Re: Stadium Site pictures : Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:45 pm  

Sadfish wrote:

I would love the cladding to get finished and all round too, but not at the over expense of the clubs finances spiralling..... We don't want to be the next Bradford, and really cladding is low on the overall agenda on the grand scheme of things......

you mean it's just a cover up ?

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:10 pm  

Dave T wrote:

Didn't Saints commission and were therefore responsible for the 3d graphics? They were certainly using them to publicise the ground, and sell tickets. Most fans will not look at the technical plans, so it is not unfair to say that things were hidden.

I haven't been to the ground yet, but from TV, it looks lovely, I don't think there are any issues with the look of it from inside, outside is a different matter, and if there are health and safety issues with the concourse then there's a problem. As you say, there are plenty of grounds with uncovered spaces, do they have a different ground surface to avoid slips etc. as I've never known issues with slipping in these older grounds.

The concrete mix used on the concourses are for inside use and not for outside. The fact it's supposed to be a inside mix means to much water could make it crack or scuff up in places.

The reason it's so slippy when wet is because it's been power floated meaning its a very smooth finish which usually is used on house slabs, units etc

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:56 am  

sanjunien wrote:

you mean it's just a cover up ? in answer to Sadfish sainf:
I would love the cladding to get finished and all round too, but not at the over expense of the clubs finances spiralling..... We don't want to be the next Bradford, and really cladding is low on the overall agenda on the grand scheme of things......

But I thought the Mighty One had a bottomless Pit of money and Friends in high places ever able to push in money! LOL 0 good job the forecast after a cold May is a hot summer. It did make me laugh in the rugby league weekly papers this week the letters that still gush about him, you would think no one else had ever invested personal money into rugby league!!! but the big joke was one who said he should take over from Richard Lewis which is a total and complete Joke! to run Rugby League!

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:07 am  

jaybs wrote:

but the big joke was one who said he should take over from Richard Lewis which is a total and complete Joke! to run Rugby League!

Please explain why that is a joke.

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:32 pm  

Donkey OTay wrote:

Please explain why that is a joke.

From his working background to controlling the game of rugby league! No! he simply do not have the right experience, this was shown when he decided to go to the media asking to reduce Super League to 12 clubs rather attend Super League meetings and raise the point, that shows some real experience! Perhaps if we go with 12 teams which I feel will be a major mistake, then will he go for a fair method to All Super League Clubs 14 balls with each teams name on and the two pulled out Go? I see some players back this as well will they take reduce wages? No! I seriously doubt it.

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:29 pm  

jaybs wrote:

From his working background to controlling the game of rugby league! No! he simply do not have the right experience, this was shown when he decided to go to the media asking to reduce Super League to 12 clubs rather attend Super League meetings and raise the point, that shows some real experience! Perhaps if we go with 12 teams which I feel will be a major mistake, then will he go for a fair method to All Super League Clubs 14 balls with each teams name on and the two pulled out Go? I see some players back this as well will they take reduce wages? No! I seriously doubt it.

Superleague should be 10 teams, not 12 and certainly not 14. Only fans of terribly badly run clubs want anything else

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:51 pm  

SL would benfit for being a 10 team league and casting off the likes of Widnes, Wakefield, London. However, I'm not sure the game as a whole would. certainly without a London team. Although, having a team in London has achieved nothing to date.

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:53 pm  

BackrowSaint wrote:

Although, having a team in London has achieved nothing to date.

And you know that how?

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:56 pm  

BackrowSaint wrote:

SL would benfit for being a 10 team league and casting off the likes of Widnes, Wakefield, London. However, I'm not sure the game as a whole would. certainly without a London team. Although, having a team in London has achieved nothing to date.

I like the idea of a team in london, but forcing them to compete with other SL teams and so spend more money than they can afford and live in bigger stadia then they need is killing them. London Broncos and London Scolars in the same league would do far much more for the game in London

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:00 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

And you know that how?

Obviously there's a couple thousand cockneys go to the games. But I have friends from London who live here and friends from here who live in London and they all say people don't even know Rugby League exists. They know of 'rugby' which is union but don't have a clue there's a second code. Some of my friends from London who lve up here are from a Union background and knew of SL and vaguely of London Broncos but only because they played Union. There is little to no coverage of the Broncos in the capital and the general public wouldn't have a clue who they were. Their average attendances are absolutely diabolical and it must be a money pit as you cant keep a club financially stable of 2,500 gate receipts. Somebody somewhere is losing a lot of money.