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 March 3rd, 2009, 07:44 AM   #61
isaidso
the new republic
 
isaidso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The United Provinces of America
Posts: 29,650
Likes (Received): 10796

Quote:
Originally Posted by parcdesprinces View Post
World third largest sporting event....
Thanks for the info, but I'm completely floored that 4 billion people watch this. Where are they all? I'm looking at the countries where rugby is popular and I'm struggling to even get to 1 billion, let alone 4 billion. Are we talking about viewers, or people who have access to a channel that broadcasts this? There's a big difference between availability and actual television audience.

A case in point: the Grey Cup is seen in 140+ countries representing 2 billion people, but the actual number of people that tune into watch it beyond Canada is very small.

The UK, France, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. Excuse my ignorance, but what significantly large nations beyond these is rugby popular in? It's not my intention to insult, but rugby gets less press than figure skating on this continent. Where is the 4 billion coming from? It's not popular in India or China and that's 2.5 billion out of 6.5 billion right there. 4 billion sounds like a big stretch.
__________________
World's 1st Baseball Game: June 4th, 1838, Beachville, Ontario, Canada
North America's Oldest Pro Football Teams: Toronto Argonauts (1873) and Hamilton Tiger Cats (1869)

I started my first photo thread documenting a recent trip to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Have a peek: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=724898

Last edited by isaidso; March 3rd, 2009 at 07:56 AM.
isaidso no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 3rd, 2009, 11:12 AM   #62
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

accumalated figure, over the course the tournament...
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2009, 11:53 AM   #63
IHaveNoLegs
No Fat Chicks
 
IHaveNoLegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: One of the cracks at AMI Stadium
Posts: 845
Likes (Received): 33

whats up with the running track at murryfield?
__________________
Of Course you Canterbury 1977 1983 1997 2001 2004 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017
IHaveNoLegs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2009, 01:41 PM   #64
Welshlad
Socialogically Diseased
 
Welshlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 400
Likes (Received): 8

I think its meant to be a warm up track for players. Maybe they hadn't invented exercise bikes or hadn't thought of letting the players warm up in the goal area at each end of the pitch when they built the stadium..... its a bit of a waste of space really
Welshlad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2009, 01:57 PM   #65
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3



I often wondered the same thing. Having been to the stadium a few times, I think I have the answer but don't take this as definite fact, just a good guess.

Despite how it looks, Murrayfield was developed in three different stages. The East Stand, which is the smaller one, was built first. Before this, the only seating in the stadium was at the West Stand, with a large bowl of terracing on the other three sides:

Before new East Stand was built:



After new East Stand was built:



You can sort of see the rather weird design of the West Stand here; a two tiered central portion and one tiered wings as well.

Following the Taylor Report, plans were made to convert the stadium into an all-seated facility. With seating already available on the East and West sides of the ground, the North and South stands were built. Unfortunately, whoever decided to build these stands was rather myopic; while the plans always linked the smaller East Stand with the larger North and South stands, no consideration was given as to future renovation of the West Stand or how to link it with the North and South Stands, so the North and South Stands were built as wide as the available space allowed. As a result, the North and South Stands are wider than the pitch.

As a result, when it came to replacing the old West Stand, designers were faced with a problem; either built a totally separate new stand that didn't connect with the North and South Stands and sacrifice up to about 8,000 seats in the new stadium, or build a new stand with quadrants that would be some distance from the pitch. In the end, they chose the stand with quadrants. Due to the lack of space caused by the width of the North and South Stands, the only way to incorporate quadrants was the design we currently see.

Then, in a bid not to just have a big patch of unused space at the West side of the pitch, the SRU decided to build the running track.
__________________
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.
NeilF no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2009, 02:21 PM   #66
CharlieP
Tax avoider
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 23,754
Likes (Received): 1974

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilF View Post


I often wondered the same thing. Having been to the stadium a few times, I think I have the answer but don't take this as definite fact, just a good guess.
<snip>

Quote:
Following the Taylor Report, plans were made to convert the stadium into an all-seated facility. With seating already available on the East and West sides of the ground, the North and South stands were built. Unfortunately, whoever decided to build these stands was rather myopic; while the plans always linked the smaller East Stand with the larger North and South stands, no consideration was given as to future renovation of the West Stand or how to link it with the North and South Stands, so the North and South Stands were built as wide as the available space allowed. As a result, the North and South Stands are wider than the pitch.
Good guess, but in fact the North and South Stands were only built as wide as the pitch:



Looking at the stadium today, you can still see where they stretched to, as there are two large gaps on the lower level - the West Stand was deliberately built set back from the pitch, with the upper tier wrapped around to meet the North and South Stands.

I have a couple of different theories - if you stand outside the East Stand it's clear to see that there's no room on that side for expansion, given the slope of the ground and neighbouring properties. Building the West Stand further away gives the potential to move the pitch in the future and build a larger East Stand. Secondly, Murrayfield has a long history of holding sprinting events, although I'm not sure to what extent that still happens...
__________________
This signature is socialist and un-American.
CharlieP no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2009, 04:56 PM   #67
limerickguy
Registered User
 
limerickguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 805
Likes (Received): 107

can i just add that the capacity of croke park is actually between 82,500 and 83,000 and not the 82,300 suggested..kinda irrelivent but it is said that with the terracing on the hil 16 side it has the capability toswell past its original size
limerickguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2009, 05:50 PM   #68
CharlieP
Tax avoider
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 23,754
Likes (Received): 1974

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilF View Post
The Stadio Olimpico is probably much too large just now and the athletics track would make it terrible for watching rugby - football in athletics stadia are bad enough but when the ball is almost always in hand or on the ground in rugby, good rugby stadia require a particular set of criteria to be good for watching the sport in.
Not only that - the athletics track limits the size of the pitch. IAAF rules say that it must be a 400 m circuit, but not how long the straights and curves are. If you consider that 2x + Pi.y = 400 (where x is the length of the straights and y the distance between them), a track with 100 m straights will only have a separation of 63.66 m.
__________________
This signature is socialist and un-American.
CharlieP no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2009, 06:13 PM   #69
parcdesprinces
churches & stadia/arenas
 
parcdesprinces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auteuil, Paris XVI | Quercy | Monaco, MC
Posts: 16,712
Likes (Received): 9711

Quote:
Originally Posted by limerickguy View Post
can i just add that the capacity of croke park is actually between 82,500 and 83,000 and not the 82,300 suggested..kinda irrelivent but it is said that with the terracing on the hil 16 side it has the capability toswell past its original size
From crokepark.ie

Quote:
Match day capacity: 82,300 people
So I don't know, maybe the all-seater capacity ???
parcdesprinces no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2009, 09:25 PM   #70
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

Seated capacity at Croker is about 73,500. I think what the poster was suggesting is that while official capacity at Croke Park is 82,300, the stadium is capable of holding more fans than that because of available space on the terrace. Having been to Croke Park for a rugby game and seen the security systems around the stadium, I can't see anyone without a ticket getting in, however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieP View Post
Not only that - the athletics track limits the size of the pitch. IAAF rules say that it must be a 400 m circuit, but not how long the straights and curves are. If you consider that 2x + Pi.y = 400 (where x is the length of the straights and y the distance between them), a track with 100 m straights will only have a separation of 63.66 m.
Quite an interesting point. I had assumed that the Stadio Olimpico would just about manage the 70m width required for international rugby because, if it's capable of hosting the Champions League final, it's playing surface is at least 68m wide. Having looked at pictures of the football layout, however, that isn't the case - the corner flags are but a few inches in from the track and there is, perhaps, 2m behind each goal. At 105m long (again a guess based on hosting the Champions League final), plus this little extra, there also wouldn't be room for the minimum in-goal areas.

Thinking about it, it would seem almost impossible to fit an international rugby union pitch inside an athletics track without some modification. With that being the case Italy's Rugby World Cup bid could begin to look a little sparse.croke park
__________________
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.
NeilF no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2009, 09:43 PM   #71
Joop20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
Thanks for the info, but I'm completely floored that 4 billion people watch this. Where are they all? I'm looking at the countries where rugby is popular and I'm struggling to even get to 1 billion, let alone 4 billion. Are we talking about viewers, or people who have access to a channel that broadcasts this? There's a big difference between availability and actual television audience.

A case in point: the Grey Cup is seen in 140+ countries representing 2 billion people, but the actual number of people that tune into watch it beyond Canada is very small.

The UK, France, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. Excuse my ignorance, but what significantly large nations beyond these is rugby popular in? It's not my intention to insult, but rugby gets less press than figure skating on this continent. Where is the 4 billion coming from? It's not popular in India or China and that's 2.5 billion out of 6.5 billion right there. 4 billion sounds like a big stretch.
The 4 billion figure is a cumulative figure for all matches during the tournament I suppose. Note that 2,263,223 actually attened a match during the 2007 Rugby World cup, which means an average of 47,150 per match.

I can imagine that the scale of a Rugby World cup or even a Six Nations tournament is hard to imagine for someone from North America, but you might say the same for NFL (and CFL) - it has hardly any popularity outside North America, while NFL is the most popular league in the USA. Actually, of the 4 major North American sports, NFL is the least popular outside North America I guess. To use your words - NFL gets less press then figure skating in the rest of the world

Outside the countries you mentioned, rugby is also quite popular in countries like Argentina, Japan, Italy, Georgia, Romania, the Pacific Island nations, etc etc. Add to this that a tournament like the Rugby World Cup attracts a larger audience then just the traditional following. In my country, the Netherlands, we normaly don't get any live rugby on TV, but the top matches from the Rugby World cup were broadcasted live.
Joop20 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 05:43 AM   #72
isaidso
the new republic
 
isaidso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The United Provinces of America
Posts: 29,650
Likes (Received): 10796

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
accumalated figure, over the course the tournament...
OK, thank you. That makes far more sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joop20 View Post
The 4 billion figure is a cumulative figure for all matches during the tournament I suppose. Note that 2,263,223 actually attened a match during the 2007 Rugby World cup, which means an average of 47,150 per match.

I can imagine that the scale of a Rugby World cup or even a Six Nations tournament is hard to imagine for someone from North America, but you might say the same for NFL (and CFL) - it has hardly any popularity outside North America, while NFL is the most popular league in the USA. Actually, of the 4 major North American sports, NFL is the least popular outside North America I guess. To use your words - NFL gets less press then figure skating in the rest of the world

Outside the countries you mentioned, rugby is also quite popular in countries like Argentina, Japan, Italy, Georgia, Romania, the Pacific Island nations, etc etc. Add to this that a tournament like the Rugby World Cup attracts a larger audience then just the traditional following. In my country, the Netherlands, we normaly don't get any live rugby on TV, but the top matches from the Rugby World cup were broadcasted live.
Thank you for the explanation. So, we're talking 4 billion viewers spread over 48 games, or an average of 83 million viewers/game? In view of that, it makes a little more sense. Shouldn't they be using the 83 million figure though? That's how most sports count their viewership.

The 4 billion figure is more useful in terms of marketing potential to advertisers than a measure of global appeal. It would be like counting viewership at the Winter Olympics by counting the cumulative numbers for all 84 events. If there were on average 100 million viewers around the world per event, you've got 8.4 billion viewers. You could do the same for the 62 events of the World Aquatics Championships, the 39 games of the World Baseball Classic, the 75 games of the World Basketball Championships, the 52 games of the World Ice Hockey Championships.

Aquatics wouldn't stack up well to rugby despite the number of events, but the others would. In each, you're talking about popularity in a number of countries with very large populations.

Baseball: US, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Venezuela, then an interest in a lot of smaller nations.
Hockey: US, Canada, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, then a passing interest in a lot of other nations.
Basketball: US, Canada, China, Russia, Spain, France; really an endlessly long list.

In each case, we're talking about a core support of countries that have a far larger population than that for the core support of countries for rugby. Surely, at least the cumulative figure for basketball would outstrip that of rugby?
__________________
World's 1st Baseball Game: June 4th, 1838, Beachville, Ontario, Canada
North America's Oldest Pro Football Teams: Toronto Argonauts (1873) and Hamilton Tiger Cats (1869)

I started my first photo thread documenting a recent trip to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Have a peek: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=724898

Last edited by isaidso; March 4th, 2009 at 06:27 AM.
isaidso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 01:49 PM   #73
ArchieTheGreat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by IHaveNoLegs View Post
whats up with the running track at murryfield?
When Murrayfield was built originally it had a 100 yard sprint track in front of the main stand. This was due to the popularity of professional sprint races. These are different to normal athletics, with the sprinters having handicaps / "head starts" and people bet on the sprinters. I don't no whether these are still run, but they obviously decided to keep that facility with the redevelopment.



Still run: http://www.sportingworld.co.uk/newyearsprint/index.html

Last edited by ArchieTheGreat; March 4th, 2009 at 02:02 PM.
ArchieTheGreat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 04:16 PM   #74
parcdesprinces
churches & stadia/arenas
 
parcdesprinces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auteuil, Paris XVI | Quercy | Monaco, MC
Posts: 16,712
Likes (Received): 9711

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilF View Post
Thinking about it, it would seem almost impossible to fit an international rugby union pitch inside an athletics track without some modification. With that being the case Italy's Rugby World Cup bid could begin to look a little sparse.croke park
Stade de France has an athletics track.

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr
parcdesprinces no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 04:29 PM   #75
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,022
Likes (Received): 4813

Quote:
Originally Posted by limerickguy View Post
croke park is my favourite stadium in the tournament..unreal size and very loud too!
Nothing to do with you being Irish, of course.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 05:31 PM   #76
CharlieP
Tax avoider
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 23,754
Likes (Received): 1974

Quote:
Originally Posted by parcdesprinces View Post
Stade de France has an athletics track.

image hosted on flickr
Fair point (though you can see how they've had to lay carpet in the corners as the grass doesn't completely fill the in-goal areas, and the pitch won't be anywhere near the 70 m maximum width).
__________________
This signature is socialist and un-American.
CharlieP no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 05:46 PM   #77
Walbanger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,241
Likes (Received): 1111

Quote:
In each, you're talking about popularity in a number of countries with very large populations.

Baseball: US, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Venezuela, then an interest in a lot of smaller nations.
Hockey: US, Canada, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, then a passing interest in a lot of other nations.
Basketball: US, Canada, China, Russia, Spain, France; really an endlessly long list.

In each case, we're talking about a core support of countries that have a far larger population than that for the core support of countries for rugby. Surely, at least the cumulative figure for basketball would outstrip that of rugby?
What hasn't be mentioned is that Rugby Unions traditional strength still to this day is Internationals. Rugby national squads play many serious games annually, essentially in a mini league. I can imagine only rivaled by the cricketing tours as another sport which places so much emphasis on national teams. The aspiration of the elite player is to represent ones country as opposed to a powerful club. The sports you mentioned are dominated by powerful leagues and clubs with International comming second, though I'm aware that Hockey internationals are picking up. My point is that Basketball, Baseball and Hockey may have following' from larger population bases but they don't have the same culture of international competition as the Rugby Union nations who have been playing almost constantly for 120 years. Hockey is picking up on the International more, Basketball is club dominated and while its World Championships have been around a while, they can't hold a candle to the Rugby World Cup. Baseball may begin to embrace the international more and that would be great but at the moment all is dictated by the league's as in Rugby Union the league's are all directed at producing talent for the national teams.
Walbanger no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 06:01 PM   #78
CharlieP
Tax avoider
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 23,754
Likes (Received): 1974

I've just done a bit more "research", and while my algebra was correct it was based on an incorrect assumption. It turns out that IAAF tracks usually have 85 metre straights (which I should have realised, since 100 m sprinters start before the curved lines merge with the straight lines), which means there's a grass area 73.21 m wide in the middle of the track. Obviously you can't use the entire width without making the pitch 15 m too short, but given the large radius of the curves at each end, bringing the touchlines in a bit gives you quite a bit more length.

According to Pythagoras, a 70 m wide pitch could be 85 + 2 x sqrt (36.6^2 -35^2) = 106.40 m long before hitting the athletics track. So it works fine if the pitch is slightly under 70 m wide or you carpet the in-goal area...
__________________
This signature is socialist and un-American.
CharlieP no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 06:47 PM   #79
Federicoft
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 12,621
Likes (Received): 4348

Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
I'm surprised the Italian stadium is as big as it is. Will they be able to fill it?
It's usually sold out months in advance.
We definitely need a bigger stadium.
Federicoft no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 8th, 2009, 08:36 PM   #80
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieP View Post
Good guess, but in fact the North and South Stands were only built as wide as the pitch:



Looking at the stadium today, you can still see where they stretched to, as there are two large gaps on the lower level - the West Stand was deliberately built set back from the pitch, with the upper tier wrapped around to meet the North and South Stands.

I have a couple of different theories - if you stand outside the East Stand it's clear to see that there's no room on that side for expansion, given the slope of the ground and neighbouring properties. Building the West Stand further away gives the potential to move the pitch in the future and build a larger East Stand.
Charlie;

I initially agreed with your assessment here but having thought about this, and noticed a few things while looking at a few pictures of Murrayfield, I'm not sure I do agree.

First of all, there was no sprint track in front of the old West stand. The sprints at Murrayfield were, generally, run on tracks painted onto the pitch. I can see no reason why this would change with the redesign of the West stand - it makes that side of the stadium less desirable to sit in for a majority of the events held at the ground in order to facilitate an incredibly minor function of the stadium that wasn't directly accommodated before.

You are right - the North and South stands only go as far West as the touchline on that side of the pitch, but the quadrants that join the East stand to the North and South stands begins a few metres (maybe as many as five metres) in from the touchline on the east side of the stadium.



I know this is the pitch in a football configuration but since the rugby pitch tends to be two metres wider than a football pitch, you should definitely be able to see what I mean; given that the East stand was already in place when the North and South stands and their quadrants were designed, this would suggest, to me, that at least some of the distance between the West stand and the west touchline, can be explained by the width of the previously existing North and South stands.

You also mention that the gaps between the lower tiers of the North & South stands and the West stand is suggestive of a deliberate attempt to set the stand back from the pitch. I'm not so sure; if they were a deliberate attempt to set the West stand back from the pitch, then they wouldn't follow the curvature of the stadium bowl but the gaps do. In other words, it isn't a straight line from the last seat in the North & South stands to the first seat in the West stand. With this being the case, I think these gaps are nothing more than pitch access.

image hosted on flickr


Notice, for example, that the curve of the upper tier begins right where the North and South stands end. In other words, I think the way the North and South stands were designed and built, there was always going to be a larger gap between the West stand and the touchline as there was between the East stand and the touchline.

That said, I'm not sure that this would account for the size of the gap in question. The most easterly part of the straight sections of the North and South stands are, at most, about 10m further west than the front row of the East stand. The gap between the most westerly seats in the North and South stands and the front row of the West stand is clearly much larger than that, so perhaps there is some other reason - your idea of a complete bowl may make sense but I'm not so sure.

Another thing that this thread hasn't touched on is that the front row of the West stand doesn't run parallel to the touchline; it angles away from the pitch as it approaches the half-way line. I see absolutely no aesthetic reason for this and it could only have made the internal design of the stand more difficult than it otherwise would have been, so I think this may suggest that there were problems with joining the West stand to the North and South stands that led to compromises in the way the West stand was built - perhaps suggestive that, had the front row of the West stand been kept parallel to the pitch, it would have had to be set even further back?

To me, the only satisfactory conclusions are either to do with problems joining the existing and new structures, or that there was a plan to move the pitch West as you suggest. The later is actually seeming very possible to me but, given the cantilevered nature of the West stand would probably not have needed such a large gap:

The maximum distance from the front row of the West stand to the touchline is 15m and the minimum distance about 12m. The East stand is about 31m from front to back, the West stand is about 52m but the actual footprint is no greater than the East stand because of the cantilevered upper tier.

The distance between the back of the East stand and the steps down the hill is about 10m, which would have been plenty of room to create access to the upper tier of the new East stand in the same way as access to the upper tier of the West stand, in my opinion. It certainly wouldn't require the extra 12m-15m provided by the athletics track and new West stand. It doesn't make sense, to me at least, to built the West stand so far back from the pitch when, (a) there were never any definite plans to rebuild the East stand and, (b) that extra space may never have been necessary in the first place. So, I'm not so sure that is valid either.
__________________
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.
NeilF no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
rugby

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 09:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 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