Ford Super Sunday Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 Well they have to do something I like the Tigers, but if they get the upper hand in this and make us move to another date, it would feck our fixture list right up, and I would fume with them For god sake it seems that Leicester cannot handle 40-45,000 in the same place at once, i'm sure it has been said in the other thread, but what the fook does this say for our chances of hosting a world cup game in a 40,000 capacity stadium I don't say this lightly.... FECK THE RUGBY!
lou Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 Cant see why we cant play on the same day but with one an early kick off and one a late one just long enough for the egg chasers to clear off out the feckin way
Guest Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 If that is true it really is a disgrace.We play Sheff Utd on the 26th, but we play Doncaster on the 28th. So we can't play on the 27th, unless we are going to move doncaster aswell, which is pointless when the Tigers can kick off on the 27th, FFS! I was going to post something along those lines. Well they have to do somethingI like the Tigers, but if they get the upper hand in this and make us move to another date, it would feck our fixture list right up, and I would fume with them For god sake it seems that Leicester cannot handle 40-45,000 in the same place at once, i'm sure it has been said in the other thread, but what the fook does this say for our chances of hosting a world cup game in a 40,000 capacity stadium I don't say this lightly.... FECK THE RUGBY! Apparently it's the traffic that is the problem. Our road system cannot cope with the extra traffic, and we have no reliable or decent public transport network as a viable alternative.
davieG Posted 13 July 2009 Author Posted 13 July 2009 I was going to post something along those lines.Apparently it's the traffic that is the problem. Our road system cannot cope with the extra traffic, and we have no reliable or decent public transport network as a viable alternative. Yet we're applying to be one of the World Cup venues with a ground capacity of 45k, plus several thousands at 4 fans in the park venues; can't see the assessors being too impressed that we can't manage the tigers & City on the same day.
CosbehFox Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 I reckon SKY will choose the Tigers game for telly and move it like previous years.
Guest Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 Yet we're applying to be one of the World Cup venues with a ground capacity of 45k, plus several thousands at 4 fans in the park venues; can't see the assessors being too impressed that we can't manage the tigers & City on the same day. The thing with the World Cup is that it is more likely to get the co-operation of the council, unlike having two professional sports teams in the same city, where they have shown that they don't really give a crap, especially where City are concerned.
Webbo Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 Yet we're applying to be one of the World Cup venues with a ground capacity of 45k, plus several thousands at 4 fans in the park venues; can't see the assessors being too impressed that we can't manage the tigers & City on the same day. The capacity would only be 40,000 and for a 1 off world cup game the council would probably lay on free buses.
Guest Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 The capacity would only be 40,000 and for a 1 off world cup game the council would probably lay on free buses. Perhaps if the council made the bus companies provide us with a more efficient and cost effective bus service, more people would use them, and there wouldn't be so many cars on the roads before and after games. That way it wouldn't matter whether City, Tigers or both were at home.
davieG Posted 13 July 2009 Author Posted 13 July 2009 The capacity would only be 40,000 and for a 1 off world cup game the council would probably lay on free buses. I believe that the 40k is wrong and it's actually 45K.
Edmund Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 I believe that the 40k is wrong and it's actually 45K. I hope its temporary stadia. It will be embarrassing having a 45k stadium with an average of 22,000 each week turning up.
Guest Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 I hope its temporary stadia. It will be embarrassing having a 45k stadium with an average of 22,000 each week turning up. Stick a few chairs on the roof, is that the kind of thing you mean?
SantiagoFox Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 You do understand the difference between watching the game in a pub and actually going to the game and supporting your team as most on this forum prefer don't you? It isn't a win-win situation for those who had booked train tickets, hotel rooms and made arrangements for a Saturday night out in London. It isn't a win-win situation for those who were looking forward to a day in London (myself included) combined with a match, which are always special. You miss the point by talking about the costs, a lot of fans would be more than happy to spend a few extra quid on travelling to the game and having the experience of an epic day in London. You'll often hear people talking about legendary trips away from home, you won't hear them talking about legendary trips to the pub to watch the game. Spot on. Why can't all these arseholes get together at the start ? Fixture computer man, plus Old Bill, Tigers, Sky etc. Then announce the fixtures. Then football fans can make their arrangements, by whom I mean those that go to the game, as opposed to those that sit on their fat arses on their sofas, or go to the pub. Maybe a large "We Hate Sky TV" banner might get the message over. Or should we go down Thatchers suggestion of playing everything behind closed doors? Would suit some of the posters on here.
Fosse Boy Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 Spot on.Why can't all these arseholes get together at the start ? Fixture computer man, plus Old Bill, Tigers, Sky etc. Then announce the fixtures. Then football fans can make their arrangements, by whom I mean those that go to the game, as opposed to those that sit on their fat arses on their sofas, or go to the pub. Maybe a large "We Hate Sky TV" banner might get the message over. Or should we go down Thatchers suggestion of playing everything behind closed doors? Would suit some of the posters on here. I'll chip in.
Bert Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 It'll be the boxing day game that's next! Seriously considering not going to QPR, depending on ticket prices. We never do well there, I've been there before, and it's a massive shit hole. The only consolation is that I'll still be able to watch it.
Daggers Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 Boxing Day change would be ace - it'd mean I could get a train to the game
Koke Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 For those who haven't read this, they should do so. It's a pretty good read. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulfletcher/20...re_compute.html
Maybes Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 It'll be the boxing day game that's next!Seriously considering not going to QPR, depending on ticket prices. We never do well there, I've been there before, and it's a massive shit hole. The only consolation is that I'll still be able to watch it. This. I've heard murmerings that QPR charge £40 for tickets (Adult) if that is the case I definitely will not be going.
leftsideoverhere Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 Haven't posted much since the end of the season, but if real life will allow me five minutes I just need to add my voice to those who are seriously pissed off by the intervention of Murdoch's evil empire into our trip to the north east. The interesting blog article by the BBC chappie doesn't even get on to the fooking over of the fixtures by the TV companies. Yes, it's hard putting the fixture list together, but once it's published it should be fixed. If the TV people have to bugger about with the fixtures, why not let them do it before they get published, instead of afterwards? Since the last day of the season more or less, Greg has been asking me pretty much one question: "When are we going to Newcastle, dad?" Partly that's my fault, because - like many of you - I picked Newcastle away as likely to be the highlight of the coming season. I used to live up there, it's a great city, a stunning stadium, and it will be a fantastic day out. And I've promised him all that. Except now, of course, it won't be. We don't have Sky, so the option of watching it at home isn't there for us, even if we wanted to sit on our own sofa and offer zero support to our players. Likewise, I don't often enjoy taking children into pubs, especially not ones with lots of drunk football fans in them. If I'm not at the game, then I mostly listen to City on Radio Leicester but (a) it's a long way from being as good, and (b) it is genuinely hard work, I think, for Greg - and presumably other kids - to 'get' what is going on from radio commentary, because they lack the experience / understanding to be able to translate the commentary into a mental picture of the game. Greg can never sit still to listen to commentary on the radio, it just bores him. But how can I take a ten year old to a football game two days before the start of the new school year that would involve getting him home to bed at about four in the morning? He'll be lucky to stay awake until the end of the game, and I'm not carrying him down fourteen flights of stairs on my shoulders. I really, really want to still do this. I don't want Sky to ruin the prospect of the best awayer of the season. But I am seriously annoyed that they can mess about with the fixtures to such an extent, turning what would have been a long, but manageable, Saturday into an impossible Monday night - either we stay over in Newcastle (expensive, uses up leave from work which I can't afford, and also puts pressure on the rest of the family to cope with me not being around for practically two whole days), or we risk Greg starting at his new school by falling asleep in his first ever assembly, which probably won't go down too well. Anyone who has a practical suggestion for how we can get to and from the game without spending shed loads of money and / or having to stay up all night on a coach, please let me know. And anyone who thinks "yay, now I can watch the game without having to leave the comfort of my own sofa" please spare a thought for those of us trying to encourage the next generation of foxes fans to actually care enough about the team to turn up to the games...
Ford Super Sunday Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 The point about the Tv companies making decisions before the fixtures is a good one. In theory, it would be great if Sky and BBC could liase with the fixtures people, and they choose the matches they want. I mean, does a game really look any more attractive once it's been announced. We all knew we'd be playing Newcastle this season, why couldn't Sky take some time to realise that, then decide. I feel for Crystal Palace, they had their game moved to Saturday, 29th August at 5:15pm, then only a few days ago it was moved AGAIN to Monday, 31st August at 5:15, so Sky could show Man Utd-Arsenal live, It is getting a bit ridiculous now really. The Palace one is an extreme example, but many people, and on here even, have gone out and purchased train tickets and hotels for games, and planned mentally for great weekends and great nights out. If I was going to defend Sky and the BBC, i'd say they are spending £88m a year on the Football League, and I suppose they shoud get to choose the games when they want and the times. I suppose i'm not disputing they should, it is just, like Nick said above, WHEN they make these bloody decisions. Why they can't make a list of games they want to show, and do it. I'd take it to extremes, instead of jacking us about, why don't Sky have their say of the DATE of that fixture, so it fits in their schedule, rather than waiting 3-4 weeks before decising 'ooo that looks like a good game, we'll have it' Let's not forget that the fixtures they have chosen are only up until December, we still have to wait for movement from Jan-May next year, and if we do all well, we will be moved a few times I would expect, we seemed to be on TV a lot in our relegation year, I dread to think what'll happen if we do well. This will be a learning curve for us all though, and maybe we will all have to hang tight in the future before we plan so much, because Sky will always have their way. Money is king in the football world, not the fans. No-one can ever say that watching it on TV is as good as being there, whoever claims that is deluded and stupid. I watched the Leeds game back after our win, and the atmosphere portrayed on that was nowhere near what I experienced, the same with celebrating the goal, but we all know that, except some it seems... I was too young to remember, but I would be over the moon if regional Soccer Sunday came back to ITV... oh for the days of Alan Parry, Sunday Lunchtime games.
Edmund Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 Stick a few chairs on the roof, is that the kind of thing you mean? No. A lot of new stadiums can have temporary stands added on which can be removed at a later date. I know this happened in a recent World Cup / Euro Cup just can't remember where it was. The majority of these stadiums are like lego and if they have the necessary fittings can be temporarily extended if needs be.
James. Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 < stuff about Newcastle away > Just save your time and money and go to a differwent away game. Newcastle isn't the be all and end all. For example the aways at Sheffield will probably be more fun anyway. Plus their closer.
Guest Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 No. A lot of new stadiums can have temporary stands added on which can be removed at a later date. I know this happened in a recent World Cup / Euro Cup just can't remember where it was. The majority of these stadiums are like lego and if they have the necessary fittings can be temporarily extended if needs be. I don't know where you would put these seats/temporary stands, without sticking them on the roof, to be honest.
samjohnson Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 I don't know where you would put these seats/temporary stands, without sticking them on the roof, to be honest. Would probably end up taking a chunk out of the east stand roof to accomadate the thing. I dont really see why they couldnt just fully extend it with brick and concrete.
Guest Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 Would probably end up taking a chunk out of the east stand roof to accomadate the thing. I dont really see why they couldnt just fully extend it with brick and concrete. They can; by the time you've made the adjustments to add the temporary seats, you may as well put in a proper extension. I just don't think it's needed at the WS.
Edmund Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 I don't know where you would put these seats/temporary stands, without sticking them on the roof, to be honest. Well obviously it would be on the roof but im guessing they would pull it away first and adjust. To be honest I don't even think the Walkers can even accommodate for temporary standing, I just brought it up in the debate opposing the fact that if we had a 40,000 stadium then it would look silly after the WC as we would never fill it up. I wish I hadn't mentioned it now. They can; by the time you've made the adjustments to add the temporary seats, you may as well put in a proper extension. I just don't think it's needed at the WS. You would be surprised how quickly these things can be erected in comparison to permanent standing.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.