Old Trafford is not fit for purpose

[fieldofclothofgold]

Those ingoal areas are too small for Rugby league ,but it is a football stadium and Rugby leagues does have va good relationship with Manchester United and it has become a tradition of the GF at OT 

[Barry Badrinath]

not all traditions are good, its a great stadium to look at if you're not sitting in it for a game, in the autumn/winter weather with a big coat on, and those goal areas and the drop offs ESPECIALLY in wet weather at the end of teh season are ridiculous.

 

poor tom johnstone, he's managed to spend this whole season without a concussion, everyone has said what a great change its been for him, nearly gets a head/neck injury in the SHOWCASE event.

[Dovster]

IMO The In-goal areas are dangerous and shows that we care little for player wellfare. It's only a matter of time....

Plus the game is changed due to the short in-goals. it is much more difficult to kick to the in-goals to get a repeat set.

It definitely needs sorting.

 

[Big Picture]

4 minutes ago, Dovster said:

IMO The In-goal areas are dangerous and shows that we care little for player wellfare. It's only a matter of time....

Plus the game is changed due to the short in-goals. it is much more difficult to kick to the in-goals to get a repeat set.

It definitely needs sorting.

There needs to be 120 metres between the end lines, for a full 100 metre field of play with nice deep end zones.  Not many British stadiums could provide that though.

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

Apparently Old Trafford is in need of refurbishment or possibly a complete rebuild (a legacy of the Glaziers spending diddly squat on it). It's believed to be why potential buyers for the club have been a bit thin on the ground.

[Rovers13]

1 minute ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

Apparently Old Trafford is in need of refurbishment or possibly a complete rebuild (a legacy of the Glaziers spending diddly squat on it). It's believed to be why potential buyers for the club have been a bit thin on the ground.

Sir Jim as bought 25% so maybe it will get upgraded now. 

[bobbruce]

22 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

My guess is the sockets for the posts can't be moved.

I doubt it’s the Sockets my guess is they don’t want to move the goal line /tryline so are just leaving it there. 

[Dovster]

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

There needs to be 120 metres between the end lines, for a full 100 metre field of play with nice deep end zones.  Not many British stadiums could provide that though.

I do agree but think that a better and safer compromise is possible at OT.

[Spidey]

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

There needs to be 120 metres between the end lines, for a full 100 metre field of play with nice deep end zones.  Not many British stadiums could provide that though.

End Zones?  Is this an NFL forum?

[Big Picture]

30 minutes ago, Spidey said:

End Zones?  Is this an NFL forum?

No it's not, but I'm Canadian so they're end zones to me.

[lemmy xaan]

2 hours ago, bobbruce said:

I doubt it’s the Sockets my guess is they don’t want to move the goal line /tryline so are just leaving it there. 

I think they have played at least 2 union games here (one on 22-11-97), and I may be wrong, but the in-goal areas were slightly larger, suggesting the in-field was smaller. Maybe they made new sockets. 

The steep slope exacerbates the issue as players approaching at speed then actually accelerate into the boundary. 

I can see why there's no good alternative to OT - given the various circumstances of our game - but you could imagine that, in a modern, innovative alternative universe, they might invent some kind of safety net, padding, or whatever.

[paul hicks]

2 hours ago, Big Picture said:

There needs to be 120 metres between the end lines, for a full 100 metre field of play with nice deep end zones.  Not many British stadiums could provide that though.

not even many rugby league stadiums could

[Big Picture]

1 minute ago, paul hicks said:

not even many rugby league stadiums could

In Britain that's unfortunately true.  Down under they pretty much all can, even in PNG.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Big Picture

[paul hicks]

9 minutes ago, lemmy xaan said:

I think they have played at least 2 union games here (one on 22-11-97), and I may be wrong, but the in-goal areas were slightly larger, suggesting the in-field was smaller. Maybe they made new sockets. 

The steep slope exacerbates the issue as players approaching at speed then actually accelerate into the boundary. 

I can see why there's no good alternative to OT - given the various circumstances of our game - but you could imagine that, in a modern, innovative alternative universe, they might invent some kind of safety net, padding, or whatever.

when you look at that photo it looks like there was no slope back then which i think was the case

[paul hicks]

3 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

In Britain that's unfortunately true.  Down under they pretty much all can, even in PNG.

indeed, they can but then they were not built in old industrial or housing areas with limited space

[bobbruce]

39 minutes ago, paul hicks said:

when you look at that photo it looks like there was no slope back then which i think was the case

Good point they may gone done to fit extra seats in. 

[Rovers13]

For me I understand why it’s not at Wembley, but it’s our major showpiece it should be at Wembley and move the CC final somewhere else. 

[Rovers13]

5 minutes ago, Rovers13 said:

For me I understand why it’s not at Wembley, but it’s our major showpiece it should be at Wembley and move the CC final somewhere else. 

It’s just little things like this what other major sport doesn’t have their biggest showpiece in the biggest stadiums and makes an almighty bang about it. 

[bobbruce]

3 minutes ago, Rovers13 said:

For me I understand why it’s not at Wembley, but it’s our major showpiece it should be at Wembley and move the CC final somewhere else. 

I wouldn’t work the fans of the finalists would only have a week to sort out travel and hotels. You would effectively have the same issue we’ve just had with Catalans with every team. 

[M j M]

6 minutes ago, Rovers13 said:

For me I understand why it’s not at Wembley, but it’s our major showpiece it should be at Wembley and move the CC final somewhere else. 

You know why it's not at Wembley but still think it should be at Wembley?

Makes complete sense.

[Rovers13]

Just now, M j M said:

You know why it's not at Wembley but still think it should be at Wembley?

Makes complete sense.

Yeah same as the poster above I understand why but for me we need to have a gap then between the semi’s and the final not just a week. 

[Rovers13]

We don’t give ourselves opportunities to market ourselves, like I said on another thread we don’t market our players either, outside of RL circles who’s heard of bevan French for example.  

[Gomersall]

14 minutes ago, Rovers13 said:

For me I understand why it’s not at Wembley, but it’s our major showpiece it should be at Wembley and move the CC final somewhere else. 

Old Trafford?

[Gomersall]

7 minutes ago, Rovers13 said:

Yeah same as the poster above I understand why but for me we need to have a gap then between the semi’s and the final not just a week. 

I suggested a two week break when the concussion recovery period was extended to 11 days. A player hurt through no fault of his own and having to sit out for 11 days would have to miss a GF if his team won their semi.

[M j M]

22 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

I suggested a two week break when the concussion recovery period was extended to 11 days. A player hurt through no fault of his own and having to sit out for 11 days would have to miss a GF if his team won their semi.

So you'd start the season a week earlier?