by readingbedding » 28 Jul 2009 20:46
by Deathy » 28 Jul 2009 20:48
by barmy_army008 » 28 Jul 2009 21:14
by Sarah Star » 29 Jul 2009 08:25
barmy_army008 I think thats Gloucesters ground, so perhaps they've gone with that because its actually a rugby stadium. The vast majority are football grounds with the Ricoh Arena the smallest of those.
by Hugo Boss » 29 Jul 2009 08:54
by Dirk Gently » 29 Jul 2009 09:00
Sarah Starbarmy_army008 I think thats Gloucesters ground, so perhaps they've gone with that because its actually a rugby stadium. The vast majority are football grounds with the Ricoh Arena the smallest of those.
Yes, why have they picked them? Rugby isn't even played at a lot of them.
by handbags_harris » 29 Jul 2009 09:34
by Dirk Gently » 29 Jul 2009 09:40
by Maguire » 29 Jul 2009 14:18
handbags_harris So why play at three London grounds then? I can understand why Twickenham is used, that much is obvious, but why then use Wembley and the Emirates? Why not attempt to use, say, Villa Park and St James's Park, which would both be more than adequate for the needs?
by Sun Tzu » 29 Jul 2009 15:50
Sarah Starbarmy_army008 I think thats Gloucesters ground, so perhaps they've gone with that because its actually a rugby stadium. The vast majority are football grounds with the Ricoh Arena the smallest of those.
Yes, why have they picked them? Rugby isn't even played at a lot of them.
by Harpers So Solid Crew » 29 Jul 2009 17:41
by Deathy » 29 Jul 2009 20:15
Harpers So Solid Crew No olympic stadium either, odd now they are talking of leaving it full size after 2012.
by Silver Fox » 29 Jul 2009 22:11
Hugo Boss LOL @ People whingeing that the rugby carves up "our" pitch then whingeing when the stadium doesn't get selected for the rugby World Cup.
by handbags_harris » 30 Jul 2009 11:19
Maguirehandbags_harris So why play at three London grounds then? I can understand why Twickenham is used, that much is obvious, but why then use Wembley and the Emirates? Why not attempt to use, say, Villa Park and St James's Park, which would both be more than adequate for the needs?
St James' Park is one of the venues.
by Alan Partridge » 30 Jul 2009 12:46
handbags_harrisMaguirehandbags_harris So why play at three London grounds then? I can understand why Twickenham is used, that much is obvious, but why then use Wembley and the Emirates? Why not attempt to use, say, Villa Park and St James's Park, which would both be more than adequate for the needs?
St James' Park is one of the venues.
My bad, didn't actually realise that![]()
Swap SJP for Elland Road then to make a valid argument.
by Hugo Boss » 30 Jul 2009 17:01
Alan Partridge WORST SPORT EVER.
by Sun Tzu » 30 Jul 2009 20:11
DeathyHarpers So Solid Crew No olympic stadium either, odd now they are talking of leaving it full size after 2012.
Are they? It was only mentioned last week again that L.Orient are supposed to be leading the queue to make the stadium their home with a reduced capacity.
If they do keep it, and they probably should, they should build a fecking roof!
by Mad Dog's Ghost » 30 Jul 2009 21:27
by Sun Tzu » 30 Jul 2009 21:54
Mad Dog's Ghost Gloucester got the gig because it's the only ground where fans give a fck about rugby.
by Harpers So Solid Crew » 31 Jul 2009 07:38
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 136 guests