sorry, but you are wrong. The vast majority of british stadium spending is private capital from the clubs who usually own the venues. True there are sometimes council involvement but overall its very limited and probably equal to the extra costs of many stadiums where clubs are paying for things for the council in order to get permission. True City got a cheap stadium because they were obviously in a good barganing position with the city hosting the com.games and needing to "get rid" of the stadium but that was unusual.

Yes many british clubs have large debts but please, even Man city have better finances than anyone in Italy for instance and most british clubs have huge assets and can quickly bring down cost if they need to. They have modern, heavily utilised privately owned stadiums and it works excellent and is why 10 of the turnover top 20 are british, indeed probably the entire 20 club premiership is inside the euro top 40.
I do hate, though, the influence of money in football which forces everyone to spend too much on players and hurts competition in football etc. but thats a different issue. british clubs are generally in a vastly superior position financially as they seem to be in most sports and the stadium model is considered key just look at financial reports from the likes of deloitte & Touche

The philosophy is pretty much:
Try to own it yourself to make sure you control what happens to it and strengthen its identity. Build modern of high quality with all facilities to maximise income. Dont build too big as its just expensive, will lower utilisation, and hurt the core product as empty seats "kill" events. However dont share, its too risky as it could cloud the clubs long term identity and existence

[/quote]

well, mr Spud, I know they have retractable seating at the Stade but it doesnt change much. Its basically the same as putting chairs on an athletics track. The vast majority of seats at the Stade de France are permanently locked in an athletics position far from the pitch otherwise it would not be possible. Its simple geometry. You cant just remove a lower tier an have an athletics track. It could not happen at old trafford, Millennium and all other great venues as the upper tiers are far too close to the pitch.
Stade de France may be great but for athletics.

The only way you can do an athletics/football stadium properly is if you elevate the track, installing it on top of the first tiers. This exists nowhere though its theoretically planned at Wembley with a ramp, though its unlikely to ever happen.[/quote]

here swede, have alook at this and then tell me it's "like putting chairs on the track"!!

http://www.sportsvenue-technology.com/p ... de_france/

as for building new stadia and who owns them..

goggle the KC stadium in hull ,coventry city stadium and the eastland stadium in manchester, which the council still own,city have a 100 year lease on the place and the council recieve all gate recipts over an certain capacity

if a football club does own it's own stadium it's the first thing they sell to the council and lease back when they get into trouble,don't hold english football has an example on how to run thing.....we can sell the game sure but we don't manage it very well.....just look at leeds united and for every leeds united there are 10 lower league clubs in the same postition....


egan......yep i'm a liverpool fan,not a scouser though

A Lotteries commission funded a half hearted Commonwealth Games...funds all your sport.

Ours is purely Federal and State Government...you can see the absolute killing you can get for something as wealthy as a Lotteries Commission.

Are you from up North? Do you fancy egg-chasing?

Spud. about the Stade de France, its absolute simple logic that the vast majority of seats, those that are not retractable, has to be permanently fixed in athletics mode. do you really not understand that?
If lower tiers were "scooped" out of a real football stadium there would be a massive huge wall and it would not be possible to see the track.

Again, why have Wembley got this theoretical, incredibly expensive and technically difficult proposal for athletics that takes months to build if you can just do a "stade de France"?
The answer is simple, everyone (whether for or against athletics) agreed that a stade de France-solution would not fit Wembley as it would be seriously detrimental to its prime use as a football venue.

Stade de France offers the view of an athletics stadium for the majority of people.

Yes, Spud, you found the 3 stadiums that for different reasons have some council involvement. I think there are more but very small venues.

Percentage of private money in major UK stadium projects:
Wembley 90% ( 10% lottery grant, depending on no tenants)
Royal Ascot 100%
Twickenham expansion 100%+
New Arsenal 100%+
Old Trafford expansion 100%+
Wimbledon, centre court rebuild, 100%

I think these are the 6 most expensive planned or ongoing constructions in the UK currently, worth billions of pounds. Only Wembley have received a grant and thats actually worth less than costs to infrastructre improvements in the local area which is included in stadium costs which is why its so expensive.

This is, probably, the lowest public money involvement anywhere in the world.
The amount of ongoing construction in Britain, London in particular, is phenomenal and almost completly privately funded.

Frankly, this is an embarrassing post from someone with an interest in stadiums, you just make it up as you go along.

thats a daft comment to make.of course a vast majority of the seat are permently fixed....besuase the vast majority of the seat are on the upper tiers and have no reason to move..

and the reason " Wembley got this theoretical, incredibly expensive and technically difficult proposal for athletics that takes months to build if you can just do a "stade de France"?..

because wembley is the NATIONAL FOOTBALL STADIUM....yes it is possible to build a track on a platform but it takes months 4 or 5 months,now the only reason to hold an athletics meet at the stadium would be for the world athletic championship....this event normally takes place june/july....now this means wembley would be out of action from january at the latest.....so where the the england national team play internationals. and where would the league and FA cup finals be played. a contract has already been signed for all these games to be played at wembley... the possibilty of a track being installed was to keep everybody happy.....IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN,if it does i'll go and get a bucket of rocking horse sh*t

if i was building a MULTI USE stadium i'd model it on the stade de france.


ANYWAY.i thought this was about croke park.lol

egg chaser......OLDHAM RLFC....greatest team in the world

if you go back to my point, i said unless you can afford it, you have to go to the government for money.....

the 2 weeks of wimbledon earns the lawn tennis ass, 35 million pound PROFIT.........THAT HOW IT IS PRIVATLY FUNDED....

and as for ascot...well horse racing is a license to print money...


anyway it's been interesting talking about this with you swede....but i feel we are going round in circles....lets stop.PLEASE!!!!!!!!! LOL

YOU BIFFO!!!!!

I'm a diehard Rochdale Hornets fan.

What a coincidence!

Welcome to my world for the last few years



Not making it up mate, Athletics, Manchester 2006 got major grants from the lottery commission and most of the sports money for other then soccer is funded by your lotteries commission...while ours is more community based projects were I live.

Weres the proof mate...never make my arguments up...we just have 2 ideologies that are on different sides of the spectre...and look at stadiums sport and england in vastly different ways.

Good to see someone else debating Swede...although my two cents still gets a reaction

And Spudo, its and Austadiums iconic feature that threads change the meanings half way through...well normally and it becomes AFL v Rugby League Debates.

BLOODY HAIRNETS.........

although this might explain why the hairnets have such crap attendances..

all their bloody fans are in different countries

Maybe Hornets should play in Oz. I'm only a fan because a mate of mine was a real diehard. He lived over there for a year. My club Newtown struggle hard like Rochdale do.

Since Hornets have a huge following abroad, they should toru here. Tell Bobbie Goulding to bring that Law Cup with him. I want a photo of it in my Hornets shirt.

Congratuation on getting through in the Cup. Sharlston were just one year wonders.

spud, if you focus completly on the stade france being MULTI sport then you could be right.
Its clearly poor for football and rugby, relatively, as many people are so much further away from the pitch than in the millennium, Twickenham, La Luz, New Munich and the countless other superior football, rugby stadiums, but as you say, its multi. Would be great to go see a game of multi then. Dont know the rules of multi but the stadium would finally fit in this day and age where one size fits all is really outdated.

You insist stadiums in the UK are built by councils, straight against common knowledge and analysis of the "british model"

When I note that of just the top six big projects alone, its all private, you reason this with the fact that those who build that are making money in order to do so.
Imagine the shock: people who build huge projects on a world scale actually have an income.

This nonsense instead of a debate about how british clubs can afford these things which would have been interesting.

Egan, you insisted the lottery funded all british sport, using a quote where I talked about the british clubs being financially superior.
I was obviously referring to pro clubs which made your comment a joke.
If you are in fact reffering to amateur sport, yes it contributes, of course but really, whether its lottery or regular public money, whats the difference, its all from taxes..

It could have been interesting to have compared british clubs to australian clubs. Super rich capitalist money-making machines against lunch-money operations organised in controlling leagues.
I actually have an awful lot of interest/sympathy for the way australian pro sport is run, except the stadium-sharing, but its a pointless discussion if one thinks british clubs are poor in the art of money making with councils funding stadiums and another believes its a lottery driven industry.

So, I agree, lets end it before someone complains about George Bush being a left wing atheist