ponsaelius

Huddersfield Burnley

Sheffield United Everton Sunderland Portsmouth Ipswich Town Derby County

Neom and in particular The Line being a total fugazi was clear from those very first renders. Science fiction nonsense.

Can understand suits/bods taking these roles for big money a lot more than I can top level players going to play in Saudi.

It's the name of that specific part of The Town Moor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Leazes According to the councils character statement for the Leazes Conservation Area it is 'an area of common grazing land said to have been granted certain burgesses by King John as compensation for the enlargement of the castle moat'. If true that would explain the name.

I've gone for a walk. I can't take it

Big if but an Atalanta win tonight sets up a cracking scudetto run in.

The whole block is a mix of all three.

LP isn't a 'shithole', it's the oldest park in the city and a great piece of Victorian recreation + placemaking, that has a lot of heritage value. Hence why it is Grade II listed. It also has thousands of mature trees in a city we're acknowledging lacks in greenery. It's been underfunded and mismanaged though, like so much in this country that is only for public benefit. I'd have significant doubts that any new build park extension will be able to replicate the same value tbh, because so many new urban green spaces are a bit shit. Plus it would be a long time before it grew in and matured. But I'd remain hopeful it could be achieved, and whatever the outcome it could definitely improve the setting of Leazes Terrace and become a very well used thoroughfare. I still think given everything it'll be far easier to build primarily on Castle Leazes, particularly in terms of footprint needed for the stadium itself (looking mainly at the space between the lake and Barrack Road), and that will end up being the actual location as in the 90s plan. But I'm sure we'll see soon enough.

You're not wrong, probably only Old Eldon Square as a genuine city centre green space of any function for people to occupy. And recent public realm projects have had a distinct lack of tree planting because the local highways authority doesn't really want to take on their long term maintenance. There's much uglier towns and cities than Newcastle architecturally in the country that are however much greener, or have at least made recent interventions in the right direction. Exhibition Park and Leazes Park are great assets, but they're peripheral and underutilised if you're talking strictly about the urban core. One of the things that could really sell a new stadium development on Castle Leazes/LP was if there was a significant extension of the park where the current ground is. For what it's worth if they did pursue the stadium on the park in the suggested location, then mandatory biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirements are going to obligate an enormous amount of new planting anyway to offset it because that part of the park has lots of mature trees (will need to replace them 10 fold with young trees). BNG is an absolute nightmare for viability of a lot of sites as it's a blunt instrument that looks only at ecological merit in quantifiable terms - but shouldn't be much of an issue for our owners financially. It's just where they end up that's the question. Hopefully can be delivered entirely in the city rather than in a habitat bank somewhere.

Forest nailed on Champo now. Chelsea is our only hope I think.

Ipswich are so shit

I'm not cool but I still don't care. Happy for Dan Burn on a personal level of course.

I actually agree tbh, but NWOAT

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.