FA Cup Semi Final - Bolton v Stoke

[TBM]

We would have ground shared though, until the MadStad was ready

[Svlad Cjelli]

We would have ground shared though, until the MadStad was ready

Yep - the talk was of us sharing at QPR!

[biscuitman]

Why would we of shared?

[Svlad Cjelli]

Why would we of shared?

We would HAVE shared because Elm Park was considered unsuitable for PL football - the capacity was too low, the opportunities for corporate hospitality very limited etc. Plus all the fallout of the Taylor Report would have required considerable investment.

[Mr Angry]

Why would we of shared?

We would HAVE shared because Elm Park was considered unsuitable for PL football - the capacity was too low, the opportunities for corporate hospitality very limited etc. Plus all the fallout of the Taylor Report would have required considerable investment.

The capacity would have been what - 13/14,000???

The capacity at Bloomfield Road?? 16,000.............

[papereyes]

How different to the Swindon ground of 1993/4 was it really? Very different Premiership in 1995/6 to the one of today.

We'd have got a season or two grace but as we'd only have been there for one season, no one would have really bothered.

[TBM]

I just remember reading that we were going to share with QPR - although we could get 13,000 through the door, as Dirk says, the hospitality etc would not have been up to PL standard

[Svlad Cjelli]

Why would we of shared?

We would HAVE shared because Elm Park was considered unsuitable for PL football - the capacity was too low, the opportunities for corporate hospitality very limited etc. Plus all the fallout of the Taylor Report would have required considerable investment.

The capacity would have been what - 13/14,000???

The capacity at Bloomfield Road?? 16,000.............

But it was a different era - just a couple of years after Taylor, when everyone was changing to all-seater stadia. So 16,000 at Bloomfield Road now would have equated to at least 20,000 in comparison to Elm Park then. And the fear is also of staying up for two years and then being forced to convert EP to all-seater (the situation where Scunny are now!)

Apsrt from not having enough corporate hospitality to be able to milk the PL money, it was things like lack of parking and the fact that EP was generally run-down and grotty. Don't forget the regime in place then was already dreaming of conference centres and pre-match banqueting etc - maybe they thought there'd be more of a "draw" in West London than in Norfolk Road.

There certainly were serious reports of this ground-share at QPR at the time - with Fulham also being discussed, ISTR. It may have been with a view to maximise revenue.

Then again, it may just have been sabre-rattling to oil the wheels of planning for a stadium complex at Smallmead - scare the hell out of RBC if they didn't co-operate.

[Mr Angry]

We would HAVE shared because Elm Park was considered unsuitable for PL football - the capacity was too low, the opportunities for corporate hospitality very limited etc. Plus all the fallout of the Taylor Report would have required considerable investment.

The capacity would have been what - 13/14,000???

The capacity at Bloomfield Road?? 16,000.............

But it was a different era - just a couple of years after Taylor, when everyone was changing to all-seater stadia. So 16,000 at Bloomfield Road now would have equated to at least 20,000 in comparison to Elm Park then. And the fear is also of staying up for two years and then being forced to convert EP to all-seater (the situation where Scunny are now!)

Apsrt from not having enough corporate hospitality to be able to milk the PL money, it was things like lack of parking and the fact that EP was generally run-down and grotty. Don't forget the regime in place then was already dreaming of conference centres and pre-match banqueting etc - maybe they thought there'd be more of a "draw" in West London than in Norfolk Road.

There certainly were serious reports of this ground-share at QPR at the time - with Fulham also being discussed, ISTR. It may have been with a view to maximise revenue.

Then again, it may just have been sabre-rattling to oil the wheels of planning for a stadium complex at Smallmead - scare the hell out of RBC if they didn't co-operate.

Yeah - I remember all of those rumours!! I'm in the camp that HAD we got promotion that season, it may have finished us as a club; we wouldn't have brought in enough revenue and yet our costs would have gone through the roof. We would have been expected to pay Osborn, Taylor, Shaka et al top dollar to stay, money we wouldn't have recouped.

Could have been ugly.

[biscuitman]

biscuitman wrote:Why would we of shared?



We would HAVE shared because Elm Park was considered unsuitable for PL football - the capacity was too low, the opportunities for corporate hospitality very limited etc. Plus all the fallout of the Taylor Report would have required considerable investment.

I know what Elm Park was like! But we had plans on show at that point of a new stadium surely? We could of stayed in West Reading no?

[bakerlou]

[But it was a different era - just a couple of years after Taylor, when everyone was changing to all-seater stadia. So 16,000 at Bloomfield Road now would have equated to at least 20,000 in comparison to Elm Park then. And the fear is also of staying up for two years and then being forced to convert EP to all-seater (the situation where Scunny are now!)

Apsrt from not having enough corporate hospitality to be able to milk the PL money, it was things like lack of parking and the fact that EP was generally run-down and grotty. Don't forget the regime in place then was already dreaming of conference centres and pre-match banqueting etc - maybe they thought there'd be more of a "draw" in West London than in Norfolk Road.

There certainly were serious reports of this ground-share at QPR at the time - with Fulham also being discussed, ISTR. It may have been with a view to maximise revenue.

Then again, it may just have been sabre-rattling to oil the wheels of planning for a stadium complex at Smallmead - scare the hell out of RBC if they didn't co-operate.

That's the most likely, given that SJM was working with the engineering & surveying company Gibb throughout 1994/5 to investigate where exactly in the vicinity of Smallmead RFC was going to end up, and in what timescale.

I can recall seeing a plan which had the new football ground slap bang next door to the Reading Stadium (ie Smallmead) to form a multipurpose thingie. Can't remember why it got canned, I left Gibb at that point.

[cmonurz]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... ester-city

Interesting fixture debate - if City win the cup, it may be in Stoke's best interests to lose at Eastlands in the following league fixture, as in that scenario, City would be more likely to secure 4th and a CL place, and so handing the Europa League place to Stoke as cup runners-up.

[biscuitman]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... ester-city

Interesting fixture debate - if City win the cup, it may be in Stoke's best interests to lose at Eastlands in the following league fixture, as in that scenario, City would be more likely to secure 4th and a CL place, and so handing the Europa League place to Stoke as cup runners-up.

Brilliant!

[Wax Jacket]

biscuitman wrote:Why would we of shared?



We would HAVE shared because Elm Park was considered unsuitable for PL football - the capacity was too low, the opportunities for corporate hospitality very limited etc. Plus all the fallout of the Taylor Report would have required considerable investment.

I know what Elm Park was like! But we had plans on show at that point of a new stadium surely? We could of stayed in West Reading no?

[TBM]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/apr/18/tottenham-hotspur-manchester-city

Interesting fixture debate - if City win the cup, it may be in Stoke's best interests to lose at Eastlands in the following league fixture, as in that scenario, City would be more likely to secure 4th and a CL place, and so handing the Europa League place to Stoke as cup runners-up.

this is why the fa cup should be the last game of the season

[Silver Fox]

Like in 2008?

[TBM]

Like in 2008?

tbh it wasn't Portsmouth fault we went down - we had 37 other games to avoid that.

[Wax Jacket]

that was Shane Long's fault

[Silver Fox]

Like in 2008?

tbh it wasn't Portsmouth fault we went down - we had 37 other games to avoid that.

and Man City will of had 37 games other than this one to clinch a CL place?

[cmonurz]

Different situation. It wasn't beneficial to Portsmouth to lose the match.