Soccer Portal

The Olympic Stadium is becoming one of Britain's hottest commodities, and that's before a shot has been putted, a discus has been thrown or an athlete has been stripped of their medal for taking a banned substance. The London 2012 Olympics may still be 18 months away, but the fight to occupy the 80,000 seater centrepiece stadium after the Games have finished is at the forefront of English football's collective mind right now.

Tottenham Hotspur, West Ham United, Saracens RFC...even Leyton Orient have made strong claims as to why they should be waiting outside the Olympic Stadium with a couple of Pickfords vans when the 2012 Games come to an end on August 12th next year. The desire and need for football teams to relocate from stadium to stadium certainly isn't a new one - but this time, upping sticks isn't that simple, and it certainly isn't free of controversy.

London calling

With Spurs and West Ham looking the most likely prospective tenants for the stadium, both clubs will do well to look at London neighbours Arsenal's relocation from Highbury to the Emirates Stadium in 2006. With their original 38,419 seater ground no longer able to cope with demand from season ticket holders, the Gunners decided that, with expansion of their original Islington site impossible because of listed housing, a move was imperative if the club was to grow. Drawing parallels from Spurs's current predicament, both they and Arsenal had considered a move to the new Wembley upon completion - these plans were later scrapped, and Arsenal selected a site at Ashburton Grove, just 500 yards away from Highbury, as the place their new ground would be built. Remember that distance - it could be Tottenham's undoing, but we'll get to that.

The Gunners would have to spend millions of pounds relocating the Islington Recycling Plant and the Royal Mail Holloway Delivery Office, but the sacrifice was worth it for the spectacular result. Having overcome problems with matchday parking and access to the ground, the contractually-named Emirates Stadium opened on the 22nd of July 2006. With 60,355 seats, it's the second largest football club stadium in England. Highbury was subsequently redeveloped into exclusive blocks of flats, and Gunners fans haven't looked back since.

Moving on up

Arsenal played at Highbury for 93 years - one of the longest tenancies in English football. Their move to the Emirates Stadium has seen their global brand increase, but it's not just teams in the Premier League who owe a change in fortunes to their relocation. Further down the footballing ladder, one can point to a historic move for Chesterfield, and a subsequent promotion push in League Two this season, as a possible reason for Tottenham and West Ham to start over. The Spireites had called Saltergate home for 139 years, but played their last game there at the end of the 2009/10 season, an emotional end to a historic chapter in the club's history.

But as that door closed, another one opened - on the 10,000 capacity B2net Stadium in the Whittington Moor area of Chesterfield. The new venue is a lot more up to date, with various community facilities installed as part of the ground. The stadium cost £13,000,000 to build, and was completed just inside a year - giving the Spireites a new home just in time for the 2010/11 League Two season. And Chesterfield have seized the opportunity well, bedding into their new home to the tune of 49 points from 24 games so far, meaning the Derbyshire outfit are well on course for a title challenge which would see them return to League One after they were relegated in 2007.

Cardiff City, too, have seen an upturn in fortunes after they left Ninian Park for the significantly more up-to-date surroundings of the Cardiff City Stadium in 2009. Having been at Sloper Road for 99 years, the Bluebirds decided their old ground, which was quite honestly falling to bits, wasn't able to help them grow as a club anymore. Cue up a move to the 26,828 City Stadium, with which City share tenancy with the Cardiff Blues rugby team. The ground is a multi-purpose venue too, with the Summer In The City concert held there in June 2010.

And today, residing in their new home, Cardiff sit second in the Championship, behind leaders QPR, and with an array of exciting talent on offer in their squad, including Jay Bothroyd, recently capped by England, hotshot striker Michael Chopra, Manchester City loanee Craig Bellamy and midfield playmaker Peter Whittingham. The Bluebirds came close to promotion last season, losing to Blackpool in the Playoff Final at Wembley as they enjoyed their first season playing in the Cardiff City Stadium. If their current form is maintained for the rest of the stadium, their new home could well be playing host to the likes of Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal next season.

On the horizon

Whilst Tottenham and West Ham will have to wait, with the announcement of the future of the Olympic Stadium being delayed this week, to find out if their bids are successful, one side that are jangling their keys in anticipation of a move are Brighton & Hove Albion. The controversy that has surrounded the Seagulls' attempts to find a home over the last 15 years may not be as far-reaching as the current debate between Spurs and the Hammers, but it's intriguing nonetheless. For 96 years, Brighton called the Goldstone Ground, in Hove, their home. However, after avoiding relegation to the Conference at the end of the 1997/98 season, the club's directors sold the ground in an attempt to clear mounting debts - despite the club not having made prior arrangements to find a new home. A ground share with Portsmouth was floated, before Brighton eventually bedded down with Gillingham at the Gills' Priestfield Stadium.

After making the regular 70 mile trip from Brighton to Gillingham for home games for two years, Brighton fans were relieved to find out that in 1999, the club would move to the Withdean Stadium. That was until they saw the ground, voted fourth worst in the country by Guardian readers. The Withdean was not at all suited for football, with just one permanent stand and a running track around the pitch. Matchday parking was limited, the temporary stands, especially the away end, were what seemed like miles from the pitch, and the trek from the nearest train station is unbearably lengthy. Not that Brighton's players seem to mind right now - the club sit top of League One, six points clear of second place Bournemouth.

But if they do gain promotion to the Championship when the dust settles at the end of the season, sides like Doncaster Rovers and Hull City will be comforted by the fact that it is at the American Express Community Stadium that they will be playing their football - an ambitious project that began life as a blueprint back in 1999. Numerous delays, including several legal battles instigated by Lewes District Council, meant that work on the stadium didn't commence until December 2008. But the wait will be worth it. Excavated from chalk rock in Falmer and set three storeys down, the American Express Community Stadium, or The Amex, for short, will have a capacity of over 22,000, will be environmentally sustainable and will feature lights set into the away end that change colour in accordance with the colours of the visiting team. Although the last of those three facts is probably the most underwhelming, it's this kind of future-proofing that could see Brighton & Hove Albion march even further up the league ladder.

Capital gains

So Chesterfield, Cardiff, Arsenal and Brighton have their new homes. Now the focus switches to Tottenham and West Ham, and the battle for the Olympic Stadium. There is already controversy in place, and that's before the decision on which club gets the stadium is made. To set the scene, there are, realistically, three possible futures for the stadium. West Ham are planning to keep the stadium as it is, but slightly reduce its capacity, from 80,000 to approximately 60,000. This also means the running track will stay, something Hammers fans, and group representatives are opposed to. They will rightly point to, ironically, Brighton's current home, as a prime example of a running track taking away from the atmosphere - if the fans aren't close to the pitch, you lose the sense of hostility and involvement that most grounds these days keep as an integral part of the matchday experience. Despite this, it's West Ham's intentions to keep the athletics facilities in the stadium that are currying favour with the Olympic Park Legacy Committee, the organisation in charge of the future of the Olympic Stadium.

The second scenario would see Tottenham relocate from their current White Hart Lane home, completely demolishing the Olympic Stadium after the games and building their own 60,000 all seater ground on the site, a blueprint which has been met with much scepticism from the Olympic organisers because of the demolition plans, and from Spurs fans because of the proposed geographical switch the football club would make. Although Tottenham intend to completely revamp the Crystal Palace Athletics Centre as part of the deal, effectively handing Crystal Palace FC a new stadium in the process, the disregard to the legacy of the London 2012 Games, for which the Olympic Stadium is the centrepiece, is the idea which is the least appealing to the OPLC.

The third option is for the OPLC to reject both bids and turn the Olympic Stadium into a 25,000 multi-purpose athletics facility. This wouldn't involve the demolition of the stadium as such, merely the removal of the temporary seats that will be installed for the Games. Clearly, this is the option best suited to the OLPC's goals of continuing the Olympic legacy in London, but with such interest from Spurs and West Ham, it's likely that it is also the least possible too.

The Brady hunch

But of course, no move is ever without controversy, and both West Ham and Tottenham's bids are no exception. As mentioned, the Hammers' plans to keep the running track at the stadium has caused some furore amongst their fans. Tottenham's relocation from North London to East London, too, has sparked protests from Spurs fans who are furious that their club could move from its natural home. Indeed, there are suggestions that Spurs may have to change their name if they make the move, in a echo of Milton Keynes Dons' actions of a few years ago. Those involved with the potential move, however, argue that if no development is allowed on the Olympic Stadium site, it will simply become a 'White Elephant' - an iconic failure that epitomises the decadance and lack of foresight held by the Games.

This lack of foresight and planning is one of the arguements both teams share as to why they should be given the Olympic Stadium. Because the Olympic Planning Organisation never fully established what they wanted the Olympic Stadium to become after the Games, confusion has been allowed to arise over its future. Although they had designs on keeping the site as a sustainable athletics centre, the desires of two football teams will surely outweigh the popularity of athletics. West Ham's bid, spearheaded by messrs Gold, Sullivan and Brady, looks like the favourite because it balances the best of both worlds - athletics facilities will be complemented by the footballing arena.

But are the Hammers on a hiding to nothing? Vice Chairwoman of the club Karren Brady doesn't seem to think so, undermining Tottenham's bid at every opportunity. But is it Tottenham who have the more viable and sustainable bid? Spurs are a club on the up, in the Champions League and looking to expand their global brand. The Olympic Stadium site would be a perfect platform with which to build to the future. West Ham, on the other hand, are currently bottom of the Premier League, with rumours concerning the future of the manager dominating the press on a regular basis. If the Hammers slip into the Championship, who's to say that won't be where they'll be when they move into the Olympic Stadium - if their bid is successful, of course.

Future proof

Whatever the future of the Olympic Stadium, the important thing is that it retains a legacy that lasts long after the London 2012 Games, because the Olympics will be Great Britain's chance to shine. If it is to be the new home of West Ham, Hammers fans will quite rightly point to the stadium as a new centrepiece of English football, alongside the likes of Wembley and Old Trafford. If Spurs take control of the site, and tear down the stadium, will the move to East London be worth anything at all?

We've seen in the past that moves in football aren't always successful, and are never without controversy. If the future holds more of the same for Tottenham and West Ham, then maybe we're all better keeping our feet firmly on familiar ground...