search the site
 daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas

Stadiums and Sport Arenas » Completed | Under Construction | Proposed | Demolished



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: -
- 0 0%
- 0 0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 29th, 2012, 04:26 PM   #4781
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,981
Likes (Received): 2297

Quote:
Originally Posted by oxo View Post
Would Abramovich have spent billions on a Brentford, Watford or a Charlton?
He'd certainly be wasting his money if he had. He was smart enough to recognise Chelsea as having potential cosmopolitan/international brand appeal rather than mainly local appeal such as West Ham for example.
Chelsea is well known internationally because of its central location and associations with fashion.

Likewise the investors behind Man City would not have wasted billions on the likes of Bolton because it has much less international brand appeal being stuck away on the edge of Manchester. Who's even heard of Bolton or Blackburn outside the UK?

Being central makes you sexy, well known and marketable - the likes of suburban Brentford and Leyton Orient have about as much sex appeal as Nora Batty. That is mainly because of their location - the love for those clubs is predominantly local and unlikely ever to spread.

Spurs' pre-2003 success is impressive but that was a different era, especially before the 90s when marketing and commercialism did not play such a key role and location was therefore of little significance.
Even the likes of Wimbledon achieved some success those days - unthinkable now for such a suburban club.
Before Abramovich bought Chelsea, they were:

- already a high profile, Premier League club
- with a decent fan base and stadium
- in the Champions League (albeit as a consequence of spending money that they didn't have)
- available to buy at a bargain basement price (as a consequence of their woeful mismanagement over the preceding 5-10 years)

So any comparison to a small, League One or Two club like Brentford is spurious.....as you well know.

As to Man City, they were bought as a means to promote Abu Dhabi - which had long resented the international focus on its fellow Emirate, Dubai. You should read up about it. The decision has everything to do with the enormous marketing potential of the Premier League (along with the fact that City was a well supported club with great potential). Nothing to do with location. Because, since it seems to have escaped you, Manchester City are not based in "sexy" central Manchester.

Safe to say that, if location had indeed been the primary criterion, then pretty much anywhere in London would have been preferable to east Manchester.
JimB está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 29th, 2012, 04:35 PM   #4782
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,981
Likes (Received): 2297

One other thing, oxo - the notion that Arsenal is a centrally located club is simply wrong. Arsenal are based in Highbury / Holloway, north London. And it is an area that has only relatively recently been considered as anything other than deprived and staunchly working class.

Even now, much of the area is barely less of a shit hole than the area of Tottenham.
JimB está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2012, 05:40 PM   #4783
RMB2007
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,715
Likes (Received): 11885

Update regarding AFC Wimbledon's new stand. Roof looks wonky:

RMB2007 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2012, 06:19 PM   #4784
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,981
Likes (Received): 2297

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS20 View Post
Man Utd has about 1.3 million people living within 10 miles of Old Trafford, which is gargantuan in comparison to most other clubs, and goes a long way in explaining why they can average 75,000. Spurs could have anywhere between 500k-1m within 15 miles, but London population stats aren't broken up so nicely like they are for the rest of the country. Anything over 500k in England gives you a good platform for being a top 10 club. London has over 7 million people, and while most of those people can't realistically attend Spurs matches, they can help Spurs when it comes to TV ratings.
Far more than that.

A 15 mile radius from White Hart Lane includes pretty much all of London north of the Thames and a significant portion of London south of the Thames (as far as Bromley, in fact), as well as the densely populated suburban sprawl in Hertfordshire and Essex.

I'd estimate the total population covered by that 15 mile radius to be in the region of 7-8 million.

P.S. London's population is now more than 8 million and the metro area population is almost 14 million.

Last edited by JimB; July 29th, 2012 at 06:32 PM.
JimB está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 02:02 AM   #4785
oxo
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 977
Likes (Received): 0

A great number of reasons can be given to account for Chelsea’s or Arsenal’s success that are unrelated to issues of location. But the plain fact is that among the 16 London clubs they are the only 2 clubs to be found on most maps of central London.

To dismiss this as being ‘’coincidental’’ strikes me as flippant in the extreme.

Arsenal is about a 4 mile road distance from London’s recognised centre-point Piccadilly Circus. Chelsea is about 3 and a half miles away from the centre-point.

This is followed by the ‘’Zone 2’’ clubs such as Fulham, QPR, Millwall and Spurs being between 5 – 6 miles away from the centre point. This proximity reflects their moderate success as clubs (a bit more than moderate in the case of Spurs lately and less so for Millwall who seem to be underachieving in relation to its zone status).

The ‘’Zone 3’’ clubs located over 6 miles away from the centre point include Charlton, Brentford and Dagenham & Redbridge. These are low profile clubs with Charlton slightly overachieving in relation to its zone status.

There is an obvious pattern here between the success of a club and its zone status which can not be denied or dismissed as coincidental. The pattern surely proves that location must have a key influence on the success of a club.
oxo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 05:06 AM   #4786
MS20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,055
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
Far more than that.

A 15 mile radius from White Hart Lane includes pretty much all of London north of the Thames and a significant portion of London south of the Thames (as far as Bromley, in fact), as well as the densely populated suburban sprawl in Hertfordshire and Essex.

I'd estimate the total population covered by that 15 mile radius to be in the region of 7-8 million.

P.S. London's population is now more than 8 million and the metro area population is almost 14 million.
Yeah on reflection I was very conservative with the figure. Whatever the number is, its certainly above a million, which makes Spurs a prime candidate to contest for titles. All thats needed now is that revenue generating new stadium.
MS20 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 12:55 PM   #4787
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,267
Likes (Received): 743

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
One other thing, oxo - the notion that Arsenal is a centrally located club is simply wrong. Arsenal are based in Highbury / Holloway, north London. And it is an area that has only relatively recently been considered as anything other than deprived and staunchly working class.

Even now, much of the area is barely less of a shit hole than the area of Tottenham.
It isn't really anymore, my gf lives on a street off Holloway Road and can walk to HR tube station in about 30 mins, so under 40mins to the stadium. Most of that side is actually quite nice, her long street is full of 4/5 story town houses kept in good condition. The estates tend to be of the nicer kind. Around Finsbury park it's bit shitter though, but WHL and its surroundings is a lot more visibly crap imo.
kerouac1848 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 01:13 PM   #4788
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,267
Likes (Received): 743

Quote:
Originally Posted by oxo View Post
A great number of reasons can be given to account for Chelsea’s or Arsenal’s success that are unrelated to issues of location. But the plain fact is that among the 16 London clubs they are the only 2 clubs to be found on most maps of central London.

To dismiss this as being ‘’coincidental’’ strikes me as flippant in the extreme.

Arsenal is about a 4 mile road distance from London’s recognised centre-point Piccadilly Circus. Chelsea is about 3 and a half miles away from the centre-point.

This is followed by the ‘’Zone 2’’ clubs such as Fulham, QPR, Millwall and Spurs being between 5 – 6 miles away from the centre point. This proximity reflects their moderate success as clubs (a bit more than moderate in the case of Spurs lately and less so for Millwall who seem to be underachieving in relation to its zone status).

The ‘’Zone 3’’ clubs located over 6 miles away from the centre point include Charlton, Brentford and Dagenham & Redbridge. These are low profile clubs with Charlton slightly overachieving in relation to its zone status.

There is an obvious pattern here between the success of a club and its zone status which can not be denied or dismissed as coincidental. The pattern surely proves that location must have a key influence on the success of a club.
You're using flawed tube maps as a guide now (Gospel Oak as belonging to central London? wtf) and making up zones. QPR are a tad bit closer to Charing Cross (the true centre point, not pic circus), and a fair bit nearer to the wealthy part of the western portion of central London, than Arsenal. Millwall are closer to central London than the Gunners. Fulham are quite close to some extremely wealthy parts of central London. Charlton are closer to Central London than Spurs, yet the latter are far more successful with more supporters (they're also more successful than several over zone 2 clubs).

There is no clear pattern between a club's 'zone' and its success in London. Transport does play a part, but if it was the sole factor QPR should be fairing a hell of a lot better given LR is near to multiple stations on several tube and rail lines plus a major radial urban motorway.
kerouac1848 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 03:17 PM   #4789
oxo
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 977
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerouac1848 View Post
You're using flawed tube maps as a guide now (Gospel Oak as belonging to central London? wtf) and making up zones. QPR are a tad bit closer to Charing Cross (the true centre point, not pic circus)
What makes Nine Elms (south edge of Central London map) any more central or tourist-friendly than the Gospel Oak area, its northern edge?
Very pedantic of you to say QPR is a bit closer to Charing Cross than Piccadilly Circus.
Would that be by 89.7 metres?

Quote:
Millwall are closer to central London than the Gunners.
Not true, Arsenal are a bit closer to Trafalgar Square than Millwall and importantly enough are within walking distance to significant areas such as London's biggest transport hub – Kings Cross/St Pancras, not to mention loads of other places of note.

Quote:
Fulham are quite close to some extremely wealthy parts of central London.
So what? I wasn't try to identify a pattern between wealthy areas and high profile clubs.

Quote:
Charlton are closer to Central London than Spurs, yet the latter are far more successful with more supporters (they're also more successful than several over zone 2 clubs).
No, Spurs are a bit closer to the centre. In any case, Spurs are overachieving relative to their fellow ''Zone 2'' clubs . The zone pattern is evident but not that scientifically clear cut. Millwall should be doing much better as a ''Zone 2'' club - can't work out why they are not in the Premiership.

Quote:
There is no clear pattern between a club's 'zone' and its success in London.
Really? I suggest you take a long hard look at a map of London and study where the low profile and high profile are located in relation to a centre point. The pattern might not belong to an exact science and there will be a few exceptions to the rule but nevertheless the pattern is identifiable.

Quote:
Transport does play a part, but if it was the sole factor QPR should be fairing a hell of a lot better given LR is near to multiple stations on several tube and rail lines plus a major radial urban motorway.
Yes, QPR is not fulfilling its potential as a Zone 2 club. Certainly underachieving in the same way as Millwall is.
oxo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 04:30 PM   #4790
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,267
Likes (Received): 743

Quote:
Originally Posted by oxo View Post
What makes Nine Elms (south edge of Central London map) any more central or tourist-friendly than the Gospel Oak area, its northern edge?
Very pedantic of you to say QPR is a bit closer to Charing Cross than Piccadilly Circus.
Would that be by 89.7 metres?
When did I say anything about Nine Elms?

Re. QPR, the point was they're as near to the West End as Arsenal yet have been no where near as successful (even though support size is more meaningful than success)

Quote:
Not true, Arsenal are a bit closer to Trafalgar Square than Millwall and importantly enough are within walking distance to significant areas such as London's biggest transport hub – Kings Cross/St Pancras, not to mention loads of other places of note.
I said central London. Millwall are near enough as close to London Bridge as Arsenal are to Kings X. They're close to the City (and CW), to all the corporate suits which supposedly help fill expensive sits. London Bridge is hardly a small transport hub either.

Quote:
So what? I wasn't try to identify a pattern between wealthy areas and high profile clubs.
You did try and establish a link between proximity to centre and success though. I said Fulham are close to some central London districts. Funny you ignored that bit.

Quote:
No, Spurs are a bit closer to the centre. In any case, Spurs are overachieving relative to their fellow ''Zone 2'' clubs . The zone pattern is evident but not that scientifically clear cut. Millwall should be doing much better as a ''Zone 2'' club - can't work out why they are not in the Premiership.
Hmm, Charlton are around 5.5/6km from the edge of the City (Tower of London), Spurs probably just over 6km from the northern fringe around Kings X.

Either way, my point is geography isn't as big a factor as you think. There are too many exceptions to your theory.

Quote:
Really? I suggest you take a long hard look at a map of London and study where the low profile and high profile are located in relation to a centre point. The pattern might not belong to an exact science and there will be a few exceptions to the rule but nevertheless the pattern is identifiable.
West Ham and Spurs are bigger clubs than a host of inner London ones, neither were in the old County of London unlike some of their smaller rivals. Leyton Orient played in an area that today is part of Hackney for close to 50 years, yet Spurs and WH got bigger crowds than them, even when playing in the same division.

Clubs mostly have individual reasons for their success - or lack of -, same with support size, often relating to money rather than geography. Barnet for example weren't professional until after WWII. Some clubs were relegated at the 'wrong' time, missing out on boom years in terms of football's growth. For others it was the opposite. QPR had moderate success in the 80s when football hit the buffers, hitting a decline and financial difficulties just before Sky poured cash into the game.

Quote:
Yes, QPR is not fulfilling its potential as a Zone 2 club. Certainly underachieving in the same way as Millwall is.
Neither are Fulham or Charlton. Which might suggest many other factors are important than geography, even though I admit it has a role to play.

Last edited by kerouac1848; July 30th, 2012 at 04:38 PM.
kerouac1848 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 06:07 PM   #4791
alexandru.mircea
Ars longa, vita brevis
 
alexandru.mircea's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,640
Likes (Received): 8527

All those things oxo is talking about have become indeed very important since the businessification of football. But:

- they make their impact in a context modeled by a century long development where the pure sporting aspects of the game were prevalent over the economics of the game.
- even now their importance is not that high, certainly not the most important, as the most important source of income for the larger clubs is TV rights, where the location of the club is irrelevant. Look up weight the TV rights (and think of the new outrageous foreign TV rights deal made since this article was written) in the Premier League's business: http://swissramble.blogspot.fr/2012/...shines-on.html
alexandru.mircea está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 08:05 PM   #4792
legolamb
Advance Kingstonia!
 
legolamb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 6,071
Likes (Received): 273

Quote:
Have you got average attendance figures for Hull City for the last 60 years? I can't take your word for it. Too vague to say they were topping 40,000 regularly, because while the 50s and 60s were a golden era for attendances, averages attendance over 40k were still few and far between.
No averages.And unfortunately, the club's highest attendances all came around the same time at the end of the 40's/early 50's before safety limitations were imposed, so the list of biggest gates below isn't too helpful either. I'll add a couple of early 70's videos of boothferry park though.

26/02/1949 FA Cup 6th Round Manchester United 55,019
27/01/1951 FA Cup 4th Round Rotherham United 50,040
04/02/1950 Second Division (Old) Sheffield Wednesday 49,900
25/12/1948 Third Division (North) Rotherham Utd 49,655 (3rd division!)
27/12/1949 Second Division (Old) Brentford 48,447
29/10/1949 Second Division (Old) Leeds United 47,638




Last edited by legolamb; July 30th, 2012 at 08:13 PM.
legolamb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 08:39 PM   #4793
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,981
Likes (Received): 2297

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS20 View Post
Yeah on reflection I was very conservative with the figure. Whatever the number is, its certainly above a million, which makes Spurs a prime candidate to contest for titles. All thats needed now is that revenue generating new stadium.
Again, mate, I have to revise your figure considerably upwards. I realise that you're erring on the side of caution but you don't have to be quite so conservative with your estimates!

As I said, a 15 mile radius around White Hart Lane covers a good two thirds of London - including all of the most densely populated areas. So that has to be at least six million for starters!

Add to that the Essex and Hertfordshire suburbs that also fall within a 15 mile radius and I'd be surprised if the total wasn't at least 7 million.
JimB está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 08:58 PM   #4794
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,981
Likes (Received): 2297

Quote:
Originally Posted by oxo View Post
A great number of reasons can be given to account for Chelsea’s or Arsenal’s success that are unrelated to issues of location. But the plain fact is that among the 16 London clubs they are the only 2 clubs to be found on most maps of central London.

To dismiss this as being ‘’coincidental’’ strikes me as flippant in the extreme.

Arsenal is about a 4 mile road distance from London’s recognised centre-point Piccadilly Circus. Chelsea is about 3 and a half miles away from the centre-point.

This is followed by the ‘’Zone 2’’ clubs such as Fulham, QPR, Millwall and Spurs being between 5 – 6 miles away from the centre point. This proximity reflects their moderate success as clubs (a bit more than moderate in the case of Spurs lately and less so for Millwall who seem to be underachieving in relation to its zone status).

The ‘’Zone 3’’ clubs located over 6 miles away from the centre point include Charlton, Brentford and Dagenham & Redbridge. These are low profile clubs with Charlton slightly overachieving in relation to its zone status.

There is an obvious pattern here between the success of a club and its zone status which can not be denied or dismissed as coincidental. The pattern surely proves that location must have a key influence on the success of a club.
There is no obvious pattern at all.

Sorry, oxo, but you're talking utter shite.

Arsenal's success was built on the back of an inspired managerial choice in the late 1920's - many decades before the area of Highbury / Holloway was considered anything other than a poor and staunchly working class area.

More recent success was achieved as a consequence of a second inspired managerial choice in 1996.

Location is only important to Arsenal's success in so far as the club is situated in London and therefore had access to a huge potential fan base from its earliest days. But, in that respect, Arsenal had no particular advantage over any other London club. They simply happen to have been more successful - and therefore attracted ever greater numbers of fans.

Chelsea's success is, as everyone without a nonsensical agenda to peddle knows, entirely attributable to some one billion pounds of Russian oil money that has been lavished on the team over the past 8 years.
JimB está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 09:03 PM   #4795
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,981
Likes (Received): 2297

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerouac1848 View Post
It isn't really anymore, my gf lives on a street off Holloway Road and can walk to HR tube station in about 30 mins, so under 40mins to the stadium. Most of that side is actually quite nice, her long street is full of 4/5 story town houses kept in good condition. The estates tend to be of the nicer kind. Around Finsbury park it's bit shitter though, but WHL and its surroundings is a lot more visibly crap imo.
All opinion, mate. Fair enough, you disagree. But Holloway Road is grim as ****, IMO! Other than that Waitrose, there isn't the slightest concession to gentrification.

Overall, it is certainly better than Tottenham. No argument there. But it has only relatively recently become so.
JimB está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 09:12 PM   #4796
RMB2007
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,715
Likes (Received): 11885

Hayes & Yeading United's new stadium is finally under construction:



http://hyufc.com/groundworks.html
RMB2007 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2012, 01:24 AM   #4797
oxo
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 977
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
There is no obvious pattern at all.

Sorry, oxo, but you're talking utter shite.
A bit rich coming from you.

Quote:
Arsenal's success was built on the back of an inspired managerial choice in the late 1920's - many decades before the area of Highbury / Holloway was considered anything other than a poor and staunchly working class area.
They moved from Greenwich. If they hadn't they would have remained a low profile team such as Charlton to this very day. You think an Arsene Wenger would have made much of a success of a modern day Arsenal Greenwich club? Unlikely, especially in such a restricted and localised catchment area.

Quote:
More recent success was achieved as a consequence of a second inspired managerial choice in 1996.
You seem to live in a simplistic black and white world in which the main reason for a club's success is the manager.
As England's mediocre players have proved time and time again, the manager can only influence team performance to a limited extent. The best manager in the world could not do much with England although there are managers who could make them play even more abysmally.

Quote:
Location is only important to Arsenal's success in so far as the club is situated in London and therefore had access to a huge potential fan base from its earliest days. But, in that respect, Arsenal had no particular advantage over any other London club. They simply happen to have been more successful - and therefore attracted ever greater numbers of fans.
'They simply happen to have been more successful''? Nothing ''simply happens'' without a reason.
Fans don't ''simply happen'' to support teams for no reason.

Quote:
Chelsea's success is, as everyone without a nonsensical agenda to peddle knows, entirely attributable to some one billion pounds of Russian oil money that has been lavished on the team over the past 8 years.
Why do you think Abramovich chose to invest in Chelsea as opposed to a Charlton, West Ham or a QPR?
He didn't achieve his business success by making short-sighted decisions and understood the significance of club location and catchment areas. You on the other hand think that any old team such as a Watford or a Crystal Palace would become successful after having billions poured into it.
oxo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2012, 01:32 AM   #4798
oxo
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 977
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerouac1848
Re. QPR, the point was they're as near to the West End as Arsenal yet have been no where near as successful (even though support size is more meaningful than success)
Centrality can be gauged with a tourist map. You'll find Arsenal on such a map but not QPR because Loftus Road is too far west to be included. Highgate near Arsenal is a touristy area and Islington is fast becoming one. Since when has Shepherd's Bush near QPR been an attraction for tourists?

Quote:
I said central London. Millwall are near enough as close to London Bridge as Arsenal are to Kings X. They're close to the City (and CW), to all the corporate suits which supposedly help fill expensive sits. London Bridge is hardly a small transport hub either.
Yes, there's something gone wrong at Millwall because their geographic position suggests they should be in the Premiership, competing for a top 6 place. However, they do not even have a tube connection so connectivity is poor. Arsenal on the other hand enjoy much superior connectivity to most parts of London.

Quote:
You did try and establish a link between proximity to centre and success though. I said Fulham are close to some central London districts. Funny you ignored that bit.
Fulham is close to some central London districts such as Chelsea but is not central itself. Some central London districts are not necessarily wealthy anyway.

Quote:
Hmm, Charlton are around 5.5/6km from the edge of the City (Tower of London), Spurs probably just over 6km from the northern fringe around Kings X.
Charlton have poor connectivity with most of London because of the lack of tube stations in the area and only the one rail station. Nearest tube about 2 miles away! The Victoria Line makes Spurs more accessible and draws it ''nearer'' to other parts of London. However, compared to the Arsenal and Chelsea clubs Spurs are poorly connected to the transport network.

Quote:
Either way, my point is geography isn't as big a factor as you think. There are too many exceptions to your theory.
Only one or two exceptions to my theory. What about Zone 3 clubs? Funny you ignored that bit: Barnet, Brentford, Dagenham, AFC Wimbledon - all lower league clubs based further away from the centre and will never become high profile because of their outward location.


.

Last edited by oxo; July 31st, 2012 at 01:44 AM.
oxo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2012, 04:25 AM   #4799
RonyFurtado
Registered User
 
RonyFurtado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ourinhos-SP
Posts: 865
Likes (Received): 1564

I love the English stadiums... I am Brazilian and my team is the Corinthians. In England my favorite club is the Fulham FC.

I hope that at the end of the year, Chelsea and Corinthians can play the final of world cup for clubs in Japan.

Sorry for my horrible English. =)
__________________
Sport Club Corinthians Paulista. 2x champion of the FIFA Club World Cup 2000/2012
RonyFurtado no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2012, 12:10 PM   #4800
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,981
Likes (Received): 2297

Quote:
Originally Posted by oxo View Post
They moved from Greenwich. If they hadn't they would have remained a low profile team such as Charlton to this very day.
Pure speculation on your part.

Quote:
You think an Arsene Wenger would have made much of a success of a modern day Arsenal Greenwich club? Unlikely, especially in such a restricted and localised catchment area.
If an Arsenal based in Greenwich had the same players, resources, staff and fan base as the one that is in north London, then yes, I'm quite certain that Wenger would have made every bit as much a success of the job.

Quote:
You seem to live in a simplistic black and white world in which the main reason for a club's success is the manager.
You seem to live in a Lala Land, in which location (to the preposterous point of fractions of miles) is the sole determining criterion for success. At least my "simplistic black and white world" is based on logic.

Quote:
As England's mediocre players have proved time and time again, the manager can only influence team performance to a limited extent. The best manager in the world could not do much with England although there are managers who could make them play even more abysmally.
See, that's the thing with international teams - the player pool is limited. Not so for club teams. Which is why Wenger was able to spot the potential in players like Vieira, Henry, Petit, Pires, Anelka, Fabregas etc etc.

Quote:
'They simply happen to have been more successful''? Nothing ''simply happens'' without a reason.
Fans don't ''simply happen'' to support teams for no reason.
Of course. Arsenal were successful for a number of reasons. But not because they were a mile or two (or even a fraction of a mile) closer to central London than some other clubs.

Quote:
Why do you think Abramovich chose to invest in Chelsea as opposed to a Charlton, West Ham or a QPR?
Because, as I've already said, Chelsea were:

- already a high profile, Premier League club
- with a decent fan base and stadium
- in the Champions League (albeit as a consequence of spending money that they didn't have)
- available to buy at a bargain basement price (as a consequence of their woeful mismanagement over the preceding 5-10 years)

Quote:
He didn't achieve his business success by making short-sighted decisions and understood the significance of club location and catchment areas.
You think that the decision to buy Chelsea was a business decision? Arf! He's poured more than £1 billion into it, all told. He's received no income from it. If he was to sell right now, he wouldn't make any profit from it.

Quote:
You on the other hand think that any old team such as a Watford or a Crystal Palace would become successful after having billions poured into it.
Blackburn Rovers were pretty successful for the few years that Jack Walker poured modest amounts of his money into the club (modest by comparison to the vast sums poured into City and Chelsea).

So there is no reason whatsoever why a club with the potential of Crystal Palace couldn't be very successful if it became the beneficiary of billions of pounds of petro money.
JimB está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu