Samilktray Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 My love affair with the MK Dons might be over. Especially if they get to host an Angola match.
RedHux Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Forest only have to improve 1 stand, seems pointless that their city council is proposing a new stadium. And if a new stadium is approved, they will probably end up sharing with Notts County. No football fan wants to ground share. We're not allowed to rebuild the main stand due to all the houses and that cluttering up the area. Besides which the grounds n West bridgford which is a prime housing area by Notts standard so some quarters are quite keen we move. Some however (Cllr Cutts) would rather we stayed put, didn't build anything and just stayed quiet. Sadly for her that doesn't seem to be an option now.
Guest Mee-9 Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 If Platini's got anything to do with it, England wont get the world cup. It's a bit of a joke when you get beaten by Plymouth and Milton Keynes. But suppose adding an extra 18000 seats at the walkers would take the biscuit.
norfolkfox222 Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 WE gotta take the positives out of this surely at least now our ground wont be increased to 40 - 50 thousand and after the world cup is over we only fill it half full for our games which would mean lesser atmosphere than we alreeady have!! and hopefully Nottingham will have a load of serbs, poles and wrecking the place and i might join them hahaa
lavrentis Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 It cant be an issue with the stadium, must have been with the city....which still baffles me.
Shrenchel Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 We're not allowed to rebuild the main stand due to all the houses and that cluttering up the area. Besides which the grounds n West bridgford which is a prime housing area by Notts standard so some quarters are quite keen we move. Some however (Cllr Cutts) would rather we stayed put, didn't build anything and just stayed quiet. Sadly for her that doesn't seem to be an option now. And you'd honestly rather move to a 50,000 cereal bowl miles from the centre?! A Tuesday night game against S****horpe will be like a pre-pubescent 12 year old waggling his todger around inside Jenna Jameson.
Radovan's Caravan Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Good to see that your FA have a sense of humour. Hard to see how it's anything other than a deliberate cock-up. It's a coded message to Blather obviously. 'Now give it to the Russkies (and make sure we get our douceurs)...'
ousefox Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 How can they have Mk and Nottingham over us? We have had not only previous internationals but and England game to add to that. It would be the easier to convert than Nottingham and Milton Keynes is a shithole and will have 35,000 empty seats every week after the world cup. Our bid must have been shit or the people deciding must be on something. Although it doesn't really affect me living in York, it still seems absurd.
Corky Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 And you'd honestly rather move to a 50,000 cereal bowl miles from the centre?! A Tuesday night game against S****horpe will be like a pre-pubescent 12 year old waggling his todger around inside Jenna Jameson.
PSYCHO Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 How can they have Mk and Nottingham over us? We have had not only previous internationals but and England game to add to that. It would be the easier to convert than Nottingham and Milton Keynes is a shithole and will have 35,000 empty seats every week after the world cup.Our bid must have been shit or the people deciding must be on something. Although it doesn't really affect me living in York, it still seems absurd. nottingham is a better city and has hosted euro 96 if you remember?
Edmund Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 A lot of sour grapes on here. Lets be fair Nottingham is twice the city of Leicester and I'm not talking population. Okay they might not have plans in place or whatever but it's easily justifiable why we lost out to them. What is questionable is the MK Dons and Plymouth bids. Plymouth was obviously chosen on location reasons but surely Bristol's bid covered that area? MK Dons is just laughable. Plastic city, plastic football club and will financially cripple a club who already struggle to fill a stadium half the size of the proposed one. It's a sad day for English football. I echo others who say they hope England don't get it. Seriously not because of the fact we didn't get it but because it's an embarrassment and makes a mockery of the whole football culture. It also begs a question of how much money was wasted down the drain by our council trying to secure our bid which I'm guessing was paid by you and me.
Babylon Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 nottingham is a better city and has hosted euro 96 if you remember? I don't have a problem with Nottingham getting it, Milton Keynes is just laughable.
ousefox Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 nottingham is a better city and has hosted euro 96 if you remember? Yeah and it will need a whole new stadium which is not needed by the club. Not that Leicester need any more seats, but it would be a lot easier and cheaper.
tartanowl Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Hillsborough over Bramall Lane is baffling too, yes Hillsboroughs the nicer ground and I prefer it 100 times over, but 3 miles away on the tram's which struggle with 20,000 when the Lane is smack in the City.What a lovely big mess. Glad we're not involved in such a farcial bid and the Way can remain 2/3 full as opposed to 1/2. More car parking space, Hillsborough Park to be used as a fanzone, and better facilities. The only thing the piggery had over us was its central location. The millions they've wasted doing up their stadium. Hilarious!
RedHux Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 And you'd honestly rather move to a 50,000 cereal bowl miles from the centre?! A Tuesday night game against S****horpe will be like a pre-pubescent 12 year old waggling his todger around inside Jenna Jameson. God no. Bowls are the very worst kind of stadium (no offence) and I, and the great majority of Forest supporters, will be most displeased if we end up with some flatpack nonsense. The proposed site is in Gamston which isn't too far from where we are now. Obviously it's not trentside andthere won't be that same stirring you get walking over trent bridge but hey, progress is apparently a good thing. Tuesday night games against S****horpe are a lot like that now.
Guest Mee-9 Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 And you'd honestly rather move to a 50,000 cereal bowl miles from the centre?! A Tuesday night game against S****horpe will be like a pre-pubescent 12 year old waggling his todger around inside Jenna Jameson. Seem's like the people deciding what places would host the footy, must have taken an arriva bus, and got off at the haymarket. Can see now, our city's a bit of a dump, and i'd rather see Nottingham infested with Poles, Middle Easterners and Yanks.
Rich Fox Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 We must have put a really shitty bid in with flbert fox as our main backer, why try and say our main asset is being multi cultural you could say that about most citys in this country very poor effort from Leicester City.
Shrenchel Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 God no. Bowls are the very worst kind of stadium (no offence) and I, and the great majority of Forest supporters, will be most displeased if we end up with some flatpack nonsense. The proposed site is in Gamston which isn't too far from where we are now. Obviously it's not trentside andthere won't be that same stirring you get walking over trent bridge but hey, progress is apparently a good thing. Tuesday night games against S****horpe are a lot like that now. Surely the plan for the new stadium was part of the bid submitted to the committee though? And this is the plan for the new stadium right? Don't get me wrong, I'm no expert on bowls, but that looks like one.
Guest Bilo Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 nottingham is a better city and has hosted euro 96 if you remember? Really?
Edmund Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Come on Bilo that's getting a bit desperate. At the end of the day Nottingham shits on Leicester from a great height. Much nicer city whichever way you look at it.
lcfcadam Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 A lot of sour grapes on here. Lets be fair Nottingham is twice the city of Leicester and I'm not talking population. Why, just out of interest? City-centre-wise (I.E. shopping, eating etc), I would take Leicester any day (and to be clear I wasn't born here). Have you been down to Highcross recently? Or the more traditionally marvellous Queen's Road? How about Stoneygate? We have an incredible new multi-million pound Theatre, paired with a brand-new Arts Centre and a clear emphasis on culture. As well as City we have a world-famous rugby team. We have beautiful parks in Abbey Park and Victoria Park. Just not sure I agree with "twice the city of Leicester", in any respect really...
lcfcadam Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 there won't be that same stirring you get walking over trent bridge but hey, progress is apparently a good thing. Walking is clearly the right option: having sat in two truly epic traffic jams over that bridge I really don't want to see it ever in my life again!
Guest Bilo Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Come on Bilo that's getting a bit desperate. At the end of the day Nottingham shits on Leicester from a great height.Much nicer city whichever way you look at it. Tend to disagree. Very easy to do down the city in which you live but all this 'Nottingham is a better city than Leicester' ignores an awful lot of facts. The crime rate for one, the city chopping centres being another (Highcross now larger than Victoria) the multicultural nature of Leicester. The only area I would give Nottingham kudos is that their ground is more picturesque and atmospheric than ours (and the plans are to get rid of that) and the nightlife is better. Apart from that, not much between the two cities in my opinion.
Bryn Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Gutted for Hull that MK was chosen and not my city, fooking disgrace. Was always kind of inevitable that Leicester and Derby would lose out to Nottingham, it's just a much better city.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.