Having travelled 218 miles to watch West Ham lose to Manchester City and deliver zero shots either on target or off target in the first half, I acknowledged after 45 minutes that I wasn’t just envious of their team, but also their stadium and facilities.
City like West Ham were gifted their stadium, post the Commonwealth games, in 2003, and I was fortunate to take a tour back in 2017. Yet revisiting now I was further impressed by the additional work undertaken since then, both in terms of the infrastructure around the ground and in the ground.
It cost a mere £112m to build in 2000, £77m of which was paid for by Sport England and the remainder by Manchester City Council.
The simplicity of the conversion to a football specific stadium is that, unlike West Ham’s bowl:
The former running track was removed and the pitch lowered.
The new North Stand conversion is being funded by the club, despite the Council owning the freehold. Estimated to be £300m, the expansion will provide an additional 7,000 seats, and a new hotel and covered fan park.
Post match a number of Manchester City supporters asked me what I thought about the London Stadium, and how it stacks up against the Etihad, especially with City’s new stand and expanded capacity.
A contentious subject at the best of times that draws much debate amongst West Ham fans.
I started with a positive, as there is no denying that the London Stadium is spacious and undeniably impressive from the outside. In my opinion it has a modern look, and clearly a capacity that gives it presence. It’s a stadium that feels big, because it is big. The sweeping roof and the bowl-shaped design make it feel like a venue built for global spectacles, yet sadly not football games.
The distance between the stands and the pitch, the athletics legacy, and the overall shape dilutes the intensity you expect from a football stadium.
Then you have the Etihad which is a football stadium that makes the pitch feel close enough that you can almost reach out and touch the players – not too dissimilar to our old Boleyn ground.
With City’s new North Stand expansion, the Etihad is stepping into a new era. The increased capacity pushes it toward the upper tier of Premier League stadium sizes, it’s the difference between building bigger and building better.
The one common theme though, surprisingly, was the lack of atmosphere. I was shocked apart from the rare recital of Blue Moon, how quiet it was in a game where Manchester City dominated and briefly went top of the Premier League.
That aside, comparing the London Stadium to the Etihad is like comparing two different visions of what a football home should be, a bit like the respective teams, and until their is a change in ownership at West Ham, the gulf will only get bigger.
I was behind Andy Carroll when he rose like a salmon and scored that fantastic flying bicycle kick against Palace.
Everyone around me just sat there and said ‘I wish I’d been five yards closer to the pitch – the stadium ruined that goal for me’.
Or not, you muppet. It’s the team, the football, goals and wins that make an atmosphere, not bricks, mortar and structural steel.
We’re too busy complaining to enjoy anything.
Remember the old Wembley Stadium – “much loved”, you were absolutely miles from the pitch there but that never got a mention, PSG, big gaps at both ends but a great atmosphere, at least at London Stadium they’ve made the effort to bring a lot of supporters closer to the action with the movable sections. As somebody said to me at the Bournemouth game, perhaps instead of moaning about the stadium we should take a look at ourselves?
I don’t think atmosphere is the fault of any stadium as such. Yes it improves if you have standing/ singing areas, but you see Bournemouth’s 11k stadium rocking and also Rome’s Olympic stadium (where fans are further from the pitch than at ours) raucous and intimidating. Maybe our fan groups need to coordinate and pressure the club to rethink standing/ singing areas, then it’s up to us
The big difference is that the stadium for the Commonwealth Games was always designed so that it could be converted to Football. Because Seb Coe was an athlete he insisted that part of the legacy of the Olympic Games should be that the stadium would continue to hold athletics events….unfortunately you can fill the stadium probably at best once per year for an athletics event. Despite all that there is far too much negativity about the stadium. Roma play in the old Olympic Stadium and people talk about the intimidating atmosphere. If West Ham were playing well there would be a good atmosphere; unfortunately since the move that has been all too rare.
Interesting observations. From talking to friends who support Arsenal, Spurs and Man U they say unless their team is really on fire and doing well then atmosphere is dead. All modern stadiums are almost too comfortable and there are lots of football tourists now. Many supporters do not remember the old days at Upton Park when up to 35,000 stood crammed in and only 4,000 seats. That in itself created a good atmosphere. Mind you not sure I would like to stand all game now as 78! Lastly I was at Upton Park in 1963 when in May we beat Man City 6-1 and they were relegated. City were so poor that John Bond at full back grabbed a stray Evening Standard paper on the pitch and leaned against the goal post with goalie Lawrie Leslie to read it as Peter Brabrook was scoring our 6th goal. Incidentally attendance 16,600!
Come on Matt, it’s Christmas mate, things are depressing enough lol.
Yeah, even on the box atmosphere at City seems flat, think it’s because they have dominated for so long and winning is just expected.
I’m of vintage to remember old Maine Road ground, that was proper atmosphere as most football grounds were back then mainly because football was much more exciting ( despite the dross Sky come up with) and skill players could express themselves unlike modern day “job to do” tactics !
Excellent article
Thank You Matt