Croke Park is an interesting venue for a number of reasons. I haven't seen it for about 2 years on TV but it was remarkable for the fact that it had 4 tier all-seated stands around 3 sides of the ground and 1 massive terraced bank with a shed of sorts. Is it still like that?

Also the quaintness of seeing spectators in the crowd holding giant banners with 'JOHN 3:15' etc after an under or over had been scored made me chuckle.



That's part, if not a majority of the reason in succinct terms why Waverley was built.



Although this may be wrong, I read that part of the reason why this occured was due to some local council (Kingston Council i think) covenant on Twickenham decreeing that no more than a certain amount of fixtures can be held each year because of the residents.

Maybe but then yesterday's tsunami relief game would not have been forseen when looking at the year's fixtures.

There is more to it with Twickenham than that. I know its popular to consider organisations such as the RFU dinosaurs or old farts etc but it doesnt hold water in my view. There are some very good reasons why football is unlikely to ever be played there.

1. the pitch. It would have to be relaid, I think, to stage football as its a rugby pitch but that could be done, though a bit messy for just a one-off match. A bigger worry, if it was to be used regularly, is the state of the pitch. This is a very big problem in roofed stadiums in Europe, so far unresolved. The millennium stadium is constantly relaying their pitch, which is still never good. Man United spend a massive £1m on a special pitch only to dig it up a few months later. Wembley´s idea may be the solution but so far this is a massive problem.

2. the police. Unlikely to be a long-term problem but as the police require a major match-day plan for all football venues it would probably be very expensive for just a one-off match. They need to know the area and how to seggregate the stadium for which it may not even be fit.

3. The council. there are limits to the number of matches that can be staged (as there will be at new Wembley, Emirates etc and already is at Stamford Bridge and probably most other venues. The council will have no problem allowing a tsunami-match but is likely to take a very different view of regular football.

4. The residents.the most important issue. they certainly dont want football and as can be seen from the expansion plans, the RFU care very much about how they are seen in their area.
Much emphasis has been on the design fitting the area and locals will get first-right to a percentage of tickets.The expansion will include a hotel and similar facilities providing 80 full time jobs but will also include facilities for the performing arts including for instance a children´s Shakespeare society and local concert and operatic societies which have praised it as excellent news following the council´s abandonment of another planned arts center.
In other words, the RFU seem to be financing considerable local non-rugby cultural projects, usually done by councils, which to me is impressive and rare in sports where its usually the other way round.

Is it really so stupid that the RFU want to make their fantastic stadium a part of the community? A place where probably thousands will pass through on most of the 355 non-match days and consider a real asset to the area. A place where match-day traffic gridlock is met with understanding.
Should the RFU forget all that and start a typical hate relationship with the council and residents, just to please football or to get a bit of quick cheap cash. why?
The RFU finances are the envy of world rugby. They dont need that. They are well-run and their approach to this is impressive. Its more a vision of the future of relationships between stadiums and its surroundings than it is stupid acts by dinosaurs.

Seems very similar to the Subiaco Council.

With the amount of rain its time they laid aesthetic grass on the pitches...they keep complaining about the quality, it seems simple use astroturf.

Good points you raise Swede, just I doubt any club would really want to play their...except maybe Fulham...the rest arent big enough and Chelsea and Arsenal, Tottenham all have suitable stadiums for their fans.

dont get me started on the synthetic grass issue. I am more anti-plastic than I am pro-british. Its simply not good enough.

Rain is not a major issue. grass needs that. While Real Madrid can have a good grass pitch because they can use incredible amounts of water thats not possible for everyone and its why even at the top level in Spain some clubs have traditionally played on dirt.

The problem is the lack of sunlight in roofed stadiums. It weakens the roots. Beyond that problem there is technology to create perfect pitches year round (either 100% real or the 97% real grass pitches which includes undersoil plastic grass which the roots can latch onto and become stronger). Its just very hard to move beyond that. Wembley´s sliding roof is the best bet but it remains to be seen.

to generally go for the fake stuff is a mistake in my opinion (except areas where heavy watering is a requirement as that may be somewhat controversial)

Tottenham do not believe they have a big enough stadium. They have planning permission to expand and its only the poor infrastructure around the place which have delayed it as they still consider moving. Twickenham is way too far away to be considered.

I also do not think Chelsea believe they have a proper stadium. Good facilities but probably already too big for the limited access. I could see them consider some sort of bid to play at or simply buy Twickenham. I just cant see the RFU accepting it.
The value might be enormous, though, because Chelsea will probably never be allowed to build anywhere themselves.
It could be interesting if Chelsea offered something like £1bn to the RFU. It must be hard to turn down.

If Abromavich dies tommorow...Chelsea are shot.

Chelsea has not had the success to make it worthwhile presently.

Tottenham, they are probably the worlds great underachiever, Tottenham and Chelsea share a home ground...now wouldnt that be a sight...would never happen

When the sun don't shine as much as in aussie land, then it may be inevitable especially on some of the crummy pitches in the north-east of england.

Wont be too long till a soccer club starts to install astro-turf.

and this brings use to the new london 2012 olympic stadium.....the plan is to build and 80,000 seat stadium then reduce it to 25,000 after the games...

even a 25,000 seat athletics stadium would become a white elephant,it'll only get filled ONCE a year, for the london grand prix.and NO football club will move into a stadium with a running track around the pitch.....

what they should do it get together with chelsea and or spurs and build a stadium like the stade de france.... the best stadium in the world imo..

football during the winter and athletics during the summer...

also when the staduim is set up for athletics the extra surface area created by moving the lower tier makes the area large enough to play cricket on (like telstra)....... england v oz, ODI,under lights 70,000 fans....

but sporting politics prevent such a SIMPLE idea...the british athletic ass. are still pi*sed off about not being allowed to join in at wembley, and no matter what the wembley website says about athletics being held there it will NEVER happen because it takes 4/5 month to install the platform on which the track would be placed...........

[/quote]

I reckon reconfiguring it to a 40-50,000 seat Cricket Venue would be more worthwhile...and more cost effective.

But, british stadium poltics puzzles me so it probably won't happen.

Not get rid of Lords or the Oval...but just use the oval for county clashes and the larger stadium for test and one dayers.

28,000 as their largest cricket venue is a bit of a joke for a country of 55 million.

Of course Chelsea havent had the success to make it worthwhile, but none of their spending is worthwhile. why has Abramovich thrown millions at not just players but off-field management. He seems to like to play with the business side of football and Stamford Bridge is a recognised problem. Tonight in the CL capacity may well be reduced again because of the lack of room when hundreds of countries broadcast independently.

Tottenham at Twickenham is ridiculous. It would be like Liverpool playing in Manchester, London is rather big.

There is plenty of sunshine in England, at least for grass. There is probably no place where grass thrives better than in the south of England.lots of sun and rain around the year and no frost. Its about the angle of the sun, which doesnt reach parts of the field at all during winter.
I dont know about that in Australia but if you have an all-covered soccer-sized stadium I would be surprised if there are no problems during winter.

Most english clubs already have the modern plastic grass in indoor training facilities, usually fieldturf, and some may well plan to install it in their stadiums following recent approval of the stuff from next season but its smaller clubs often with small stands and hence quite good pitches, who are trying to get more revenue from their asset. I think its misguided.
How can you fake grass when no one really knows what the best grass surface is. A detail will affect football massively.

British, I find it amazing that you consider the Stade de France the best in the world.
Its an athletics stadium used for football and rugby and, as you say yourself, no club would want to play in that.
The rectractable seating does not help much, if it did why not use it a Wembley.

It was never really possible to convert an olympic stadium into a football stadium. Cricket/athletics could have combined but it would probably only work at the expense of Lords and the Oval and I wouldnt want that. Downsizing it to a small scale quality athletics venue is probably the best.

28,000 is not bad for cricket in a country which considers empty seats terrible. How many venues in the world get more than 100,000 over a test? It is a bit small, though, and could hopefully be expanded

I dont know what you dont get about british stadium policies, but I know that they have some of the most famous venues in the world and also some of the most modern and profitable with virtually no public money spent. Its a huge part of the financial succes of british sport, praised by financial institutions and currently being copied where possible all over europe.

Soccer only stadiums like MES and Hindmarsh certainly maintain its quality all year round...Melbourne gets some shocking pitches in winter, MCG, Kardinia, optus Oval.

SCG has been shocking.

Subiaco has a few times and so has the WACA

Mate going into old debates...building doubles is a tad stupid in my opinion...i know the history and everything, just my opinion.

Agree to disagree mate, dont want Cold War 17 to happen, the last 16 have been arduous enough

sorry, let me clear a few thing up, i think the stade de france is the best in the world because of it's versatility....

there is NO athletics track around the pitch when the stadium is in football/rugby mode, when it has a capacity of 80,000.in athletics mode the stadium loses 15,000 seats when the lower tier slides back underneath the upper tier to reveal a athletics track underneath.....and the reason wembley doesn't have the same design is because wembley is a football stadium. becuase the F.A put the most money in they wanted it for football (and rugby league) and no athletics...i would have prefered wembley to have a multi- function role like the stade de france,after all it's costing 757 million pounds ( nearly $2 billion aus)

and please call me SPUD..

i'm sorry but your wrong.....unless your manchester united,who have funded the redevelopment of old trafford privately,arsenal,who have funded ashburton grove with a massive loan from a german bank,liverpool are doing the same for their new stadium and chelski who could fund any new stadium with the loose change found down the back of romans sofa nearly everyother club has to go to the local goverment for help to fund new stadia....also you'll struggle to find a football club that turns a profit......they might have hugh turnovers but the profits get eaten by wages,operating cost and loans to banks....just look at manchester city, the 16th richest club in the world (according to a recent list) fantastic new stadium (built by the council) and 70 million pounds in DEBT......

and i've not got a problem with our stadiums....it's the people that run some of them......politics

lets get back to croke park,the irish football team will me playing at ANFIELD if they aren't allowed at croke park....it's stupid..."no you can't play in our fantastic 80,000 capacity stadium because football is a pro sport and croke park is for the gealic amature sport" IF IT'S AN AMATURE SPORT WHERE THE HELL DID THEY FIND 135 MILLION EURO TO BUILD IT.....sorry,it makes me mad...and i'm english for christ sake

Ahh good to know Bolton are beating City in two ways.

british spud welcome aboard, great points.

Thanks, one thing I massively agree with u...some of the people running stadiums are complete nutters.

[img]and i've not got a problem with our stadiums....it's the people that run some of them......politics
[/img]

Hmm Im hinting that u are a Poolian fan

They found 135 million from...the annual money spinner with the AFL 'International Rules and the crowds that attend...the money is given back to the association rather then the players...and Gaelic football is pritty damn popular.

Watching the International rules it looked a very impressive stadium.

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.