^^ Looks like a nice place to visit actually. Not the stereotypical diarrhea inducing stadium I would expect for a turkish team


The stadiums you are thinking about are probably Galatasaray or Besiktas and yes they do have a habit of inducing diarrhea :cheers:

The stadiums you are thinking about are probably Galatasaray or Besiktas and yes they do have a habit of inducing diarrhea :cheers:

But they both have a far, far better atmosphere, especially Galatasaray.

thats the fans, not the stadium.

that stadium is really cool, never seen it before.

Milwaukees Miller Park has an interesting roof shape. Its like a big folding fan or a green shell. From afar, it can look like a giant spider.

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/9472/zz114hp.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/5424/milwaukeemiller18jk.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/4756/259jy.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Celtic vs Rangers

Ground capacity 60,830 vs 50,411

Average attendance 2005/06: 58,149 vs 49,214

Record attendance: 146,433 (European club record) vs 118,567

Final SPL position 2005/06 season: 1st vs 3rd (yes 3rd in a two horse race!)

European coefficient 2006: 23rd (60.023) vs 48th (43.023)

Turnover (2005): £62.17m vs £55.1m

Annual Financial Reports 2005: http://www.celticfc.net/corporate/reports/2005_Report.pdf vs http://www.rangers.premiumtv.co.uk/staticFiles/ea/c/0,,5~3306,00.pdf

Here is the SPL records page, makes interesting reading http://www.scotprem.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Records/0,,10002,00.html

I think the stats speak for themselves... although it's also worth mentioning that the Celtic supporting fanny is of much higher quality than the fat horrible munters who support Rangers....

I wonder why Galatasaray has lost the last 7 games in Sukru Saracoglu including scores like 6-0 and 4-0 if they have better atmospheres. I tell you why: because their players legs start shaking when they come out on the field. If you want to learn more about Fener go to www.antu.com become a member go to the english language forum and ask for some videos and think again or wait untill your team has to come to Sukru Saracoglu one day. I have to sleep now.

One more thing. Ask any Besiktas, Galatasaray, or Trabzonspor (the three biggest clubs after Fener) fan which game is their biggest game of the season, and who their biggest rival is they will ALL say Fenerbahce I think that says enough.

"much higher quality"

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4918/x422c07ak.jpg

:runaway:

Message to all those from outside Europe - avoid England games if you don't want a broken nose!! As soon as an England fan hears your accent he will attack you like a wild animal!!
You are really pathetic mate! Cretins like you shouldn't be allowed access to the internet, you're embarassing yourself more then anyone else :ohno:

Celtic vs Rangers

Ground capacity 60,830 vs 50,411

Average attendance 2005/06: 58,149 vs 49,214

Record attendance: 146,433 (European club record) vs 118,567

Final SPL position 2005/06 season: 1st vs 3rd (yes 3rd in a two horse race!)

European coefficient 2006: 23rd (60.023) vs 48th (43.023)

Turnover (2005): £62.17m vs £55.1m

Annual Financial Reports 2005: http://www.celticfc.net/corporate/reports/2005_Report.pdf vs http://www.rangers.premiumtv.co.uk/staticFiles/ea/c/0,,5~3306,00.pdf

Here is the SPL records page, makes interesting reading http://www.scotprem.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Records/0,,10002,00.html

I think the stats speak for themselves... although it's also worth mentioning that the Celtic supporting fanny is of much higher quality than the fat horrible munters who support Rangers....



146433 is NOT celtics record attendance. That was for a Scottish Cup final against Aberdeen at neutral Hampden. So it is as much Aberdeens record attendance as it is celtics. This is a HAMPDEN record, it is not a celtic record. Are you trying to say Aberdeens record attendance is 146433?

Celtics record home attendance is 92000.


Rangers for the last few years have been in debt thus restricting their finances. They now have the debt down to £10 million, whereas celtics debt is now £30 million. Rangers now have one of the best managers in Europe, and he will have £20 million to spend in the summer. Celtic have Gordon Strachan.

Rangers are the only Scottish club to ever have made the last 16 of the Champions League.

The futures bright, the futures Orange!

^^ Last 8 season 1992-93.

It was the last 4 in reality due to the format of the tournament -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League_1992-93

"much higher quality"

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4918/x422c07ak.jpg

:runaway:


Fuck Sake....what a MUNTER!

It was the last 4 in reality due to the format of the tournament -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League_1992-93
In reality it should have been last 2 since Marseille later got stripped of the cup for bribery.
Rumour has it AC Milan tried to get Marseille's name replaced with Rangers/ AC Milan.

You have been warned folks. Beware the England fan!

In reality it should have been last 2 since Marseille later got stripped of the cup for bribery.
Rumour has it AC Milan tried to get Marseille's name replaced with Rangers/ AC Milan.


As I recall didn't Milan want to replay the final against Rangers?

Unfortunately they were not stripped of the Champions League title, and remain the only French club to have won it. They were stripped of their French League title.

I thought they were, or at least is is a debated issue within UEFA? Either way: that should've been our year.

No, it was debated and it was left the way it was (too much hassle to arrange another final 6 months later)

Gotta go with Miller Park too. Absolutely beautiful.

The roof on the Main stand at Ibrox is pretty impressive. It blends modern steal with a traditional facade, the result being a fine blend between old and new.

http://www.glasgowguide.org/ez/ibrox/1ibrox_rangers1-01-02.jpg http://www.rampantscotland.com/glasgow/graphics/ibrox2703g.jpg

Stunning.
Although it does impact the view of the spectators ever so slightly. Although the view of the pitch is excellent, the other sections of the stadium are cut off from view.
This sloping roof seems to be all the rage these days, with Arsenal FC incorporating a similarly sloping roof into their new stadium.

^
shocker :|

^
While shoddy workmanship or poor quality materials often get the blame for a poor quality roof, the die is cast when a reroofing project starts from a poor roof design. No level of installer’s skill or superior physical properties of the roofing material will change the result. The integrity of that roof is obviously compromised. I wouldn't want to watch anything from those stands. No architectual value whatsoever. Must be a scottish field

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/686/44449im.jpg

^
While shoddy workmanship or poor quality materials often get the blame for a poor quality roof, the die is cast when a reroofing project starts from a poor roof design. No level of installer’s skill or superior physical properties of the roofing material will change the result. The integrity of that roof is obviously compromised. I wouldn't want to watch anything from those stands. No architectual value whatsoever. Must be a scottish field
Now you are allowing your hatred for civilisation to cloud your judgement.
Bigot. Back to your trailer.

He is a BEAST!!

IMPAC Arena and Convention Centre, Muang Thong Thani, Nonthaburi, Thailand

http://www.iyarra.com/sport.1.jpg

http://www.impact.co.th/images/a14.gif http://www.impact.co.th/images/a15.gif
http://www.impact.co.th/images/a17.gif http://www.impact.co.th/images/a18.gif
http://uni-president.123thaihosting.com/news/images/tennis.jpg http://202.57.163.51/tatfestival/upload/contents/photo/414-1686.jpg


Capacity : 12,000 seat
Open : Bangkok Asian Games 1998

IMPACT Arena is an incomparable venue that will win you rounds of applause for your event: be it a concert, conference or a sports tournament.

The multi-purpose hall features a 24-meter high ceiling, special lighting panels, sophisticated audio-visual systems, a soundproof wall, and close-circuit surveillance cameras. The 12,000-seat hall is an excellent venue to host large-scale conferences or opening ceremonies, which require grand and spectacular theme performances.

There are 25 private suites including a Royal Box that can be reserved for sponsored or VIP functions. These exclusive boxes provide privacy for organizers and their clients. Each suite has 18-36 seats, a private lounge area with restrooms and individually controlled air-conditioning and lighting units.

The Arena also offers supporting facilities such as large ticketing booths - ideal for on-site ticket sales and merchandising by concert organizers, a food court and a vast drive-in loading entrance.

Major events held at the Arena have included Disney on Ice, David Copperfield, Elton John, Pavarotti, The Orient and Southeast Asian Lions (OSEAL), Asian Indoor Motorcycle Motocross, Amway and Giffarine Dealers Conferences, Miss Universe 2005, XV International AIDS Conference as well as various local and international sell-out concerts.

http://www.impact.co.th/download/2005/icf03-1.jpg
http://www.impact.co.th/download/2005/Arena-1-5.jpg

I thought they were, or at least is is a debated issue within UEFA? Either way: that should've been our year.

But happily you stinking bluenoses didn't and STILL only have one european cup to your name!

Go the dandies!!

^^ Don't you have a farm animal to molest?

Nah was brought up in Glasgow to be honest but chose not to support either of the OLD firm due to their unsavoury religious elements.

Glasgow is one of the most amazing cities in the world (I can say that sitting here in Sydney) but it is blighted by its two football teams!

No, it was blighted by your face!! Thankfully that curse has been lifted.

What do you think of Aberdeen fans singing songs mocking the Ibrox disaster and Davie Coopers death everytime they play Rangers? Personally I think that's far worse than someone shouting "**** the pope"

this one

No, it was blighted by your face!! Thankfully that curse has been lifted.



Good to see you have a well thought out and cohesive argument there!

I think it is disgraceful to sing about the Ibrox disaster and I wouldn’t say I support these idiots and I suppose you can argue that it is only the idiots in the old firm who attach the religious bullshit to their teams. One thing I will tell you though is that I support Rangers and Celtic when they are in European competition, bet you can’t say that?

WTF Does this have to do with Stadiums????

I don't support celtic in Europe because they are my bitter rivals. I doubt many Man City fans support Man United in Europe either!! It's nothing to do with religion, just city rivalry! People like you go looking for bigotry where it doesn't exist in the hope of being offended!

I do support all other Scottish teams in Europe, even Aberdeen when the last got into Europe in 1763!

WTF Does this have to do with Stadiums????

Shut up you fucking pervert

FC København were fromed by a merger of two teams, so you are a new club. Leagues won by the previous different TWO clubs are not your trophies. It is ridiculous to claim leagues won by two totally different teams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_K%C3%B8benhavn

In my country (UK), most people would reply 'Brondby' if they were asked who they thought were the biggest team in Denmark. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is!!

Brøndby was the first merger in Denmark, that's why it's called BrøndbyERNES (the "erners" part showing its plural - a merger between twop organisations) Idrætsklub, this merger took place in 1964. So its by no means an old and historic club. While FCK has plenty of history, as FCK isn't a club on its own, but is in the same organisation as KB - with KB being a sort of B team for FCK.

I like how a Brit seemingly thinks it right that he can dictate to a Dane - who most likely follow the two clubs closely, which one is bigger.

With that being said, I don't think it's really possible to say which of the two is bigger.

Brøndby has had their day in my book, and financially, I see FCK moving further and further away from Brøndby. And that also means that on the pitch we'll most likely find the two clubs further and further apart as well.

Both clubs are new clubs so to speak. Brøndby is from the 60's, while FCK in its top-flight form is from 1992 (but has roots in continentak Europe's oldest club, KB - Kjøbenhavns Boldklub), and I'll grant that "historically", Brøndby is the bigger club, if we take only the FCK part of the organisation that also involves KB.

But I would argue, not only because I'm a fan, if we were to point at which club were bigger now, FCK would be in the drivers seat.

The entire feel around FCK is just bigger these days, FCK is a far greater and more succesful organisation than Brøndby now- with their expansion into handball and possibly soon icehockey etc., FCK has more fans today (sure, some might be glory hunters) and I'm pretty certain, that the small gap that exists today, will only increse in the future.

this thread should be on the sports bar

Brøndby was the first merger in Denmark, that's why it's called BrøndbyERNES (the "erners" part showing its plural - a merger between twop organisations) Idrætsklub.

I like how an Brit seemingly thinks it right that he can dictate to a Dane - who most likely follow the two clubs closely, which one is bigger.

With that being said, I don't think it's really possible to say which of the two is bigger.

Brøndby has had their day in my book, and financially, I see FCK moving further and further away from Brøndby. And that also means that on the pitch we'll most likely find the two clubs further and further apart as well.

Both clubs are new clubs so to speak. Brøndby is from the 60's, while FCK in its top-flight form is from 1992 (but has roots in continentak Europe's oldest club, KB - Kjøbenhavns Boldklub), and I'll grant that "historically", Brøndby is the bigger club, if we take only the FCK part of the organisation that also involves KB.

But I would argue, not only because I'm a fan, if we were to point at which club were bigger now, FCK would be in the drivers seat.

The entire feel around FCK is just bigger these days, FCK is a far greater and more succesful organisation than Brøndby now, has more fans today (sur, some might be glory hunters) and I'll give you my word, that the small gap that exists today, will only increse in the future.

Listen mate, I think I know a bit more about Danish football than you do. Brondby have done more in Europe and have won far more leagues than FCK. That's the bottom line. Maybe FCK are now on the way to becoming the bigger club, so I will return in 7 years time and I will let you know which is the bigger club. I think that is pretty fair!

this thread should be on the sports bar

Afrer that pic you posted of the old gay guys, I don't think you should be telling anybody what to do!!

Listen mate, I think I know a bit more about Danish football than you do. Brondby have done more in Europe and have won far more leagues than FCK. That's the bottom line. Maybe FCK are now on the way to becoming the bigger club, so I will retrurn in 7 years time and I will let you know which is the bigger club. I think that is pretty fair!

And why would you know more about Danish football than I do?

Yes, Brøndby has won more leagues and done great in Europe, but that doesn't change the fact that that's all in the past.

I thank you though, for your inside knowledge on Danish football, and the fact that you're willing to share your expertise on the subject with us ignorant natives.

wait a minute, calm down!! I didn't say they done 'great' in Europe. Don't get carried away now!

It's no probs sharing my expertise, happy to help the natives.

Carlton is the biggest club from Australia! Go Bluebaggers.

I do support all other Scottish teams in Europe, even Aberdeen when the last got into Europe in 1763!

Nah don’t go looking for it at all, if I did I would go to an old firm game

Yeah was quite a time ago since we got into Europe, but then again was even longer ago since you lot won anything in Europe!

going to be good

real good

In Germany, Dortmund is way bigger then Munich. In fact, Dortmund has the best spectator average of Europe. Not just Germany, it's the best visited club of Europe.

Thats because they tolerate standing room in westfalenstadion.... If you put it all seated it's capcity is 67,000.

hehe, Stabæk is a Norwegian football-club alright;)

Their new stadium will actually be located a few kilometers from Stabæk itself though, at Fornebu. Fornebu used to be the main airport in Oslo, but is now beeing converted into Stadium, apartments and office-park for IT-companies. Fornebu is located 6-8 km west of Oslo downtown, in the municipality of Bærum. The new stadium was aproved last week, and will be finished in September next year. The capacity will be 15.000 for football-matches, and 25.000 for concerts.

Btw, a monorail will also be built to Fornebu.

Here is how Fornebu look now, and a render of where the stadium will be located.
http://www.stabak.no/images/stories/2005/artikler-november/fornebuarena/fra-lufta.jpg

http://www.stabak.no/images/stories/2005/artikler-november/fornebuarena/ute5.jpg

http://www.stabak.no/images/stories/2005/artikler-november/fornebuarena/ute4.jpg

http://www.stabak.no/images/stories/2005/artikler-november/fornebuarena/ute3.jpg

http://www.stabak.no/images/stories/2005/artikler-november/fornebuarena/konsert.jpg

http://www.stabak.no/images/stories/2005/artikler-november/fornebuarena/inne.jpg

Btw, there are alot of new stadiums beeing built in Norway at the moment, I should make a thread about them:)

The roof on Milwaukees Miller Park is breathtaking, an example of fantastic engineering.

I like Calatravas roof on OAKA
http://www.bayer.co.jp/bgj/newsfile/athens_makrolon.jpg
http://www.k3.dion.ne.jp/~mtasaki/AthensOlympics/stud01.jpg

thanks for the informative post

Besiktas got that many because they are all ex pats living in germany. Not turkish that flew to germany. Get your facts right mr know it all.

If I was an expat Englishman living in Germany I would only see one English team, not any team. I would give the same credit to a Turkish person living in Germany. I doubt if the stadium was full of Trabzonspor, or Genclerbirligi, or Konyaspor, or even Fener and Cim Bom.

Biggest club of a country is the one who has won most times the Europe Cup I or theChampions Leageu±
Spain:Real Madrid (9)
Italy: AC Milan (6)
England: Liverpool FC (5)
Netherlands: Ajax (4)
Germany : Bayern München (4)
Portugal: Benfica (2) or FC Porto (2)
Servia & Montenegro: Crvena Zvezda
Roemenia: Steaua Bucuresti (1)
Scotland: Celtic (1)

I only that was true. Most successful yes, but biggest no. People support a team for more reasons than success.

TURKEY:

Besiktas JK:
League: 10x
Cup: 6x

Fenerbahçe SK:
League: 16x
Cup: 4x (last 1983 :D)

Galatasaray SK:
League: 15x
Cup: 14x
Europe: 1x UEFA cup 1x Supercup

BTW
according to the TFF poll, GS has got 34% fans, and FB 32% ;)

i count only the titles ets


England: (still) Liverpool
Spain: Real
Germany: bayern
Greece: Olympiakos
Italy: Juve
Scotland: Rangers

http://www.ksta.de/ks/images/mdsBild/1115824145318l.jpg

The Olympic Stadium i Munich and the new Alianz Arena are some of the best in my opinion...

KORONA KIELCE vs LEGIA WARSZAWA ( 2-2 ) full stadium
http://tomcio.roxtet.com/korona/galeria/obrazy/233023tn_IMG_7066.jpg
http://tomcio.roxtet.com/korona/galeria/obrazy/233357tn_IMG_7104.jpg
http://tomcio.roxtet.com/korona/galeria/obrazy/233534tn_IMG_7138.jpg
http://tomcio.roxtet.com/korona/galeria/obrazy/233754tn_IMG_7182.jpg
http://tomcio.roxtet.com/korona/galeria/obrazy/234152tn_IMG_7273.jpg

very nice, looks bigger than 15000 seater.


think the reason looks bigger than it is may have something to do with the high roof,and the fantastic amount of legroom you get between the seats

http://www.insight-publications.com/images/portglstadium.jpg

i count only the titles ets


England: (still) Liverpool
Spain: Real
Germany: bayern
Greece: Olympiakos
Italy: Juve
Scotland: Rangers

Well, apart from Liverpool, that's pretty much a correct list for the biggest clubs of those countries.

Wales: TNS

Well, apart from Liverpool, that's pretty much a correct list for the biggest clubs of those countries.
yeah
just saw it
ManU has got more titles


ManU:
League: 15x
Cup: 11x
CL: 2x
Cup Winners Cup: 1x
Supercup: 1x
Worldcup: 1x
TOTAL: 26

Liverpool:
League: 18x
Cup: 6x
CL: 5x
UEFA:3
Supercup: 3x
TOTAL: 24
but if count european cups 2x or 1,5x than i think Liverpool is better

We're in a time where it is happening a lot in the world of stadiums. In some situations decisions are taken to renovate an old stadium, in other situations decisions are taken to build a new stadium.

Which are the pros and cons of renovation an old stadium or building a new one do you think?

Whcih team is that?I have never seen it before. :weirdo:
Legia Warsaw

Legia Warsaw

Never heard of them. What sport do they play?

Never heard of them. What sport do they play?

polish football team

New Construction -

Pros: Up to date facilities.
Cons: Loss of History

Renovation -

Pros: History kept
Cons: Facilities may still be out of date, and compromises may be made...if it's just adding seats, rather than an upgrade of facilities.



I know i'd sooner have New Anfield though than a redeveloped one.

ok.from poland i know polonia warsaw and wisla.Those teams are very popular in greece.But i have never heard of that legia.Is it a division?

One thing is for sure, PSV is the biggest (at this moment) in the Netherlands.

TURKEY:

Besiktas JK:
League: 10x
Cup: 6x

Fenerbahçe SK:
League: 16x
Cup: 4x (last 1983 :D)

Galatasaray SK:
League: 15x
Cup: 14x
Europe: 1x UEFA cup 1x Supercup

BTW
according to the TFF poll, GS has got 34% fans, and FB 32% ;)


Sercan saying that Galatasaray has more fans than Fener is nothing but a joke. If you have sooooooo many fans why is your little 20 000 stadium always half empty? Why is your club on the verge of bankruptcy? Why can't you sell a fraction of the merchandise that Fener does? Why can't you sell a fraction of the season tickets or jerseys Fener does? Why can't you put together enough money to build a stadium for the past 5 years and counting if so many people are REAL SUPPORTERS. That poll is not FANS it is sympathizers! People who rarely watch football but have a team that they tell people when theyre asked what team they support. They dont watch the games on TV, dont buy merchandise, jerseys, or go to games. They never watched football before GS won the UEFA cup and now when people ask they say I support Galatasaray. The real number of FANS is obvious by the season tickets, merchandise sales, jersey sales, club CARD sales, and the pathetic amount of money Galatasaray was able to draw in with their begging campaign a month ago when none of these so called fans put a cent in the club to save it from bankruptcy.

How big a club is has nothing to do with amount of Cups won! All real football fans that now what the sport is about will agree on that! How big a club is is measured by the amount of people that are FANS of the club, who dedicate their lives to it, who spend their limited salary on their team, who follow it anywhere it goes, who support it ALWAYS AND FULLY NO MATTER WHAT!! NOT JUST WHEN THEY WIN A TROPHY.

Galatasaray is a more famous club Sercan but surely even you know it's a lie if you say that Fenerbahce is not the Biggest club in Turkey. Yes, yes, I know you do. Don't be sad it's the way it has always been and always will be. You should support your club no matter what and for what it is! Not try to spread false info and say that it is something it is not.

yeah
just saw it
ManU has got more titles


ManU:
League: 15x
Cup: 11x
CL: 2x
Cup Winners Cup: 1x
Supercup: 1x
Worldcup: 1x
TOTAL: 26

Liverpool:
League: 18x
Cup: 6x
CL: 5x
UEFA:3
Supercup: 3x
TOTAL: 24
but if count european cups 2x or 1,5x than i think Liverpool is better

I think that regardless of the number of cups we or Liverpool have won, we are the bigger team, we're richer (despite the Glazer debt), we've got more fans (all over the world, which is basically what makes it a bigger club), the stadium is bigger and we're more famous (I know it's debatable) but because of our immense sucess in the 90's (sure Liverpool had the 70's and 80's) we gained much more fans and became the richest and arguably the biggest club in the world

Galatasaray definitely have the most fans in Turkey.

lol
since 1997 there were around 20 polls
and in 18 of them GS had the most fans

the Ali Sami Yen Stadium is old and not modern
look at your average attendance in your old stadium

At GS the chief or other people don't invest their own money in the club (like Abrahamovic)

Merchandising?
Altough you are champion for the last 2 years, you have earned onyl 2 mil more than GS

according to FB chief Aziz Yildirim you sold this year 214.000 jerseys
GS sold only 134.000 of the centenary jersey

look at your own Film
only 14.500 watched it in 10 weeks in 52 cinemas

while 64.000 watched the GS movie in onyl 4 weeks in ~20 cinemas

turkeys biggest stadium is the Atatürk Olimpiyat
last year you played a friendly vs Everton
there were 25,000 in the stadium

GS played in 2002 a friendly vs Olympiakos in the Ataürk Olimpiyat
79,414 inside
and
12,000 outside the stadium

FB don't own land in Istanbul
the value of all GS ground/land is 800 mil $-US

and the GS magazine is 2nd in the most selling list in Turkey
no1 is National Geographics Turkey

For or against national stadia?

What do you have in mind? A stadion for football national team? Of course yes.

The money spent on most national stadia are better spent on indoor pitches around a country as most national stadia are white elephants and indoor pitches should help improve the health of nation and give people more things to do rather than hang around causing trouble for society.

The most sucessful sporting nation to date the USA (based on the number of Olympic medals won) does not have a national stadium.

Well said, Sercan. :okay:

It also has sports in which there are not too many internationals to be played, or if there are, they do not get the interest from American Viewers that the superbowl, world series etc, get.

In sporting terms America though extraordinarily successful, is a bit of an anomaly.

and the GS magazine is 2nd in the most selling list in Turkey
no1 is National Geographics Turkey
That could just mean that Galatasaray fans can read, and fans of the other teams can't.

Can people just be objective about it and not just nominate the team they support? We're all adults (well most of us are) and I'm sure it won't break your hearts if you acknowledge that maybe the team you support isn't the biggest from its country. It doesn't mean we love our teams any less. I mean, I'm a Liverpool supporter but I can hold my hands up and admit we're nowhere near as big a club as Manchester United.

See, I'm still here, living and breathing. Still a fan. Try it sometime.

That could just mean that Galatasaray fans can read, and fans of the other teams can't.
lol
believe me
even FB fans can read
Turkey isn't a 3rd world country ;)

BTW
what about FB water :D
they showed it 2 years ago
and said it will bring them a lot of money
but i never saw it like the FB beer :D

Can people just be objective about it and not just nominate the team they support? We're all adults (well most of us are) and I'm sure it won't break your hearts if you acknowledge that maybe the team you support isn't the biggest from its country. It doesn't mean we love our teams any less. I mean, I'm a Liverpool supporter but I can hold my hands up and admit we're nowhere near as big a club as Manchester United.

See, I'm still here, living and breathing. Still a fan. Try it sometime.
but Liverpool has got also a lot of titles ;)

Turkey isn't a 3rd world country

:weird:

but Liverpool has got also a lot of titles ;)

So's Prince Charles, what's your point?

why prince? and read th post of Socrates ;)


Slipper, you said we're nowhere near as big a club as Manchester United
IMO you (FC liverpool) are no2 in England

why prince? and read th post of Socrates ;)


Slipper, you said we're nowhere near as big a club as Manchester United
IMO you (FC liverpool) are no2 in England

Please, he's the future king of my country, and if you disrespect him you disrespect me. DON'T YOU EVER DARE DO THAT AGAIN!!!!

Apologise to me and my nation or I'm going to get a Moderator.

any problems :D

Please, he's the future king of my country, and if you disrespect him you disrespect me. DON'T YOU EVER DARE DO THAT AGAIN!!!!

Apologise to me and my nation or I'm going to get a Moderator.
http://static.flickr.com/9/15408264_7c5d6cfc41.jpg

Slipper = Welly.

Having a national stadium is important and makes people in that country feel proud. I know Wembley is taking ages but when I take my children there in the future I and them will feel very proud.

eddyk = Inspector Clouseau.

The money spent on most national stadia are better spent on indoor pitches around a country as most national stadia are white elephants and indoor pitches should help improve the health of nation and give people more things to do rather than hang around causing trouble for society.

The most sucessful sporting nation to date the USA (based on the number of Olympic medals won) does not have a national stadium.

USA are successful not because of what your saying but because of the fact, they are a bloody massive country, filthy rich, alot of resources, a big population et etc etc

For the U.S. it certainly hasn't needed one. I would be hard pressed as to what one would call our natioanl stadium if you had to. I would guess....

1) Rose Bowl - LA (Huge, old, held important events, storied history, 2nd largest city)
2) Giants stadium - NYC (big, though not huge stadium in first market, 2 NLF teams)
3) Fed Ex Field - U.S. largest pro stadium and in nations capitol.
4) LA Coliseum - (Huge, old, held two Olympics, again 2nd larget city and events played in great weather)


But yea, the U.S. doesn't really have or need a National stadium.

How national would a national stadium be in a country the size of a continent anyway? Less than 1% of the US population would probably ever be within a 500 mile radius of the stadium, so its existance would be absolutely meaningless to your average cowboy or redneck. And thats not even taking into account what sport(s) any such stadium would or would not be used for.

As for other, smaller nations: if the stadium will be put to use often enough I would be in favour, eg the Millenium Stadium is a great thing for Wales imo.
It just irks me that our national stadium in Scotland (Hampden) is not quite the home of football it should be.

^^ wot do you mean bout hampden, socrates?

I'd bet that match for match we do very well, and its not just all about the total size.

As for national stadiums, I'd like one. Perhaps with a track and automatic stands that can cover it during soccer. The only problem is I think of a national stadium as THE stadium in a country. How long would that last in the U.S.? a few months? Before construction? I think a good candidate could be a renovated Cotton Bowl. Heck, slap a roof on it.

^^ wot do you mean bout hampden, socrates?
That Hampden is (or more WAS) world reknowned as a great stadium. Massive crowd, great atmosphere etc, something to be proud of.

Hamden Roar anyone?

Now it is a dump. It is a shadow of its former self, not even comparable with the Millenium Stadium, never mind Wembley. But it should be up among the best stadiums in the world, it should be as good as, if not better than Wembley. But in reality its a Scottish version of COMS, except with poorer spectator views.

The last thing Glasgow needed was a football stadium with a capacity circa 50,000. It should have been redeveloped to hold 80,000 - or not at all.

That Hampden is (or more WAS) world reknowned as a great stadium. Massive crowd, great atmosphere etc, something to be proud of.

Hamden Roar anyone?

Now it is a dump. It is a shadow of its former self, not even comparable with the Millenium Stadium, never mind Wembley. But it should be up among the best stadiums in the world, it should be as good as, if not better than Wembley. But in reality its a Scottish version of COMS, except with poorer spectator views.

The last thing Glasgow needed was a football stadium with a capacity circa 50,000. It should have been redeveloped to hold 80,000 - or not at all.

i agree somewhat, hampden has lost that edge that it used to have, i am just so surprised by their last redevelopment, if it was to do with the lack of funds then the sfa should have saved up, it is hampden afterall. only the main stand looks worthy of the name.

and no offence but the CityOfManc stadium looks better IMO

That's ridiculous. These days Premiership games are strictly policed and perfectly safe and it is well-known for being the best league in the World. Best atmosphere is at either Old Trafford or Anfield or perhaps St. James' Park. Might be easier for you to go to a London game though if you aren't travelling around the whole country. Arsenal have a new 60,000 capacity stadium and Chelsea despite having a duller playing style are considered by many to be the best or second best team in Europe.

If you can't get to a game in England, Italy and Spain also have great leagues.

Also it is usually far more expensive to build a brand new stadium. It's usually the case that clubs only move to a new site if there isn't the space for expansion at their existing site.

Switzerland: FC Basel 1893

http://www.maerchenmond.ch/images/fcblogo1p_150.gif

Also it is usually far more expensive to build a brand new stadium. It's usually the case that clubs only move to a new site if there isn't the space for expansion at their existing site.

Well, is this really the case that it is cheaper to renovate? I am not that sure.

For the U.S. it certainly hasn't needed one. I would be hard pressed as to what one would call our natioanl stadium if you had to. I would guess....

1) Rose Bowl - LA (Huge, old, held important events, storied history, 2nd largest city)
2) Giants stadium - NYC (big, though not huge stadium in first market, 2 NLF teams)
3) Fed Ex Field - U.S. largest pro stadium and in nations capitol.
4) LA Coliseum - (Huge, old, held two Olympics, again 2nd larget city and events played in great weather)


But yea, the U.S. doesn't really have or need a National stadium.


Actually, RFK in D.C. is considered our national stadium, albeit dubbed de facto.

Slipper = Welly.

Slipper = Flip-Flop.

That's ridiculous. These days Premiership games are strictly policed and perfectly safe and it is well-known for being the best league in the World. Best atmosphere is at either Old Trafford or Anfield or perhaps St. James' Park. Might be easier for you to go to a London game though if you aren't travelling around the whole country. Arsenal have a new 60,000 capacity stadium and Chelsea despite having a duller playing style are considered by many to be the best or second best team in Europe.

If you can't get to a game in England, Italy and Spain also have great leagues.
Only an Englishman could come out with a statement as phony as this one.
The premiership is well known (in England) for being the best league in the world. I seriously doubt anyone else thinks it is.

Look at the Renovation that took place at White Lane. Back in the Late 80's Spurs wasted £8m on this pathetic attemp to make the famous "shelf side" (East stand) a modern stand.

http://www.worldstadia.com/data/images/o/i/oiqf040519132345.jpg


This is the only pic I could find of the old shelf

http://www.gentlegianttrust.org/IMG/JC/JC3.jpg

The biggest club?

"The Pacha" in Ibiza! :runaway:

Look at the Renovation that took place at White hart Lane. Back in the Late 80's Spurs wasted £8m on this pathetic attemp to make the famous "shelf side" (East stand) a modern stand.

http://www.worldstadia.com/data/images/o/i/oiqf040519132345.jpg


This is the only pic I could find of the old shelf

http://www.gentlegianttrust.org/IMG/JC/JC3.jpg

Only an Englishman could come out with a statement as phony as this one.
The premiership is well known (in England) for being the best league in the world. I seriously doubt anyone else thinks it is.

Not the best league I agree, it has provided two European finalists this season, but so has Spain, It is the home of the European Cup holders but it has been five years since finals. Poor compared with Spain, Italy and Germany. However it is probably the World's most popular league.

Right, I can't hold back any longer............Socrates you are a twat!! and Iggynumtastic you are an even bigger twat!!

I would go as far as to say Ibrox is an ok stadium but it ain't great. There is soooooo much better out there in the big wide world. Open your eyes and see. People are bored of your pictures of it, people are bored of you slagging off Parkhead/Old Trafford/New Wembley and people are bored of you insulting them. Please leave this forum and go play on the 'Ranger's fans masturbate each other' website, I am sure there is one as you two do it verbally to each other every single day.

Right, I can't hold back any longer............Socrates you are a twat!! and Iggynumtastic you are an even bigger twat!!

I would go as far as to say Ibrox is an ok stadium but it ain't great. There is soooooo much better out there in the big wide world. Open your eyes and see. People are bored of your pictures of it, people are bored of you slagging off Parkhead/Old Trafford/New Wembley and people are bored of you insulting them. Please leave this forum and go play on the 'Ranger's fans masturbate each other' website, I am sure there is one as you two do it verbally to each other every single day.

After what your first post?

Ibrox is nice but it ain't great IMHO.

i've read a few of the topics before posting and it doesn't take long before you find one of them ejaculating over ibrox or slagging off England. People come to a specialist site like this to look discuss and look at stadium architecture, not listen to a few jocks mouthing off.

http://www.misterkitty.org/shaindle/dramaqueen.jpg

How old are you Socrates? 14? 15 tops. Did your mum let you go to school today in short trousers as it was nice and warm?

Hold on a second mate I think somebody has started a new thread MOST BEAUTIFUL STADIUM IN THE WORLD you better get on there quick and post another 15 pics of Ibrox.

Olympiakos are much bigger than Panathinaikos in terms of popularity in Greece and outside Greece. Olympiakos has more members, better facilities, and better organization than Panathinaikos. In terms of football we are always better than Panathinaikos, althought they are better in basketball(not for long though).

What exactly is so special about Ibrox's roof? :dunno:

The roof of Munich's Olympic Stadium is great.

http://www.stadtteile-muenchen.de/dasat/images/9/114259-olympiastadion-muenchen-hr000298.jpg

http://www.foto-reisen.info/fotos/Deutschland/Muenchen/1024x768/IMG_0314.jpg

http://designladen.com/muenchen/image/muenchen_olympiastadion-klein.jpg

er..................nothing. Just a 1970's design flopped on top of a pile of old bricks. Apparently that warrants it a mention.

ok.from poland i know polonia warsaw and wisla.Those teams are very popular in greece.But i have never heard of that legia.Is it a division?
I gotta know them. 7 times Polish Champ and they're going for the next one:) If you're from Greece, you could remember Panathinaikos vs Legia in '95 Champions League 1/4 final and the following year in the UEFA Cup.

My sympathy also belongs to Munich's Olympic Stadium

http://scifi.pages.at/sweetness_n_light/album4/oly2.JPG

And of course to new Beijing's Olympic Stadium with it's spectacularly unique design

http://www.bjghw.gov.cn/forNationalStadium/b11/xiaoguo/302.jpg

closed. off topic.

Renovation is just an delay of execution. De Kuip renovated just ten years ago and everybody calls it a dumpshell already.

When I think of National Stadium, I think of one that's athletics capable. Perhaps we are just talking about soccer?

When I think of National Stadium, I think of one that's athletics capable. Perhaps we are just talking about soccer?

yes. it was the official Natty's home after the Skins left, but before the Expos moved in from Montreal.

That Hampden is (or more WAS) world reknowned as a great stadium. Massive crowd, great atmosphere etc, something to be proud of.

Hamden Roar anyone?

Now it is a dump. It is a shadow of its former self, not even comparable with the Millenium Stadium, never mind Wembley. But it should be up among the best stadiums in the world, it should be as good as, if not better than Wembley. But in reality its a Scottish version of COMS, except with poorer spectator views.

The last thing Glasgow needed was a football stadium with a capacity circa 50,000. It should have been redeveloped to hold 80,000 - or not at all.

Wow, you've said something I actually agree with!

I remember it being re-opened, completely after years of piece-meal renovation. I couldn't believe the capacity was so low. Being English, Hampden has to me always been a byword for 'intimidating' and yet in its current state, it is nothing of the sort.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/tartanday/images/gallery/scotland/Hampden%20Park,%20Glasgow.jpg

Aside from its relatively puny capacity, it's not even as if it's particularly well-designed. Long, shallow (mostly) single-tier with one vomitory per aisle. Also a pointless pseudo running track configuration that separates the fans from the action - without even the benefit of an actual running track to mitigate it!

I think it is a shame it exists in its current form - a shadow of the ground that regularly housed crowds of over 130,000.

http://www.thesonsofscotland.co.uk/images/hampden%20park/Hampden%203.gif

Even worse is the paltry attendance it often attracts nowadays. I know Scotland still punches above its weight when it comes to sports attendance but some of the turnouts are tiny compared to even relatively recent times. Have tickets suddenly become hugely expensive at Hampden now or is Scotland's fan base much more fickle these days?

I'd love to see an 80,000+ Hampden filled and buzzing. It may not be the most welcoming place in theworld for an Englishman but there would at least be something reassuring about its old legacy being continued. Hampden today is a pale imitation of the old legendary place that once stood there.

Well you are wrong about attendances. For competitive games, Scotland had the 4th highest average in Europe for the 2006 qualifing rounds (just under 50000). They would of been higher if the stadium held more. The SFA got over 80000 ticket applications for the game against Belarus!! Scotland has a poor team at the moment, so of course the attendances for meaningless friendlies will be low!! If you were Scottish, would you pay and travel a far distance to watch a meaningless friendly featuring a very very poor Scotland team??? It wasn't that long ago that England would get 15-20000 at Wembley for some friendlies because their team wasn't that good.


For Cup finals, Hampden is ALWAYS sold-out. Hearts v Gretna has already had 65000 ticket applications. Finals featuring Rangers or Celtic v any other Scottish team would easily get 100000. The problem with Hampden is that it is far too small for Scottish football.

It all depends on the size of the country. In Europe it's fine, because generally it is fairly easy to access the main stadium from everywhere in the country within a couple hours. For large countries with populations that are really spread out, like in the US, Canada and Brasil, the idea of a single national stadium isn't that great, because it is very hard for people to get to the stadium.

Mexico has one.

http://docs.femexfut.org.mx/Imagenes/032705krauze1.jpg

Wembley ain't got nothing on this.

(j/k;))

Against.

But really that is in the context of Australia, where there is none, and should be no definitive 'national stadium'.

http://cd.textfiles.com/svruby/CDR16/SKYDOME.GIF

http://www.mike-stephenson.org/images/haha_skydome_roof_closing_1.jpg

http://www.mike-stephenson.org/images/haha_skydome_roof_closing_2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ef/Skydome-big.jpg/300px-Skydome-big.jpg

It all depends on the size of the country. In Europe it's fine, because generally it is fairly easy to access the main stadium from everywhere in the country within a couple hours. For large countries with populations that are really spread out, like in the US, Canada and Brasil, the idea of a single national stadium isn't that great, because it is very hard for people to get to the stadium.
I agree . . . I would also like to add that the majority of "National Stadia" occur in countries that have a single dominant city e.g. London, Paris, Moscow etc.

ps...A national stadium in Australia will never work, it may even start a civil war. :)

I think travelling from city to city is much better. Smaller German cities (like Rostock) have been able to stage national team games as well, because hardly anyone's interested in seeing Germany play Andorra.

Im for it completely!
it would provide neutral ground for example in holland between Ajax and Feyernoord. The Amsterdam Arena has nearly always been the preference except in the Euro 2000 final.

I think travelling from city to city is much better. Smaller German cities (like Rostock) have been able to stage national team games as well, because hardly anyone's interested in seeing Germany play Andorra.

Berlin is basically a German national stadium.

To a certain extent it is, but then again not too many national games are actually played in Berlin. To me a true national stadium is a place like Wembley or the Stade de France, ie stadiums exclusively used by national teams.

It's a shame England's national stadium is situated in a city with perhaps the least passionate fans in Europe. This can only harm the national team.

If a country has several good stadiums, there is no point whatsoever in having a national stadium. Take the team to the people, not the people to the team.

Berlin is basically a German national stadium.

Surely not.
try telling that to a Bavarian.


personally Im against national stadiums. It doesnt serve any purpose to have one.
National teams should travel through the country and shouldnt play all their home games in the same stadium year in year out.
its just boring.
and its not convenient for the fans aswell.

Im for it completely!
it would provide neutral ground for example in holland between Ajax and Feyernoord. The Amsterdam Arena has nearly always been the preference except in the Euro 2000 final.

Uhm, no. I'd say about 60% of the important games of our national team are being played in Rotterdam and 40% in Amsterdam. And rightly so, De Kuip might be old but it's a much better football stadium.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/middle_america/flags/vincen.gif

Stadiums in St. Vincent & Grenadines

Amos Vale Stadium,Kingston 18,000 seats


http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/middle_america/vincent_grenadines/kingstown_vale.jpg



Clive Tanis Stadium,Port Elizabeth 1,000 seats


Here we can post info about Stadiums at St.Vincent and Grenadines as well future projects.

Munich's roof looks like a bunch of tents some Arab Bedouin's threw up. Now the Athens Stadium roof looks like a ROOF. So eclectic. :)

This stadium is absolutely A-W-E-S-O-M-E!!!!!!!

What do you think of this beautiful country's stadiums?

It about 10 times better than anything Tel-Aviv has on offer

You don't like tents, Landos?
It's supposed to look like this:

http://www.*****************/pc/pc/display/2861349

http://carina.christoph-hoerl.de/files/spinnennetz.jpg

Montreal' olympic stadium has a spectacular roof, too. I like it very much.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/images/olympicstadium1_dome_1.jpg

Landos, instead of wasting our time with your comments, why don't you watch this movie for the umpteenth time? You might learn something about your ancestors.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00006FMUW.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Miller Park's great. I was in the stadium watching Brewers lose to Cubs on my visit to the States two years ago. Although sold out the stadium was practically half empty all the time cause half of the crowd was walking around or in line for the hot dogs etc. Is that normal for baseball games? I could understand as the match lasted 4 hours...

Berlin is basically a German national stadium.

It there is one German venue you could term national stadium it's Dortmund's Westfalenstadion (now Signal Iduna Park :bash: ).
That's the national team's favourite place to play as they hardly ever lose there.

It there is one German venue you could term national stadium it's Dortmund's Westfalenstadion (now Signal Iduna Park :bash: ).
That's the national team's favourite place to play as they hardly ever lose there.

They must not play there very often then.

yes, unless its the playoffs, big rivals or a penant chase, baseball is pretty leisurely. 162 regulars season games will do that to a person.

No, Berlin is the stadium I class as Germany's national stadium. It is the most famous, most classy, it is in the capital and it hosts cup finals.

It is the king sausage stadium!

They must not play there very often then.
Score! :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Well, at least they beat USA 4-1 in Dortmund a few weeks ago...
That is already something if you think of the condition the national team is in at the moment.

Yeah you are ot wrong.What does Tel-Aviv have?A crapy football stadium Bloomfield without any modern facilities.It is only known for the riots.And a crappy arena yad eliout built 50 years ago topless in which we just added a roof.

Fucking typical. A country full of suicide bombers and this prick goes unscathed.

Is "maccabi" Hebrew for "annyoing"?

Well you are wrong about attendances. For competitive games, Scotland had the 4th highest average in Europe for the 2006 qualifing rounds (just under 50000). They would of been higher if the stadium held more. The SFA got over 80000 ticket applications for the game against Belarus!! Scotland has a poor team at the moment, so of course the attendances for meaningless friendlies will be low!! If you were Scottish, would you pay and travel a far distance to watch a meaningless friendly featuring a very very poor Scotland team??? It wasn't that long ago that England would get 15-20000 at Wembley for some friendlies because their team wasn't that good.

For Cup finals, Hampden is ALWAYS sold-out. Hearts v Gretna has already had 65000 ticket applications. Finals featuring Rangers or Celtic v any other Scottish team would easily get 100000. The problem with Hampden is that it is far too small for Scottish football.

I did allude to the fact that Scotland is still better than most countries for fans perhead of population, and I did actually know about their average attendance rating (thanks to bubomb) for qualifiers but:

There have always been 'meaningless friendlies' at international level and I'm sorry but the turnouts against these teams (USA: 26,708, Switzerland: 20,952) would have been unthinkable only 15 years ago. I was careful to say 'more fickle', not 'fickle' per se. If you like, I'll change it to "Are Scotish fans less committed?" It amounts to the same thing. Of course, it could be a cost thing. I genuinely don't know - hence the question.

I am well aware of England's patchy history for attendance of friendlies (although this only seems to have been raised as a retort to my inferred criticism of Scotland, which is hardly relevant). I was at Wembley in 1995 for the England v Colombia game, which drew a record low crowd of about 15,500 and of course I'm glad we don't have that problem now. My point was that if anything, Scotland's heritage of huge attendances is greater than even England's. Therefore, it casts an even sadder light on their current plight. Let's not turn this into a 'My Country's Better Than Yours' cockfight.

I'm sure that Glasgow teams will always have the pull to sell out Hampden twice over (because it's too small which was my point), but how many were there for the semi final between Gretna and Dundee? 14,179. I know, it's one tiny club who are, what, 75 miles from Glasgow against one large-ish (for Scotland) club who are even further away. It's still a bit crap, though and does not reflect well on Scottish football in the context of the days of 130k+ crowds.

I hope the situation gets better, honestly, but it doesn't disguise the fact that Hampden's design is an admission that those days have long gone.

They must not play there very often then.

3 world cups, 3 european championships. Vat has your country to offer?

3 world cups, 3 european championships. Vat has your country to offer?

The most successful club sides in Europe. Germany aren't even top 3.

England's record v Germany

Played 9
Won 4
Drawn 2
Lost 3
Scored 20
Against 12

England's record v East Germany

Played 4
Won 3
Drawn 1
Lost 0
Scored 7
Against 3

England's record v West Germany

Played 16
Won 7
Drawn 3
Lost 6
Scored 24
Against 19

In anyone's language, we kick you leather-cladded arses big time, Sausage Face.

its simple: on all aesthetic, progressive and innovative terms, BOTH Munich stadiums win hands down.
and on an imposing level, I still think the San Siro is also pretty impressive

No but for sure in your language kampflamm is for anti-semitism

Very good arena.

This off-topic conversation ends right here. All I can say is that England's won the world cup only once and it hasn't even been to the final since then. Case closed.

hey maccabi, everyone thinks your threads are retarded and pointless! Thats all. No anti-semitism or anything like that ok.

No but for sure in your language kampflamm is for anti-semitism

A troll is a troll, regardless of his religious background.

At times, yes, national stadia are a waste of time, effort and even resources. But the trouble is that a lack of national stadia in several places would lead to places of either excess capacity for the club that plays there, or not enough capacity for national events. Think of Ireland, for example. Small football and rugby leagues, yet tickets are nigh impossible to find for international games. Most football and rugby clubs play to, at most, 6,000 - 12,000 at an average game. Either a non-national stadium against that would lead to not enough capacity, or a waste of money for large, seldom filled stadia.

Im for it completely!
it would provide neutral ground for example in holland between Ajax and Feyernoord. The Amsterdam Arena has nearly always been the preference except in the Euro 2000 final.


I am not a Feyenoord supporter, but everybody in Holland, outside Amsterdam, knows that 'de kuip' in Rotterdam is, or should be the stadium, were the Dutch team plays there big matches.

Some well-known national stadiums allegedlly according to Wikipedia are:

Argentina
El Monumental (football)
Australia
Melbourne Cricket Ground (Australian rules football, and athletics)
Telstra Stadium (rugby league, rugby union, and football)
The Australian cricket team plays at a range of grounds throughout the country. The Melbourne and Sydney cricket grounds are the major venues.
Belgium
King Baudouin Stadium (football and athletics)
Brazil
Maracanã (football)
Bulgaria
Vasil Levski National Stadium (football and athletics)
Canada
Commonwealth Stadium (football and athletics)
China
Beijing Olympic Stadium (football and athletics)
England
Lord's Cricket Ground (cricket)
Twickenham (rugby union)
Wembley Stadium (football, rugby league)
Finland
Helsinki Olympic Stadium (football and athletics)
France
Stade de France (football, rugby union, and athletics)
Germany
Olympiastadion (football and athletics)
India
Eden Gardens (cricket)
Salt Lake Stadium (football and athletics)
Ireland
Croke Park (Gaelic games)
Lansdowne Road (football and rugby union)
Israel
Ramat gan stadium (football and athletics)
Italy
Stadio Olimpico (football and athletics)
Japan
Nissan Stadium (football and athletics)
Tokyo Dome (baseball)
South Korea
Seoul Olympic Stadium (football and athletics)
Mexico
Estadio Azteca (football)
Netherlands
Olympisch Stadion (athletics)
New Zealand
Eden Park (rugby union and cricket)
Norway
Ullevaal stadion (football)
Bislett stadion (athletics)
Paraguay
Estadio Defensores del Chaco (football)
Peru
Estadio Monumental "U" (football)
Portugal
Estádio do Jamor (football and athletics)
Russia
Luzhniki Stadium (football and athletics)
Scotland
Hampden Park (football)
Murrayfield (rugby union)
South Africa
FNB Stadium (football)
Newlands Cricket Ground (cricket)
Newlands Stadium (rugby union)
Uruguay
Estadio Centenario (football)
Wales
Millennium Stadium (football and rugby union)

which is the best and why?

A lot of comparison is made between NFL Stadia and European Soccer Stadia. America does seem to produce huge football stadiams with ease, maybe its because their a wealthy country with a big population and a franchise system, but you would have thought that a wealthy continent, whose combined soccer leagues revenue surpasses the NFL and have a significantly bigger population, would prove their equal. They don't, here's the best equivalent to their NFL we could produce, and don't let the capacity fool you, it includes both national stadia which don't have any teams like Wembley and Stade de France, as well as Rugby Stadia without teams like Twickenham and Murrayfield. It also includes some falling apart Eastern European Stadiums which have no place in any top level games or leagues, like the Hungarian National Stadium. Even with all this, and abandoning getting a proper geographical spread, its only just possible to avoid using stadia below 50,000 for the 32 Teams in the League.


European Conference


Atlantic League

"London Overspenders" - Wembley (90,000)
"Surrey Assassins" - Twickenham (82,000)
"Cymru Dragons" - Millenium Stadium (72,500)
"Dublin Greens" - Croke Park (70,000)

Mediterranean League

"Barcelona Catalans" - Camp Nou (99,000)
"Madrid Conquistadors" - Bernabou (80,000)
"Turin Fire" - Stadio delle Alpi (76,000)
"Masilla Classical" - Stade Velodrome (60,000)

Northern League

"Paris Revolutionaries" - Stade de France (80,000)
"Berlin Bandits" - Olympic Stadium (76,000)
"Bavarian Patriots" - Allianz (66,000)
"Amsterdam Pirates" - Amsterdan ArenA (52,000)

Eastern League

"Moscow Crusaders" - Olimpiyskiy Kompleks Luzhniki Stadion (85,000)
"Kiev Cossacks" - Olimpius'kyi Stadium (83,000)
"Byzantine Magic"- Ataturk Olimpiyat Stadyumu (80,600)
"Izimir Invincibles" - Izmir Ataturk Stadyumu (58,000)


Continental Conference


Atlantic League

"Manchester Red Socks" - Old Trafford (76,000)
"Glasgow Rebel Bhoys" - Celtic Park (60,000)
"Islington Gunners" - Emirates (60,000)
"Glasgow Loyal Marchers" - Ibrox (50,000)

Mediterranean League

"Milan Fashion" - San Siro (86,000)
"Roma Centurions" - Stadio Olimpico (82,000)
"Benefica Giants" - Estadio da Luz (65,000)
"Valencia Vengeance" - Estadio Mestalla (55,000)

Northern League

"Edinburgh Tartans" - Murrayfield (68,000)
"Borussia Mighty Eagles" - Signal Iduna Park (67,500)
"Rotterdram Marauders" - Feijenoord Stadion (52,000)
"Belgian Thunder" - King Baudouin Stadium (50,000)

Eastern Leagues

"Athenian Adventurers" Athens Olympic Sport Complex (78,000)
"Napoli Phoenix" - Stadio San Paolo (78,000)
"Budapest Huns" - Puskas Ferenc (68,000)
"Turkish Tricksters" - Surku Sarakoglu (52,000)

:rofl:

Very interesting.

Maybe its time us Europeans swollow our pride and admit that overall, the US simply got some awesome stadiums that beat the majority of what we got.

Why have you knocked 12,000 off Croke Park's capacity?

Not a fair comparison if we don't give the seated capacities for all stadia.

Allianz is 69,000 not 66,000.
Croke Park is 82,000 not 70,000.
Signal Iduna Park is 81,000 not 67,500.
Velodrome is expanding to 80,000.
Instead of Ibrox 50,000; use New Anfield 60,000.
Valencia is building a new 70,000 seater instead of 55,000.

Still it's way smaller then the US. Simple reason; their competition is all over the county. If we had a European football league (not CL though) our stadiums would be way larger then the US stadiums.

And; it ís fair to use standing capacities. Some US stadiums have benches, not seats. We have stands and seats.

Btw; NFL stadiums don't have capacities like 99,000 or 90,000. They all go between 63,000 and 80,000.

If we were playing to a standard European League rules, it would require all seater capacities, this is the case in UEFA CL Matches, so it would be the case in an "NFL Soccer".

You didn't include:

Veltins Arena - 62.000
New Anfield - 60.000
San Nicola - 58.000
AOL Arena - 57.000
Gottlieb-Daimler-Stadion - 57.000
Borussia-Park - 54.000
St. James Park - 52.000

All well above 50,000 and there are more.

Fucking hell...are the majority of them all thick over on the other side of Atlantic or something?

You enjoy picking holes in the greatest imaginary league in the world, don't you?

You didn't include:

Veltins Arena - 62.000

Much smaller seating capacities. Other German Franchises more deserving.

New Anfield - 60.000

Not even certain that the Liverpool Lions will be going ahead and building this. If its not under construction its not fair to include it.

San Nicola - 58.000

I was tempted, but if its a choice between Italian Teams Bad but large stadia, and expanding the League into the East, I chose the East.

AOL Arena - 57.000

Smaller seating capacity, has some merit.

Gottlieb-Daimler-Stadion - 57.000
Borussia-Park - 54.000

I suppose each has some merit, but they'll have to make a very strong case to the leagues owners why they should get a place at the expense of anothe club.

St. James Park - 52.000

Not an overwhelming stadium, and the Atlantic League has too many franchises anyway, would prefer to merge the section with the Northern League but isn't feasible yet.

All well above 50,000 and there are more.

Not really a very neat spread though, I'd prefer that the Atlantic League didn't have so many to be honest.

You enjoy picking holes in the greatest imaginary league in the world, don't you?

I'm writing a highschool essay of 25 pages about a European Football Leauge right now actually.

You'd better reference me, if you include any ideas from this thread. ;)

I did allude to the fact that Scotland is still better than most countries for fans perhead of population, and I did actually know about their average attendance rating (thanks to bubomb) for qualifiers but:

There have always been 'meaningless friendlies' at international level and I'm sorry but the turnouts against these teams (USA: 26,708, Switzerland: 20,952) would have been unthinkable only 15 years ago. I was careful to say 'more fickle', not 'fickle' per se. If you like, I'll change it to "Are Scotish fans less committed?" It amounts to the same thing. Of course, it could be a cost thing. I genuinely don't know - hence the question.

I am well aware of England's patchy history for attendance of friendlies (although this only seems to have been raised as a retort to my inferred criticism of Scotland, which is hardly relevant). I was at Wembley in 1995 for the England v Colombia game, which drew a record low crowd of about 15,500 and of course I'm glad we don't have that problem now. My point was that if anything, Scotland's heritage of huge attendances is greater than even England's. Therefore, it casts an even sadder light on their current plight. Let's not turn this into a 'My Country's Better Than Yours' cockfight.

I'm sure that Glasgow teams will always have the pull to sell out Hampden twice over (because it's too small which was my point), but how many were there for the semi final between Gretna and Dundee? 14,179. I know, it's one tiny club who are, what, 75 miles from Glasgow against one large-ish (for Scotland) club who are even further away. It's still a bit crap, though and does not reflect well on Scottish football in the context of the days of 130k+ crowds.

I hope the situation gets better, honestly, but it doesn't disguise the fact that Hampden's design is an admission that those days have long gone.
Hampden's design is not an admission that those days are gone, it is just illustrative of the fact that the SFA had no cash, but needed a stadium fit to hold internationals.

They've got a good return on the money they spent on the stadium, its still a 5 star venue that as of May next year will have hosted 2 European finals. Its not the Hampden of old, and its not the new Wembley, but it didn't cost 3/4 of a billion £ either.

The dumbest thing I've ever seen on here. And that is saying something.

The reason for the US NFL having larger stadia as a rule: they only play big games and can fill it for every game.

In a European league, only playing against top draw prestigous teams, European stadiums could mostly be twice the size they are now and sell out. But most teams don't have enough loyal fans to fill their stadium every second week against the weaker and less glamourous teams of their domestic leagues.

Not many teams can fill their present capacity against the shitty teams of their domestic league. Some can, but not many. Having huge stadiums would only be feasible if they could be filled every time. If the season was only 6 games long and the team only played against the best the continent had to offer, each and every game would be a sell out even with a vastly increased capacity.

Btw; NFL stadiums don't have capacities like 99,000 or 90,000. They all go between 63,000 and 80,000.

You mean between 58,000 and 92,000

The reason for the US NFL having larger stadia as a rule: they only play big games and can fill it for every game.

In a way thats even more impressive, that American Clubs can afford to construct these huge stadia and not have frequent games to supplement their incomes from. Just shows how big the television rights are.

The reason for the US NFL having larger stadia as a rule: they only play big games and can fill it for every game.

In a way thats even more impressive, that American Clubs can afford to construct these huge stadia and not have frequent games to supplement their incomes from. Just shows how big the television rights are.
Not really, they can guarantee demand for every single game.
TV rights probably make it possible, but most sport is reliant on TV money now.

EPL - £1.7bn for 3 years. WTF!

Not really, they can guarantee demand for every single game.
TV rights probably make it possible, but most sport is reliant on TV money now.

They can, but overall, I'm sure due to fewer games being played in the NFL the overall annual attendance for a team is smaller than the biggest European Leagues, which is an impressive feat considering just how rich the NFL is.

EPL - £1.7bn for 3 years. WTF!

Its probably unimpressive compared to NFL Comparisons, but its not insignificant, that amount of money would represent probably a sizable amount of the military budgets of some of the smaller Eastern European Countries.

Hampden's design is not an admission that those days are gone, it is just illustrative of the fact that the SFA had no cash, but needed a stadium fit to hold internationals.

They've got a good return on the money they spent on the stadium, its still a 5 star venue that as of May next year will have hosted 2 European finals. Its not the Hampden of old, and its not the new Wembley, but it didn't cost 3/4 of a billion £ either.

sadly Hampden looks like it has not been looked after all that well, can't they dig the pitch down and add more seating?

Even though Wembley looks like it will be a great stadium it was good when we were having the 'England road show'. Using grounds in the North, Midlands and the south meant that more people got a chance to see the team.

Even though Wembley looks like it will be a great stadium it was good when we were having the 'England road show'. Using grounds in the North, Midlands and the south meant that more people got a chance to see the team.

i think after a couple of years, the friendlies may move around the grounds again

i think after a couple of years, the friendlies may move around the grounds again
If thats true then that was £700m well spent then.

From an article from the Washington Post :
Atmosphere......: It's all about atmosphere. All buildings (stadiums included) look sterile on paper. I will hold my opinion until the place has been broken in a little, say a season or two. It took 9 years the Break-in Fed-Ex, it wasn't until this past football season that the place seemed to develop any character. I think it is interesting that the designers are looking to duplicate the "bouncing" of RFK's 3rd base line. That could be cool.

David Nakamura: If they can recreate the bouncing stands, that would make a lot of Washingtonians happy.

David Nakamura: One other point about bouncing stands -- architect Marshall Purnell pointed out that at RFK those stands bounced because of a design flaw. Now they'd have to recreate it and worry about liability issues if someone got hurt.
Could a new stadium with bouncing stands be built and be safe enough ?
I really love seeing the stands bounce at DC United's games.

I love RFK stadium and the bouncing stands.

that about $3 bn, in USD

thats kind of low, but still big if you consider the size of the english market against the american market,, ( 50 million against 295 millon,,, thats almost 6 times)

so a comparable real value will be a multiplication by 6, that goes to 18 bn USD,,,

how much is the NFL deal???

When the bears do the bouncy at the Piggery, the whole LL stand has been known to bounce up and down

When the bears do the bouncy at the Piggery, the whole LL stand has been known to bounce up and down

Same thing happens to the rest of the stadium when Celtic score against Rangers at Parkhead (i.e. every single time there's a game there, usually multiple times).

that about $3 bn, in USD

thats kind of low, but still big if you consider the size of the english market against the american market,, ( 50 million against 295 millon,,, thats almost 6 times)

so a comparable real value will be a multiplication by 6, that goes to 18 bn USD,,,

how much is the NFL deal???

$8 billion according to this. Not really that big considering the population of the USA. Or is there another package on top of that?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/7868621

Esta ready por some futebol?

http://www.recordresearch.com/Album_Photos/images/Williams-Hank%20Jr.jpg

how many lower league professional teams are there in the US? theres 92 in england (plus a few in the conference) and most of the big leagues in europe are the same. i'll bet that if you got the total number of attendance in a weekend in europe it'll be alot higher then the US

Same thing happens to the rest of the stadium when Celtic score against Rangers at Parkhead (i.e. every single time there's a game there, usually multiple times).

Celtic 0-0 Rangers, April 23rd, 2006 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/scot_prem/4929736.stm)



http://i3.tinypic.com/xc819x.gif

$8 billion according to this. Not really that big considering the population of the USA. Or is there another package on top of that?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/7868621

That's only CBS and FOX. The NFL also has ESPN, DirectTV, and NBC. The ESPN deal for Monday Night Football is 1.1 billion per year and the NBC deal for Sunday Night Football(the NFL got hosed here for its highest rated slot) is $600 million per year. The total package is $3.735 billion per year until 2011 starting this fall. That's would be 11.2 billion over the course of the next 3 years and 22.4 billion through 2011. If the last contract is any indicator, expect lots of upwards jumps in this contract. Not bad for an unknown, unpopular, nothing sport.

As for a European league of stadiums, see the NFL stadi fit for CL or EU stadia fit for NFL thread. I think you'd have bigger stadiums, but that's not what the NFL is about. The NFL is more about first class stadiums like Allianz, Emirates or Da Luz. If you want big big stadiums, that's more of the college football thing.


how many lower league professional teams are there in the US? theres 92 in england (plus a few in the conference) and most of the big leagues in europe are the same. i'll bet that if you got the total number of attendance in a weekend in europe it'll be alot higher then the US

This is hard to compare because of the difference in sport infrastructure. The way college football is played, it would probably be considered professional anywhere else. There are 117 division 1 college football teams, which is the highest division and largest universities. These are the pics that we usually show when we're talking about college football. There is also Division IAA, Division II and Division III which have more teams than Division I. You also have the Arena Football League, Arena II and Semi Pro. I'd say there are at least 500 teams of what would be deemed professional or semi-professional.

Celtic 0-0 Rangers, April 23rd, 2006 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/scot_prem/4929736.stm)
[/IMG]

Exception to the rule (and doesn't really count because Celtic weren't trying due to the fact that we've won the league again (fly the flag)).

That's would be 11.2 billion over the course of the next 3 years

In other words, in proportion to the size of the population of the UK and US, both the EPL's $3bn and NFL's $11bn deals are huge.

yes, and the NFL deal is incredible considering how many other extremely popular sports there are in the U.S. that have huge TV deals as well. We have no soccer like juggernaut that rules sport so dominantly. The TV dollar has to compete with NASCAR, NHL, NBA, MLB and college football for the big big dollar TV deals. All have part or all of their schedule during the NFL season.

Nascar, NHL, NBA, MLB - jeez America has so many crap sports

Nascar, NHL, NBA, MLB - jeez America has so many crap sports

you mean Canada too right? And dont forget about all the people from aroudn the world who play in these leagues....from France to China, Australia to Brazil.

you mean Canada too right? And dont forget about all the people from aroudn the world who play in these leagues....from France to China, Australia to Brazil.
Yeah, they should all be ashamed of themselves.

At times, yes, national stadia are a waste of time, effort and even resources. But the trouble is that a lack of national stadia in several places would lead to places of either excess capacity for the club that plays there, or not enough capacity for national events. Think of Ireland, for example. Small football and rugby leagues, yet tickets are nigh impossible to find for international games. Most football and rugby clubs play to, at most, 6,000 - 12,000 at an average game. Either a non-national stadium against that would lead to not enough capacity, or a waste of money for large, seldom filled stadia.

The tattie munchers average crowds for football league games is 1759!!

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/current/aveire.htm

This is a good clip of a stand literally bouncing -

http://media.putfile.com/final-minute

I always found it strange why Americans love such utter garbage made-up sports!! Although with a bit of luck they might start to get more into fottball.

Not really, they can guarantee demand for every single game.
TV rights probably make it possible, but most sport is reliant on TV money now.

They can, but overall, I'm sure due to fewer games being played in the NFL the overall annual attendance for a team is smaller than the biggest European Leagues, which is an impressive feat considering just how rich the NFL is.


Stadiums also hold concerts and other sporting events, which helps to pay for a large stadium. They might only get 8 NFL home games but can sellout concerts and other events year round.

When Man United won the European cup in 1999 in front of 92,000 in Barcelona, i was in the upper tier behind the goal and it was bouncing at the end of the match, I was so high up it was worrying!!!

“Manchester United the only British team to be world club champions.”

Video of a game in Nuremberg.

ftp://roland1208.no-ip.biz/saison_2005_06/pokal_fcn-sgd/FCN_SGD_huepf_franconia.mpg

They needed to build some pillars to make it safer.

yes, and the NFL deal is incredible considering how many other extremely popular sports there are in the U.S. that have huge TV deals as well. We have no soccer like juggernaut that rules sport so dominantly. The TV dollar has to compete with NASCAR, NHL, NBA, MLB and college football for the big big dollar TV deals. All have part or all of their schedule during the NFL season.

The odd thing to me is that the NFL actually forfeits a good deal of money with its schedule. 90% of games are played within a six hour span on Sunday afternoons. That makes it impossiable for fans to watch as many multiple games (though this is changing with new technoclogy recording and such) as if they split up the schedule on differant days.
If the schedules were more random like other sports then viewship woul be evern higher across the league and the TV contracts would be even higher (by my logic at least).

You think my theory is right rantanamo or am I missing something.

I think they are better off how they are. An NFL Sunday is more of an event than other sports besides NASCAR. I also think they are very accurate in understanding that I don't want to watch Houston vs Oakland every week, but would rather watch my hometown team and maybe a couple of other big events. What are the big complaints about basketball and baseball? Too many games that are seen in their entirety. It makes the game routine. Think about it: I love the Cowboys. I want to see them play above all others. I might want to see a division rival or two, and I might want to see the hot team or a certain superstar. That's it. 3 or 4 games per week, which is easy to watch. If I'm a hardcore junkie, I can get NFL Sunday Ticket and Tivo everything. But, I gurantee you of what usually happens with NFL Sunday Ticket. People I know who've had it, will follow only a few games per week and simply replace their network viewing with games they wouldn't see regionally. I bet college football could catch the NFL if they were setup like this. It sort of works with CBS, ABC, ESPN, but there are all kinds of Raycoms, Jefferson Pilots, Fox Sports affilliates that diminish ratings per channel, which really disproportionately lowers ad revenue. For example, the cost of an ad during Fox's NFL coverage is probably 20x that of a Raycom college football ad, even though the ratings are likely only 10x more for the NFL game.

Its too much like a baseball or basketball system where local 'superstations' host most local games. That minimizes the event factor too much. I know baseball and the NBA want to show all of the games, but they probably be more successful if they banned local coverage during Fri-Sun or maybe only allowed the national games during the weekend and leave all the rest of the games that are locally broadcasted for the weekdays.

Very interesting.

Maybe its time us Europeans swollow our pride and admit that overall, the US simply got some awesome stadiums that beat the majority of what we got.

I admit it. :runaway:

I refuse to swallow the 'pride' of any Europeans!

I refuse to swallow the 'pride' of any Europeans!
What about Americans, or Asians, would you swallow their 'pride'? :D

Maybe, depends on how 'proud' they are!!

And for provincial rugby of about 12,000 per game...

12000 my arse!!

The celtic league averages 4240 per match

http://www.rte.ie/sport/2005/0329/celticleague.html


AIB All-Ireland League has terrible attendances -

"Last Sunday at Thomond Park less than 400 showed up for Shannon's clash with Blackrock College"

http://www.limerick-leader.ie/issues/20011110/sport03.html


If the English Zurich Premiership averages 9432, then there is no way the tattie munchers average 12000!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/international/4020699.stm

What are considered the 2 best stadiums here in Australia. The Melbourne Cricket Ground, obviously in Melbourne, and Telstra Stadium in Sydney. Both are former main stadiums of Olympic Games (Melbourne in 1956, Sydney in 2000), while the MCG was the main stadium for the recent Commonwealth Games.

Melbourne Cricket Ground. Capacity: 100,000
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/7831/mcg1194hw.jpg

Telstra Stadium. Capacity: 83,500
http://img315.imageshack.us/img315/5434/telstrastadium0012yc.jpg

Both regularly try to claim being the best. Having never actually been to either I can't comment from personal expereince. Both have their pros and cons I guess.

With Australia being the size that it is and the population spread so far and wide, should we have 1 or even 2 national stadiums? Personally, I think no but then, I am not the powers that be am I.

The celtic league averages 4240 per match

http://www.rte.ie/sport/2005/0329/celticleague.html

That's an old story you've posted a link to - the current Celtic League average (with two rounds and a game to go) is 5,127, with the average for games played in Ireland 5,890 and for games between Irish provinces 7,209 (edit - I missed two games). If you throw in the 47,800 for the Munster-Leinster European semi-final that average goes up to 10,766 :)

http://www.celticleague.com/2_14.php

If the English Zurich Premiership averages 9432, then there is no way the tattie munchers average 12000!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/international/4020699.stm

And that story's from 2004! The regular Guinness Premiership season ended yesterday, with an average crowd of 10,608 (should be higher next year now Leeds are down :))...

http://www.guinnesspremiership.com/201_109.php

In other words, the point the guy '2,752' was making was spot on!! The average attendance for rugby played in Ireland is 5,890 (7,063 if you add in Ulster, most of which is not in Ireland). So even if you take the figure of 7063, this is almost half the 12000 that the Irish guy claimed!!

Why would you add in the Munster-Leinster European semi-final when calculating average Irish league attendances??? That's just stupid!! You don't add in the Chelsea v Liverpool attendance in the Champions league when calculating Premiership attendance averages!! You don't add FA Cup attendances when calculating Premiership attendance averages.

The guy '2,752' was stating that the paddy was grossly exaggerating, and he clearly was grossly exaggerating!!

Oh I know, I wasn't arguing with 2,752's "12000 my arse" comment, that's why I didn't quote it - he just used pretty ancient attendance figures for the Celtic League and Premiership so I posted the correct ones here for accuracy's sake.

To be fair, NeilF didn't say anything about the Celtic League or any particular competition, just "provincial rugby", so I tried messing with the figures to see if he might just get away with his pretty bold claim :). Ulster is in Ireland (check a map), but since you want to exclude it, the attendances in 2005/06 for games between provinces solely within the Republic of Ireland were:

1 Oct 2005: Connacht v Munster - 2,300
9 Oct 2005: Munster v Leinster - 7,500
3 Dec 2005: Connacht v Leinster - 2,250
27 Dec 2005: Munster v Connacht - 8,000
31 Dec 2005: Leinster v Munster - 14,135
5 Mar 2006: Leinster v Connacht - 3,573
23 April 2006: Munster v Leinster - 47,800

Average 12,223.

I agree with you that he was "grossly exaggerating", but in this case he was technically correct :).

Oh I know, I wasn't arguing with 2,752's "12000 my arse" comment, that's why I didn't quote it - he just used pretty ancient attendance figures for the Celtic League and Premiership so I posted the correct ones here for accuracy's sake.

To be fair, NeilF didn't say anything about the Celtic League or any particular competition, just "provincial rugby", so I tried messing with the figures to see if he might just get away with his pretty bold claim :). Ulster is in Ireland (check a map), but since you want to exclude it, the attendances in 2005/06 for games between provinces solely within the Republic of Ireland were:

1 Oct 2005: Connacht v Munster - 2,300
9 Oct 2005: Munster v Leinster - 7,500
3 Dec 2005: Connacht v Leinster - 2,250
27 Dec 2005: Munster v Connacht - 8,000
31 Dec 2005: Leinster v Munster - 14,135
5 Mar 2006: Leinster v Connacht - 3,573
23 April 2006: Munster v Leinster - 47,800

Average 12,223.

I agree with you that he was "grossly exaggerating", but in this case he was technically correct :).

Technically he wasn't correct. He was talking about Irish league games, as he replied to the statement "The tattie munchers average crowds for football league games is 1759!!" with "and for provincial rugby of about 12,000 per game", thus meaning he was talking about league games as his reply to the word 'league' did not mention any other forms/structure of rugby. You cannot include '23 April 2006: Munster v Leinster - 47,800' as this was a European Cup game featuring two Irish teams, and was nothing to do with Irish league rugby or Irish provincial rugby, as provincial means regular rugby played in a province, not a European Cup game featuring two Irish teams facing each other by the luck of a draw.


1/3rd of Ulster is in Ireland, the other 2/3rds are in Northern Ireland. All of Ulster is on the physical island of Ireland, but the physical rock that is Ireland is very different to the country that is 'Ireland'. When talking about countries, if somebody says 'Ireland', it is logical to presume thay are talking about the country 'Ireland' and not the 'island of Ireland'.


I am Mr.Logic.

You are...bubomb.

"Technically he wasn't correct"

On about yourself there, you're certifiable.

You're on about yourself there, your certifiable.

Sorry, I don't speak chav!! I honestly have no idea what your statement means?? Please speak proper English.

It means you're not right in the head, cuckoo, a nutter, a total head case.

Technically he wasn't correct. He was talking about Irish league games, as he replied to the statement "The tattie munchers average crowds for football league games is 1759!!" with "and for provincial rugby of about 12,000 per game", thus meaning he was talking about league games as his reply to the word 'league' did not mention any other forms/structure of rugby. You cannot include '23 April 2006: Munster v Leinster - 47,800' as this was a European Cup game featuring two Irish teams, and was nothing to do with Irish league rugby or Irish provincial rugby, as provincial means regular rugby played in a province, not a European Cup game featuring two Irish teams facing each other by the luck of a draw.

It's OK, I'm not doing much today - I have plenty of time for a completely pointless argument...

Nothing in what NeilF wrote implies that he was talking about Celtic League games.

Munster v Leinster last month had everything to do with Irish provincial rugby - it had the two top provinces competing against each other for a place in the European Cup Final! "Provincial" means "related to a province" - do you actually know what a province is?

1/3rd of Ulster is in Ireland, the other 2/3rds are in Northern Ireland. All of Ulster is on the physical island of Ireland, but the physical rock that is Ireland is very different to the country that is 'Ireland'. When talking about countries, if somebody says 'Ireland', it is logical to presume thay are talking about the country 'Ireland' and not the 'island of Ireland'.

Ireland is the large island between the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea, and politically is split between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (part of the UK). There is no "country that is 'Ireland'", although the Republic of Ireland is often shortened to just "Ireland" colloquially.

Rugby in Ireland is governed by the Irish Rugby Football Union, which covers the whole island, so when talking about Irish rugby in a thread about national stadia, it's completely logical to include all four provinces comprising the IRFU.

I am Mr.Logic.

You're a tit.

It's OK, I'm not doing much today - I have plenty of time for a completely pointless argument...

Nothing in what NeilF wrote implies that he was talking about Celtic League games.

Munster v Leinster last month had everything to do with Irish provincial rugby - it had the two top provinces competing against each other for a place in the European Cup Final! "Provincial" means "related to a province" - do you actually know what a province is?



Ireland is the large island between the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea, and politically is split between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (part of the UK). There is no "country that is 'Ireland'", although the Republic of Ireland is often shortened to just "Ireland" colloquially.

Rugby in Ireland is governed by the Irish Rugby Football Union, which covers the whole island, so when talking about Irish rugby in a thread about national stadia, it's completely logical to include all four provinces comprising the IRFU.



You're a tit.

In the context the poster was talking about, the word province/provincial did not relate to European Cup rugby, just like English provincial club football is a separate organisation/structure from the Champions League. According to your logic, Scottish football is related to the war in Iraq, as my friend supports celtic (from Scotland) and he is in the TA stationed in Basra right now. Anybody with a firm grasp of the English language, would know that Scottish football is not related to the war in Iraq, despite any dictionary meaning of the word province.

There is a country called Ireland, as 99% of the worlds population associate the word Ireland with the country that is The Republic Of Ireland. In real life spoken English, Ireland means The Republic Of Ireland. If talking to a geologist, Ireland might have a different meaning, as you may be talking about the physical rock that is Ireland. Rugby in Ireland and Northern Ireland is governed by the Irish Rugby Football Union.

The other key point you have missed is that if your average is calculated by using any attendances featuring Irish club teams, then by logic, if you include the big European Cup attendances, you will also have to include attendances for division 2, division 3, local leagues etc. So 'technically', the average attendance for Irish provincial rugby is probably less than 500 people!! You cannot just choose the big European crowds and mix them in with division one crowds! If you include the European Cup, then you must also include all other attendances in the various cups and leagues featuring Irish club teams.


As for calling me a 'tit'..... insults are always the first sign of a desperate man in an argument! If you cannot debate like an adult, then please don't waste my time.

In the context the poster was talking about, the word province/provincial did not relate to European Cup rugby, just like English provincial club football is a separate organisation/structure from the Champions League.

No, NeilF was talking about the need for a national stadium in Ireland, since no soccer or rugby team warrants having a ground anywhere near the size required for the national team(s). 2,752 then pointed out the average soccer league attendances to show that the figures were in fact far lower than the ones he had mentioned, and he responded with an estimate of 12,000 for Irish provincial rugby. At no point did he mention that this was limited to certain games or excluded particular competitions, and the context in this whole subthread is merely non-international attendances, so I can't see why you're so firm in your assertion that the European Cup "doesn't count".

For what it's worth, I agree with the people who say that the 12,000 figure is a gross exaggeration - I just provided plenty of evidence concerning current Irish domestic rugby crowds and then pointed out that if taken a certain way NeilF's bold statement could actually be proved true. You then replied with an incorrect statement about Ulster, which I refuted, and an attack on my inclusion of the European Cup semi-final crowd.

There is also no such thing as "English provincial club football" - the closest things to provinces in England are the counties, and as far as I am aware there are no county clubs (though I could be mistaken).

According to your logic, Scottish football is related to the war in Iraq, as my friend supports celtic (from Scotland) and he is in the TA stationed in Basra right now. Anybody with a firm grasp of the English language, would know that Scottish football is not related to the war in Iraq, despite any dictionary meaning of the word province.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

There is a country called Ireland, as 99% of the worlds population associate the word Ireland with the country that is The Republic Of Ireland. In real life spoken English, Ireland means The Republic Of Ireland. If talking to a geologist, Ireland might have a different meaning, as you may be talking about the physical rock that is Ireland. Rugby in Ireland and Northern Ireland is governed by the Irish Rugby Football Union.

This argument was started by you claiming that "most of Ulster is not in Ireland" (meaning not in the Republic of Ireland). I've already clarified the distinction and recalculated average attendances to exclude Ulster for you...

The other key point you ahve missed is that if your average is calculated by using any attendances featuring Irish club teams, then by logic, if you include the big European Cup attendances, you will also have to include attendances for division 2, division 3, local leagues etc. So 'technically', the average attendance for Irish provisional rugby is probably less than 500 people!! You cannot just choose the big crowds! If you include the European Cup, then you must also include all other attendances in the various cups and leagues featuring Irish club teams.

I'm still convinced you don't know what a province is! The four provinces of Ireland are Connacht, Leinster, Munster and Ulster, each of which is a division of the IRFU. NeilF is talking about provincial rugby, not club rugby...

As for calling me a 'tit'..... insults are always the first sign of a desperate man in an argument! If you cannot debate like an adult, then please don't waste my time.

Who's wasting whose time? Everything I've posted is factually correct and without bias - I don't personally agree with NeilF's assertion that the provinces average 12,000 a game, but while I was providing data showing the most recent attendance figures I pointed out that for this season only he could actually back his claim up... You then claimed that Ulster wasn't in Ireland (it is), said it was stupid to mention the European Cup (why?), made a bizarre attack on my logic, then indicated that you don't understand what a province is.

Oh, and I stand by the "tit" comment, based on everything you've posted under this username and all your other aliases...

Game, set and match to CharlieP.

No, NeilF was talking about the need for a national stadium in Ireland, since no soccer or rugby team warrants having a ground anywhere near the size required for the national team(s). 2,752 then pointed out the average soccer league attendances to show that the figures were in fact far lower than the ones he had mentioned, and he responded with an estimate of 12,000 for Irish provincial rugby. At no point did he mention that this was limited to certain games or excluded particular competitions, and the context in this whole subthread is merely non-international attendances, so I can't see why you're so firm in your assertion that the European Cup "doesn't count".

For what it's worth, I agree with the people who say that the 12,000 figure is a gross exaggeration - I just provided plenty of evidence concerning current Irish domestic rugby crowds and then pointed out that if taken a certain way NeilF's bold statement could actually be proved true. You then replied with an incorrect statement about Ulster, which I refuted, and an attack on my inclusion of the European Cup semi-final crowd.

There is also no such thing as "English provincial club football" - the closest things to provinces in England are the counties, and as far as I am aware there are no county clubs (though I could be mistaken).



Now you're just being ridiculous.




This argument was started by you claiming that "most of Ulster is not in Ireland" (meaning not in the Republic of Ireland). I've already clarified the distinction and recalculated average attendances to exclude Ulster for you...



I'm still convinced you don't know what a province is! The four provinces of Ireland are Connacht, Leinster, Munster and Ulster, each of which is a division of the IRFU. NeilF is talking about provincial rugby, not club rugby...



Who's wasting whose time? Everything I've posted is factually correct and without bias - I don't personally agree with NeilF's assertion that the provinces average 12,000 a game, but while I was providing data showing the most recent attendance figures I pointed out that for this season only he could actually back his claim up... You then claimed that Ulster wasn't in Ireland (it is), said it was stupid to mention the European Cup (why?), made a bizarre attack on my logic, then indicated that you don't understand what a province is.

Oh, and I stand by the "tit" comment, based on everything you've posted under this username and all your other aliases...

No new points there at all. He claimed 12000 was the average. The method you took to back-up his average (even though you don't agree with it???) was ridiculous. You took some attendances from different competitions and came to a figure, claiming it was technically correct. The fact that you don't agree with him, and then try to defend his figure, proves that you are talking nonsense. Either he is correct, or he is wrong. Either the average is 12000, or it is not. What if those two Irish teams had not been drawn against each other in the European Cup? Your average (which you don't agree with???)would be halved, even though it would of been the same year, same teams, same players and the same fans going to games!! This shows how stupid it is to include the European Cup game!

The paddy was trying to give the impression that an average rugby game in Ireland gets 12000 people per game. This is not true. For 'provincial' rugby games, the average would be 6293. When calculating English football club attendances, nobody would include a European tie between two English clubs as it is a totally different competition.

1 Oct 2005: Connacht v Munster - 2,300
9 Oct 2005: Munster v Leinster - 7,500
3 Dec 2005: Connacht v Leinster - 2,250
27 Dec 2005: Munster v Connacht - 8,000
31 Dec 2005: Leinster v Munster - 14,135
5 Mar 2006: Leinster v Connacht - 3,573

Most of Ulster is not in Ireland. I am talking about the real world meaning of the word Ireland, as I live in the real world. Most of Ulster is in Northern Ireland. This is a fact.

You can stand by your 'tit' comment, doesn't change the fact that you are reduced to childish name calling!!

It means you're not right in the head, cuckoo, a nutter, a total head case.

Yeah... thats great, well done!! :weirdo:

Just for the record, since it's still raining, and to hopefully put this to rest once and for all, here are all the home games played by Irish provinces this season (sorry about the formatting):

02/09/05 3,500 Munster v Border Reivers (Celtic League)
03/09/05 1,800 Connacht v Cardiff Blues (Celtic League)
10/09/05 3,700 Leinster v Glasgow Warriors (Celtic League)
10/09/05 6,700 Munster v Ospreys (Celtic League)
16/09/05 3,700 Leinster v Dragons (Celtic League)
16/09/05 7,799 Ulster v Edinburgh Gunners (Celtic League)
23/09/05 5,000 Munster v Llanelli Scarlets (Celtic League)
24/09/05 650 Connacht v Border Reivers (Celtic League)
01/10/05 2,300 Connacht v Munster (Celtic League)
01/10/05 6,500 Leinster v Ulster (Celtic League)
07/10/05 9,546 Ulster v Connacht (Celtic League)
09/10/05 7,500 Munster v Leinster (Celtic League)
15/10/05 7,000 Leinster v Cardiff Blues (Celtic League)
21/10/05 12,252 Ulster v Benetton Treviso (Heineken Cup)
22/10/05 13,152 Leinster v Bath Rugby (Heineken Cup)
22/10/05 600 Connacht v Catania (European Challenge Cup)
29/10/05 13,500 Munster v Castres Olympique (Heineken Cup)
04/11/05 9,310 Ulster v Ospreys (Celtic League)
06/11/05 1,700 Leinster v Edinburgh Gunners (Celtic League)
03/12/05 2,250 Connacht v Leinster (Celtic League)
03/12/05 6,000 Munster v Ulster (Celtic League)
09/12/05 12,300 Ulster v Saracens (Heineken Cup)
10/12/05 11,133 Leinster v Bourgoin (Heineken Cup)
17/12/05 13,200 Munster v Dragons (Heineken Cup)
17/12/05 2,200 Connacht v Worcester Warriors (European Challenge Cup)
26/12/05 12,300 Ulster v Leinster (Celtic League)
27/12/05 8,000 Munster v Connacht (Celtic League)
31/12/05 14,135 Leinster v Munster (Celtic League)
31/12/05 2,100 Connacht v Ulster (Celtic League)
07/01/06 6,487 Ulster v Glasgow Warriors (Celtic League)
13/01/06 12,300 Ulster v Biarritz Olympique (Heineken Cup)
14/01/06 12,443 Leinster v Glasgow Warriors (Heineken Cup)
14/01/06 2,500 Connacht v Montpellier (European Challenge Cup)
21/01/06 13,200 Munster v Sale Sharks (Heineken Cup)
27/01/06 4,125 Leinster v Border Reivers (Celtic League)
27/01/06 7,986 Ulster v Llanelli Scarlets (Celtic League)
28/01/06 5,000 Munster v Dragons (Celtic League)
18/02/06 2,300 Connacht v Llanelli Scarlets (Celtic League)
18/02/06 5,000 Munster v Glasgow Warriors (Celtic League)
03/03/06 12,300 Ulster v Munster (Celtic League)
05/03/06 3,573 Leinster v Connacht (Celtic League)
25/03/06 7,546 Ulster v Dragons (Celtic League)
01/04/06 48,500 Munster v Perpignan (Heineken Cup)
14/04/06 7,250 Leinster v Llanelli Scarlets (Celtic League)
15/04/06 1,800 Connacht v Dragons (Celtic League)
15/04/06 9,000 Munster v Edinburgh Gunners (Celtic League)
23/04/06 47,800 Leinster v Munster (Heineken Cup)
29/04/06 6,455 Leinster v Ospreys (Celtic League)
05/05/06 2,100 Connacht v Edinburgh Gunners (Celtic League)
05/05/06 9,617 Ulster v Cardiff Blues (Celtic League)

Average home attendance for Irish provinces:

All games = 8,542.
Games betwen Irish provinces only = 10,331.
Games in Celtic League = 5,890.
Games in Heineken Cup = 19,071.
Games in European Challenge Cup = 1,767.

Average home attendance for Irish provinces in R.O.I. only (i.e. excluding Ulster):

All games = 8,089.
Games between Irish provinces only = 12,223.
Games in Celtic League = 4,783.
Games in Heineken Cup = 21,616.
Games in European Challenge Cup = 1,767.

Everybody happy now?

Yeah... thats great, well done!! :weirdo:

bubomb, why do u have to act up and get banned every now and then, and then to come back and act the same way!!! i don't mind a decent conversation with you but don't u ever learn ur lesson? i give you a challenge not to get banned with this one.

bubomb, why do u have to act up and get banned every now and then, and then to come back and act the same way!!! i don't mind a decent conversation with you but don't u ever learn ur lesson? i give you a challenge not to get banned with this one.


Tell me which one of these two posts is more offensive/rude/argumentative, and once you have made your mind up, please tell me why you singled out my post and not the other one.


Post number 1 -

It means you're not right in the head, cuckoo, a nutter, a total head case.


Post number 2 -

Yeah... thats great, well done!! :weirdo:


One rule for some and another for others by the looks of it!!

No new points there at all. He claimed 12000 was the average. The method you took to back-up his average (even though you don't agree with it???) was ridiculous. You took some attendances from different competitions and came to a figure, claiming it was technically correct. The fact that you don't agree with him, and then try to defend his figure, proves that you are talking nonsense. Either he is correct, or he is wrong. Either the average is 12000, or it is not. What if those two Irish teams had not been drawn against each other in the European Cup? Your average (which you don't agree with???)would be halved, even though it would of been the same year, same teams, same players and the same fans going to games!! This shows how stupid it is to include the European Cup game!

I can't believe you're still banging on about this. I've calculated the average attendances for all to see in my last thread - now I would say that "the average for Irish provincial rugby" is 8,542, which is less than NeilF's claim, but proves his original point about why a national stadium is vital in Ireland, since there's no point in any of the provinces having more than 15-20,000-capacity grounds.

All I did when providing accurate figures (since 2,752's were a couple of years old) was point out that NeilF's statement was fairly vague, and if he was only talking about inter-provincial rugby within the Republic, then due to the big Leinster-Munster semi this season he can actually claim to be right...

The paddy was trying to give the impression that an average rugby game in Ireland gets 12000 people per game. This is not true. For 'provincial' rugby games, the average would be 6293. When calculating English football club attendances, nobody would include a European tie between two English clubs as it is a totally different competition.

I disagree - when an English club lists its attendances for the season it includes all competitions it competed in.

Most of Ulster is not in Ireland. I am talking about the real world meaning of the word Ireland, as I live in the real world. Most of Ulster is in Northern Ireland. This is a fact.

And all of Ulster is in Ireland. This is also a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland

You seem to use facts and "real world meanings" as and when they suit you, but my point remains that the Irish Rugby Football Union, who own the national stadium, run rugby across the whole of Ireland and not just the Republic. Players from Ulster play for Ireland, fans from across Ulster travel down to Lansdowne Road to support Ireland, and in the past Ireland's games were shared between Belfast and Dublin, so it's wholly correct to include Ulster when looking at Irish provincial rugby attendances! This whole thread is about whether it's better to have a single national stadium or to share the national team's games around a country - if Ireland had gone for this second approach then Belfast would definitely co-host rugby internationals.

This whole thread is about whether it's better to have a single national stadium or to share the national team's games around a country - if Ireland had gone for this second approach then Belfast would definitely co-host rugby internationals.

It's obvious to everyone that you won this a long time ago and this clueless "Robocop" guy is clutching at straws.

You can leave the thread now safe in the knowledge that you were right and this "Robocop" guy is wrong.

The paddies original point may or may not be valid, I don't know as I didn't read it. I was merely stating their average is not 12000.

An English club may list it's attendance on all tournaments, but I have never heard of an English club or a website including cup attendances in it's seasons average attendances.

I only ever use "real world meanings", as we (not you) are the poeple!!

It's obvious to everyone that you won this a long time ago and this clueless "Robocop" guy is clutching at straws.

You can leave the thread now safe in the knowledge that you were right and this "Robocop" guy is wrong.

then why are you trying to convince him and yourself???


http://www.upmj.co.uk/images/Ulster%20Soldier.jpg

I only ever use "real world meanings", as we (not you) are the poeple!!

"Poeple"????

I thought it was spelled "peepul"...

The £1.7Bn is only for league games.

There are also international rights, highlights packages, Champions League, FA Cup and League Cup rights to add into the equation.

Interestingly, Premier League clubs tend to get less than half their revenue from TV rights. Looking at ticket prices will give you a clue as to why that is.

then why are you trying to convince him and yourself???
[/img]

Not at the match at Ibrox today plastic fanboy?

Tell me which one of these two posts is more offensive/rude/argumentative, and once you have made your mind up, please tell me why you singled out my post and not the other one.


Post number 1 -




Post number 2 -




One rule for some and another for others by the looks of it!!

it wasn't that post specifically, i was saying in general why do u have to get banned?

http://www.gotobelfast.com/ShopUploads/Ulster%20Scots%20Pin%20badge.jpg

http://www.gotobelfast.com/ShopUploads/Ulster%20Scots%20Pin%20badge.jpg

Translated as "no I wasn't at Ibrox today because despite constantly verbally spunking all over the place, I've never actually seen the inside of it because I'm a clueless fake fan."

Too easy. :)

it wasn't that post specifically, i was saying in general why do u have to get banned?

Bubomb now has an auto-ban no matter what he does due to having multiple accounts in the past. Even if he became the nicest most po-English guy on the board, he would still be banned.


I'm glad i'm not him!

Translated as "no I wasn't at Ibrox today because despite constantly verbally spunking all over the place, I've never actually seen the inside of it because I'm a clueless fake fan."

Too easy. :)


http://www.uup.org/getinvolved_toolbox_speakingupforulster_small.gif

Bubomb now has an auto-ban no matter what he does due to having multiple accounts in the past. Even if he became the nicest most po-English guy on the board, he would still be banned.


I'm glad i'm not him!

i'm sure if u behaved yourself you will be fine :)
banter is fine but u do go overboard sometimes

http://www.uup.org/getinvolved_toolbox_speakingupforulster_small.gif

Cheers. I believe in the union too.

:)