jack D and coke Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Watching on Sky Sports News the now and Chris Kamara was reporting from city of manchester staduim and there were gaps all over their stands! I would've thought city fans would've been selling the place out with all the Kaka talk and other players they're supposed to be buying. Surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoddyhmfc Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Well my seat is empty cos my Numpty Cousin missed the train! we will sell out the 1st game Kaka plays in then back to the norm again. Still nice to see City getting loads of press! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Watching on Sky Sports News the now and Chris Kamara was reporting from city of manchester staduim and there were gaps all over their stands! I would've thought city fans would've been selling the place out with all the Kaka talk and other players they're supposed to be buying. Surprising. Three things: 1. Eastlands is simply too big, and has sod all atmosphere. Whoever designed the acoustics there wants shooting. 2. They may be about to sign Kaka, but they've been pish for most of the season so far. 3. Credit crunch. It's affecting almost all EPL clubs' gates - not just Citeh's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoddyhmfc Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Three things: 1. Eastlands is simply too big, and has sod all atmosphere. Whoever designed the acoustics there wants shooting. 2. They may be about to sign Kaka, but they've been pish for most of the season so far. 3. Credit crunch. It's affecting almost all EPL clubs' gates - not just Citeh's. 3 Good points Shaun. however when Eastlands is even 90% full (twice this season) the Atmosphere was amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted January 17, 2009 Author Share Posted January 17, 2009 Three things: 1. Eastlands is simply too big, and has sod all atmosphere. Whoever designed the acoustics there wants shooting. 2. They may be about to sign Kaka, but they've been pish for most of the season so far. 3. Credit crunch. It's affecting almost all EPL clubs' gates - not just Citeh's. I thought it only held in the region of 40,000. Remember all the huns moanig that the ground was too small. Speaking of the huns they've just went a goal down to Falkirk. Nice:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I thought it only held in the region of 40,000. Remember all the huns moanig that the ground was too small. Speaking of the huns they've just went a goal down to Falkirk. Nice:D It's not the capacity. It's the sheer size of the stadium, and gap between the seats and the pitch. Unless it's very full, the songs and chants just disappear hopelessly into the air - it's not a patch on Maine Road sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 It's not the capacity. It's the sheer size of the stadium, and gap between the seats and the pitch. Unless it's very full, the songs and chants just disappear hopelessly into the air - it's not a patch on Maine Road sadly. I was at a game at Eastlands in early 2008. It is a bit soulless and seems to be in the middle of no-where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I was at a game at Eastlands in early 2008. It is a bit soulless and seems to be in the middle of no-where. If Hearts ever relocated, whoever designed the stadium would need to pay the acoustics a lot of attention. That's why Simon Inglis warned us strongly about ever leaving Tynie in his study of all British football stadia: the atmosphere we can sometimes generate is our club's single greatest asset IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted January 17, 2009 Author Share Posted January 17, 2009 If Hearts ever relocated, whoever designed the stadium would need to pay the acoustics a lot of attention. That's why Simon Inglis warned us strongly about ever leaving Tynie in his study of all British football stadia: the atmosphere we can sometimes generate is our club's single greatest asset IMO. Thing is eastlands wasn't originally designed for football. Didn't they have to alter it after the commonwealth games? Sure they either added rows of seats ot took some away i cant remember which. There was a running track as well so the stands must be pretty far away from the pitch. I cant imagine it being very difficult to make sure a stadium has good accoustics if it's being built specifically for football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vaders uncle Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 The very first big football teams ground I saw was Manchester City's at Maine Road. It was 1967 and it was awesome, the grass was so green(surprise)! I hadn't seen any other grounds anywhere in Britain and since then like to see the City win. Mind you the atmosphere in Tynie on a good day when were belting out the songs is second to none! C'mon the JT's:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJGJ Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 There were over 41,000 there -- not a bad crowd in January for a team near the bottom. The crowds are there for a successful team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debut 4 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Never taken to Man City and even before the Arabs came in they were always blowing their trumpet about how big a club they are. See them as a West Ham/ Newcastle type of club, live off past glories but have done feck all for years. Everton or Spurs deserve someone with dough, probably Everton more. They are a big club with great history in terms of trophies and are at a stage were they could be on the verge of better things as Moyes has established them as a good side again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Never taken to Man City and even before the Arabs came in they were always blowing their trumpet about how big a club they are. See them as a West Ham/ Newcastle type of club, live off past glories but have done feck all for years. Everton or Spurs deserve someone with dough, probably Everton more. They are a big club with great history in terms of trophies and are at a stage were they could be on the verge of better things as Moyes has established them as a good side again. Harsh. There's not some golden rule which says "if you were good in the '80s, you're a big club - but if you were only good in the '50s, '60s or '70s, you're not". Newcastle, Spurs, Everton, Villa and City are all big clubs - great clubs, even. Trouble is, in City's case, you know they'll find a way of cocking this all up anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praha06 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Theres only one football team in Manchester worth talking about and its not City! Kaka or no Kaka. United is the way forward. Red is the colour. Fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Theres only one football team in Manchester worth talking about and its not City! Kaka or no Kaka. United is the way forward. Red is the colour. Fact. City are playing Newcastle next week. Which means, er, Kaka v Kaka? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debut 4 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Harsh. There's not some golden rule which says "if you were good in the '80s, you're a big club - but if you were only good in the '50s, '60s or '70s, you're not". Newcastle, Spurs, Everton, Villa and City are all big clubs - great clubs, even. Trouble is, in City's case, you know they'll find a way of cocking this all up anyway! Fair point, but going by recent history City have been really poor as a whole and i feel it`s almost sickly that the club can be elevated from mediocrity to the status they have now financially. Everton, for example, have toiled along in comparison(financially) but have built superbly and have a far better basis squad wise to progress with better investment. I`m sure City fans are delighted and who moneymen pick to invest in is their choice, but there`s bigger and better clubs IMO than City and clubs with a better background and history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praha06 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 City are playing Newcastle next week. Which means, er, Kaka v Kaka? Heh, yeah, I like that, what a match in the offing there eh? Ooops! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentRomanov Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 If Hearts ever relocated, whoever designed the stadium would need to pay the acoustics a lot of attention. That's why Simon Inglis warned us strongly about ever leaving Tynie in his study of all British football stadia: the atmosphere we can sometimes generate is our club's single greatest asset IMO. I've heard it all now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Fair point, but going by recent history City have been really poor as a whole and i feel it`s almost sickly that the club can be elevated from mediocrity to the status they have now financially. Everton, for example, have toiled along in comparison(financially) but have built superbly and have a far better basis squad wise to progress with better investment. I`m sure City fans are delighted and who moneymen pick to invest in is their choice, but there`s bigger and better clubs IMO than City and clubs with a better background and history. I agree with you about how well Everton have built lately. I disagree on them being a better investment than City, though: the Abu Dhabi boys were looking at Newcastle as well as them, which in terms of potential, sounds about right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viva hate Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Harsh. There's not some golden rule which says "if you were good in the '80s, you're a big club - but if you were only good in the '50s, '60s or '70s, you're not". Newcastle, Spurs, Everton, Villa and City are all big clubs - great clubs, even. Trouble is, in City's case, you know they'll find a way of cocking this all up anyway! I always find it a bit odd when people refer to Newcastle as a big club. They fight relegation nearly every season but their idiot fans still expect them to finish in the top four. They also pay around 10 million for 3 million standard players every season. Man City over Man United any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therapist Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I always find it a bit odd when people refer to Newcastle as a big club. They fight relegation nearly every season but their idiot fans still expect them to finish in the top four. Newcastle is the Hibs of the EPL. Fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigis semiauskas Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Three things: 1. Eastlands is simply too big, and has sod all atmosphere. Whoever designed the acoustics there wants shooting. 2. They may be about to sign Kaka, but they've been pish for most of the season so far. 3. Credit crunch. It's affecting almost all EPL clubs' gates - not just Citeh's. Yes almost,but not Man U as you would expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viva hate Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Sheff Wed must be a fair investment. might be wrong but I think Its the 5th biggest city in Britain and there are only two teams in Sheffield. They have a good stadium and good fan base. They have also worked very hard at getting their debt down over the last few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I always find it a bit odd when people refer to Newcastle as a big club. They fight relegation nearly every season but their idiot fans still expect them to finish in the top four. They also pay around 10 million for 3 million standard players every season. Man City over Man United any day. They are a big club. They still get crowds in the high 40 and low 50 thousands despite not having won a sausage since 1969, and having finished in the bottom half of the EPL more often than the top half. Their fans are extraordinary - they've just been mismanaged beyond belief for donkeys' years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Yes almost,but not Man U as you would expect. Marvellous. Hooray for all those Japanese and Korean tourists, eh? Oh, and what did you think of MUFC's decision last season to insist all ST holders paid for Cup games regardless of whether they were present or not? Pwoud? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldar Hadzimehmedovic Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Sheff Wed must be a fair investment. might be wrong but I think Its the 5th biggest city in Britain and there are only two teams in Sheffield. They have a good stadium and good fan base. They have also worked very hard at getting their debt down over the last few years. Agree. One of the biggest 'sleeping giants' in British football. They could be a top-half of the EPL with crowds of 40,000+ every season if they ever get the kind of chuck-the-cash owner other clubs seem to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vulture Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Theres only one football team in Manchester worth talking about and its not City! Kaka or no Kaka. United is the way forward. Red is the colour. Fact. They play in Trafford, not Manchester. FACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viva hate Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 They play in Trafford, not Manchester. FACT Thought they were a London team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debut 4 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Marvellous. Hooray for all those Japanese and Korean tourists, eh? Oh, and what did you think of MUFC's decision last season to insist all ST holders paid for Cup games regardless of whether they were present or not? Pwoud? Before the bandwagon jumpers get a hold of this just remember Utd got over 40k playing in the old 2nd division during their dark days. The extra fans they`ve gained from afar is just a financial vehicle, they`ve always had a huge homebased support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Before the bandwagon jumpers get a hold of this just remember Utd got over 40k playing in the old 2nd division during their dark days. The extra fans they`ve gained from afar is just a financial vehicle, they`ve always had a huge homebased support. No doubt that they're an enormous club, Debut 4 - nor that they've always had massive support. Some of the seedier aspects of their commercialisation really stick in the throat, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigis semiauskas Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Marvellous. Hooray for all those Japanese and Korean tourists, eh? Oh, and what did you think of MUFC's decision last season to insist all ST holders paid for Cup games regardless of whether they were present or not? Pwoud? haha Pwoud indeed! you were close i was actually Vewy Pwoud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboJen Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Thing is eastlands wasn't originally designed for football. Didn't they have to alter it after the commonwealth games? Sure they either added rows of seats ot took some away i cant remember which. There was a running track as well so the stands must be pretty far away from the pitch. I cant imagine it being very difficult to make sure a stadium has good accoustics if it's being built specifically for football. Where the middle tier is now was actually the bottom tier for the Commonwealth Games IIRC. Once the games were over they dug down to put in a new bottom tier and the pitch etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT's & Irons Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Never taken to Man City and even before the Arabs came in they were always blowing their trumpet about how big a club they are. See them as a West Ham/ Newcastle type of club, live off past glories but have done feck all for years. Everton or Spurs deserve someone with dough, probably Everton more. They are a big club with great history in terms of trophies and are at a stage were they could be on the verge of better things as Moyes has established them as a good side again. I don't think West Ham fans think they are a "Big" club or live off past glories TBH. They do want a certain style of football and are proud of the players who go on to play for "Big" clubs. That said, they did win the World Cup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDonald Jardine Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Where the middle tier is now was actually the bottom tier for the Commonwealth Games IIRC. Once the games were over they dug down to put in a new bottom tier and the pitch etc. I was at the game on Saturday and was quite impressed with the stadium and the atmosphere as far as these new stadiums go. I read somewhere they've spent over ?30m in adapting the stafium since they bought it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbump Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Theres only one football team in Manchester worth talking about and its not City! Kaka or no Kaka. United is the way forward. Red is the colour. Fact. Salford Utd FC:tongue: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badly drawn boy Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Thing is eastlands wasn't originally designed for football. Didn't they have to alter it after the commonwealth games? Sure they either added rows of seats ot took some away i cant remember which. There was a running track as well so the stands must be pretty far away from the pitch. I cant imagine it being very difficult to make sure a stadium has good accoustics if it's being built specifically for football. Eastlands was designed for football , its the only reason the council agreed to build it was on the back of City taking it after the games .Therefore the design etc was in conjunction with City from the start Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badly drawn boy Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Never taken to Man City and even before the Arabs came in they were always blowing their trumpet about how big a club they are. See them as a West Ham/ Newcastle type of club, live off past glories but have done feck all for years. Everton or Spurs deserve someone with dough, probably Everton more. They are a big club with great history in terms of trophies and are at a stage were they could be on the verge of better things as Moyes has established them as a good side again. What past glories do West Ham have On what basis is Everton a bigger club than Manchester City or is your second point relevant to your first , ie on trophy count alone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badly drawn boy Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 They are a big club. They still get crowds in the high 40 and low 50 thousands despite not having won a sausage since 1969, and having finished in the bottom half of the EPL more often than the top half. Their fans are extraordinary - they've just been mismanaged beyond belief for donkeys' years. In the 80s when they were in the old 1st div , they ( Newcastle ) had average attendances dipping to 16k -extraordinary absent City had near on 30k average in the third tier in 1999 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badly drawn boy Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 History, fan base, playing squad, prestige....everything apart from the stadium actually. Hopefully, once the Kirkby public enquiry is over, that can be put right as well. Fan base -looking at the records , consistently below Manchester city History if you base it purely on trophies won , then no argument's -toffees have won more trophies Prestige ? , that depends on your leanings to-wards a particular club .To me theres more prestige playing for Manchester city than everton , in general i don't see an obvious choice between the 2 from the majority of people unless again you are coming back to trophy count Playing squad hmmm , okay at the moment Everton are 10 points clear of City , for me they have under Moyes consistently punched above their weight , and a great job he had done 2 For City this season i think they have massively under achieved , whether its the amount of change in player personnel or the change in the finances , its been poor ,player for player City have a better squad than Everton and will shortly get a great deal stronger -all about opinions though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midloth_Iain Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 They play in Trafford, not Manchester. FACT FACTUALLY INCORRECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3,861
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.