, which is back to where the club is originally from and looks like a great option considering the attendances we usually get. Heineken Cup, and other games, can be moved to Wembley, and we've already proved this can be done successfully.

Wasps, Quins and Irish are in a different position. Quins have a cracking ground, and Twickenham is natural for them to use for bigger games. Irish play in front of the Madejski with loads of empty seats, but it can fit a lot more people in it for bigger games. Wasps really ought to be thinking about a move back to London imo; High Wycombe is not a good place to be. But they should move back to West London, I thought Loftus Road was great for them. Either that or Craven Cottage could, potentially, work. I would suggest Stamford Bridge when Chelsea eventually have to move out, but the price will be astronomical.

 

[Teh Mite]

Chelsea fans would probably burn it to the ground before ever letting egg chasers take control of the Bridge.

 

[psychic duck]

completely agree (and I am a Sarries fan who has been to Edinburgh at Murrayfield).

The Olympic stadium needs to be used regularly, and it needs to remain an athletics stadium. As I understand it, that is what will happen with West Ham winning the race out of the self-interested little nancyball shits who've also bid (Spurs and Orient). The athletics track will remain, and the stadium will be used regularly, by an East London team, so I'm satisfied.

There's not too much point in Saracens using it. Rugby Union is popular in West and South London, not so much North and East. Saracens are planning a move to Barnet Copthall, which is back to where the club is originally from and looks like a great option considering the attendances we usually get. Heineken Cup, and other games, can be moved to Wembley, and we've already proved this can be done successfully.

Wasps, Quins and Irish are in a different position. Quins have a cracking ground, and Twickenham is natural for them to use for bigger games. Irish play in front of the Madejski with loads of empty seats, but it can fit a lot more people in it for bigger games. Wasps really ought to be thinking about a move back to London imo; High Wycombe is not a good place to be. But they should move back to West London, I thought Loftus Road was great for them. Either that or Craven Cottage could, potentially, work. I would suggest Stamford Bridge when Chelsea eventually have to move out, but the price will be astronomical.

I don't understand why such a fuss is being made of the legacy of keeping an athletics track,

firstly the legacy of it being an Olympic stadium will wear off in 10 or 15 years time, for example Barcelona's Olympic stadium is hardly something that kids dream of competing in because it once held the Olympics, Racing-Métro's home ground hosted the Olympics in the thirties and they're desperate to move out, likewise with Italy and the Stadio di Flaminio which once hosted the Olympics

secondly, outside the Olympics is there enough interest to sell out a 60,000 stadium for Athletics? I'm a fan but the highest attendance in this season's Diamond League was 45,000, so 60,000 is at the very upper limits of the potential attendance for an event other than the Olympics and the World Champs, which won't happen very often. I think Tottenham's idea of them paying to redevelop Crystal Palace from 15,000 capacity to 30,000 was a better more realistic one to be honest (however Tottenham shouldn't move to a stadium so far away from Tottenham, but the idea to redevelop Crystal Palace was a good one as it is currently a dump)

 

[Seaton]

I think the IOC made the fuss about a legacy being pertinent to the winning bid

 

[gingergenius]

Because if the stadium's not an athletics stadium then it's either a white elephant, or just another bloody football stadium built with public money. Wembley and the Emirates already total over 150,000 capacity of brand new football stadiums built in the past decade. London doesn't need another one.

This would not be an issue if they'd built the new Wembley with a running track, like the Stade de France has. But no, the FA couldn't bend to that. In fact, that single decision has spawned the very existence of the Olympic Stadium, as I'm sure Wembley with a running track would have done very nicely for 2012.

So after that, I want to be belligerent. The Olympic Stadium's express purpose is athletics for a global audience. We have the World Championships in 2017 held there, and there is now scope for London to take a proper Diamond League event each year which can draw major crowds. All the rest of the year, the stadium can be used for football, NFL, sailing or whatever the **** they want it to. But it was built for athletics and it bloody well ought to remain, first and foremost, an athletics stadium.

 

[Teh Mite]

This would not be an issue if they'd built the new Wembley with a running track, like the Stade de France has. But no, the FA couldn't bend to that. In fact, that single decision has spawned the very existence of the Olympic Stadium, as I'm sure Wembley with a running track would have done very nicely for 2012.

Nope. The point of the "legacy" on Sebs bid was to regenerate shitty areas - E.g. The Olympic Village which will be converted into housing, transport links etc. It's all in the fine print of the bid.

 

[psychic duck]

Because if the stadium's not an athletics stadium then it's either a white elephant, or just another bloody football stadium built with public money. Wembley and the Emirates already total over 150,000 capacity of brand new football stadiums built in the past decade. London doesn't need another one.

This would not be an issue if they'd built the new Wembley with a running track, like the Stade de France has. But no, the FA couldn't bend to that. In fact, that single decision has spawned the very existence of the Olympic Stadium, as I'm sure Wembley with a running track would have done very nicely for 2012.

So after that, I want to be belligerent. The Olympic Stadium's express purpose is athletics for a global audience. We have the World Championships in 2017 held there, and there is now scope for London to take a proper Diamond League event each year which can draw major crowds. All the rest of the year, the stadium can be used for football, NFL, sailing or whatever the **** they want it to. But it was built for athletics and it bloody well ought to remain, first and foremost, an athletics stadium.

firstly there already is a proper Diamond League event at Crystal Palace

secondly 60,000 is a stretch for a Diamond League event, the highest ever is 47,000 in Rome but apart from that it would rarely get above 25,000 and that's just once a year

 

[gingergenius]

they could have based the rest of the olympics in stratford, and had just the stadium at wembley.

and if you advertise and event enough, it will draw crowds. Saracens have no fans and manage to get decent crowds at Wembley for mere premiership matches.

On the other hand, the country is well-acquainted with our athletics stars since they're going to have been in the olympics/ SPOTY etc. Ennis, Farah, Radcliffe, Ohurogu etc. are household names more than most of the current England rugby team. This doesn't even account for the Usain Bolt factor, and the fact that there are a lot of Jamaican Britons who'll go especiallly to see Bolt, Powell, Blake etc. I think a Diamond League event, marketed well, could easily fill the 60,000 olympic stadium in years to come.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

Olympic Stadiums are usually terrible for sports teams... The Montreal Expos major league baseball team (Now Defunct partially because they played in an Olympic Stadium) had a hard time drawing fans, seating was super far from the field, and when you play in a 76,000 seat stadium with only 28,000 showing up its terrible (Montreal during its final years was only drawing under 10,000 fans a game.

 

[welshglory]

Remember guys that the stadium will be reduced in capacity. Probably still 30-40000 but you know... Lets be honest here do Wasps really have a lot of options now? They've got no money, losing supporters, poor attendances and mid table at best.
You know as they say beggars can't be choosers. There's good transport links to this and a possibility to tap into a new market. Sometimes you've just got to take a risk.