Jump to content

Our New Stadium


junio_oscarSY
 Share

Recommended Posts


Surprised to see so many people consider Twickenham a decent option.

 

Honestly can't think of anything worse.

 

Sharing a rugby stadium that would be half full for your avarage game.

 

I did originally suggest it tongue in cheek and it's not likely to happen.

 

But given we're running out of other options, it's preferable to some of the alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 6 nations is 2 games one spring, and 3 the next. It would be possible to ensure we play away when England have a fixture. Then there are the autumn internationals - three in November. Again, you could ensure we are away or playing midweek to avoid clashes.

 

I reckon Twickenham would be a great choice for a temporary home while SB is redeveloped. Better than Craven Cottage or Loftus Rdm at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 6 nations is 2 games one spring, and 3 the next. It would be possible to ensure we play away when England have a fixture. Then there are the autumn internationals - three in November. Again, you could ensure we are away or playing midweek to avoid clashes.

 

I reckon Twickenham would be a great choice for a temporary home while SB is redeveloped. Better than Craven Cottage or Loftus Rdm at least.

 

Can you imagine the hassle involved of contentiously having having to respray and remove the the playing area lines for rugby and football? Also rugby often has large painted advertisements on the playing surface which would need to be removed. 

 

I don't think you could be sure of a decent playing surface either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Can you imagine the hassle involved of contentiously having having to respray and remove the the playing area lines for rugby and football? Also rugby often has large painted advertisements on the playing surface which would need to be removed. 

 

I don't think you could be sure of a decent playing surface either. 

 

I don't think sharing with a rugby team would be a major problem. Other teams, like Wigan and Reading, share their stadiums with rugby teams and they get around it. They even have rugby at Old Trafford from time to time. England never have more than six home games in a calendar year anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont Wigan have regular rugby on their ground?

 

Yeah and look where that's got them.

 

I don't think sharing with a rugby team would be a major problem. Other teams, like Wigan and Reading, share their stadiums with rugby teams and they get around it. They even have rugby at Old Trafford from time to time. England never have more than six home games in a calendar year anyway.

 

To be honest, if nothing else I don't think the RFU need the income that a ground share would bring and they pride Twickenham on being the home of Rugby so I don't think they or fans would welcome a football team playing there. 

 

A ground share at the Olympic stadium is more likely because the ground holders recently said they wouldn't rule out West Ham having to share with Leyton Orient because it's about maximising revenues to get back the costs of the stadium build and conversion to a football stadium. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah and look where that's got them.<br /><br /><br />To be honest, if nothing else I don't think the RFU need the income that a ground share would bring and they pride Twickenham on being the home of Rugby so I don't think they or fans would welcome a football team playing there. <br /><br />A ground share at the Olympic stadium is more likely because the ground holders recently said they wouldn't rule out West Ham having to share with Leyton Orient because it's about maximising revenues to get back the costs of the stadium build and conversion to a football stadium.

haha I wouldnt think that having a rugby team play there has been at a major detriment to their success, their lack of resources and fans however is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha I wouldnt think that having a rugby team play there has been at a major detriment to their success, their lack of resources and fans however is.

 

Exactly, their ground share is almost through necessity.

 

They make do with the inconveniences a mixed sport ground share brings but I honestly don't see a team like Chelsea being willing to sign up for the same sort of thing and same goes for the RFU. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Yeah and look where that's got them.

 

 

To be honest, if nothing else I don't think the RFU need the income that a ground share would bring and they pride Twickenham on being the home of Rugby so I don't think they or fans would welcome a football team playing there. 

 

A ground share at the Olympic stadium is more likely because the ground holders recently said they wouldn't rule out West Ham having to share with Leyton Orient because it's about maximising revenues to get back the costs of the stadium build and conversion to a football stadium. 

 

Well like I said I don't see it happening. The RFU probably wouldn't be interested. Just thought it preferable to some of the other options being put forward. Twickenham is more appealing than groundsharing with West Ham in East London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a bugger to get from West to East London.  Wouldn't like that at all. 

 

(Though I'm out of area so whether I go to East or West is largely immaterial in actual travelling I guess but it would just feel so wrong.  And I used to live in East London too, so have nothing against it generally, just wouldn't want Chelsea to move there. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites


No, we failed in our bid and the site has gone to a Malaysian consortium who will be building office spaces and apartments on the site. 

 

Well it's still slightly possible, if unlikely.  That site has been desolate for around 30 years now, changing hands constantly and everyone so far has failed to develop the land.  It's possible that the Malaysians will be no different, and their project is joint with another company which means relations could break down.  I'm not sure what the time limit is though, they could have it for 10 years before they're forced to sell if they don't do anything with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's still slightly possible, if unlikely. That site has been desolate for around 30 years now, changing hands constantly and everyone so far has failed to develop the land. It's possible that the Malaysians will be no different, and their project is joint with another company which means relations could break down. I'm not sure what the time limit is though, they could have it for 10 years before they're forced to sell if they don't do anything with it.

I'd like to think we would have a solution within the next ten years!

As far as I am aware I believe the consortium has now recieved the sign off for their winning bid.

I'll have a little dig around when I get home this evening to see if I can find any info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RFC_CFC

Will hate to leave the bridge but its a must if it can't be expanded significantly.

Not many options by the sounds of it and the best one looks like a long shot hoping the buyers fail to do anything with their plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


No idea at all and I'd be more than happy with twickers as a short term measure, I just don't see it happening. They might even take a lot longer with it and not kick us out while building works take place. I don't know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chances of Battersea are as good as zero unless Setia runs into serious unforeseen difficulty with it, which seems unlikely given the unprecedented financial and political backing this project has. There is (/was) a standing offer on the table from us to take the power station off Setia's hands and also contribute financially to the tube station but they seem to have to have turned their noses up at this, and Phase One of the redevelopment which includes the work on the power station itself has already started.

 

Nothing will happen regarding our stadium until the local elections in May, SB redevelopment or otherwise, what's the point in talking to a council that may shortly (hopefully) change anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RFC_CFC

Can we really do much with the bridge though expansion wise?

I was under the impression it would cost a small fortune and it wouldn't really give us the extra seating we would really be looking for

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Well, this is awkward!

awkward the office GIF

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

emma watson yes GIF

Alright already, It's off!