• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

SoL rated in top 100 grounds

Status
Not open for further replies.
When you build a stadium whether in 1895 0r 1997 you put a tender out and the builder usually (to keep costs down)will use a popular design of the time period and thats why most(obvious exceptions)grounds built at around the same time have similar design roots or architype............. You see it all through architecture for example the typical 30s semi house design comes from an original design and builders took that design built various versions of this design to suit the client .....so managers bosses got the bigger version bigger floor plan and garden he oiks got the smaller version ............its the same with the sol, its a far superior ground to the britania,new dell,and riverside and darlingtons although you can see the similarity.The sol was built on a shoestring and this is beginning to show. Short is skimping on upkeep and i know it shouldnt matter whether the fekkn seats are red or pink but it does to me!...................................... I am proud of my club and its supporters but the ground looks like a shithole all because murrey skimped on the quality of seats in the first place and short refuses to maintain the ground to a high standard that its fans deserve.
 

It's a shame the club shows no pride in the stadium. FFS fix the seats, make the outside look a little more picturesque. Just some basic stuff.
 
The Sheepfolds End said:
91st is quite high.

Its a bog standard, late 20th century stadium. Built on the cheap, poorly maintained, inside and out, and only the west stand is anything to write home about. Very few celebrations of an illustrious past in the way of statues or images of former heroes make it soulless when the supporters arent there.

The novelty has well and truly worn off for me. I wish Roker could have been redeveloped with a 38-42k capacity.



Villa Park is a fantastic football ground. The best in the country IMO. Their mediocre fanbase dont deserve it
Click to expand...
As far as late 20th century stadiums go, even with all bias aside, it's by far the best for both watching the match and in quality of build - other than perhaps the redevelopment of Parkhead in Glasgow. I'd actually say in this regard, the relative cheapness is a strength rather than something the ground should be criticised for... I will agree with you in terms of parts of the ground are a bit 'bare,' and more could be done in the surrounding area. However overall, I think your comment - as someone pointed out for someone with your avatar and user-name - is unduly harsh and critical.

On another note, the whole list can get to fuck for naming The Britannia in the top 100, anyway.
 
nelford_safc said:
On a serious note do you think it's been built to last 100 years or will some of the younger fans see a new stadium in their lifetimes?
Click to expand...
I think it will last 100 years but not as it is now. It will be like that comedy sketch, Iv had the brush for 20 years. It's had 4 shafts and 6 heads ( or summit like that)

The pink seats are only an issue when you haven't got an arse sitting in them.
I can remember going yo the new den when they first built that. It was the first new build for over 50 years I think. Uninterrupted views all round, clean, tidy, loads of bogs just stood out compared to grounds that were bigger and wiped the floor of their rivals.
 
Last edited:
oddbod said:
When you build a stadium whether in 1895 0r 1997 you put a tender out and the builder usually (to keep costs down)will use a popular design of the time period and thats why most(obvious exceptions)grounds built at around the same time have similar design roots or architype............. You see it all through architecture for example the typical 30s semi house design comes from an original design and builders took that design built various versions of this design to suit the client .....so managers bosses got the bigger version bigger floor plan and garden he oiks got the smaller version ............its the same with the sol, its a far superior ground to the britania,new dell,and riverside and darlingtons although you can see the similarity.The sol was built on a shoestring and this is beginning to show. Short is skimping on upkeep and i know it shouldnt matter whether the fekkn seats are red or pink but it does to me!...................................... I am proud of my club and its supporters but the ground looks like a shithole all because murrey skimped on the quality of seats in the first place and short refuses to maintain the ground to a high standard that its fans deserve.
Click to expand...

I was going to say similar. Those complaining that a lot of stadiums built about the same time look similar, then saying going to Goodison is great because it reminds you of Roker - its the same argument! Roker Park, Goodison, Highbury, etc etc all built about the same time (in terms of building tech) and all looked very similar. Even Ibrox to an extent.
 
Was at Dortmund a few weeks ago and wouldnt rate it any better than ours other than capacity and atmosphere. Ugly concourses, very bland and overrated IMO.
 
Thurston said:
As far as late 20th century stadiums go, even with all bias aside, it's by far the best for both watching the match and in quality of build - other than perhaps the redevelopment of Parkhead in Glasgow. I'd actually say in this regard, the relative cheapness is a strength rather than something the ground should be criticised for... I will agree with you in terms of parts of the ground are a bit 'bare,' and more could be done in the surrounding area. However overall, I think your comment - as someone pointed out for someone with your avatar and user-name - is unduly harsh and critical.

On another note, the whole list can get to fuck for naming The Britannia in the top 100, anyway.
Click to expand...

all fair points. I went a bit over the top.

And of course Id defend the stadium to the hilt if an outsider slagged it off
 
Fans make stadiums, not seats. Your memories come from the games not the facilities.

The stadium could last 100 years but doubt it will. From day one the concourses were not big enough. The toilets not big enough, the food and drink kiosks not fast enough, the seats not big enough, no safe standing, you get wet in large areas when it rains, it's not architecturally attractive externally, the car parking is not big enough. These things did not matter 17 years ago. They will be even more important in another 17 years time.

What football can't do is take the customer and their changing expectations for granted... Just as they did pre Hillsboro. To retain the wide demographic who attend football now will require a constant upgrade in the standard of facility. As an American where they build new sports stadiums fairly regular Short will know this.
 
Obvious Mag said:
Do football stadiums need to be pretty?
Click to expand...

Are they pretty is the thing. And frankly modern stadiums are far from it. They aren't 'ugly' but they are all identical which can't make them pretty because one thing that in my book can make a stadium pretty is individuality. Character. Durhamredandwhite's top three pics show that. St. Mary's Stadium, Stadium of Light, Brittannia Stadium and let's also throw in King Power Stadium and The Riverside all follow very similar design principles if that is the right term. It is a sad indictment on the standard of people involved in design in some form or t'other that everything that is built nowadays all have to be based on almost a standard template. No imagination. New housing estates. F1 cars. Especially F1 cars. Back in the day they all were unique and probably performed as uniquely. I mean a 6-wheel F1 car would be laughed out of the offices of the FIA nowadays.

I actually think the prettiest stadiums are not only the most innovative but the oldest.
 
When the North Stand extension was built common sense wouldve told SAFC to take the pink seats out from the half way line opposite the tunnel and put them up there. Replace em with red uns. I even mentioned it on here at the time. We do it with roof tiles when we do loft extensions. Put old uns at the front so it matches the rest of the street and any new uns are put on the back. Its common standard practice for people who know their jobs and actually give a shit.
We the fans care more about safc than its owners and employees, but we know that anyway.

Ive been to Depors ground and downstairs in the home end theyve allowed local artists and graffitti kids loose on the large expanses of bare block wall. They had to submit their designs before and have em voted on by fans and approved by the club. It looks amazing.

riffraff said:
When the North Stand extension was built common sense wouldve told SAFC to take the pink seats out from the half way line opposite the tunnel and put them up there. Replace em with red uns. I even mentioned it on here at the time. We do it with roof tiles when we do loft extensions. Put old uns at the front so it matches the rest of the street and any new uns are put on the back. Its common standard practice for people who know their jobs and actually give a shit.
We the fans care more about safc than its owners and employees, but we know that anyway.

Ive been to Depors ground and downstairs in the home end theyve allowed local artists and graffitti kids loose on the large expanses of bare block wall. They had to submit their designs before and have em voted on by fans and approved by the club. It looks amazing.
Click to expand...

Huddersfields is the greatest football ground Ive been too. It pisses all ower Old Trafford, The Sol, Wembley old and new, The Emirtes, The Etihad, The Bernabeau, Mestalla, Nou Camp, Calderon, Riazor etc. The only one that comes near it is the Paris one that was built for the WC which has the first 16 rows retactable for the running track beneath.
 
Last edited:
If they are taking into consideration the outside of stadiums then this could be a reason why we just scape in because take away the main entrance and the SOL is nowt to look at.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top