You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Stadium Expansion
- Thread starter mikeee
- Start date
dave_blue12
Well-Known Member
ssg2 said:The world cup is 9 years away, as much as I hate them they will be in a new stadium by thendave_blue12 said:That's hysterical !
Much like yourselves the other member of the LBO* club haven't got a pot to piss in so there will be no new stadium for the bin dippers.
*LBO = Leveraged Buy Out = Massive debts !
I'll wager they won't. It is possible they could get new owners with plenty of wedge but imho very unlikely and there is no way under H & G that stadium is going to get built.
Twickenham = second best stadium in the country plus its in London near excellent transport links, Heathrow on the doorstep rail and road links. It holds 90,000. RFU will do a deal it will just cost the FA.
Be madness for it not to be used, much better option than the Emirates or Spuds new proposed stadium as will be the Olympics stadium which is unlikely to be scaled down now (Crazy idea in the first place)
Be madness for it not to be used, much better option than the Emirates or Spuds new proposed stadium as will be the Olympics stadium which is unlikely to be scaled down now (Crazy idea in the first place)
johnmc
Well-Known Member
alera said:Twickenham = second best stadium in the country plus its in London near excellent transport links, Heathrow on the doorstep rail and road links. It holds 90,000. RFU will do a deal it will just cost the FA.
Be madness for it not to be used, much better option than the Emirates or Spuds new proposed stadium as will be the Olympics stadium which is unlikely to be scaled down now (Crazy idea in the first place)
It might make sense for it to be used but i seriously hope they don't - it should be exclusively football stadia. We have enough first class arena's and football and rugby should be kept seperate.
i see skies of blue
Well-Known Member
Uefa used to rank stadia as being 4* or 5*. Although capacity was one of the factors it also included grading of facilities not only at the ground (i.e. pitch size and condition, floodlights, corporate seats, hospitality, enough space for cameras/photographers, TV studios and media facilities, journalist space, appropriate dressing room and dugout facilities for teams and officials, CCTV and security ect) but also in the surrounding area (transport links, airport capacity, 4/5* hotel bed space ect). Just because you could seat 60k didn't automatically mean you could make the grade and a lot of old stadia therefore failed. When building from scratch these regulations are now taken into account and I am guessing in order to host matches at championships the stadia must meet the characteristics. Attempting to host world cup matches in Hull/Portsmouth/Nottingham ect may prove problematic due to the infrastucture issues regarding transport.
Another factor when holding tounaments would be available space for fan parks near the ground, and a lot of historic grounds in the UK are pretty much landlocked in industrial or housing estates which would cause issues here. This is another reason why new-builds are out of town. The staduim in Istanbul used for finals recently took a lot of critisism for being out of town. It was originally built as a centrepiece for an Olympic Bid which was never successful and therefore the anticipated development around the ground never happened.
The main distinction between the two was capacity, 4* stadia could hold more that 40,000 and are eligable to host the Uefa Cup final, 5* stadia were of a higher capacity (can't recall if it was 50k+ or 55k+), although this has since been changed to an overall UEFA elite staduim status regardless of capacity. in practice, because of the numbers of fans involved it is unlikely that a some of the smaller stadia will get the cance to host finals as UEFA are swithing to using only the megastadia for finals
Another factor when holding tounaments would be available space for fan parks near the ground, and a lot of historic grounds in the UK are pretty much landlocked in industrial or housing estates which would cause issues here. This is another reason why new-builds are out of town. The staduim in Istanbul used for finals recently took a lot of critisism for being out of town. It was originally built as a centrepiece for an Olympic Bid which was never successful and therefore the anticipated development around the ground never happened.
The main distinction between the two was capacity, 4* stadia could hold more that 40,000 and are eligable to host the Uefa Cup final, 5* stadia were of a higher capacity (can't recall if it was 50k+ or 55k+), although this has since been changed to an overall UEFA elite staduim status regardless of capacity. in practice, because of the numbers of fans involved it is unlikely that a some of the smaller stadia will get the cance to host finals as UEFA are swithing to using only the megastadia for finals
LCBblue
Well-Known Member
I would prefer to see the stadium full every game than seeing a few thousand empty seats at the top of the third tiers...
i see skies of blue
Well-Known Member
Uefa Stadium Criteria:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/551788.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/551788.pdf</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/551788.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/551788.pdf</a>
Freestyler
Well-Known Member
I don't want it bigger, it's perfect now, tough shit if everyone can't get a ticket, where were they before where we are now?
were a family club and the club is close to the fans, mancunian orientated , we should keep it that way, we don't want the ground full of glory hunters like the rags, OT is horrible because the ground is far to big, ours is perfect, keep it as it is.
were a family club and the club is close to the fans, mancunian orientated , we should keep it that way, we don't want the ground full of glory hunters like the rags, OT is horrible because the ground is far to big, ours is perfect, keep it as it is.
Didsbury Dave said:However, the reason Arsenal spent an absolute fortune moving to their new stadium and effectively stopped themselves winning trophies for a number of years, is that for a Champions League club to be self sufficient they need a big capacity and loads of corporate customers.
Arsenal would have been fine if it wasn't for a market crash which devalued the land at Highbury. The Emirates itself makes a ton of money every match, it's just that they don't have the Highbury land income to wipe the debt.
Like someone said earlier in the thread, whats the point when we cant fill a 48,000 stadium on a regular basis. It already sounds like a swimming gala, without adding more empty seats.
Lets try getting things on the pitch right first, this vstadium talk is pie in the sky.
Lets try getting things on the pitch right first, this vstadium talk is pie in the sky.