Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Kevin Garside: Olympic Stadium deal for West Ham, could have been improved with Leyton Orient ground-share

The Hammers will be the anchor tenants

Kevin Garside
Friday 22 March 2013 09:23 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Hard to argue with the rehousing of West Ham at the Olympic Stadium. The club needed a new home and the stadium a tenant. However, the outcome might have been enhanced by the inclusion of Leyton Orient in a ground-sharing deal.

Orient owner Barry Hearn is seeking a judicial review of the decision that grants the Hammers a 99-year lease from 2016. Good luck with that, Barry. Pity you have to throw good money after bad in pursuit of a sensible solution to the problem of bringing Victorian football institutions sharing a neighbourhood into the 21 century.

The £150 million revamp of a new stadium smacks of a lack of foresight in the first place, but let’s not quibble about an Olympic Games that in so many ways exceeded expectation. What is disappointing is the reluctance of football clubs in this country to give sensible consideration to ground sharing.

Why Liverpool and Everton, a goal kick apart and both in desperate need of new homes for the modern epoch, will not countenance the idea defeats all logic? But then Arsenal at the Emirates and the FA at Wembley blew more than a billion smackers building two new palazzos fewer than a dozen miles apart. Bonkers.

The idea that West Ham, serving the great expanse east of the capital, required an arena to match the conurbation has long been nurtured at the Academy. The club that won the World Cup for England, as the Boleyn boys would have it, fancied themselves equipped with a fan base to challenge the North London dynasties of Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur as well as the newly minted Chelsea in the west.

A capacity set at 54,000 gives them the opportunity to make the case. West Ham’s first match in the stadium comes 50 years after they last won the World Cup. Why didn’t we think of this sooner?

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in