Greenwich To Host World Cup Matches?
April 1, 2009 by Rob Powell
Greenwich.co.uk understands that Greenwich is set to play a vital role in England’s bid to host the 2018 World Cup. Confidential documents passed to this website show that sporting insiders reckon the predicted boost to the area following the 2012 Olympics will see Greenwich, and Greenwich Park specifically, emerge as one of the country’s leading sports venues.
The idea is still in the speculative stages but we have obtained the confidential image below which planners have had drawn up to show that Greenwich Park could easily fit a stadium the size of Arsenal’s “Emirates” in to it. One insider who is involved in the project told us, “We believe we can build a premier football stadium in Greenwich Park, without harming any of the trees, other than the ones in the way”.
If the plans did go ahead, one suggestion is that Charlton Athletic could relocate to the stadium after the World Cup. An Abu Dhabi based consortium is believed to have offered to finance the building of the stadium if they are granted as 99 year lease on the park by the Royal Parks Agency.
Related link: Save Greenwich Park blog
UPDATE: Ahem… Was anyone fooled??
Ha Ha. April Fool. Nobody would dream off cutting down trees and creating an eyesore in the middle of a Royal Park just for a few days sporting activity
[Reply]
In case you’re wondering how the stadium in the picture would measure up to the one that LOCOG are planning for the Olympics in Greenwich Park, here are the likely dimensions to seat 23000 spectators:
It would be the width of the Queen’s House plus the colonnades on either side, and 80 metres (size of arena), plus the width of the (low) stands North and South – say 120 – 150 meters altogether.
And if you were also wondering why LOCOG have not issued an artist’s impression of their stadium in the correct position, then you know the answer now. So much for Seb Coe saying they are open and honest!
[Reply]
Seb Coe and team “open and honest.” Now I KNOW we are in April Fool territory
[Reply]