|
Post by saddletramp on Oct 1, 2014 10:11:36 GMT
I see Chelsea mentioning the possibility of playing at Twickenham while SB is developed, has caused the furore you would expect from the egg chasing fraternity. Even MPS are jumping in, . Vince Cable posted on Twitter: “I have written today to RFU about Twickenham Stadium and possible use for a year by Chelsea FC. V serious concerns and need for facts ASAP.”
His intervention came after Geoff Acton, the Liberal Democrat councillor for the St Margarets and North Twickenham ward, warned that residents would be “up in arms” if Chelsea were allowed to move there while their own Stamford Bridge home was being redeveloped.
“Any move to put a Premier League club here would be resisted very strongly by the local residents,” he said. “I would imagine that certain people would have the objection that football crowds are generally worse than rugby crowds. Funny how Football/Rugby clubs sharing is ok,if its a Football stadium that's being shared. P.S. I see for next years egg chasing WC,they have no problem "borrowing" Elland rd,ST James pk,the Etihaad,MK,Villa pk,The Amex,West Ham and The Kingpower. I mean,Welford rd the home of Leicester tigers has a capacity of 24k,why move to LCFC for an extra 8k fans? Oh yeh money,at over £100 a ticket that's a lot of dosh.
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Oct 1, 2014 11:25:24 GMT
What's Twickenham hold ? 70,000 ? Absolute madness Chelsea going there, the ground would be half empty for PL games and even less on a CL night. Chelsea are basically a mid size club with wealthy backing. Lofts Road or Craven Cottage is where they should go so that their 30 or 40,000 fans can generate an atmosphere that will help the team. Remember Chelsea were down to 15,000 fans only a generation ago.
|
|
|
Post by foley on Oct 1, 2014 11:39:26 GMT
What's Twickenham hold ? 70,000 ? Absolute madness Chelsea going there, the ground would be half empty for PL games and even less on a CL night. Chelsea are basically a mid size club with wealthy backing. Lofts Road or Craven Cottage is where they should go so that their 30 or 40,000 fans can generate an atmosphere that will help the team. Remember Chelsea were down to 15,000 fans only a generation ago. Er, Sir Alex suggested that it was madness Arsenal having such a high capacity at the Emirates as they wouldn't fill it. He was very wrong and I suspect that you are wrong as well.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2014 11:42:36 GMT
Baldy's being quite modest in his response. Let me restore the balance;
What's Twickenham hold ? 70,000 ? Absolute madness Chelsea going there, the ground would be half empty for PL games and even less on a CL night. .... but if it was Man U we'd fill it every game, even though it's 200 miles from Old Trafford. Chelsea are basically a mid size club with wealthy backing .... whereas Man U are the biggest club in the world with wealthy backing. Lofts Road or Craven Cottage is where they should go so that their 30 or 40,000 fans can generate an atmosphere that will help the team. .... or should I say 10,000 fans plus 20,000 or 30,000 glory-hunting champagne swillers, unlike the 75,000 life long devotees we get at Old Trafford for every home game. Remember Chelsea were down to 15,000 fans only a generation ago. .... whereas we have ALWAYS filled Old Trafford for every game, and would continue to do so even if the capacity was 150,000.
|
|
|
Post by hobooxy2 (RIP) on Oct 1, 2014 11:45:58 GMT
Remember when Wembley was being built, the people who own Twickenham refused the FA permission to use the ground(can't remember the reason given at the time), so why would it be any different now a very rich London football club has a problem while their own ground gets rebuilt. Let them share with West Ham at the Olympic Stadium, that way any rent paid can be used to help pay for the changes that have to be made to transform the ground suitable for football, instead of out of the public purse
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Oct 1, 2014 11:47:15 GMT
What's Twickenham hold ? 70,000 ? Absolute madness Chelsea going there, the ground would be half empty for PL games and even less on a CL night. Chelsea are basically a mid size club with wealthy backing. Lofts Road or Craven Cottage is where they should go so that their 30 or 40,000 fans can generate an atmosphere that will help the team. Remember Chelsea were down to 15,000 fans only a generation ago. Some facts: Since 2004 Chelsea have averaged 41,000+ Stamford Bridge Capacity: 41,837 Loftus road capacity: 18,360 Craven Cottage capacity: 25,700 Perhaps they could play the first half at one ground, then the second half at the other? Number of times in the 100+ year history of Chelsea playing at Stamford Bridge that the average attendance has been lower than 15,000? Three times. 1906 (first season) and 1982 and 1983
|
|
|
Post by unification on Oct 1, 2014 12:16:51 GMT
I see Chelsea mentioning the possibility of playing at Twickenham while SB is developed, has caused the furore you would expect from the egg chasing fraternity. Even MPS are jumping in, . Vince Cable posted on Twitter: “I have written today to RFU about Twickenham Stadium and possible use for a year by Chelsea FC. V serious concerns and need for facts ASAP.” His intervention came after Geoff Acton, the Liberal Democrat councillor for the St Margarets and North Twickenham ward, warned that residents would be “up in arms” if Chelsea were allowed to move there while their own Stamford Bridge home was being redeveloped. “Any move to put a Premier League club here would be resisted very strongly by the local residents,” he said. “I would imagine that certain people would have the objection that football crowds are generally worse than rugby crowds. Funny how Football/Rugby clubs sharing is ok,if its a Football stadium that's being shared. P.S. I see for next years egg chasing WC,they have no problem "borrowing" Elland rd,ST James pk,the Etihaad,MK,Villa pk,The Amex,West Ham and The Kingpower. I mean,Welford rd the home of Leicester tigers has a capacity of 24k,why move to LCFC for an extra 8k fans? Oh yeh money,at over £100 a ticket that's a lot of dosh. It's like football is still locked in the 1980s by that quote. Generally, people going to PL game are going to watch the game and behave themselves nowadays. There were 596 arrests across the whole of the PL season which was down from 722 from the previous season. Considering 13m people attended a PL match last year, that number of arrests to number of fans attending is fairly minor. And what does 'worse' mean? Rugby fans can equally be loud, lairy and obnoxious so to differentiate between one lot and the rest is massively unfair. Football has moved on, the support base is now more varied and unhelpful generalisations from a know-nothing Lib Dem MP don't help things. I hope that Chelsea do get a gig at Twickenham if just to p*ss off the rugby fraternity.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Oct 1, 2014 12:17:11 GMT
Funny how Man Utd fans sneer at pretty much every other club for not having any history. Which of course is complete bollox.
Looking at the average attendances, Chelsea's was bigger than Man Utd pre-WW2.
So perhaps Chelsea are the team with the historically large support and Man Utd are the recent upstarts who's fans have only started watching them since their success in the 1960's.
|
|
|
Post by bicesterox on Oct 1, 2014 13:02:51 GMT
Man Utd got the 'sympathy' vote from neutrals following Munich. That's what I've been told by countless people who'se familys are United fans, it all started in 1958. Don't know how true but that's what they say, 'Oh I've always supported Man utd, whole family has done forever' well since 58
|
|
|
Post by KLYellow on Oct 1, 2014 13:28:43 GMT
I have a couple of mates who are Chelsea diehards. They struggle to get match day tickets and even season tickets. I feel similar to Arsenal, they would fill a 60 or 70 thousand stadium.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Oct 1, 2014 14:36:19 GMT
It's like football is still locked in the 1980s by that quote. Generally, people going to PL game are going to watch the game and behave themselves nowadays. There were 596 arrests across the whole of the PL season which was down from 722 from the previous season. Considering 13m people attended a PL match last year, that number of arrests to number of fans attending is fairly minor. And what does 'worse' mean? Rugby fans can equally be loud, lairy and obnoxious so to differentiate between one lot and the rest is massively unfair. Football has moved on, the support base is now more varied and unhelpful generalisations from a know-nothing Lib Dem MP don't help things. I hope that Chelsea do get a gig at Twickenham if just to p*ss off the rugby fraternity. Agreed. I've never been to see Chelsea play, so I don't specifically know what their fans are like. But I have been to a game in the upper tier at the Emirates - and those fans are almost indistinguishable from fans you'd see at a rugby ground. Posh, afluent, well behaved. If anything they're probably more sober than their rugby counterparts......
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Oct 1, 2014 14:52:26 GMT
It's like football is still locked in the 1980s by that quote. Generally, people going to PL game are going to watch the game and behave themselves nowadays. There were 596 arrests across the whole of the PL season which was down from 722 from the previous season. Considering 13m people attended a PL match last year, that number of arrests to number of fans attending is fairly minor. And what does 'worse' mean? Rugby fans can equally be loud, lairy and obnoxious so to differentiate between one lot and the rest is massively unfair. Football has moved on, the support base is now more varied and unhelpful generalisations from a know-nothing Lib Dem MP don't help things. I hope that Chelsea do get a gig at Twickenham if just to p*ss off the rugby fraternity. Agreed. I've never been to see Chelsea play, so I don't specifically know what their fans are like. But I have been to a game in the upper tier at the Emirates - and those fans are almost indistinguishable from fans you'd see at a rugby ground. Posh, afluent, well behaved. If anything they're probably more sober than their rugby counterparts...... Football fans seem to be the only group in modern Britain that it's alright to discriminate against without any real justification. Maybe at the next official census we all put "football" down as our religion. We can then claim religious hatred when we're oppressed.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Oct 1, 2014 15:32:56 GMT
Having worked in Twickenham and spoken to a few of the locals, I can assure you that the Rugby crowds aren't exactly quiet and serene as Vince Cable might like to proclaim. After any England international, there is fighting in the streets, vomiting and slashing up against shop windows, Fans mooning, singing and shouting at the top of their voice, and generally acting like a bunch of obnoxious hooray Henrys. So no different to your stereo-typical fooball fan that the media like to portray. Rugby fans certainly have no right to claim the moral high-ground on that basis.
|
|
|
Post by bicesteryellow on Oct 1, 2014 16:14:09 GMT
I have a couple of mates who are Chelsea diehards. They struggle to get match day tickets and even season tickets. I feel similar to Arsenal, they would fill a 60 or 70 thousand stadium. I would say 70,000 may be a bit much but they could quite easily push 60,000
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Oct 1, 2014 16:15:03 GMT
Football fans seem to be the only group in modern Britain that it's alright to discriminate against without any real justification. Maybe at the next official census we all put "football" down as our religion. We can then claim religious hatred when we're oppressed. I was thinking just this on Saturday afternoon when I was being frogmarched round the houses by the Bedfordshire police, complete with riot vans and mounted officers, to protect noone in particular from a couple of hundred fairly sober and dejected Oxford fans who weren't looking for trouble - meaning it took me 45 minutes to get back to a station that was 10 minutes walk away. Figured, however, that the aforementioned Bedfordshire police weren't going to be particularly receptive even to an eloquent and well-reasoned plea about the perils of discrimination. And so just kept my trap shut and comforted myself by thinking about just how much money they were wasting that they ought to have been spending trying to turn Luton into less of a hole.
|
|
|
Post by andystroud on Oct 1, 2014 18:25:04 GMT
Having worked in Twickenham and spoken to a few of the locals, I can assure you that the Rugby crowds aren't exactly quiet and serene as Vince Cable might like to proclaim. After any England international, there is fighting in the streets, vomiting and slashing up against shop windows, Fans mooning, singing and shouting at the top of their voice, and generally acting like a bunch of obnoxious hooray Henrys. So no different to your stereo-typical fooball fan that the media like to portray. Rugby fans certainly have no right to claim the moral high-ground on that basis. And that's just the women
|
|
|
Post by saddletramp on Oct 2, 2014 8:14:03 GMT
What's Twickenham hold ? 70,000 ? Absolute madness Chelsea going there, the ground would be half empty for PL games and even less on a CL night. Chelsea are basically a mid size club with wealthy backing. Lofts Road or Craven Cottage is where they should go so that their 30 or 40,000 fans can generate an atmosphere that will help the team. Remember Chelsea were down to 15,000 fans only a generation ago. Everyones crowds were down in the 80s,due to hooliganism. Man Uniteds crowds,OT held 64k in the Eighties. .http://www.red11.org/mufc/stats/attendances.htm Average crowd in 1983 ,41k,lowest 30k against LIVERPOOL,in fact Man Uniteds lowest crowd in 81,83,84,85, and 87 was against Liverpool,(running scared ?)or maybe only turn up when they think they can win ? In fact in 1993 (ground under re development) they had 29k against Palace and an average of 35k in a ground that held 45k 95,31k against West ham,41k average in a ground that held 55k. Then they started winning. In 1980/81 Newcastle Utd with the most loyal fan in the world AVERAGED 16,001. Between 1977 and 1994 they NEVER averaged 30k. They had 7k against Wrexham for a league game in 87/88. Man city had 15k against Reading in 88,and 3,007 for an Auto windshield game against Mansfield in 1998 and 658 of those were away fans !!. So to pick on Chelsea is a bit cruel P.S. Burnley with a population of 78k have a best season average of 31k or 40% of the population of the town and a record crowd of 54k or 70% of the town !
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Oct 2, 2014 8:22:20 GMT
What's Twickenham hold ? 70,000 ? Absolute madness Chelsea going there, the ground would be half empty for PL games and even less on a CL night. Chelsea are basically a mid size club with wealthy backing. Lofts Road or Craven Cottage is where they should go so that their 30 or 40,000 fans can generate an atmosphere that will help the team. Remember Chelsea were down to 15,000 fans only a generation ago. Everyones crowds were down in the 80s,due to hooliganism. Man Uniteds crowds,OT held 64k in the Eighties. .http://www.red11.org/mufc/stats/attendances.htm Average crowd in 1983 ,41k,lowest 30k against LIVERPOOL,in fact Man Uniteds lowest crowd in 81,83,84,85, and 87 was against Liverpool,(running scared ?)or maybe only turn up when they think they can win ? In fact in 1993 (ground under re development) they had 29k against Palace and an average of 35k in a ground that held 45k 95,31k against West ham,41k average in a ground that held 55k. Then they started winning. In 1980/81 Newcastle Utd with the most loyal fan in the world AVERAGED 16,001. Between 1977 and 1994 they NEVER averaged 30k. They had 7k against Wrexham for a league game in 87/88. Man city had 15k against Reading in 88,and 3,007 for an Auto windshield game against Mansfield in 1998 and 658 of those were away fans !!. So to pick on Chelsea is a bit cruel P.S. Burnley with a population of 78k have a best season average of 31k or 40% of the population of the town and a record crowd of 54k or 70% of the town ! It's interesting how facts often get in the way of fans of the "big" clubs when they are claiming how wonderful they are.
|
|
|
Post by scotchegg on Oct 2, 2014 10:46:40 GMT
Having worked in Twickenham and spoken to a few of the locals, I can assure you that the Rugby crowds aren't exactly quiet and serene as Vince Cable might like to proclaim. After any England international, there is fighting in the streets, vomiting and slashing up against shop windows, Fans mooning, singing and shouting at the top of their voice, and generally acting like a bunch of obnoxious hooray Henrys. So no different to your stereo-typical fooball fan that the media like to portray. Rugby fans certainly have no right to claim the moral high-ground on that basis. And that's just the women Going to a couple of the autumn internationals and looking forward to them ever more now!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 11:37:03 GMT
Having worked in Twickenham and spoken to a few of the locals, I can assure you that the Rugby crowds aren't exactly quiet and serene as Vince Cable might like to proclaim. After any England international, there is fighting in the streets, vomiting and slashing up against shop windows, Fans mooning, singing and shouting at the top of their voice, and generally acting like a bunch of obnoxious hooray Henrys. So no different to your stereo-typical fooball fan that the media like to portray. Rugby fans certainly have no right to claim the moral high-ground on that basis. I go to rugby matches on occasion and I think the main difference is that rugby union fans aren't as "tribal" as football fans. There's no animosity based on who you support, and no history of it either. There certainly is plenty of drinking though, which leads a minority into anti-social loutishness. I've only ever seen violence amongst supporters at rugby union games once, in an Edinburgh pub yard when Leinster were playing Leicester in the Heineken Cup Final. The fighting was between Leinster and Munster fans, who'd got tickets when their club were still involved. I think it was an "Irish rivalry thing" but boy were they knocking lumps out of each other!
|
|
|
Post by bristoloxman on Oct 2, 2014 20:30:16 GMT
I see Chelsea mentioning the possibility of playing at Twickenham while SB is developed, has caused the furore you would expect from the egg chasing fraternity. Even MPS are jumping in, . Vince Cable posted on Twitter: “I have written today to RFU about Twickenham Stadium and possible use for a year by Chelsea FC. V serious concerns and need for facts ASAP.” His intervention came after Geoff Acton, the Liberal Democrat councillor for the St Margarets and North Twickenham ward, warned that residents would be “up in arms” if Chelsea were allowed to move there while their own Stamford Bridge home was being redeveloped. “Any move to put a Premier League club here would be resisted very strongly by the local residents,” he said. “I would imagine that certain people would have the objection that football crowds are generally worse than rugby crowds. Funny how Football/Rugby clubs sharing is ok,if its a Football stadium that's being shared. P.S. I see for next years egg chasing WC,they have no problem "borrowing" Elland rd,ST James pk,the Etihaad,MK,Villa pk,The Amex,West Ham and The Kingpower. I mean,Welford rd the home of Leicester tigers has a capacity of 24k,why move to LCFC for an extra 8k fans? Oh yeh money,at over £100 a ticket that's a lot of dosh. Yeah, and why do Chelsea want to play at twickers? Money! what else is all this about these days?!
|
|
|
Post by bristoloxman on Oct 2, 2014 20:34:16 GMT
What's Twickenham hold ? 70,000 ? Absolute madness Chelsea going there, the ground would be half empty for PL games and even less on a CL night. Chelsea are basically a mid size club with wealthy backing. Lofts Road or Craven Cottage is where they should go so that their 30 or 40,000 fans can generate an atmosphere that will help the team. Remember Chelsea were down to 15,000 fans only a generation ago. Incorrect. winners command bums on seats, they would get 50-60,000 easy. look at us and the correlation of wins and crowd? And sharing with Qpr is like us sharing at county ground.... Not going to happen case rested.
|
|
|
Post by saddletramp on Oct 3, 2014 6:21:01 GMT
I see Chelsea mentioning the possibility of playing at Twickenham while SB is developed, has caused the furore you would expect from the egg chasing fraternity. Even MPS are jumping in, . Vince Cable posted on Twitter: “I have written today to RFU about Twickenham Stadium and possible use for a year by Chelsea FC. V serious concerns and need for facts ASAP.” His intervention came after Geoff Acton, the Liberal Democrat councillor for the St Margarets and North Twickenham ward, warned that residents would be “up in arms” if Chelsea were allowed to move there while their own Stamford Bridge home was being redeveloped. “Any move to put a Premier League club here would be resisted very strongly by the local residents,” he said. “I would imagine that certain people would have the objection that football crowds are generally worse than rugby crowds. Funny how Football/Rugby clubs sharing is ok,if its a Football stadium that's being shared. P.S. I see for next years egg chasing WC,they have no problem "borrowing" Elland rd,ST James pk,the Etihaad,MK,Villa pk,The Amex,West Ham and The Kingpower. I mean,Welford rd the home of Leicester tigers has a capacity of 24k,why move to LCFC for an extra 8k fans? Oh yeh money,at over £100 a ticket that's a lot of dosh. Yeah, and why do Chelsea want to play at twickers? Money! what else is all this about these days?! I don't think so,lets be honest the Met wont let Chelsea play at any other Premier league ground in London,Wembleys a no no,due to the fact either Arsenal or Spurs will be at home the same day,which would make Kings Cross interesting.So realistically the only other options to twickers,would be Reading or Fulham.Reading would be a problem due to London Irish,Fulham holds what 25k? P.S. Surprised at this Sundays Prem league games,Arsenal at Chelsea,Qpr at West Ham and Spurs at home to Southampton on the same afternoon !!
|
|
|
Post by Tin Pot Poster on Oct 3, 2014 10:25:55 GMT
How many times a year is Twickenham used to host rugby matches? I don't follow rugby, but i guess it is a handful of England matches and some cup games, the majority of which would presumably still be held there if chelsea moved in for a year. Regardless of whether you thought football fans were worse than rugby fans, if i was a local resident i wouldn't be keen on an extra minimum 19 occasions that you would have all these people coming to town, some of which will be p*ssed up etc. Plus given it's chelsea, bound to be plenty of midweek CL nights with over 50K people making their way across london, slowing commutes home/crowding public transport etc. Unless you run local pubs etc, i can see only bad sides for people that live there.
I think if they can reach a deal with Fulham, must be the best option. Nearby, already used for football etc. Chelsea will loose out on attendances and therefore money, but that's a necessary consequence up expanding stamford bridge.
|
|
|
Post by bristoloxman on Oct 3, 2014 18:33:53 GMT
How many times a year is Twickenham used to host rugby matches? I don't follow rugby, but i guess it is a handful of England matches and some cup games, the majority of which would presumably still be held there if chelsea moved in for a year. Regardless of whether you thought football fans were worse than rugby fans, if i was a local resident i wouldn't be keen on an extra minimum 19 occasions that you would have all these people coming to town, some of which will be p*ssed up etc. Plus given it's chelsea, bound to be plenty of midweek CL nights with over 50K people making their way across london, slowing commutes home/crowding public transport etc. Unless you run local pubs etc, i can see only bad sides for people that live there. I think if they can reach a deal with Fulham, must be the best option. Nearby, already used for football etc. Chelsea will loose out on attendances and therefore money, but that's a necessary consequence up expanding stamford bridge. They should let them use Wembley, appoint Kasssam to consult on how best to get the most out of a club who are over a barrel. all the profit made can go to grass roots football/ children development. Chelsea may even gain fans by having a year away. The ground is used way more than you think, youth, women's, army, navy etc.........
|
|