The battle of who will play football on the site of the London Olympic Stadium after 2012 is hotting up and it is like a re-run of 2006 when both West Ham and Tottenham Hotspur were interested in taking over the stadium.

As the UK's Sports Minister at the time I was very supportive of the West Ham bid, which not only delivered athletics and football in the stadium but also gave Newham Council a great opportunity to redevelop the site of the old ground, breathing new life into the heart of the Borough

What also should not be overlooked, just up the road from the Olympic Stadium, is the brand new Lee Valley Athletic Stadium. This is possibly one of the best in Europe and, along with Loughborough, a UK Athletics elite squad development centre.

Linking  a dual-use Olympic Stadium with Lee Valley athletics Centre of Excellence delivers the Olympics athletics legacy in a positive and sustainable way.

Such an arrangement would entail very little cost to the public purse, while keeping the stadium in near-Olympic mode for future generations to visit.

Most members of the public will think it daft to rip down a stadium that has only been used for a few weeks, that cost over half-a-billion pounds and that, with a bit of creative thinking and application of new technology, could create a lasting legacy for the Olympic Park.

Of course, the economic and financial situation today bears little resemblance to 2006 when, much to my annoyance, the Olympic Board turned down a multi-million pound dual-use proposal for the Stadium which West Ham made.

If the Board had had a bit more foresight, this issue would have been settled then, at acceptable cost to the public purse.

Spurs were also at that time making inquiries.

However, like today, they encountered opposition from their fans, along with concerns from the police about the need to transport North London-based Spurs supporters to every home match and the problems that could cause.

Then as today, the key question that a Spurs ground development has to answer is, "Why can't it be carried out in the area where the club has its roots and thus have maximum benefit for the fans and the community in which they and their families live?"

Whilst I have sympathy for Crystal Palace and its need for investment, that should not be a distraction from the need to make the most sensible use of the Olympic Stadium, taking into account the linkages to the wider activities of the Olympic Park.



It would be wrong to wipe out half-a-billion pounds of public investment when it could be used to give the nation and Newham a true Olympic legacy.

I hope a second opportunity to develop both the Olympic Stadium and the Olympic Park is not missed.

The Olympics only come around once in a number of generations.

We have our opportunity in 2012.

It will be a great success and the nation will be proud.

We should make sure we have a legacy about which we can be equally proud.

The West Ham proposal goes some way towards achieving that.

Unfortunately, the Tottenham proposal is totally void of any Olympic legacy, adds no sporting value to the Olympic Park and is just about building a new Premier League football ground.

As my old dad  used to say "some people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing".

Richard Caborn was Britain's Sports Minister between 2001 and 2007, the longest anyone has held the position, and was instrumental in London's successful bid to host the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics