Rugby/football stadium issues

[MauriSca7]

Exactly - that is not in the RFU's interests.

If you want Namibians at English or SA clubs then you invite scouts to their own club games.

Wake up ! we had to invest in the club buying shares !
Irish people bought London Irish and can have Irish players,South African business man invested in Saracens and he can have South African players,we wanted to invest in an english club with the help of namibian sponsors and we can't have namibian players ? wow once again very double standard

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I blame York!

I see what you did there.

The RFU has gone down the drain since S. Lancaster took over the English rugby reins.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Those teams have some Irish/SA players, afaik Saracens were in fact stopped from basically becoming an English based SA team.

Given that those investors were allowed, you might consider that you were the issue?

I know I wouldn't want to work with you if this is how you communicate.

 

[sigesige00]

I see no problem about that. And I think that Chelsea should build a common stadium for Chelsea and Fulham.
West Ham United and Leyton Orient should share the Olympic Stadium. And Rugby teams in London and around can move in vacant stadiums....

 

[ratsapprentice]

 

[MauriSca7]

Those teams have some Irish/SA players, afaik Saracens were in fact stopped from basically becoming an English based SA team.

Given that those investors were allowed, you might consider that you were the issue?

I know I wouldn't want to work with you if this is how you communicate.

As Phil Greening said,in rugby you must be "someone" friend,if you don't have hands tied with someone in the union you go nowhere.
I was not "friend of friends" so there was no place for me and the players who collaborated with me
Now I'm away from rugby and I feel very well.

PS:I communicate in that way only with people from rugby forums who think to know everything about me but barely know my nickname

 

[Thingimubob]

I think the only problem I have with this is the fact that it is Chelsea. I f*!king hate Chelsea. No idea why, don't even really support a rival of theirs, don't even care that much about who wins the Premier League, but god I hope it's not Chelsea...

Anyway, not got too much of a problem with a big Football club using Twickers. I mean the crowd separating could be a problem, but other purpose built rugby stadiums have managed it, so why not Twickenham? It's pretty out of the way down there though, so like others have said, the regulations on the number of events could really screw Quins over.

 

[MauriSca7]

If sport organizations as NFL,NHL,MLS and NBA see me as a resource while rugby union members treated me like s..t maybe it's not me the problem,maybe it's unions and their "you're not important enough" attitude
If I was the problem I don't think that the sport organizations I told before would have let me to organize events and competitions,but as I said I could collaborate with them without problems

 

[RedruthRFC]

The NIMBYs have arrived, Vince Cable has written to the RFU voicing concerns and asking for details of plans.

FWIW, given the amount of money this could generate, I hope the RFU bend over backwards to make it happen. They will be up against it to square it away with the authorities though.

 

[ratsapprentice]

What would you say to Harlequins, Redruth?

 

[Peat]

I think anyone who has ever been to Twickenham on a match day will be able to see why residents would have concerns. Completely overwhelms the public transport and takes over all the local pubs. God help anyone trying to go anywhere by road either. Sticking on a further 23 or so games (minimum) is a pretty heavy load, particularly as you could then guarantee every weekend without a match is a weekend they'll close the railway for repair.

I'm all for this, it's money in the RFU's coffers, but if I lived in Twickenham it would be very much "No way, Jose." Why should they let themselves get done over for no benefit on their part?

Abramovich should bung the local council, that might take care of things.

 

[RedruthRFC]

What would you say to Harlequins, Redruth?

Simple...."let's discuss this and see if we can find a way of making this works for everyone involved".

I think anyone who has ever been to Twickenham on a match day will be able to see why residents would have concerns. Completely overwhelms the public transport and takes over all the local pubs. God help anyone trying to go anywhere by road either. Sticking on a further 23 or so games (minimum) is a pretty heavy load, particularly as you could then guarantee every weekend without a match is a weekend they'll close the railway for repair.

I'm all for this, it's money in the RFU's coffers, but if I lived in Twickenham it would be very much "No way, Jose." Why should they let themselves get done over for no benefit on their part?

Abramovich should bung the local council, that might take care of things.

I understand your (and everyone else's) concerns Peat, each one needs to be investigated and solutions put into place. All I'm saying is that given the possible upside for English rugby, the attitude needs to be "if we can solve these problems, it can happen" rather than "it can't happen for these reasons".

A few points, I suspect that the strain on infrastructure won't be as great as you suggest - Stamford Bridge only holds 40k or so people, Chelsea obviously think that there is demand in excess of this, but it's difficult to imagine them coming close to filling Twickenham (possibly outside of big games / derbies).

Re: citizens of Twickenham getting nothing out of it, is there a anything on any statute that says what Twickenham (the stadium) can be used for or how often it can be used? If not, I don't really see how they can object, surely the time to object was when Billy Bray started replacing cabbages with prawn sandwiches in his allotment!

 

[ratsapprentice]

Absolutely - Twickenham was explicitly barred from hosting football games as far as I am aware.

 

[Peat]

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for it as well - just if you put yourself in the shoes of local residents, their concerns are very reasonable.

And I am not an expert on what can or can't go on with Twickenham, but judging from Welshglory's and Tony's posts on page 1, the council can put their foot down on how many events happen there.

 

[TheSaffycen]

I understand your (and everyone else's) concerns Peat, each one needs to be investigated and solutions put into place. All I'm saying is that given the possible upside for English rugby, the attitude needs to be "if we can solve these problems, it can happen" rather than "it can't happen for these reasons".

A few points, I suspect that the strain on infrastructure won't be as great as you suggest - Stamford Bridge only holds 40k or so people, Chelsea obviously think that there is demand in excess of this, but it's difficult to imagine them coming close to filling Twickenham (possibly outside of big games / derbies).

Re: citizens of Twickenham getting nothing out of it, is there a anything on any statute that says what Twickenham (the stadium) can be used for or how often it can be used? If not, I don't really see how they can object, surely the time to object was when Billy Bray started replacing cabbages with prawn sandwiches in his allotment!

I'm not sure, I think they could well do 70,000 most games. Arsenal has a 60,000 stadium which always sells out and Chelsea have had more success and play an entertaining brand of football. Either way I agree with a lot of what people have said here, I have no problem with them using it, as long as the residents around the area are thought of and no one gets ignored when the decision is made.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Fair play Saffycen, soccerball isn't my thing, I was only guessing that it would take a while to build up to the 60k they are looking for in the fullness of time and that the temporary move (particularly to a den of egg chasing) would put some off. Marginal I know, but even if they did hit 70k, it's still not quite the same strain on transport as a sell out home international.

 

[ratsapprentice]

It is with the Quins crowd.

I don't think this is supposed to happen until 2016, at which point I believe that Quins will have increased their capacity to 16k~

 

[goodNumber10]

I'm a bit undecided. No issues with the stadium seeing multipurpose use.

But does no one have concerns about the quality of the pitch?

Football turf needs to be cut shorter than a rugby pitch which will impact on the ability of players to change direction, scrimmage etc.... etc.... That pitch needs to be in excellent quality for Rugby first and foremost this went be the case of a football team sets up there.

 

[RedruthRFC]

It is with the Quins crowd.

I don't think this is supposed to happen until 2016, at which point I believe that Quins will have increased their capacity to 16k~

I'm not sure I follow your point. *If* this is the only stumbling block, couldn't fixtures be fitted around one another? Or couldn't the RFU compensate 'quins out of profits?

Playing devil's advocate, the PRL clubs have essentially bought out from the RFU, why should the RFU worry about their interests when they have the opportunity to raise funds that can be used for the good of the whole English game.

 

[ratsapprentice]

You said it's not quite the same traffic as a sellout home international - when in fact it would be more.

It would almost certainly hurt Quins' ticket sales - a lot of people not buying tickets due to the extra hassle caused by 60k other people using the trains.