Olympics 2012, in Londontown

Orient's only 2.2 miles away, but then again, Upton Park's less than four. I did see something on a quick google search about a groundshare, which wouldn't be a terrible idea if suing for peace is on the table.

 

Another problem with the Atlanta Games which was absolutely not the fault of the host city or its organizing committee were failures in the internal (Internet-infancy era) computer and email system of corporate sponsor IBM.

 

Can't imagine Orient want to put their 5,000 fans in a 60,000-seat stadium. I just don't buy the chairman's argument that there's this vast network of people who'll suddenly decide to go watch West Ham instead of Orient. Sure, some neutrals might go to have a look at the stadium. But it's not as though it would be a choice between "go to the Olympic stadium" or "go to Leyton Orient."

I've been to Orient. It's not that great. And there's no terraces.

 

Agreed. I didn't really have to deal with it the two days I went into the city (though at one point I did find myself next to Bobby Cremins on a really crowded MARTA train), but based on what I've heard, read, etc., the transportation issues (especially the first weekend) are the most legitimate criticism of those Games.

To Michael's other point, is IBM still involved in the Olympics? I seem to recall reading something that indicated that the issues in Atlanta were the end of the line for them.

 

Question for those familiar with London: How close is the new Olympic stadium to Wembley?

 

Completely the other side of town. Wembley's in West London; the new stadium is in East London.

 

Across town, an hour by mass transit offpeak.

 

I went. Lived in Miami at the time and on a whim me a friend drove overnight to Atlanta. Was there for 3 days and had a blast. It was pretty easy to get around and we got tickets at or below face to half a dozen events. I think that the IOC was very big on the anti-US theme and the idea that this was somehow more commercial than any other games.

 

That answers my other question, which was whether Wembley was ever considered as a possibility for the Olympic stadium. Given the focus on revitalizing East London, I guess a new facility had to be built.

 

I'm not sure how much 'revitalizing' there'll be. Plenty of working class folks were pushed out of their homes, with no guarantee of relocation. Dave Zirin had some thoughts about it this morning.

www.thenation.com/blog/169379/after-london-olympics-gloves-come

 

Even if it hadn't been in East London, you couldn't put a running track in Wembley and keep the football pitch. And any attempts to remove or mess with the pitch would have gone over even worse than removing the hedges at Sanford Stadium did.

Plus they needed a soccer stadium anyway. Given the crowd sizes, the demand was there, and the biggest other ground in London is, I believe, the Emirates at 60K.

 

But permanent seating at the new venue is only 25,000. The 'temporary structure' on top was something like 55,000 additional. Whoever winds up there is going to have to figure out how and how much 'permanent' seating to add.