Did common sense prevail?

This week the cast of The Apprentice were doing the rounds on Sky Sports News. Unfortunately, it wasn't some task for the contestants to try and run and manage a football club (although a Stuart Baggs half time team talk would be unmissable); it was the Olympic Stadium decision. With Lord Sir Alan Sugar of Hackney distraught at the decision to award the stadium to West Ham; whilst his trusted boardroom associate Karen Brady was delighted at the decision. But is it the right decision?


West Ham fans have complained at being ignored by the hierarchy at Upton Park (although the hierarchy at West Ham is hardly the most coherent or logical board ever seen in football), they could be seen as having a point. Football stadia with running tracks are often criticised for lacking atmosphere and moving the spectator further away from the action. Maybe the best (or worst) example of this is Juventus' old home of Stadi delle Alpi. Constructed for the 1990 World Cup, it was designed to be a flagship development for Turin and Italy, but was flawed from the start. The distance between the spectators and the pitch was great, reducing visibility for those in the cheapest seats; for those in the pricier pitchside seats often found their view obscured by advertisements. This, tied with it's out of town location and high ticket prices led to some awful attendances, with only 237 spectators at a Coppa Italia match between Juventus and Sampdoria in the 01/02 season. This lead to the stadium being demolished in 2009, with a new, smaller stadium without a running track being built in its place. And to add insult to injury; the stadium never hosted a major athletics event, as the architects forgot to add room for a warm up track. *Annoyed Grunt*

West Ham fans sell out Olympic Stadium in a game against Scunthorpe United.

Although the move for West Ham to the Olympic Stadium may not be the best choice for the club, it was undoubtedly the right choice for London. To have allowed Spurs to demolish the stadium, built the New White Hart Lane in a completely different part of the city, and to have chucked money at a half-arsed attempt to renovate the ageing Crystal Palace athletics stadium (which, co-incidentally, was wanted by Crystal Palace FC to convert back to being a football stadium...). To have selected Spurs and demolished the stadium would have been two fingers up at the IOC and the 2012 legacy; leaving the UK's reputation as a nation that doesn't care about any other sports other than football. And for Spurs to move from one area to another of London has overtones of Wimbledon - when teams like Derby move to a new stadium, they are still the only team within that area. If Spurs were to move, then all of a sudden, could they be accused of moving into a new area to try and capture more support away from the teams traditionally based there?


In my mind here, the real winners are Spurs fans, West Ham's board and the UK as a whole. Just a shame it may be the West Ham fans who may be the sacrificial lamb to maintain national dignity.