Warrington don't play at a football ground, and you're basically calling any "old" stadium "traditional".

Basically, as hard as it is to believe, the newer stadiums have better facilities, and often share with other clubs. The older ones have dated facilities.

not hard to believe at all. why would you build something worse than you already have?

so why not just put teams into the newest 14 stadiums and have done. then as a new stadium is built whoever is in the oldest stadium gets relegated.

it would be as interesting as this thread. and strange people could argue long into the night about toilets and plastic seats.

why would a hull supporter rather de rail a thread about rugby league and turn it into one about stadiums?????

It does indeed, which completely negates any argument to say that Headingley is only used by the RFL because it is convenient.

Id see no reason why not, Headingley has been used for international competition in the recent past.

It is used as often as the KC. Plus Leeds making the semi-finals of the CC more often than not would probably discount its use most years.

Comfort and cover are adequately provided. Sight lines are for the most part, fine.

and the Galpharm isnt? And if the stadium is 'bad' then why is it likely to get a better crowd than a 'good' stadium half an hour away?

it is part of the list of things the RFL look for in a premier facility. I would have thought it obvious 'things like' simply highlighted that the list wasnt complete, rather than the strange interpretation you have taken that i meant things similar to.

On field performance doesnt matter anymore

as long as youve got a massive 21st centrury atmosphereless 1/3 full stadium your alright

It does? I'd have thought it would show that the other stadium that the RFL find convenient to use gets used a lot compared to other similar stadia sort of adds to it? Why don't they use the Stobart as often?


Low key internationals. In fact, GB vs France is the only full international I can think of that's been played at Headingley in the last decade.


There are two semi finals you know. Leeds can't play in both of them


Hull isn't close to any other SL teams. Don't pretend that it's a like for like comparison.


Totally disagree. If there is something blocking your way due to the nature of the stadium, it is restricted viewing. There is restricted viewing in the majority of the North, a lot of the South, and the shallow nature of the steps in the West make viewing restricted also.

No cover for the majority of away fans. And I don't find myself comfortable when I'm getting rained on, as well as if I'm sitting on a horrible tight wooden seat.


No. Huddersfield is hardly a populous area in comparison to Leeds.
And believe it or not, how "good" the stadium is isn't the only factor in how many people attend. Otherwise Huddersfield would be getting far more than Leeds in the league.

There are more RL fans within close proximity in and around Leeds than Huddersfield. Huddersfield relies mainly on out-of-towners for big events.


So why don't you complete the list then?

Nice to see that on-field criteria is of no interest to some of those who moan about no P&R

Totally self-inflicted, sunshine.

You started a thread about the subject, and then immediately derailed it by attacking various clubs and in particular two clubs' grounds.

Then, after I demonstrated your comparative criticism on the specific subject of two grounds was badly flawed, you declined the opportunity to draw a line under it and bring the debate back to the original topic. Instead, you increasingly resorted to the desperate and dishonest tactic of derision and attempting to distract readers from the argument you had so clearly lost.

All that achieved was to concentrate attention on the stadium issue (yet again) rather than on the subject you claimed you wanted to see discussed.

Then you bleated that all you were doing was expressing your opinion - taking us for idiots by assuming we would somehow forget your pathetic derisory and diversionary attacks on Bradford and your obsession with having the last word to show just how jolly well right you were. Disingenuous and transparent.

Brought it all on yourself, and made yourself look like a silly kid. I doubt though that you will see through your OWN tinted glasses how this was all your own doing.

Nope..it was yours. I posted my opinion that Odsul and Belle view were as bad as each other as a small part of my response to someone else and YOU jumped all over that rather than discuss the odiginal topic......which was about on-field performance in the Franchise era.....I'll remind you.
HKA 1.156
Catleford .9852
Wakey .8750
Catalan .8281
Bradford .7794
London .6617
Salford .6250
Crusaders .5000

I suspect your attention to my comment about your pit of a ground was more to do with the fact that your once great club wasn't doing so well as opposed to any real sense of injustice about poor old odsul.

Looking stupid? Maybe to you, but I don't trust your eyesight....you think Odsul is an aceptable stadium for the 21st century

Gutterfax how many trophies have quins won?

Going at a bradford fan who have a cabinet full not the best idea

You posted a derogatory comment on only a small part of the quote you were commenting on. Are you surprised it got jumped all over?

Here's a lesson for you. If you want an actual discussion about a topic, don't take cheap shots about something different, like here...


Time to grow up, me thinks.

Is it just me, or does "Gutterfax" seem a tad deluded and in a little world of his own on here?

It is HIS thread that HE derailed that HE is complaining about. How can that be self-inflicted by ME on ME?

And yet, he STILL seems to be carrying on this weird argument with himself. I confined myself at all times to addressing his specific statement (what he now says was "opinion"; whatever) that Odsal and Belle Vue are equally poor stadia. He could not refute my arguments (and indeed the arguments of various others who likewise found his statement perplexing), so resorted to derision and insults and other distractions. I suspect he is the only person on this thread that cannot see what a prat he has made himself look?

Sad

That, and Smokey seems to have gone quiet as well. Hopefully he's looking for that list of criteria the RFL used to declare Headingley a premier facility, and not just listing the things the Leeds pass on to make a point.

Apart from the upgrade needed to three of the four stands (one of which cannot be done), Headingley is alright after all.

Why doesnt it, these are the questions i am asking you, the geographical argument is clearly nonsense considering the RFL have two offices, each central to the two areas which contain the most teams and as such the most stadiums. Yet Headingley still gets chosen.


They held a whole international tournament there,

So you expect them to use Headingley for one match whilst leeds play elsewhere? a drowning man will clutch at any straws
Its hardly the other end of the earth is it. It seems telling that every single piece of circumstancial evidence you decide to give, is then shown up for the nonsense it is, but you then need another excuse to justify it. That should tell you something about the strength of your argument.

The Majority of the north stand isnt restricted viewing, what an absolute nonsense, a minority of the north stand is restricted, a minority of the southstand is restricted, the steps of the western terrace arent shallow. It is a terrace, if you are smaller than the person in front of you, you may struggle to see over them. But as its a terrace you can move.

The seats are no tighter than most stadiums, in fact, id say that Elland road, in general is a tighter fit than the north stand.

Because I dont have it to hand. But I think we can all agree that my list is likely to be closer than 'a list of things wellsy13 likes'.

They did in 1999 didnt they?

Going round in circles on this one.


Which international tournament that is not low-key would this be then?


WTF?
Why wouldn't they? 2009 and 2004, HJ Stadium was used for one match whilst Warrington played elsewhere. 2006 Galpharm was used whilst Huddersfield played elsewhere. 2002 JJB was used whilst Wigan played elsewhere and even Headingley was used that year (the only time in 10 years) whilst Leeds played elsewhere.

5 times in 10 years this scenario has happened. What's difficult about it?


My God, for someone that just accused me of "clutching at straws", this is highly amusing!
Which one of the previous semis would you have played at the KC then instead of a much closer ground to at least one of the clubs? Hardly the end of the Earth is Hull for one team, but for both?

If you really think, for example, Leeds vs Saints (which was played at Galpharm, 20miles from Leeds and 50 miles from St Helens) would have gotten just as good a crowd at the KC (65 miles from Leeds and 120 miles from St Helens) and wouldn't have been an unnecessary inconvenience to the fans then I believe it is YOU that is clutching at straws!

Of course, if you really think that the distance away has nothing to do with it, then perhaps you might be able to give us a reason why they haven't played a semi at the KC yet?


If there is a part of the pitch you cannot see due to the stadium, it is restricted viewing. 2/3s of the North Stand is behind the first line of stanchions.
And the steps in the Western Terrace are shallow. And if a terrace is full, you can't exactly move to where you like. You are basically saying "if you're short, you have to go to the front where you can't really have a good view of the game as it's level with the pitch", where as if you go to a ground with a good terrace like HJ, you can see the game well anywhere on the terrace. That's the difference between a premier facility with good sight in all areas, and Headingley that "is premier except for this, that, if you move, turn your head, go to the front, it will be when this gets done, etc."
Can you not see who the one making the excuses is?


Elland Road is tighter than most stadiums. But Elland Road is also a dump, and again only gets used because it's a big stadium in a populous area of RL fans that will guarantee a good crowd no matter who's playing (and is on the doorstep or the RFL

).


You don't have it at hand? Does that mean you had it or have never seen it?
Why is "a list of things SmokeyTA knows Leeds qualify on" a better list than "what the majority of people would deem as good qualities for a sports stadium"? (And don't try and argue that people don't think that unobstructed views, cover from the elements and comfort aren't what the majority of people feel are good qualities in a sports stadium because then you are again clutching at them straws).
Basically, until you can come up with this list, or at least show us where the RFL say Headingley is a premier facility (a claim that you made) then you might as well just stop digging a hole for yourself.

Basically, if Headingley was a premier facility, there wouldn't be such an extensive list of improvements needed to be made to it. (The need to knock down and rebuild two stands would be classed as pretty extensive as well, before you decide to try and argue about that!).

They did, and it was as ridiculous then as it would be now.

And 2000 and 2002.
But that was all under the old regime.

So ridiculous that it has happened 5 times in the last 10 years? I honestly cannot see what is ridiculous about it in the slightest!

What on Earth is ridiculous about picking a neutral venue for a semi-final game that also happens to be the same ground as a club from the OTHER semi final? Does it make it any less neutral?

The federation shield. Though I dont know what you class as 'low key' and it seems you decided to add the subjective tag of 'low key' to complete the circularity of your argument.

Why would they do it? as you say there are plenty of suitable stadiums for them to use, so they use them. It seems very strange that you think the Galpharm is suitable as a neutral venue for the CC semis, but not for other events. The CC semis arent at headingley because often leeds are in the semi-finals and there are plenty of suitable stadiums around.

Because there are many other suitable premier facilities around. They have no need to. Stadiums like Headingley, for instance.



really, are you really arguing that 2/3rds has its sight lines blocked by the stanchions?

Yes, i actually, literally am saying if you are shorter than the person standing in front of you, you may have problems seeing over them in a terrace. In all terraces, it is something which affects terraces.

And again, you have confused what the RFL define as a 'premier facility' with things Wellsy13 likes. I havent at any stage said Headingley is premier expect for this. I have said Headingley is classed as a premier facility. It isnt perfect but those two things arent connected.

yes you, i pointed it out to you earlier on.
Elland road, good enough for UEFA, good enough for FIFA, good enough for the biggest sporting tournament on this continent. Not, it seems good enough for Wellsy13.

It does if you struggle with comprehension. Not having at hand means it isnt next to me right now.
The criteria arent available on line.

They dont need to knock down two stands, they need to knock down one stand because of railings that were put in incorrectly

Would this be the Federation Shield in 2006 that had a double header of Tonga/Samoa and England/France? England being the reserve team to GB at the time and had a crowd of 5.5k?
Ignoring the fact that the "whole" tournament wasn't played there, are you really trying to say this was some kind of major international event in the RL world?! Involving a reserve international team?! Really?!


Why would they? Maybe because it is the most suitable stadium available? That's a pretty good reason.
The fact that Leeds are in one semi has absolutely no baring on whether or not it gets picked for the other, never has, never will, never should, and never has in any other sport that I can think of. How many semis did Old Trafford get used for in the FA Cup before they got moved to Wembley?


The fact that the stadiums are closer makes them more suitable. You weigh the pros against the cons. It's the reason why Leeds vs Huddersfield was played at Odsal (hardly a premier facility) and not KC.
Headingley, despite being in a suitable location to the majority of RL clubs, has been used once in 10 years for a semi final. So there must be other reasons.


If 2/3rds of the stand are behind a stanchion that blocks part of the pitch, then yes, their sight line is blocked. It's hardly rocket science!

And obviously your height affects how much you can see on a terrace. But a good terrace has adequate depth to account for the percentiles. A poor one doesn't. It's basic design. It's like arguing that the terrace would be fine if it was flat.


Hang on, don't start to turn things around now. You wouldn't be arguing for pages and pages if you didn't believe yourself that you thought Headingley was premier. If you've argued all this time for the sake of saying that the RFL class Headingley as premier (something you still haven't proven by the way) despite you not agreeing with it yourself, then you really need to get a life.

So, let's not play games. You believe Headingley is a premier facility. And if you don't correct me now. Don't dance around this point.


You've confused me saying something is a dump with it not being good enough.
You'll find many a fan that agrees that Elland Road is a dump.


so you've seen them then? You know what they are?
Don't you think it's slightly coincidental that we don't have access to them, but you've seen them, and you know that Leeds is classed as a premier facility?
I suppose you've got a 14" shlong as well?


What other premier facilities have to knock down an entire stand (comprising of about 1/3 of the ground's capacity)? Why are they knocking down the other stand if it's perfectly fine? They aren't increasing capacity. Seems a waste of money to me.

On my infrequent visits to this forum there is one topic that is almost a given. And do you know what that is Wellsy? Yes, its that there will be some oddity chelping on about Leeds. Either the stadium, or a perceived bias of favouritism from Redhall.

You appear to be this weeks candidate. With both the North and South stands being around 80 years old, I think most people could easily arrive at the sensible conclusion that building standards and regulations had changed in that time, and that there was room for improvement.

Hence the circa £10 million being spent on the Southstand. The North stand is a tad more complicated in that it is shared with Yorks Cricket, and until they repay their Leeds Council loan they are in no position to proceed with a joint redevelopment any time soon. The Carnegie is completed, and the West terracing is exactly what it says .....a terrace!

If you're a bit vertically challenged, I suggest you take a traditional beer/milk crate to stand on, or find another part of the ground more suitable to your stature. Seats too small in the North stand for you? Admittedly, I'd agree with you there, as they were designed for your average punter 80 years ago, who was probably of a smaller stature, or could it be you are a touch on the plumb side?

In any case, we are well aware the need for continuing improvements, and for the most part, those matters are in hand, but I personally would not swop the ambiance of 120 years in a traditional Rugby League ground for the soulless plastic and chrome of a half empty Council funded shared facility.

I suspect Wellsy you shop at Matalan.

Wow. There is no clearly obvious paranoia there, is there?!


"Someone's always having a pop at my club

"
Doesn't happen to any other club does it?



Get over it. I aren't having a pop at your club. I'm arguing that Headingley isn't a premier stadium. That is all. If you are that insecure about people talking about your club, I wouldn't visit internet forums.


I totally agree. I don't doubt the reasons why Headingley is how it is, and that it is improving, and they're doing what they can. I never have. But all the reasons in the world don't change the fact that it is not a premier facility at this point in time, do they? I'm sure you would agree.


I'm 5'8" and just under 12st. About average really (if you include the fact that there are women and children in the crowd obviously!), so hardly a plumpy little cannon-ball (although shocked to find out that I am apparently now classed as "overweight" on my BMI calculator! I've been trying to put this weight on for rugby!).
The only terraces I've struggled to see all the action on are Belle Vue's touchline terrace (the worst), Headingley's Western Terrace and Craven Park's South Terrace. At Odsal, you can see all the pitch, they're just [size=50really small.[/size

Like you say, the stadium is 80 years old. It's a reason, not an excuse. It doesn't excuse it from being a premier facility. Like you are saying (in fact, you're pretty much agreeing with me here) it is not in keeping with the standards of a 21st century facility. That is all I've been arguing.


Like I said before, I'd rather rent a Ferrari than own a Nova.


Never been there in my life. And I used to live next to the one on Lower Wortley Road!

Ha ha... an 8 page thread of sniping about stadiums and it doesn't involve Cas. It's like a breath of fresh air.

Now don't turn on us just cos I mentioned it. Nothing to see here.

Carry on...

Well I'd still kick Fulcrubronquins Experiment out on principle.

Dreary me. Do you feel better after that? Pretty redundant considering everyone knows Bradford will be in anyway AND this was a thread about on the field criteria which Bradford didn't meet...

I could use the 'pat' smiley but I don't want come across as a prat.