|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 19:50:31 GMT
Wish ours looked that good
|
|
|
|
Post by Cast no shadow on Aug 26, 2014 19:53:52 GMT
I hate mk dons
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 19:55:15 GMT
I think i prefer our shoddy looking stadium with 27,000+ supporters for every home league match, watching Premier League football whilst supporting a real football club. I get what you mean though  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 19:55:22 GMT
Take a look at it from the outside. It looks well weird.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 19:56:12 GMT
It's a venue more than a stadium.
|
|
|
|
Post by 2004 on Aug 26, 2014 20:15:26 GMT
At least The Brit feels like a football stadium and has some sort of character.
MK Dons only get 10k for a League game and a lot are away fans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Aug 26, 2014 20:19:08 GMT
They've got a 30k stadium. Ours is 28k.
What's going on?
|
|
|
|
Post by burge2u on Aug 26, 2014 21:13:23 GMT
They've got a 30k stadium. Ours is 28k. What's going on? Is it because the corners are filled in !!!! |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Aug 26, 2014 21:15:04 GMT
They've got a 30k stadium. Ours is 28k. What's going on? Theirs is used for all sorts of different sports and events. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Aug 26, 2014 21:29:04 GMT
They've got a 30k stadium. Ours is 28k. What's going on? They are looking forward to World Cup 2006 |
|
|
|
Post by surreystokie on Aug 26, 2014 22:04:48 GMT
March 4, we don't even have a 28,000 capacity. Remember that we are the only club ever, which, on promotion to the top tier, actually DECREASED our capacity!!!! (by around 800 due to the well OTT netting in the South Stand.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mint Berry Barks on Aug 26, 2014 22:10:26 GMT
It's a venue more than a stadium. The two shouldn't be mutually exclusive, especially in cities that don't have their own arena or big stage venue. |
|
|
|
Post by takeshikovacs on Aug 26, 2014 22:24:37 GMT
Well done MK Dons!
|
|
|
|
Post by retired1 on Aug 26, 2014 22:33:02 GMT
They've got a 30k stadium. Ours is 28k. What's going on? Cos we were cheap skates when it came to building the Brit, still are if the corners arent going to be filled. Their stadium looks pretty good to me. Even Bristol rovers wete planning a 30k seater well that was before they went out of the football league. |
|
|
|
Post by mailman44 on Aug 27, 2014 0:26:16 GMT
Very nice venue. Looks Prem standard to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by withnall on Aug 27, 2014 0:33:17 GMT
Looks Prem standard to me. Unlike Man Ure. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Aug 27, 2014 6:25:06 GMT
They've got a 30k stadium. Ours is 28k. What's going on? It's a venue for the next Rugby World Cup in 2015 |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 27, 2014 6:40:41 GMT
It isn't just that the MK Dons stadium has its corners filled in - you'll find that the seats have more leg room as well. One problem with the Brit was that we built it too early. It was one of the first new stadia to be designed and built when there was a move for all seater stadiums. Had we waited a few years, we'd probably have ended up avoiding some of the mistakes we made. We could have had more leg room, bigger concourses and better catering and toilet provision. C'est la vie. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 7:27:38 GMT
It isn't just that the MK Dons stadium has its corners filled in - you'll find that the seats have more leg room as well. One problem with the Brit was that we built it too early. It was one of the first new stadia to be designed and built when there was a move for all seater stadiums. Had we waited a few years, we'd probably have ended up avoiding some of the mistakes we made. We could have had more leg room, bigger concourses and better catering and toilet provision. C'est la vie. And avoided relegation due to not having to sell our top players  I just thought it looked great lit up, with all the corporate boxes etc at different levels all around the place |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 27, 2014 7:29:29 GMT
It isn't just that the MK Dons stadium has its corners filled in - you'll find that the seats have more leg room as well. One problem with the Brit was that we built it too early. It was one of the first new stadia to be designed and built when there was a move for all seater stadiums. Had we waited a few years, we'd probably have ended up avoiding some of the mistakes we made. We could have had more leg room, bigger concourses and better catering and toilet provision. C'est la vie. And avoided relegation due to not having to sell our top players Possibly, but we'd just have got relegated a few years later when we did build an improved stadium! |
|
|
|
Post by foster on Aug 27, 2014 7:53:08 GMT
Would have thought that since we've been cutting back on transfer fees the club could at least invest more in the Brit, rather than adding a bit of graffiti. To be fair, it may have character, but it's lagging behind in terms of facilities for fans. It could do with an expansion and an overhaul.
- Toilets need an upgrade
- Needs far more bar space / staff on the bar (not being able to get a pint at half time really pisses me off)
- Facilities for disabled fans
|
|
sting
Youth Player
Posts: 354
|
Post by sting on Aug 27, 2014 7:54:41 GMT
One word. Moxey. There are some things that cannot be erased from our history.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Aug 27, 2014 7:58:20 GMT
On a purely footballing level, the uglier, windier, shabbier etc that our ground looks the better.
Pampered Premier League players don't like having to slum it and I'm pretty sure one of the reasons most teams seem to hate playing us at home is the fact that the Brit is slightly stuck in the 90s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kenilworth_Stokies on Aug 27, 2014 8:20:39 GMT
If we'd have waited a few years it'd also have cost £50m rather than the £15m it did.
|
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Aug 27, 2014 8:27:28 GMT
It isn't just that the MK Dons stadium has its corners filled in - you'll find that the seats have more leg room as well. One problem with the Brit was that we built it too early. It was one of the first new stadia to be designed and built when there was a move for all seater stadiums. Had we waited a few years, we'd probably have ended up avoiding some of the mistakes we made. We could have had more leg room, bigger concourses and better catering and toilet provision. C'est la vie. If I recall correctly Bolton, Huddersfield, Derby, Boro, Sunderland (and possibly one or two others)all built their new grounds before the Brit was built. I think ours has to be one of the worst in the country in terms of location, design, amenities, transport connections etc. |
|
|
|
Post by foster on Aug 27, 2014 8:34:27 GMT
On a purely footballing level, the uglier, windier, shabbier etc that our ground looks the better. Pampered Premier League players don't like having to slum it and I'm pretty sure one of the reasons most teams seem to hate playing us at home is the fact that the Brit is slightly stuck in the 90s. Isn't it becoming tiresome saying that that we rely on these external factors to assist us in games? I'd rather our players and team were the decisive factors and were the reason behind teams hating to play us. To be honest, I can't imagine many players thinking to themselves 'oh shit, we're playing at the Brit next. I hate it there, it's just so windy'. We have to move with the times, and I'm not saying a Wembley type upgrade, I'm talking about some of the basics. If we're serious about wanting to evolve and move forward then we should do it on all fronts. Fans pay for Premier League football and should get more in return from the ground. A nicer stadium will also 'help' to attract players, in the same way that an old fashioned block of concrete will detract them. |
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Aug 27, 2014 8:42:17 GMT
Also the Brit, with its mecanno and perspex exterior, must rank as one of the cheapest looking grounds anywhere.
And as pointed out, the legroom and comfort is dreadful. I couldn't stay seated for 45 mins, even if I had to, without getting DVT.
Given a completely clean slate, how could they have got it so badly wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 8:52:43 GMT
We need to fill in a corner to at least make ours look finished (wink)
|
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Aug 27, 2014 9:30:05 GMT
On a purely footballing level, the uglier, windier, shabbier etc that our ground looks the better. Pampered Premier League players don't like having to slum it and I'm pretty sure one of the reasons most teams seem to hate playing us at home is the fact that the Brit is slightly stuck in the 90s.
Even for you, this is utter rubbish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Aug 27, 2014 9:44:13 GMT
It isn't just that the MK Dons stadium has its corners filled in - you'll find that the seats have more leg room as well. One problem with the Brit was that we built it too early. It was one of the first new stadia to be designed and built when there was a move for all seater stadiums. Had we waited a few years, we'd probably have ended up avoiding some of the mistakes we made. We could have had more leg room, bigger concourses and better catering and toilet provision. C'est la vie. If I recall correctly Bolton, Huddersfield, Derby, Boro, Sunderland (and possibly one or two others)all built their new grounds before the Brit was built. I think ours has to be one of the worst in the country in terms of location, design, amenities, transport connections etc. Middlesboro was the one ours was based on, Moxey and Co had a visit to it |
|
