old fashioned characterful atmospheric stadiums versus soulless modern ones

[Harry Stottle]

On 08/09/2022 at 08:17, JohnM said:

That must be the high point in the life of many a Leigh supporter.

There's one thing John, it would be far more exciting looking at the back of the stand at Hilton Park than facing the pitch watching the game that you deem appropriate to put the club Crest on your avatar.

[Harry Stottle]

On 08/09/2022 at 08:37, M j M said:

It depends on what the new stadium is like and how much it is fit for purpose. The grounds at Wigan and Huddersfield can be great when full but are just too big and anonymous for the clubs which play in them. 

Warrington is a cracking ground which they got just right with the standing down the side. Saints messed that bit up and it really seems to suffer from it atmosphere wise.

At least Saints ground is distinctive thought - Leigh just seems a anonymous and soul less to me, four cookie cutter stands with the popular side again stuck behind the posts.

To those of us who like to observe the technicallities of the game seeing the sliding or umbrella defensive movements, the overloading of the offense on any particular side, the movements of the second phase player's joining the line, the switch of the playmakers, the setting up of rehearsed moves etc etc the best vantage point to view these is from behind the posts and quite high up, you see much more than stood on the sideline and especially so if you are sited between the 20 mtr and goal line.

Anyway you could do with a cookie cutter stand where the visiting supporters get piffed wet through at Headingley.

Have you ever been to the LSV, where you one of the 150 or so of your fantastic support that went to the League game in '17 or '21?

 

[M j M]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

To those of us who like to observe the technicallities of the game seeing the sliding or umbrella defensive movements, the overloading of the offense on any particular side, the movements of the second phase player's joining the line, the switch of the playmakers, the setting up of rehearsed moves etc etc the best vantage point to view these is from behind the posts and quite high up, you see much more than stood on the sideline and especially so if you are sited between the 20 mtr and goal line.

Anyway you could do with a cookie cutter stand where the visiting supporters get piffed wet through at Headingley.

Have you ever been to the LSV, where you one of the 150 or so of your fantastic support that went to the League game in '17 or '21?

 

Wow don't get triggered because someone isn't in total awe of the LSV. And yes i've been there plenty of times including Leeds games an international and that MPG you threw away vs Catalans.

[Gordon Street]

26 minutes ago, M j M said:

Wow don't get triggered because someone isn't in total awe of the LSV. And yes i've been there plenty of times including Leeds games an international and that MPG you threw away vs Catalans.

what he is really telling you is what an expert he is on the finer points of rugby league, and that his stadium is better than yours er 'so there'. Oh and away fans. 

[Gordon Street]

8 hours ago, Snowys Backside said:

Sorry buddy. You are losing me. I am just quoting to you what facilities a dirty old stadium like Hilton Park had before it was demolished in 2008. LSV is a fantastic facility, but lots of memories are still embroiled on that old ground.

I cannot state anything on what it was like to sit there, but every single one of them were treated like Gold, by staff, officials and Players alike and some could argue they had the best seat in the house. They had their own 'dug out' so they were open to the elements dependant on wind direction. For what Hilton Park had, I thought it was OK but i will not comment anymore on the matter.

 

I have certainly not claimed that old stadiums are better than new ones, but you can put in a huge mix of pros and cons for lots of things. 

Atmosphere and memories etc.....  Do not require any for of certification. They are memories for us to cherish, whether its in a concrete Bowl like Odslum or the new Wembley Stadium. Who cares. Its on the pitch that matters to me. If everyone is accommodated accordingly, happy days.

people with disabilities don't want to be treated like gold. They want and need to be treated properly. It's good that the staff at HP were caring, but I'm sure they are at the LSV. Atmosphere and memories are generated by people, time and history not corrugated iron. Memories get distorted to suit; it never rained in summer did it?. I visited HP many times over the years. Most of the time(and the records show this) it was two thirds empty and chucking it down with rain. 

[Gordon Street]

http://www.artnet.com/artists/martin-parr/thrum-hall-rugby-ground-halifax-NonyeB4-tvjJ7_EXE-XZxw2

the breathtaking atmosphere of thrum hall

Edited September 9, 2022 by Gordon Street

[Harry Stottle]

31 minutes ago, Gordon Street said:

1.what he is really telling you is what an expert he is on the finer points of rugby league,

2. and that his stadium is better than yours er 'so there'.

3. Oh and away fans. 

1. Yep, 

2. NO I wasn't, just one end for visiting fans not good when it pours down.

3. Remarking on an observation of a teams poor following.

[Dave W]

11 hours ago, Gordon Street said:

there aren't; what would you consider to be 'reasonable adaptations'? And if it isn't 'reasonably practicable' then there is something seriously wrong. 

I didn't write 'reasonable adaptations', I wrote 'acceptable adaptations'. Don't conflate my words to fit your agenda, whatever that might be.

[Gordon Street]

13 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

1. Yep, 

2. NO I wasn't, just one end for visiting fans not good when it pours down.

3. Remarking on an observation of a teams poor following.

why?

[Gordon Street]

12 minutes ago, Dave W said:

I didn't write 'reasonable adaptations', I wrote 'acceptable adaptations'. Don't conflate my words to fit your agenda, whatever that might be.

my genuine apologies. Substitute acceptable for reasonable. What would you consider to be practical adaptations? And if it isn't acceptably practical, then there must be something seriously wrong. 

[Gordon Street]

18 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

1. Yep, 

2. NO I wasn't, just one end for visiting fans not good when it pours down.

3. Remarking on an observation of a teams poor following.

1. we all need an ego trip from time to time.

2. I thought that in Rugby League, fans weren't segregated. Certainly not at Headingley. Planning demands limit what can be achieved with the western terrace.

3. Your club's fans are the bestest, anybody knows that.

and er...

4. So what?

[GUBRATS]

11 hours ago, Snowys Backside said:

Sorry buddy. You are losing me. I am just quoting to you what facilities a dirty old stadium like Hilton Park had before it was demolished in 2008. LSV is a fantastic facility, but lots of memories are still embroiled on that old ground.

I cannot state anything on what it was like to sit there, but every single one of them were treated like Gold, by staff, officials and Players alike and some could argue they had the best seat in the house. They had their own 'dug out' so they were open to the elements dependant on wind direction. For what Hilton Park had, I thought it was OK but i will not comment anymore on the matter.

 

I have certainly not claimed that old stadiums are better than new ones, but you can put in a huge mix of pros and cons for lots of things. 

Atmosphere and memories etc.....  Do not require any for of certification. They are memories for us to cherish, whether its in a concrete Bowl like Odslum or the new Wembley Stadium. Who cares. Its on the pitch that matters to me. If everyone is accommodated accordingly, happy days.

Extra provision was provided for disabled spectators at Hilton Park for the last 4 seasons , by Mr Beaumont at a cost to himself 

[Dave W]

32 minutes ago, Gordon Street said:

my genuine apologies. Substitute acceptable for reasonable. What would you consider to be practical adaptations? And if it isn't acceptably practical, then there must be something seriously wrong. 

I didn't write 'practical adaptations', I wrote 'acceptable adaptations'. 

For what it's worth, I'd say acceptable means just that - good enough.

The issue of something being reasonably practicable is an established legislative norm in Health and Safety regulations recognising that perfect solutions are often compromised by practicalities such as money and existing structures. 

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, Dave W said:

I didn't write 'practical adaptations', I wrote 'acceptable adaptations'. 

For what it's worth, I'd say acceptable means just that - good enough.

The issue of something being reasonably practicable is an established legislative norm in Health and Safety regulations recognising that perfect solutions are often compromised by practicalities such as money and existing structures. 

I wouldn't bother if I was you

[Gordon Street]

2 hours ago, Dave W said:

I didn't write 'practical adaptations', I wrote 'acceptable adaptations'. 

For what it's worth, I'd say acceptable means just that - good enough.

The issue of something being reasonably practicable is an established legislative norm in Health and Safety regulations recognising that perfect solutions are often compromised by practicalities such as money and existing structures. 

ok; acceptable. Just substitute the word acceptable. So what would you deem acceptable? And what if there are no, as was more than likely the case in those death traps, acceptable adaptations?

[Gordon Street]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Extra provision was provided for disabled spectators at Hilton Park for the last 4 seasons , by Mr Beaumont at a cost to himself 

I have a vested interest in asking; what form did these extra provisions take? Are you saying that apart from the last four years of its life provision for fans with disabilities was inadequate?

[Damien]

Even for this forum it seems a bit weird trying to start arguments about disability provision at long gone grounds from decades ago.

[Dave W]

30 minutes ago, Gordon Street said:

ok; acceptable. Just substitute the word acceptable. So what would you deem acceptable? And what if there are no, as was more than likely the case in those death traps, acceptable adaptations?

It's not up to me to define what's acceptable. I'm not disabled. I'm not a planning officer. I don't own any stadiums/theatres/public buildings. 

Consult people with disabilities about what their needs are and go from there . 

 

[graveyard johnny]

I think the real question is who this poster really is? trying to think of someone who's not been seen for a while? Maybe banned? using a different email? mmmm the mind is ticking 

[Gordon Street]

1 hour ago, Dave W said:

It's not up to me to define what's acceptable. I'm not disabled. I'm not a planning officer. I don't own any stadiums/theatres/public buildings. 

Consult people with disabilities about what their needs are and go from there . 

 

I have. it was part of my job. 

[Gordon Street]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

Even for this forum it seems a bit weird trying to start arguments about disability provision at long gone grounds from decades ago.

no it isn't. it's about comparison. People yearn for those long gone corrugated iron death traps, forgetting that provision in them for disabled fans was invariably inadequate, humiliating and discriminatory. 

[Damien]

25 minutes ago, Gordon Street said:

no it isn't. it's about comparison. People yearn for those long gone corrugated iron death traps, forgetting that provision in them for disabled fans was invariably inadequate, humiliating and discriminatory. 

Yes, it is.

It is quite possible for people to think that old stadiums had more character and a better atmosphere whilst acknowledging their failings. Once you lost the atmosphere and character argument you became fixated on disabled facilities. However, I think most people would readily acknowledge that facilities are considerably better in every way in a modern ground. I have not seen anyone argue otherwise. That still however doesn't give them a better atmosphere or more character and one does not predetermine the other.

I think the old Wembley v the new Wembley is a pretty good comparison for this. One had atmosphere by the bucketful and was practically terrible in every possible way. Hemmed in like sardines on terraces that weren't designed for seating with appalling amenities. The other has all the luxuries under the sun and oodles of legroom but is soulless and a poor experience.

[Gordon Street]

17 minutes ago, Damien said:

Yes, it is.

It is quite possible for people to think that old stadiums had more character and a better atmosphere whilst acknowledging their failings. Once you lost the atmosphere and character argument you became fixated on disabled facilities. However, I think most people would readily acknowledge that facilities are considerably better in every way in a modern ground. I have not seen anyone argue otherwise. That still however doesn't give them a better atmosphere or more character and one does not predetermine the other.

I think the old Wembley v the new Wembley is a pretty good comparison for this. One had atmosphere by the bucketful and was practically terrible in every possible way. Hemmed in like sardines on terraces that weren't designed for seating with appalling amenities. The other has all the luxuries under the sun and oodles of legroom but is soulless and a poor experience.

'lost'? There is no winning or losing. 'Traditional' death trap grounds were windswept, desolate two thirds empty shanty towns most of the time. People remember the good times. Modern grounds need time, memories and history to develop their 'character'. One of the most spellbinding experiences of my life was the World Cup semi final at the new Wembley. I have a professional and personal interest in the experience of people with physical disabilities, learning disabilities and mental health issues at public events, and in living their lives in society. Having decent facilities for such people is not a 'luxury' it is a right. How should new stadiums be built; with deliberately poor sight lines, fire risks, humiliating disabled facilities, insanitary toilets?

Edited September 9, 2022 by Gordon Street

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, Gordon Street said:

'lost'? There is no winning or losing. 'Traditional' death trap grounds were windswept, desolate two thirds empty shanty towns most of the time. People remember the good times. Modern grounds need time, memories and history to develop their 'character'. One of the most spellbinding experiences of my life was the World Cup semi final at the new Wembley. I have a professional and personal interest in the experience of people with physical disabilities, learning disabilities and mental health issues at public events, and in living their lives in society. Having decent facilities for such people is not a 'luxury' it is a right. How should new stadiums be built; with deliberately poor sight lines, fire risks, humiliating disabled facilities, insanitary toilets?

Again, it is quite possible for people to think old stadiums had better atmosphere or more character and also acknowledge that new stadiums provide better facilities. This isn't a binary choice.

[Gordon Street]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

Again, it is quite possible for people to think old stadiums had better atmosphere or more character and also acknowledge that new stadiums provide better facilities. This isn't a binary choice. 

I haven't said otherwise. I have merely challenged the precept/thought. What people think and how they think it is up to them. It never rained in summer did it? And winters were always white with pure driven snow.

http://www.artnet.com/artists/martin-parr/thrum-hall-rugby-ground-halifax-NonyeB4-tvjJ7_EXE-XZxw2

Edited September 9, 2022 by Gordon Street