Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

To think this is the most stupid f*ing thing I have ever heard...

42 replies

ChukkyPig · 05/09/2008 22:36

Click away now if you don't want to hear a London 2012 rant - but this has made my blood boil.

They are going to build a multi-million pound stadium for track and field in (I think) east london. Regenerating a poor area and (I thought) leaving a legacy for local people school children etc to have a top class venue to run around in and have a go at sports and train new people etc etc

But apparently the plan is that the stadium will not be cost effective after the olympics.

So they want to tear down the multi-million track and field stadium, sell the land to a football club, who will then build another stadium for their team.

AIBU to think that this is a pile of shite. And what happened to the olympics leaving facilities for the public? Ha. Plus the government get loads of cash from selling off prime development land that they wouldn't have been able to sell before.

OP posts:

Original poster

ChukkyPig · 05/09/2008 23:37

It's what they said on the local news, and even in the article it is still "an option".

Why can't we just keep the stadium and then local people can go there, clubs can use it, schools from east, north east and south east london can use it.

Why sell it or knock it down at all? I find it all baffling. What an utter waste of money and a loss of a brilliant opportunity to have an excellent sporting venue in an area with a lot of deprivation.

OP posts:

FAQ · 05/09/2008 23:38

well if it's not used and utilised then I guess they can't - no point in having a stadium that's rarely used/filled to capacity is there?

There's on going running costs in a building like that - even when it's empty!

Original poster

ChukkyPig · 05/09/2008 23:40

Look at the london eye though. That was supposed to be a temporary structure and then, when it was very popular, surprise surprise it had it's life extended.

The dome was a disaster because it never knew what it was supposed to be. The structure itself is very impressive.

A large sport venue in that area of london I am sure would have a lot of people wanting to use it, not least schools. It's not the same as the dome at all.

OP posts:

3andnomore · 05/09/2008 23:43

Hester...why would only London Taxpayers deserve some money back...surely this will be funded from all taxpayers money?
[Dim emoticon]

FAQ · 05/09/2008 23:44

it is the same - because an athletics stadium isn't going to be full to capacity (or even half full) on a regular basis.

School using it wouldn't bring in money, and the prices they would have to charge for the general public to use it (to keep it open as a viable atheltics stadium) would be ridiculous surely.

Original poster

ChukkyPig · 05/09/2008 23:45

3andnomore londoners are paying quite a lot extra through council tax to help pay for the games, over and above anyhthing that is coming from taxes raised by central government.

That's why we all get so worked up about it.

OP posts:

nancy75 · 05/09/2008 23:46

3andnomore, i think alot of the funding is coming from londoners council tax.
chucky pig, even if schools use it, it would cost a massive amount to maintain this kind of building and you cant very well expect school kids to pay a fortune everytime they visit, thats why they need a big football/rugby club to come on board, they would be paying for the upkeep.

pointydog · 05/09/2008 23:47

Hosting the Olympics is done for the glory only. There is no benefit in terms of money or jobs. You have to believe in teh merit of the Games just for their own sake. There is nothing more.

3andnomore · 05/09/2008 23:47

oh right...didn't know that

FAQ · 05/09/2008 23:47

well if Mamazon's figure of £33 a year is correct that''s £2.75 a month - if I lived in London (yes even with the high cost of living) I wouldn't be able to get myself worked up too much over an extra £2.75 a month towards the Olympics

nancy75 · 05/09/2008 23:48

i can do without the glory of the olympics, would rather keep my £33 extra council tax, or see it pay for something useful

nancy75 · 05/09/2008 23:49

but faq thats £2.75 a month that could be doing something better!

FAQ · 05/09/2008 23:50

and you think the council tax you currently pay goes to anything useful

this thread reminds me actually must ring up and enquire about the Judo club in town - DS1 obsessed about it at the moment after seeing some on TV during the Beijing Games

Original poster

ChukkyPig · 05/09/2008 23:51

FAQ by that argument we should close all parks, green spaces, public swimming pools and leisure centres that are funded or subsidised by governemnt/local government for the benefit of the people who live there.

Ditto free admission to museums, art galleries etc.

A stadium like that would be invaluable to the local (and wider) community and so should be supported.

OP posts:

nancy75 · 05/09/2008 23:52

well my bin men are ok, but tbh thats about it!

Original poster

ChukkyPig · 05/09/2008 23:54

Anyway got to go to bed now my DH has just fainted .

If we had a decent athletic venue nearby I doubt he would have been reduced to this.

OP posts:

FAQ · 06/09/2008 00:00

I used to live near a good Atheltics club - used by Paula Radcliffe - it has a tiny capacity (approx 550), and charge £2.20 for an adult to use £1.10 for a child - it's rarely full - can you imagine how much they would have to charge and/or subsidise for a stadium that has a capacity of 25,000????

Flip

1 2