Interesting articles but rather flimsy reasons why Swansea and Hull for instance are successful and Cardiff quite the opposite.
https://www.theguardian.com/football...-new-build-era
https://www.theguardian.com/football...-stadium-moves
Printable View
Interesting articles but rather flimsy reasons why Swansea and Hull for instance are successful and Cardiff quite the opposite.
https://www.theguardian.com/football...-new-build-era
https://www.theguardian.com/football...-stadium-moves
I think it's very harsh to say our stadium move was unsuccessful.
Where would we be if we were still in ninian park?
What would our average crowds be?
Why is it that much different from the Swansea one, to say that their move was one of the best and ours was one of the worst?
Fair enough some of them are clear- like Coventry, even then it wan't the move that was the problem, just everything else that happened at the same time.
I agree, I struggle to see the justification for many of those choices in either category and, reading what they say about ours, it seems that they were struggling for one or two more to get up to ten so they decided to include us - if Tan changed those red seats to blue, we'd probably have been in the ten best article :hehe:
A more thoughtful analysis could have taken into account the level of dislocation for fans. Moving Reading from walking distance of the town centre to a motorway junction with little or no pubs and eating places for instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Quite.
A daft article.
Weve got a brilliant stadium in a good location.
To call out move across the road a failure is a strange one.
Indeed , most of the failures seem linked to on field matters rather than the actual grounds.
For me the move was needed and delivered without totally ruining the club financially. To bring up the red shirts is just an excuse imo to justify the inclusion in the article.
I consider the move to have reflected the upward curve of the club and has given the club a facility that is appropriate for=the modern game/supporter.
I appreciate many moan about the loss of atmosphere but, frankly, there was mostly little atmosphere at Ninian outside of the big games.
Only thing wrong with CCS is the hideous, cheap and now dirty and worn cladding - other than that, the location, size, atmosphere when full house is all very good indeed - shit article.
indeed, for me a stadium and a club is for everyone ,not just car owners , council planning should consider all aspects when granting a new build that includes discounts for using brown field inner city sites that generates local business growth and jobs , not just focus on shinny new motorways stop off sites aligned with big corporate financed buildsQuote:
Originally Posted by Hilts
...is the right answerQuote:
Originally Posted by Freitag 4.17
The stadium is excellent in many ways but exiting the stadium from the terraces takes longer than it does at Barcelona. There's a real choke point before reaching the vomitorium.:puke:Quote:
Originally Posted by Freitag 4.17
P.S. FAO Mr Morris: still no tbg smiley :cry:
Used to love/hate the penguin march in NP. CCS is better than that at least when exiting IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie
Our stadium’s location meant that nothing changed pre or post match for the fans, one of the main things for me.
Absolutely and being able to stagger to and from the ground into a pub whilst avoiding motorways is criticalQuote:
Originally Posted by splott parker
Wouldn’t agree with you about interesting, absolute waste of time and effort and a load of rubbish. Waste of space in every way.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
The most glaring is Huddersfield who have been in the Premiership once since they built their new Stadium, though admittedly for 2 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
We have gone up to the Premiership twice, reached an FA Cup Final, a League Cup final, several championship playoffs including onne unsuccessful play off final and been in with a chanced of the Playoffs until late on in almost every season since 2008.
We could have done better on occasions but most Championship clubs would love our sort of failure!!
Nonsense article. Wales games are played at the CCS for a reason. I’ve loved being part of a brilliant atmosphere on a number of occasions there.
You only need to look at the design of the Stade de France, to see how a stadium can be built that allows large numbers of people to exit a crowded area quickly. I think it was based loosely on some Roman Colosseum layouts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie
I think they could have pared each article down to 5 grounds and it would have been made them much more pertinent. Our ground is perfectly fine. Sure it would look better if all the seats were blue, but it's not like that's something that's completely beyond the club. It could happen at any time. The unsuccessful grounds piece in particular was weak. Who cares about Portsmouth's ground that didn't get built.
That is a very good point regarding Wales games and I never considered the obvious fact, that you can not blame our stadium for any lack of atmosphere, in fact it is the complete opposite, as Wales games played at the CCS show that atmospheres can and have often been phenomenal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearcey3
I have been to every Premier League ground and I can say that facility wise our Cardiff City Stadium is up there with the best. Atmosphere wise remember the Leicester play off semi final, that was bloody awesome and the Wales v Belgium game so it's definitely not an acoustics problem it's down to the occasion and the fans. Proud of our CCS.
Derby's stadium move has been pretty successful as well, probably sunderlands too when you look at attendances both teams have had over the years. you can't hold the stadium move accountable for everything.
There are a few in there who have been a bit over ambitious, but by no means disasters.
They also missed the worst move of all - the original Wimbledon's move out of Plough Lane, which we all know how that ended.
terrible article really.
I was living in Coventry when they moved to the Ricoh, such a disaster. Was a nightmare to get to, completely dislocated from the City. There was nothing wrong with Highfield Road, it was a decent size and although in a rough area, a good location. Progress though eh...
To say CCS has been unsuccessful is ridiculous for many of the reasons mentioned above in relation to City. But I think you can't underestimate how important it has been to the national team. We now have a proper home that's a great football ground and the atmosphere is fantastic. Singing section in the Canton, bands playing on the concourse, there is a proper fan culture now at Wales games, no more rattling around a Rugby Stadium nobody really wants you in anyway.
Precisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
In fairness similar arguments to those mentioned could be said about quite a few of the other stadia in the article but they have got their criteria for best and worst a bit muddled.
More than happy with CCS.
Once you see beyond the nostalgia part of moving, it was pretty tough to take at the time, then the comparative upheaval was minimal. Compare our to being a Weat Ham's. The numbers may work but the fans have had the soul ripped out of their club
It's like going to a different city.
As other have said, the routine of going to the game and pubs still as was and I disagree with the comment on the facade, it looks pretty good.
Having Wales games in our stadium and not in a rugby stadium has got to be a plus.
The editor put us in the wrong article!
Plus we hosted the European Super Cup in the CCS! I can’t imagine Ninian Park attracted that somehow
the only bad thing is the red seats in the upper tier which is utter shyte and potentially even the upper tier in general
Do you think it would be improved if they moved the white seats around to spell WALES? How much could that cost?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitman
Even if it had glass cladding or something, it's still an uninteresting, generic construction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freitag 4.17
When people talk about "What would have happened had we stayed at Ninian Park?" I just think about Craven cottage. It's much more interesting to redevelop individual stands as and when the need arises.
Instead of moving to the CCS they could have redeveloped the Grandstand and made a beautiful 7k stand, which would have upped the attendance enough for a championship side with average gates of 20K. After that , do something with the canton stand. After that , put a new roof on the bob bank with a repainted Captain Morgan Rum on the top. Extend the Grange End back a bit.....maybe an overhanging top tier.
All of this done well and overtime would give us a stadium with and attendance of between 30-40k
What we have is functional but souless space to watch sport. When people talk about atmosphere, this is something that is generated by the fans and having a successful football team. I'd prefer to go to watch City play Carlisle in the 4th Division at Ninian Park than I would watch us play Morecambe in League Two at the CCS. The CCS is a totally horrible place to be when there are 5k people there.....just in terms of the venue itself.
Yeah but a developed NP would be a horrible place to be with 5k. Just like the old NP used to be horrible holding 2.5k in a 20k stadium.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divine Wright
It's not just the seating. It's the facilities. How are you going to develop the bob bank? It was basically a giant hill. And there was no room at either end. Not to mention the undersoil heating, changing rooms, storage, office space, parking etc. Next time you're enjoying a piss after your third pint, remember the Bob-bank.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divine Wright
I'm confused. So its fans that make the atmosphere and not the stadium?Quote:
Originally Posted by Divine Wright
:sherlock:
Also, it's of generic construction for a reason.
It's cheaper to build and if I remember correctly, Ridsdale was going round with a bucket to raise the funds.
Sounds more like you are describing Stoke's Britannia stadium not Craven cottage :hehe:
A 20,000 stadium? Let’s not forget, 2 and a half thousand of us were rattling around in a 60,000 capacity stadium really, the footprint hadn’t altered that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilts
Ninian Park had the massive disadvantage of being boxed in by the railway behind the Bob Bank. Access all around the stadium is so much more practical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divine Wright
For me the criteria should be:
1:
Did the stadium contribute to greater success for the club: i.e. more crowds attending, greater revenues, was there a period of relative success following the move? or did it become an albatross, taking funds away from the team?
2:
How did the move effect the matchday experience?
Can you still walk there from your usual pre-match pubs or is it a 30 minute drive to a soulless motorway junction?
3:
Has the stadium been built at an appropriate size?
Or does it seem like there's no crowd there because it's always 1/4 full.
4:
Is it a good stadium?
I think we would score pretty well against any of those criteria