Yes, why have they picked them? Rugby isn't even played at a lot of them.barmy_army008 wrote:I think thats Gloucesters ground, so perhaps they've gone with that because its actually a rugby stadium. The vast majority are football grounds with the Ricoh Arena the smallest of those.
They want a good geographical spread across the country, so they can have coverage across the whole of England and not just traditional "rugby" areas. Hence Liverpool and Southampton.Sarah Star wrote:Yes, why have they picked them? Rugby isn't even played at a lot of them.barmy_army008 wrote:I think thats Gloucesters ground, so perhaps they've gone with that because its actually a rugby stadium. The vast majority are football grounds with the Ricoh Arena the smallest of those.
St James' Park is one of the venues.handbags_harris wrote:So why play at three London grounds then? I can understand why Twickenham is used, that much is obvious, but why then use Wembley and the Emirates? Why not attempt to use, say, Villa Park and St James's Park, which would both be more than adequate for the needs?
There aren't enough rugby grounds with the required capacity, even ones shared with football clubs.Sarah Star wrote:Yes, why have they picked them? Rugby isn't even played at a lot of them.barmy_army008 wrote:I think thats Gloucesters ground, so perhaps they've gone with that because its actually a rugby stadium. The vast majority are football grounds with the Ricoh Arena the smallest of those.
by Harpers So Solid Crew » 29 Jul 2009 17:41
29 Jul 2009 17:41Are they? It was only mentioned last week again that L.Orient are supposed to be leading the queue to make the stadium their home with a reduced capacity.Harpers So Solid Crew wrote:No olympic stadium either, odd now they are talking of leaving it full size after 2012.
+2015Hugo Boss wrote:LOL @ People whingeing that the rugby carves up "our" pitch then whingeing when the stadium doesn't get selected for the rugby World Cup.
My bad, didn't actually realise thatMaguire wrote:St James' Park is one of the venues.handbags_harris wrote:So why play at three London grounds then? I can understand why Twickenham is used, that much is obvious, but why then use Wembley and the Emirates? Why not attempt to use, say, Villa Park and St James's Park, which would both be more than adequate for the needs?
Elland Road is also being used i believe.handbags_harris wrote:My bad, didn't actually realise thatMaguire wrote:St James' Park is one of the venues.handbags_harris wrote:So why play at three London grounds then? I can understand why Twickenham is used, that much is obvious, but why then use Wembley and the Emirates? Why not attempt to use, say, Villa Park and St James's Park, which would both be more than adequate for the needs?![]()
Swap SJP for Elland Road then to make a valid argument.
Agreed.Alan Partridge wrote:WORST SPORT EVER.
And make it unusable for proper rugby and football ?Deathy wrote:Are they? It was only mentioned last week again that L.Orient are supposed to be leading the queue to make the stadium their home with a reduced capacity.Harpers So Solid Crew wrote:No olympic stadium either, odd now they are talking of leaving it full size after 2012.
If they do keep it, and they probably should, they should build a fecking roof!
I suspect those at Welford Rd may have something to say about that.....Mad Dog's Ghost wrote:Gloucester got the gig because it's the only ground where fans give a fck about rugby.
by Harpers So Solid Crew » 31 Jul 2009 07:38
31 Jul 2009 07:38Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests