St James' Park

[Kanji]

If anything, any other modernizationm, renovatiosn etc. of the stadium internally will be done by then as well.

[Kanji]

On 10/04/2023 at 06:50, TheBrownBottle said:

Plenty of us have experienced that music before at SJP, you know ...  

 

Nothing gets my emotions up more than the CL anthem -- god damn it, if we make CL we get that next season. Lord, help me. 

[NG32]

1 hour ago, Jack27 said:

RTG now hoping that the Turkish bid wins instead 

They would happily get wiped out in a nuclear war if it was to prevent NUFC and the city get anything.

[RodneyCisse]

43 minutes ago, Kanji said:

 

Nothing gets my emotions up more than the CL anthem -- god damn it, if we make CL we get that next season. Lord, help me. 

We better get used to it.

[Ace]

4 hours ago, Jack27 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/euro-2028-uk-and-ireland-submit-final-bid-as-stadium-list-revealed-12855731 

St. James' Park on the shortlist
 

 

 

 

 

 

Think its a bit strange going for 10 stadiums when there are 6 groups, surely it would make more sense having 12 grounds so each group has 2 stadiums and each stadium gets 3 group games and either a second round or quarter final game. If you added Parkhead and the oversized B&Q stadium you could have 6 nice regional fits:

 

Scotland: Parkhead/Glasgow

London: Wembley/Spurs

South West/wales: Villa/Cardiff

Ireland: Dublin/Belfast

North West; Ettihad/Kings Dock

North East: St James/ SOS 

[tgarve]

5 minutes ago, Ace said:

 

Think its a bit strange going for 10 stadiums when there are 6 groups, surely it would make more sense having 12 grounds so each group has 2 stadiums and each stadium gets 3 group games and either a second round or quarter final game. If you added Parkhead and the oversized B&Q stadium you could have 6 nice regional fits:

 

Scotland: Parkhead/Glasgow

London: Wembley/Spurs

South West/wales: Villa/Cardiff

Ireland: Dublin/Belfast

North West; Ettihad/Kings Dock

North East: St James/ SOS 

Suprised no Celtic park, hampden is a way worse football stadium

[Stifler]

6 minutes ago, tgarve said:

Suprised no Celtic park, hampden is a way worse football stadium

It’s not worth the political fall out to give Celtic or Rangers the right to host over the other.

[Stifler]

14 minutes ago, Ace said:

 

Think its a bit strange going for 10 stadiums when there are 6 groups, surely it would make more sense having 12 grounds so each group has 2 stadiums and each stadium gets 3 group games and either a second round or quarter final game. If you added Parkhead and the oversized B&Q stadium you could have 6 nice regional fits:

 

Scotland: Parkhead/Glasgow

London: Wembley/Spurs

South West/wales: Villa/Cardiff

Ireland: Dublin/Belfast

North West; Ettihad/Kings Dock

North East: St James/ SOS 

You can’t have both SJP and the SOS hosting international matches. There isn’t enough hotels, the public transport would crumble, and the police force would be on their knees begging for mercy before KO.

[Pilko]

3 hours ago, Jack27 said:

RTG now hoping that the Turkish bid wins instead 

 

Ready Turk Go

[Wallsendmag]

14 minutes ago, tgarve said:

Suprised no Celtic park, hampden is a way worse football stadium

 

Celtic Park is an awful ground and in an even worse area. Ibrox is the better stadium and probably in a marginally better location but Hampden makes more sense (that's not great either).

[Decky]

The problem with Scotland is you have to go with Hampden Park because you can't pick one or the other of Celtic/Rangers, and it doesn't make sense have two in the same city that isn't London. Even Dublin isn't getting Croke Park on top of the Aviva. If they were to add two more stadiums then Murrayfield and something in the south coast or Cornwall would do. Maybe even Edinburgh and Cork as well. 

[tgarve]

Just now, Wallsendmag said:

 

Celtic Park is an awful ground and in an even worse area. Ibrox is the better stadium and probably in a marginally better location but Hampden makes more sense (that's not great either).

Eh - it’s really not an awful ground? 
 

Hampden does make sense , Ibrox also a good stadium but makes sense on the political scale

[tgarve]

Just now, Decky said:

The problem with Scotland is you have to go with Hampden Park because you can't pick one or the other of Celtic/Rangers, and it doesn't make sense have two in the same city that isn't London. Even Dublin isn't getting Croke Park on top of the Aviva. If they were to add two more stadiums then Murrayfield and something in the south coast or Cornwall would do. Maybe even Edinburgh and Cork as well. 

Aye agree

[Wallsendmag]

Just now, tgarve said:

Eh - it’s really not an awful ground? 
 

Hampden does make sense , Ibrox also a good stadium but makes sense on the political scale

 

It is. I've been a few times and the view from the away end is beyond bad and there's loads of supporting pillars. It's in a very bad area of Glasgow with not great transport links from the city centre (at least Ibrox is on the Subway line and easily accessible from Ibrox and Govan stations).

[Decky]

As far as Belfast goes I'm surprised they went with Casement Park over a revamped Windsor Park. Picking a GAA ground over NI's national soccer stadium.  The loyalists are already on edge enough with the sea border lads howay. 

[tgarve]

15 minutes ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

It is. I've been a few times and the view from the away end is beyond bad and there's loads of supporting pillars. It's in a very bad area of Glasgow with not great transport links from the city centre (at least Ibrox is on the Subway line and easily accessible from Ibrox and Govan stations).

Agree with the transport , it’s not that far from the centre though , I had a great view when there but was half way line to be fair - ibrox also I’ve been and was good -

too political to have one of those I guess the only other option is for Murrayfield 

[Wallsendmag]

32 minutes ago, tgarve said:

Agree with the transport , it’s not that far from the centre though , I had a great view when there but was half way line to be fair - ibrox also I’ve been and was good -

too political to have one of those I guess the only other option is for Murrayfield 

 

It's 3.5 miles away from the city centre. Last time we went we had to get a train from Glasgow Queen St to Dalmarnock Station then walk the rest of the way. Was a bit of a pain. And I say the less said about the area the ground is in, the better.

 

The best stadium I've been to in Scotland was Murrayfield (watched Hearts v Aberdeen there). Great location in a great city with a 67,000 capacity but as you say, with it being a Rugby ground it wouldn't be considered.

[tgarve]

1 hour ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

It's 3.5 miles away from the city centre. Last time we went we had to get a train from Glasgow Queen St to Dalmarnock Station then walk the rest of the way. Was a bit of a pain. And I say the less said about the area the ground is in, the better.

 

The best stadium I've been to in Scotland was Murrayfield (watched Hearts v Aberdeen there). Great location in a great city with a 67,000 capacity but as you say, with it being a Rugby ground it wouldn't be considered.

Seems Crowe park was considered and the Belfast stadium was a hurling ground aswell

 

i suppose it’s a canny trek I walked back the other week after a Celtic game to the centre took like 45 mins 

[AJ9]

2 hours ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

It is. I've been a few times and the view from the away end is beyond bad and there's loads of supporting pillars. It's in a very bad area of Glasgow with not great transport links from the city centre (at least Ibrox is on the Subway line and easily accessible from Ibrox and Govan stations).

As an unbiased person that has been to all three. Celtic park is the worst for overall experience. Nothing/soulless area, transport shite, next to a retail park. Hampden is niche…I like it for Scotland games because it does somehow hold the atmosphere, but the view is awful and it is painful if there isn’t all full/rowdy crowd. Ibrox is also in a pretty dodgy area tbqh but the better stadium of the three and much better connected to the rest of the city. Hampden makes sense though, can’t have a joint bid without the fucking national stadium.

[Ace]

3 hours ago, Stifler said:

You can’t have both SJP and the SOS hosting international matches. There isn’t enough hotels, the public transport would crumble, and the police force would be on their knees begging for mercy before KO.

Think that’s a bit of an exaggeration. Public transport and policing can survive both us and them at home with 80k+ at both combined. They may need to pay a bit overtime but it’s definitely manageable.

 

As for hotels there are loads of towns on the metro in striking distance which can ease the burden. It’s not like they all have to stay in Newcastle or the dark place. 

 

Another option instead of SOS could be bellend road like Euro 96. 

[Guest]

Unless you're based in Sunderland, it's a fucking nightmare getting to and from events.

[brummie]

1 hour ago, Ace said:

Think that’s a bit of an exaggeration. Public transport and policing can survive both us and them at home with 80k+ at both combined. They may need to pay a bit overtime but it’s definitely manageable.

 

As for hotels there are loads of towns on the metro in striking distance which can ease the burden. It’s not like they all have to stay in Newcastle or the dark place. 

 

Another option instead of SOS could be bellend road like Euro 96. 

 

Sunderland isn't one of the grounds because there are all sorts of other criteria around things like hotel rooms and public transport etc etc which Sunderland would never fulfill.

 

It's also not just "enough hotels", it's enough hotels of a certain quality. If you look at, for example, the requirements around UEFA competition final grounds, it's about 4 and 5 star hotels.

 

There's also no way they'd have 2 grounds in the north east, they need - politically - to spread the load geographically.

 

I think they also insist on 50k+ capacity, but I think they may make an exception for Belfast (again, politically).

 

[Ace]

2 minutes ago, brummie said:

 

Sunderland isn't one of the grounds because there are all sorts of other criteria around things like hotel rooms and public transport etc etc which Sunderland would never fulfill.

 

It's also not just "enough hotels", it's enough hotels of a certain quality. If you look at, for example, the requirements around UEFA competition final grounds, it's about 4 and 5 star hotels.

 

There's also no way they'd have 2 grounds in the north east, they need - politically - to spread the load geographically.

 

I think they also insist on 50k+ capacity, but I think they may make an exception for Belfast (again, politically).

 

If they need 4/5* hotel it could be the difference maker.

 

The metro runs to Sunderland and they have a decent bus network so public transport links are reasonable and not much worse than Newcastle.

 

The political side of it could be true, could maybe go for Leeds with an expansion as another area but still relatively close.

 

Would be a bit harsh to rule out a 49000 seater on a 50k limit. 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

If the Euro bid is successful would it mean that a stadium move is off the cards and we extend or do we reckon the bid is based on current capacity but with a coat of paint?

[Ace]

1 hour ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Unless you're based in Sunderland, it's a fucking nightmare getting to and from events.

When the metro is running with extra trains Ive found it no worse than getting out of town on a match day personally