Spurs chiefs stand their ground

IAAF President Lamine Diack branded Tottenham's plans to demolish the stadium and replace it with a 60,000-seat football ground as "outrageous" last week and threw his weight behind West Ham's bid. There has been further anger among the public and members of the athletics community that a stadium which was originally planned to host athletics events, and cost £537million of public money to build, would be scrapped within months of the end of the Olympics. Tottenham executive director Donna Cullen rejected those suggestions on Friday by saying that the total cost of the stadium construction does not reflect the value of the arena that they would demolish. She said: "The £537million figure that has been quoted is very misleading because within that you have to take out the amount that was spent on the pre-conditioning of the site. It was a contaminated site so that would have happened regardless. "Then you take out the figure of what will be left that we wouldn't be taking out - the infrastructure, the podium, utilities, all of that. "Then you take out all the fees and the VAT within that figure and actually the number you are looking at of the structure that we are going to remove is around £85million. "Of that we have guaranteed to reuse and recycle as much as can be achieved so it is a scary, big figure that actually isn't a real figure if you look at the value of what we would remove." Last week the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) delayed a decision on who will occupy the stadium. A preferred bidder is expected to now be chosen next month. Spurs' main rivals, West Ham, have promised to reduce the capacity of the stadium from 80,000 to 60,000 and maintain the running track around the pitch. Spurs insist they are fulfilling the commitment to delivering a post-Games athletics legacy by funding the expansion of Crystal Palace from a 9,500-seat stadium to a 25,000 capacity stadium fit to host major championships. They are not willing to include an athletics track around the Stratford stadium's pitch, though, claiming such a move would damage the club's long-term financial future. Cullen added: "The easiest thing for us would have been for us to have said: 'Fine, we will keep the running track' but we actually fundamentally don't believe that will be viable long term. "If you look across Europe, all the clubs that have had one or have had one removed, it just does not provide a sustainable business model. "Being close to the pitch was absolutely crucial. It's all about atmosphere. That's why our supporters come and watch matches." Tottenham manager Harry Redknapp fears the club will miss out on big money signings if they remain at the 36,000 capacity White Hart Lane. Cullen admitted that any extra revenue generated from increased ticket sales would vastly help the club's strength in the transfer market. "If you look at the top 20 football clubs in the Deloitte list we have the smallest stadium by a long way," she said. "Their capacities are bigger and that's why we need a bigger capacity to compete with them, notwithstanding the FIFA financial fair play rules if they come in as designed. "That way we would only be able to spend income generated through club activity so it's crucial that we increase matchday sales.'' Doubt has now been cast on the club's original plan to move to a 56,000-seat stadium in Tottenham as part of the Northumberland Development. "In the Northumberland Development Project, we are looking at a scheme that has had significant costs attached to it,'' said Cullen at the launch of 'England Ready', an initiative designed to help the country's top footballers with cerebral palsy. "We don't own all the land on that site yet so it's something that we will have to look at if we are not the preferred bidder for Stratford and address."