ponsaelius

Romanian, George Hagi's son

For a train station it doesn't really matter because you don't have any architectural cues to go from in terms of shape. A bit like why modern art galleries can often be statement art pieces in themselves - there is not really a form you need to follow other than whatever plot you have to work with (although there's an irony in many starchitect designed galleries being shit for curating inside because they've been designed outside-in). A football stadium has such a clear cue for it's design. It's a four sided rectangle. That should be your form that you build around - and the stands are an embellishment of that base form for which you get character and distinctiveness. Ignoring that form and deliberately building a shape that ignores that, and masks the entire purpose of the facility, is just poor architectural design for me. Or it's a deliberate attempt to say to the world 'this is not a football stadium, it's an events facility'.

Well obviously beauty is in the eye of the beholder but IMO there are plenty of old decrepit stadiums that are falling apart but still have character. Grounds that have been improvised and extended ad-hoc over the decades and/or are made from materials that can develop patina gracefully. You can see the weight of history in them, even if they are not works of signature architecture. SJP falls into this category for me, even if it is severely lacking in TLC. When you aim for perfection from the outset and try to design a perfectly moulded shape, then the aging process is much harsher, and the need for maintenance is more acute. This is true for large amounts of mid-20th century architecture in particular.

Although I've always been of the opinion it doesn't need to be stupid big I do think it's 5k short capacity wise if that's true.

Again I must reiterate my severe dislike for all of these amorphous blob, externally clad stadiums that look like they could just as easily be an airport terminal or train station from the outside, and are largely indistinct from one another. They will age terribly IMO. All football stadiums should have four clearly definable sides.

No overlap with existing stadium sounds like it will be a lot more like Castle Leazes.

Ayew bros

Surely you can see the difference with a live game though? The rule is there to stop players passing to themselves. Punishing the double slip accidents are a necessary evil of enforcing this law I personally don't really see why this rule exists in a shootout when the ball is dead once taken regardless of outcome.

Putting aside whether he double kicks it or not I do wonder why the double touch rule actually even exists in a pen shootout? I can understand in game because it's basically to prevent players passing to themselves and treating it like a hockey pen. Unfortunate incidents like slipping over and hitting it twice are just bad luck from enforcing this necessary law. But in a pen shootout the game is dead and remains so once a pen is taken. I really don't see the benefit from disallowing a pen that is clearly taken all in one motion. Something that would never have been enforced pre-VAR.

Desperate to see another angle of the Alvarez pen mind. Really not sure he double kicks it at all.

To be fair it only cost £24 million to build in 1996. Pretty good value.

Out for 6-9 months, hence why they signed Chesney out of retirement.

Obviously that's not what Stifler said but if it was a question between the two it's a cup win every single day of the week.

West Ham are such a lifeless side. That stadium undoubtedly contributes.

He was really bad there, mind. Against a good team admittedly but he was disastrous. The same concerns I had over him are still there in that he really doesn't seem particularly good at either LB or CB - and can only kind-of fill in as either one or the other. I do wonder if he might actually be OK in a back three but he's gone to a team that's trying to build a style around a 4-2-3-1 so it seems a particularly baffling signing.