Neither have I. I am just pointing out that clubs that actually own their own stadium rather than getting lucky and having a new stadium built for them to rent, whether that is council or Football owned, deserve some credit for doing so.

but do they deserve credit for letting them get rundown!

you seem to have a grudge against teams that play or share stadiums that are owned by a football team or a council

I think there is a difference between not improving a ground and a ground being rundown. Central Park was as rundown as any ground but I know many Wigan fans who wish they were back there and weren't forced to sell it to stay in business. Whether a ground is rundown or not at least it is an asset which they own. I dont see why a club shouldnt get credit for this.

Do clubs that were forced to sell their grounds because they were going to go bankrupt deserve credit. Do clubs that own no assets deserve credit? Do clubs that have to move fixtures due to sharing a ground deserve credit?



No grudge at all. I just find it funny how fans of some clubs lecture others about their grounds purely because they have got lucky. Bar Warrington I cant think of another SL club that has actually got a new stadium due to their own actions. Wigan are a prime example of this. They had to sell Central Park to stay in business and if it wasnt for Whelan building the JJB they would now be playing at Bolton in front of a handful of people. Why should they get credit for that compared to a club that has managed itself well, lived within its means and actually owns it ground

Clubs that manage themselves well. Exactly how many of them are there. If Wire didn't have a sugar daddy they would also be in a hole street. My club HFC were also in a hole street but the council saw the value of the club to the community, they also saw the value of a community stadium. The club saw the value of the community stadium and have built their crowds accordingly despite some p poor seasons. The business is now prospering and they are a viable business. You make the most of what comes your way. If they screw it up then you can have a go.

the only club that has managed to do well in superleague and stay within its own means with its own ground is leeds, all the rest have had money worries at some stage

the kc was built for the intention of rugby and football, the same as jjb and the galpharm,(of which the giants own a percentage of i believe). hull fc have managed profits now for the last few years, something we wouldn't have achieved at the boulevard, yes we was lucky, but it was our money that funded the stadium through the local kingston communication share offer


as for you last statement, clubs have poured money into their playing staff far too long rather than looking after the spectators

[url=http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Castleford-Tigers--Fans-to.5836697.jplatest on Cas's gound[/url

Submit detailed plans, swampy and pals object 2-3 years through the courts, lose SL franchise, dont build ground .............. hope that doesnt happen, but after helping fight Swampy and the nimby's at Leigh it will be a long fight.

We're keeping a close eye out for you and Starbug nipping over the Pennines with your great crested newts to plant on the site.

The whole ground criteria should be binned. What's most important is how many people you get in a ground not how many empty plastic seats you have!

While the numbers going through the turnstiles is important, so is the ground itself in being able to GROW your market.

Why would a casual fan want to go and stand on the terraces of Knowsley Rd? I am an ardant league fan, but knowsley rd is the biggest dump of ground I have ever been to. Even I will not return in the future, when I head up north I would rather head to the DW or KC in future.

What hope do we have gathering new fans in stadia that belong in the 50's?

If your going to set a criteria I'd set a min criteria of:

min 12,000 capacity
50-50 seating and standing min
all stands covered
good disabled access
decent toilets, bars and food
easy access/parking

that's all you need in a SL ground generally!

Us flatcappers look after our own, so if I can be of help ask.


One word of advice is that when they first leaflet and call a meeting turn up en masse, showing support for the plan. Their next meeting is behind closed doors with Swampy not taking up the invitation for your meeting, at which point you will be asked a question about migrating Canadian Geese flying into the floodlights

Well the site is just a barren landscape at the moment pretty much. AFAIK there aren't any trees for swampy and his cronies to cry about.

That was one of the funniest things I heard that night, although I thought the old dear put it like 'they won't be able to find the water with the stadium in the way'

That was a different concern

Considering it's going to be built on a coal mining site, I don't see any reason why Swampy should object.

Not true in wakeys case (i hvae no idea about saints) wakefield council have publically stated they will not give one penny towards wakefields (as well as castlefords and featherstones) ground.

I can see what cherrydevils getting at, it is quite often those who were lucky enough to have a local council willing to build a new ground for them (or those that simply moved in with football/union) that are the first to critiscise older grounds.

Unless he has the ability to travel in time back to 1869...

I hope Cas go for a castle design for the new stadium. That would look smart if done right.

50-50 seating/standing

So you'd bin Wigan and Hull?

You missed the ' min ' on the end meaning at least 50 % seating of the 12,000 capacity

I don't know if I'm actually allowed to say this as a Wigan fan, but Knowsley Road is a good ground. It would be fantastic ground if they rebuilt the Main stand and the Dunriding Lane end (or even put a roof on it).

Which is why I have this as my location

<---------------------

Exactly right.

I'm a Barrow fan and most people describe our ground as a dump (or something similar). We do own our ground, but it has seen better days - especially compared to 'new' stadia.

However, selling it and sharing a council owned ground will probably never happen. Mainly because there have been many, many clubs who went down the route of selling up with the best intentions at the time, and now lead a nomadic existence. Great traditional clubs like Oldham, Hunslet and Swinton are charged a fortune to lease a home stadium and are regularly told that the 'borrowed' stadium is unavailable.

Sheffield are moving from a soul-less athletics stadium to a soul-less all seater football stadium, Doncaster can't afford to play at their new stadium, Wigan had to play a 'home' game at Widnes etc etc etc.

Craven Park (Barrow) will be redeveloped up to SL standard at a fraction fo the cost of a new stadium. And it won't mean selling the family silver.

For me, the only things that matter about a stadium are:
1) Is it safe
2) Can you see the pitch
3) Does it have satisfactory facilities
4) Is it full

If you get the first 3, then I'm happy. If you get the 4th I'm delighted. A game lasts 80 minutes after all. What else do you need ?????

Ask the Wigan fans about their visit to Barrow in the Cup. A superb day with a superb atmosphere. Everyone could see the match, everyone survived the day and anyone who wanted a drink got one. OK, the toilets were an issue (

), but that can be fixed relatively easily.

Selling up is folly. Wakefield, Cas and Salford should think very carefully. If they ever dropped out of SL, they would have the use of a nice new stadium, but would have very little else.

Stadia is alot more important than you see it to be.