|
|
Post by Boothen on Aug 31, 2017 4:09:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Caerwrangonpotter on Aug 31, 2017 4:14:04 GMT
Well its a thread to keep the Blue Bear going today along with the Transfer Thread
Should it happen? I wouldn't have em Worcester City let alone Stoke City!
|
|
|
|
Post by terrorofturfmoor on Aug 31, 2017 4:17:53 GMT
To late now anyhow, we've just built a new corner where the Vile fans would sit!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Aug 31, 2017 5:35:46 GMT
The first example of ground share that sprung to his mind was Coventry and Northampton?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cast no shadow on Aug 31, 2017 5:36:37 GMT
They had there chance
|
|
|
|
Post by Boothen on Aug 31, 2017 5:43:14 GMT
The first example of ground share that sprung to his mind was Coventry and Northampton? I thought that a strange one too, the first one that sprung to my mind was AC Milan and Internazionale at the San Siro (bloody marvellous stadium that, and I urge anyone who finds them themselves with time to kill in Milan to try and see a game there). |
|
|
|
Post by pyrus on Aug 31, 2017 5:49:39 GMT
The first example of ground share that sprung to his mind was Coventry and Northampton? I thought that a strange one too, the first one that sprung to my mind was AC Milan and Internazionale at the San Siro (bloody marvellous stadium that, and I urge anyone who finds them themselves with time to kill in Milan to try and see a game there). If those two teams can do it, you'd have thought any two teams could. But at least they are in the same league. I think the Bet365 would be a bit overkill for a conference team |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Aug 31, 2017 5:55:43 GMT
I was in favour of groundsharing but I never met anyone else who was.
|
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Aug 31, 2017 6:02:38 GMT
I was in favour of groundsharing but I never met anyone else who was. I was too. At the time it would have been the best thing 2 almost bankrupt clubs could have done. As it was we built ours and Port Vale spent unnecessary money they didn't have trying gto develop the Wembley of the north. |
|
|
|
Post by Will_75 on Aug 31, 2017 6:10:02 GMT
The first example of ground share that sprung to his mind was Coventry and Northampton? I thought that a strange one too, the first one that sprung to my mind was AC Milan and Internazionale at the San Siro (bloody marvellous stadium that, and I urge anyone who finds them themselves with time to kill in Milan to try and see a game there). Agreed. It goes around every now and then, this discussion. The argument always seems to be that English football is too tribal to support round sharing, but Roma and Lazio share the Stadio Olimpico They really, really, really don't like each other (scariest derby I've ever attended) but it works. I think Bayern share the Allianz with 1860 don't they? The economic case for ground sharing in cities like Liverpool, Sheffield and Nottingham must be pretty compelling. |
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Aug 31, 2017 6:11:20 GMT
Will Vale pay to have the ground fumigated after they have used it?  |
|
|
|
Post by Will_75 on Aug 31, 2017 6:16:14 GMT
Well its a thread to keep the Blue Bear going today along with the Transfer Thread Should it happen? I wouldn't have em Worcester City let alone Stoke City! As a Worcester resident who was looking forward to taking his son to an old fashioned terraced ground, on foot, at 3pm on a Saturday, Worcester City are a bit of a case study for how not to do it. Ground gone, no closer to finding a new home in the city, dropped three divisions voluntarily, and now with Lee fucking Hughes as player manager I won't go near them. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 6:18:16 GMT
I was in favour of groundsharing but I never met anyone else who was. I was too. At the time it would have been the best thing 2 almost bankrupt clubs could have done. As it was we built ours and Port Vale spent unnecessary money they didn't have trying gto develop the Wembley of the north. Makes you wonder if we could have gone the same way without the spare cash that came from not initially having to buy the place |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Aug 31, 2017 6:18:23 GMT
I was in favour of groundsharing but I never met anyone else who was. I was too. At the time it would have been the best thing 2 almost bankrupt clubs could have done. As it was we built ours and Port Vale spent unnecessary money they didn't have trying gto develop the Wembley of the north. Vale has several offers from the council to support them in finding anew stadium. Which is neither here or there but for the fact some of their supporters whinged about council bias when they approached SCFC |
|
|
|
Post by Caerwrangonpotter on Aug 31, 2017 6:24:13 GMT
Well its a thread to keep the Blue Bear going today along with the Transfer Thread Should it happen? I wouldn't have em Worcester City let alone Stoke City! As a Worcester resident who was looking forward to taking his son to an old fashioned terraced ground, on foot, at 3pm on a Saturday, Worcester City are a bit of a case study for how not to do it. Ground gone, no closer to finding a new home in the city, dropped three divisions voluntarily, and now with Lee fucking Hughes as player manager I won't go near them. Anyone wanting to understand how to totally screw a football club with inept owners & a city council that thinks every other sport except football should review the recent history of Worcester City FC.  |
|
|
|
Post by johnbutlershair on Aug 31, 2017 7:04:09 GMT
The first example of ground share that sprung to his mind was Coventry and Northampton? Didn't Wimbledon share Selhurst Park for a while? |
|
|
|
Post by itsajoytobeapotter on Aug 31, 2017 7:08:21 GMT
The possibility of a ground share was why the stadium was designed the way it was. The space between the Q Railing and the Boothen was for an admin block for the ground sharers.
|
|
|
|
Post by walrus on Aug 31, 2017 7:48:28 GMT
In Gibraltar every single club plays in the same ground, and you don't hear them moaning about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by danceswithclams on Aug 31, 2017 8:11:57 GMT
The possibility of a ground share was why the stadium was designed the way it was. The space between the Q Railing and the Boothen was for an admin block for the ground sharers. Bollocks was it. Ted Smith, S-o-T regeneration, British Coal, St. Modwen etc had tied the deal up for the new ground for Stoke long before the Miller Partnership designed the thing. The vagrants had turned down the ground sharing idea a good few years prior. |
|
|
|
Post by lowlands on Aug 31, 2017 12:06:02 GMT
Vale can share with Crewe that makes more sense then they can move the Cheshire border to include Burslem, see problem solved no more funding to Burslem from the SOT council and we also technically get rid of the association of I cant Sing Robbie Williams. Getting Better all the time (Paul McCartney said so)
|
|
|
|
Post by Theninjabadger on Aug 31, 2017 12:08:07 GMT
It would cost us to much to have the seat sterilised after every time they use it
|
|
|
|
Post by spiderpuss on Aug 31, 2017 12:11:03 GMT
I think its a good idea, they could use a training pitch at the "Mich". Should be more than adequate for their needs and is in a better shape than vile park.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bagwash on Aug 31, 2017 12:45:22 GMT
I was too. At the time it would have been the best thing 2 almost bankrupt clubs could have done. As it was we built ours and Port Vale spent unnecessary money they didn't have trying gto develop the Wembley of the north. Vale has several offers from the council to support them in finding anew stadium. Which is neither here or there but for the fact some of their supporters whinged about council bias when they approached SCFC They still whinge and moan about council bias conveniently forgetting that we paid the councils share of the ground back,the council bailed them out when they went into administration with local rate payers money and they were offered a couple of alternative locations for a new ground but turned them down flat. |
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Aug 31, 2017 13:44:49 GMT
Vale Park is already four times too big for them, can you imagine them in a 30,000 seater? Cringe.
|
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Aug 31, 2017 14:32:22 GMT
Vale Park is already four times too big for them, can you imagine them in a 30,000 seater? Cringe. a wendy house would be too big for them |
|
|
|
Post by lagwafis on Aug 31, 2017 14:43:03 GMT
“There would be issues over the decoration of the ground and the colours of the seats"
Surely Vale would sit on the white ones and we'd sit on the red ones?
|
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Aug 31, 2017 14:43:42 GMT
The first example of ground share that sprung to his mind was Coventry and Northampton? I thought that a strange one too, the first one that sprung to my mind was AC Milan and Internazionale at the San Siro (bloody marvellous stadium that, and I urge anyone who finds them themselves with time to kill in Milan to try and see a game there). Yep, done that experience. They could have put proper bogs in though, instead of a hole in the floor with 2 foot marks either side of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Aug 31, 2017 14:46:07 GMT
did they ever finish the Lorne street stand off ?
|
|
|
|
Post by BristolMick on Aug 31, 2017 14:51:28 GMT
To late now anyhow, we've just built a new corner where the Vile fans would sit!!! We've got white seats for them to sit in. BM |
|
|
|
Post by itsajoytobeapotter on Aug 31, 2017 16:30:48 GMT
The possibility of a ground share was why the stadium was designed the way it was. The space between the Q Railing and the Boothen was for an admin block for the ground sharers. Bollocks was it. Ted Smith, S-o-T regeneration, British Coal, St. Modwen etc had tied the deal up for the new ground for Stoke long before the Miller Partnership designed the thing. The vagrants had turned down the ground sharing idea a good few years prior. Bollocks it was. I was the Britannia contact who organised the ground sponsorship deal and was told the same by Moxey. So go away. |
|
