Which stadium would you prefer?

[Chrispmartha]

10 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Fine by road as long as you have some patience , and plenty parking 

I've never had an issue with getting to AJ Bell, yes the car park can be a bit of pain to get out of but no worse than any other stadium if it's busy. I actually enjoy away games at AJ Bell, I think it's a nice stadium to watch RL in, just a shame they don't get the numbers there to help the atmosphere.

[aj1908]

8 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Do bare in mind those figures are at the time of being built and not taking into account inflation. Those two figures adjusted for inflation are £30,000,000 and £68,000,000 respectively. 

Interesting tool to play around with here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator

Edit. Just putting some other grounds in. DW is quoted at £50m in 1999 so that would be a £85,000,000 stadium these days which seems a lot!

I always thought stadium costs were cheap over there 

For comparison 

1. New 30k stadium at Parramatta cost 300 million

2. New 45k stadium in Moore park will cost 850 million 

3. Fixing up of homebush stadium 850 million. And will still.be average 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

2 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

I always thought stadium costs were cheap over there 

For comparison 

1. New 30k stadium at Parramatta cost 300 million

2. New 45 stadium in Moore park will cost 850 million 

3. Fixing up of homebush stadium 850 million 

Is that A$?

[aj1908]

6 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Is that A$?

Yeh.  Sorry shouldve made that clear my bad 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

2 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

Yeh.  

I guess it is a bit more but what we've got to remember is stadiums these days do tend to be built to a better standard and with better facilities, higher quality pitches and a redevelopment of the land immediately around it so that all adds to the costs. 

In England, a lot of new stadiums are pretty basic really and with the country being very densely populated, stadiums located within towns and cities tend to be jammed into a tiny piece of land and so don't have a lot of land or car parks around them, thus cutting costs there. 

Also, after the Hillsborough Disaster, the Taylor report forced football teams in the top two divisions to convert their stadiums to all-seater and so in the 90s and 00s there was a boom in stadium building as teams tried to quickly and cheaply meet these new regulations, either redeveloping old stadiums or building completely new ones. This is why people sometimes call new grounds flatpack stadiums or lego stadiums because there are loads that look very similar probably because it was a cheap design that could be built quickly. A good example of this is St. Mary's Stadium in Southampton which has a capacity of 32,000 and was built in 2001 for just £32,000,000. Now bare in mind I just said Wigan built their 25,000 capacity ground just 2 years earlier for £50,000,000. 

[fieldofclothofgold]

There are lots of regular buses from Leeds Cith centre up to Headingley, but it can take awhile to get there . Roads are very  busy, it's a densely populated student area .Best to set off early 

[GUBRATS]

37 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I've never had an issue with getting to AJ Bell, yes the car park can be a bit of pain to get out of but no worse than any other stadium if it's busy. I actually enjoy away games at AJ Bell, I think it's a nice stadium to watch RL in, just a shame they don't get the numbers there to help the atmosphere.

As I said , ' patience ' 

[JohnM]

I'd vote for any stadium that closes the bars during the match. The constant stream of spectators going backwards and forwards from and to their seats to fuel their insatiable desire for more beer and their subsequent incontinent imperative to empty their bladders spoils the spectating experience. 80 minutes of up...down. .up..down...excuse me...excuse me. .excuse . Happens at the DW, St James Par,k and more....

[fieldofclothofgold]

21 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I'd vote for any stadium that closes the bars during the match. The constant stream of spectators going backwards and forwards from and to their seats to fuel their insatiable desire for more beer and their subsequent incontinent imperative to empty their bladders spoils the spectating experience. 80 minutes of up...down. .up..down...excuse me...excuse me. .excuse . Happens at the DW, St James Par,k and more....

Hear hear it annoys me especially at big games, why cant they wait till after the gahbefore they take a drink? They would enjoy it much more . Its almost as bad as when they do that wave instead of watching the game 

[Eddie]

51 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I'd vote for any stadium that closes the bars during the match. The constant stream of spectators going backwards and forwards from and to their seats to fuel their insatiable desire for more beer and their subsequent incontinent imperative to empty their bladders spoils the spectating experience. 80 minutes of up...down. .up..down...excuse me...excuse me. .excuse . Happens at the DW, St James Par,k and more....

Agreed it’s annoying but crowds may go down if drinking in view of the pitch was banned. 

[Tommygilf]

54 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I'd vote for any stadium that closes the bars during the match. The constant stream of spectators going backwards and forwards from and to their seats to fuel their insatiable desire for more beer and their subsequent incontinent imperative to empty their bladders spoils the spectating experience. 80 minutes of up...down. .up..down...excuse me...excuse me. .excuse . Happens at the DW, St James Par,k and more....

Thats obviously especially bad in all seaters, barely notice it on standing terraces

[Chrispmartha]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

I'd vote for any stadium that closes the bars during the match. The constant stream of spectators going backwards and forwards from and to their seats to fuel their insatiable desire for more beer and their subsequent incontinent imperative to empty their bladders spoils the spectating experience. 80 minutes of up...down. .up..down...excuse me...excuse me. .excuse . Happens at the DW, St James Par,k and more....

Headingley try to mitigate this by selling 2 pint pots (well plastic 'glasses') but I get the feeling people just drink them as quick as a pint so it doesn't help although I suspect it's quite good for Leeds' match day takings

[DC77]

Without question staying at Anfield is the best decision the owners of Liverpool made and that includes hiring Jurgen Klopp as manager.

When the idea of moving to a new stadium was mooted I was dead against it. You cannot replace an iconic ground that has built up an aura over the last 50 years. The Kop, Shankly Gates, this is Anfield, games under the lights. If your ground is a dump and doesn’t hold much of a mystique/unique identity then it’s a different argument (although even then, I’d take Castleford’s dump over any identikit stadium).

Arsenal moved to the Emirates, a new state of the art 60k stadium, leaving behind their iconic ground Highbury, and in doing so threw away so much of their identity. The marble halls of Highbury, the close tight knit pitch, the clock end, the north bank, that place had soul. You knew you were at Arsenal. Now, when you go to the Emirates, you could be at any ground. A boring bowl that doesn’t say Arsenal.

For me the most fundamental question when you are at a ground, do you instantly know whose home it is. For instance, if you on a desert island, were blindfolded, were then taken to the middle of a stadium (and all the signs were removed), blindfold removed, would you know straight away where you were? If you were taken to Arsenal (for example) you would not be sure whose ground it was. You’d be guessing. The generic bowl design that appears everywhere, absolute abomination. St Helens old ground had far more character than the new identikit stadiums that look as though they came off an assembly line. Going to play at Warrington would bore me.

Then there’s cost. Again, using Arsenal as the example. They spent a fortune (well over half a billion) on the Emirates, which included buying the site. They basically sacrificed ten years of on-field success by having to cut back on transfer spending, and Wenger worked a miracle by getting them Champions League qualification every year for over a decade (bringing in over £30 million extra per year), which paid for the stadium. Financially it was a noose around their neck, and had it not been for Wenger somehow getting them into the top four every season which secured CL qualification and the extra money, they would still be carrying that financial burden today.

Lost identity moving to a generic bowl.

Lost over a decade of on-field success having to pay off the debt.

Thankfully Liverpool did the opposite. We built the main stand (cost 100m) bringing the capacity up to 54k. The next rebuild will be the Anfield road end (behind the goal), with a planning update announced today.

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/announcements/381624-second-stage-consultation-planned-for-anfield-road-stand-expansion-proposals

That will cost 60m, and will take capacity up to 61k. 

We’ve retained our identity staying at Anfield, the two new stands costing 160m, and with much lower costs than what a new stadium would bring success on the field hasn’t been affected one iota.

In terms of SL, Leeds Rhinos have done a great job with their rebuild.

[Hopping Mad]

3 hours ago, JonM said:

LOL.  For reference, York's new ground will have capacity of 8k and a construction cost of £44 million.

Pretty sure the £44m also includes the retail and leisure stuff surrounding the stadium.

[fieldofclothofgold]

43 minutes ago, DC77 said:

Without question staying at Anfield is the best decision the owners of Liverpool made and that includes hiring Jurgen Klopp as manager.

When the idea of moving to a new stadium was mooted I was dead against it. You cannot replace an iconic ground that has built up an aura over the last 50 years. The Kop, Shankly Gates, this is Anfield, games under the lights. If your ground is a dump and doesn’t hold much of a mystique/unique identity then it’s a different argument (although even then, I’d take Castleford’s dump over any identikit stadium).

Arsenal moved to the Emirates, a new state of the art 60k stadium, leaving behind their iconic ground Highbury, and in doing so threw away so much of their identity. The marble halls of Highbury, the close tight knit pitch, the clock end, the north bank, that place had soul. You knew you were at Arsenal. Now, when you go to the Emirates, you could be at any ground. A boring bowl that doesn’t say Arsenal.

For me the most fundamental question when you are at a ground, do you instantly know whose home it is. For instance, if you on a desert island, were blindfolded, were then taken to the middle of a stadium (and all the signs were removed), blindfold removed, would you know straight away where you were? If you were taken to Arsenal (for example) you would not be sure whose ground it was. You’d be guessing. The generic bowl design that appears everywhere, absolute abomination. St Helens old ground had far more character than the new identikit stadiums that look as though they came off an assembly line. Going to play at Warrington would bore me.

Then there’s cost. Again, using Arsenal as the example. They spent a fortune (well over half a billion) on the Emirates, which included buying the site. They basically sacrificed ten years of on-field success by having to cut back on transfer spending, and Wenger worked a miracle by getting them Champions League qualification every year for over a decade (bringing in over £30 million extra per year), which paid for the stadium. Financially it was a noose around their neck, and had it not been for Wenger somehow getting them into the top four every season which secured CL qualification and the extra money, they would still be carrying that financial burden today.

Lost identity moving to a generic bowl.

Lost over a decade of on-field success having to pay off the debt.

Thankfully Liverpool did the opposite. We built the main stand (cost 100m) bringing the capacity up to 54k. The next rebuild will be the Anfield road end (behind the goal), with a planning update announced today.

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/announcements/381624-second-stage-consultation-planned-for-anfield-road-stand-expansion-proposals

That will cost 60m, and will take capacity up to 61k. 

We’ve retained our identity staying at Anfield, the two new stands costing 160m, and with much lower costs than what a new stadium would bring success on the field hasn’t been affected one iota.

In terms of SL, Leeds Rhinos have done a great job with their rebuild.

Good post

[Gav Wilson]

All this nostalgic stuff about old grounds is complete nonsense in my humble opinion.

Give me a brand new, clean, accessible facility that can maximise earning revenue over a rusty dump because 'memories' any day of the week.

The old Wembley was awful, new Wembley is far, far superior. Same goes for Wilderspool, Highbury and Bootham Crescent. The new grounds will produce lifetime memories soon enough - The 2013 RLWC Semi and 'Tackle 52' at new Wembley for example.

[M j M]

40 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

All this nostalgic stuff about old grounds is complete nonsense in my humble opinion.

Give me a brand new, clean, accessible facility that can maximise earning revenue over a rusty dump because 'memories' any day of the week.

The old Wembley was awful, new Wembley is far, far superior. Same goes for Wilderspool, Highbury and Bootham Crescent. The new grounds will produce lifetime memories soon enough - The 2013 RLWC Semi and 'Tackle 52' at new Wembley for example.

I think that's a bit extreme, the point is upgraded old vs brand new not existing dump vs brand new.

New stadia can be ok, despite its flat pack appearance the Haliwell Jones has taken on a decent identity and is perfect for purpose and in a great location. Other clubs haven't been quite able to do the same. 

I think clubs should make more effort to demonstrate that this is their home ground. DC77's point about looking round and there being minimal identifying features resonates. Other than concrete, plastic seats and some 'greats of our club' signage on the concourses how do we make our stadia stand out? 

I think thereshould be little markers of great events. I want a permanent red splodge on the pitch where Phil Ford chased down Martin Offiah at Headingley. The seat Matthew Elliot fell off should have been saved and installed in the stands at Langtree Park. There should be a special commemoration of the river caves at the JJB. Little things that make people stand back and reflect on the history of the ground or the history of the club.

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, DC77 said:

Without question staying at Anfield is the best decision the owners of Liverpool made and that includes hiring Jurgen Klopp as manager.

When the idea of moving to a new stadium was mooted I was dead against it. You cannot replace an iconic ground that has built up an aura over the last 50 years. The Kop, Shankly Gates, this is Anfield, games under the lights. If your ground is a dump and doesn’t hold much of a mystique/unique identity then it’s a different argument (although even then, I’d take Castleford’s dump over any identikit stadium).

Arsenal moved to the Emirates, a new state of the art 60k stadium, leaving behind their iconic ground Highbury, and in doing so threw away so much of their identity. The marble halls of Highbury, the close tight knit pitch, the clock end, the north bank, that place had soul. You knew you were at Arsenal. Now, when you go to the Emirates, you could be at any ground. A boring bowl that doesn’t say Arsenal.

For me the most fundamental question when you are at a ground, do you instantly know whose home it is. For instance, if you on a desert island, were blindfolded, were then taken to the middle of a stadium (and all the signs were removed), blindfold removed, would you know straight away where you were? If you were taken to Arsenal (for example) you would not be sure whose ground it was. You’d be guessing. The generic bowl design that appears everywhere, absolute abomination. St Helens old ground had far more character than the new identikit stadiums that look as though they came off an assembly line. Going to play at Warrington would bore me.

Then there’s cost. Again, using Arsenal as the example. They spent a fortune (well over half a billion) on the Emirates, which included buying the site. They basically sacrificed ten years of on-field success by having to cut back on transfer spending, and Wenger worked a miracle by getting them Champions League qualification every year for over a decade (bringing in over £30 million extra per year), which paid for the stadium. Financially it was a noose around their neck, and had it not been for Wenger somehow getting them into the top four every season which secured CL qualification and the extra money, they would still be carrying that financial burden today.

Lost identity moving to a generic bowl.

Lost over a decade of on-field success having to pay off the debt.

Thankfully Liverpool did the opposite. We built the main stand (cost 100m) bringing the capacity up to 54k. The next rebuild will be the Anfield road end (behind the goal), with a planning update announced today.

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/announcements/381624-second-stage-consultation-planned-for-anfield-road-stand-expansion-proposals

That will cost 60m, and will take capacity up to 61k. 

We’ve retained our identity staying at Anfield, the two new stands costing 160m, and with much lower costs than what a new stadium would bring success on the field hasn’t been affected one iota.

In terms of SL, Leeds Rhinos have done a great job with their rebuild.

Indeed , just a shame it's in Liverpool

[Rob Nash]

1 hour ago, Gav Wilson said:

All this nostalgic stuff about old grounds is complete nonsense in my humble opinion.

Give me a brand new, clean, accessible facility that can maximise earning revenue over a rusty dump because 'memories' any day of the week.

The old Wembley was awful, new Wembley is far, far superior. Same goes for Wilderspool, Highbury and Bootham Crescent. The new grounds will produce lifetime memories soon enough - The 2013 RLWC Semi and 'Tackle 52' at new Wembley for example.

Agree Gav. The Keepmoat has brought income in we couldn't have imagined at Tattersfield. Also as a supporter I genuinely look forward to every game there! Times change.

[fieldofclothofgold]

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Indeed , just a shame it's in Liverpool

Great city and its. Citizens 

[GUBRATS]

Just now, fieldofclothofgold said:

Great city and its. Citizens 

Done millions of pounds worth of business in Liverpool , good bunch , still a dump though 

[aj1908]

7 hours ago, DC77 said:

Without question staying at Anfield is the best decision the owners of Liverpool made and that includes hiring Jurgen Klopp as manager.

When the idea of moving to a new stadium was mooted I was dead against it. You cannot replace an iconic ground that has built up an aura over the last 50 years. The Kop, Shankly Gates, this is Anfield, games under the lights. If your ground is a dump and doesn’t hold much of a mystique/unique identity then it’s a different argument (although even then, I’d take Castleford’s dump over any identikit stadium).

Arsenal moved to the Emirates, a new state of the art 60k stadium, leaving behind their iconic ground Highbury, and in doing so threw away so much of their identity. The marble halls of Highbury, the close tight knit pitch, the clock end, the north bank, that place had soul. You knew you were at Arsenal. Now, when you go to the Emirates, you could be at any ground. A boring bowl that doesn’t say Arsenal.

For me the most fundamental question when you are at a ground, do you instantly know whose home it is. For instance, if you on a desert island, were blindfolded, were then taken to the middle of a stadium (and all the signs were removed), blindfold removed, would you know straight away where you were? If you were taken to Arsenal (for example) you would not be sure whose ground it was. You’d be guessing. The generic bowl design that appears everywhere, absolute abomination. St Helens old ground had far more character than the new identikit stadiums that look as though they came off an assembly line. Going to play at Warrington would bore me.

Then there’s cost. Again, using Arsenal as the example. They spent a fortune (well over half a billion) on the Emirates, which included buying the site. They basically sacrificed ten years of on-field success by having to cut back on transfer spending, and Wenger worked a miracle by getting them Champions League qualification every year for over a decade (bringing in over £30 million extra per year), which paid for the stadium. Financially it was a noose around their neck, and had it not been for Wenger somehow getting them into the top four every season which secured CL qualification and the extra money, they would still be carrying that financial burden today.

Lost identity moving to a generic bowl.

Lost over a decade of on-field success having to pay off the debt.

Thankfully Liverpool did the opposite. We built the main stand (cost 100m) bringing the capacity up to 54k. The next rebuild will be the Anfield road end (behind the goal), with a planning update announced today.

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/announcements/381624-second-stage-consultation-planned-for-anfield-road-stand-expansion-proposals

That will cost 60m, and will take capacity up to 61k. 

We’ve retained our identity staying at Anfield, the two new stands costing 160m, and with much lower costs than what a new stadium would bring success on the field hasn’t been affected one iota.

In terms of SL, Leeds Rhinos have done a great job with their rebuild.

Maybe an arsenal fan would say the opposite arguement

People.tend to defend what.their club does as absolutely.the right way 

The economics are such that rebuilds are.far more expensive than new.builds on a comparable.basis 

I think Tottenham fans would prefer their new ground over white heart lane 

And the Emirates Looks like a fantastic ground too 

Liverpool.and man utd.are.part of the minority.in slowly.rebuiling old grounds.

Most do new.builds 

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

Maybe an arsenal fan would say the opposite arguement

People.tend to defend what.their club does as absolutely.the right way 

The economics are such that rebuilds are.far more expensive than new.builds on a comparable.basis 

I think Tottenham fans would prefer their new ground over white heart lane 

And the Emirates Looks like a fantastic ground too 

Liverpool.and man utd.are.part of the minority.in slowly.rebuiling old grounds.

Most do new.builds 

White hart Lane is a total rebuild. They spent a season at Wembley.

[aj1908]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

White hart Lane is a total rebuild. They spent a season at Wembley.

Still.a total.rebuild.vs doing one stand at a time.

They got the best if both worlds then.  Kept the old location and got a new ground 

I don't know how this can be called identikit

[aj1908]

14 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

White hart Lane is a total rebuild. They spent a season at Wembley.

Still.a total.rebuild.vs doing one stand at a time.

They got the best if both worlds then.  Kept the old location and got a new ground 

I don't know how this can be called identikit

Below.goodison park vs new ground