Tigers.co.uk

Log in to stop seeing adverts

Status
Not open for further replies.
But think for a minute.

My first reaction when I saw that was to feel saddened.
But does it really ****ing matter what colour the seats are!?
 
Foxes_Never_Quit said:
But think for a minute.

My first reaction when I saw that was to feel saddened.
But does it really **** matter what colour the seats are!?

No, as long as they are blue or white.
 
We could always make the away section green, i'd accept that. Stick all the egg chaser fans in there :D
 
Can't wait for this:

"The stadium would be re-branded - inside and out, to reflect its joint ownership and a new playing surface would be installed to accommodate both football and rugby"
 
tigers

homer wrote:

"The stadium would be re-branded - inside and out, to reflect its joint ownership and a new playing surface would be installed to accommodate both football and rugby

Ha a giant sand pit then
 
homer said:
Can't wait for this:

"The stadium would be re-branded - inside and out, to reflect its joint ownership and a new playing surface would be installed to accommodate both football and rugby"

You see this is where they get it wrong before they start, a section of green seats with the words tigers on them! If you are going to carry out this stupid scheme surely it would be better to have Blue Red Green and White seats all the way around (Have I got the Tigers colours right?) with no markings on them, already they are creating divisions.
 
webmaster said:
Joe_Fox said:
Foxes_Never_Quit said:
But think for a minute.

My first reaction when I saw that was to feel saddened.
But does it really **** matter what colour the seats are!?

No, as long as they are blue or white.

We managed OK with orange seats in the old family stand at Filbert Street.

Did we? I remember losing to Wycombe! :shock:
 
Team versus Plymouth

Wright.

Back four as at Wigan.

Midfield: Morris, Neil Back, Graham Rowntree, Stewart,

Supplementary midfield: Corry, Healey, Williams,

Connolly, Martin Johnson, Scowcroft.

Said Levein: "With a 15 man line up we should have more options going forward - particularly as Martin Johnson should be able to clear a path wide enough for even Connolly or Scowcroft to score.

There will be no goalkeeping substitute because Martin will make an adequate replacement if necessary, laid post to post.

We'll be staying on the pitch at half-time of course which means we should be able to put a few in the net before Plymouth get back.

City will be playing in their new five-colour away strip and have adopted a new nickname, "The Kalaidoscopes".
 
Re: Team versus Plymouth

Tony Elsby said:
Said Levein: "With a 15 man line up we should have more options going forward - particularly as Martin Johnson should be able to clear a path wide enough for even Connolly or Scowcroft to score.

lol :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I wouldn't rely on that. :D :wink:
 
Re: tigers

Brauny Blue said:
homer wrote:

"The stadium would be re-branded - inside and out, to reflect its joint ownership and a new playing surface would be installed to accommodate both football and rugby

Ha a giant sand pit then

then Cantona would play beach football for us !! :lol:
 
The board are trying to do something that will help the club to be more successfull and so far the main objection seams to be "Green seats"
Amazing,

I do not understand the objection to sharing the ground. It has to be better for city.

As the ground will be purchased between both clubs, It will give us better long term security.
All the fixed costs ie: Repayments, rates and ground maintenance will be shared so there will be more money for both clubs to spend on players.
We wont have to suffer the parking problems that happen when both clubs play at the same time.

The only problems that I can think of is the damage that is done to the pitch, the scheduling of matches and to convince the fans from two different sporting cultures that the ground sharing can be to everyones advantage.

The pitch is going to be modified so it can withstand the grief rugby gives it.

The scheduling of the matches is not a problem.

The hardest problem will be dealing with the fans from both clubs and if the clubs are to win the support of ther fans they must communicate the plans clearly to the fans.

People always react in the same way to change. Firstly they object to it happening, then they find the reasons why they object. The problem is never the change itself, its the fear of the unknown that causes all the problems and the objections. Once we understand how they propose the ground sharing to work and the pro's and cons, then deciede if it is good or bad.

I can see the future headlines "LCFC in administration again because fans dont like green seats"

God. help us
 
A point on the pitch.

As someone who works in the artificial & by association real turf industry (don't ask) its not rocket science to blend artificial grass with real grasses to ensure the turf doesn't cut up.

If that is a concern to people then it shouldn't be. The pitch shouldn't, if designed properly, cut up or become any more boggy than usual.
 
Dunc said:
A point on the pitch.

As someone who works in the artificial & by association real turf industry (don't ask) its not rocket science to blend artificial grass with real grasses to ensure the turf doesn't cut up.

If that is a concern to people then it shouldn't be. The pitch shouldn't, if designed properly, cut up or become any more boggy than usual.

As you seem to be the man in the know, if it is so easy how come other clubs have not done this with thier playing surfaces? Man U's pitch is awful at times and needs relaying, now they have money to burn but why not go down this route, surely there must be a draw back to using it?
 
As you seem to be the man in the know, if it is so easy how come other clubs have not done this with thier playing surfaces? Man U's pitch is awful at times and needs relaying, now they have money to burn but why not go down this route, surely there must be a draw back to using it?

Firstly, the trials of the 3rd Generation soccer grasses have only just been completed and approved so there are numerous advances that have only recently been tested succesfully.

Man Utds pitch is crap cause it is a majority sand based grass pitch which gets no light. Also it cuts up during rugby because it is a football pitch that rugby is played on, not a dual purpose pitch.

I would imagine that a combination or bespoke design, combining the artificial turf characteristics of the 3rd generation synthetic grasses would be used to reinforce the real grass.
 
Naughty Fox said:
Dunc said:
A point on the pitch.

As someone who works in the artificial & by association real turf industry (don't ask) its not rocket science to blend artificial grass with real grasses to ensure the turf doesn't cut up.

If that is a concern to people then it shouldn't be. The pitch shouldn't, if designed properly, cut up or become any more boggy than usual.

As you seem to be the man in the know, if it is so easy how come other clubs have not done this with thier playing surfaces? Man U's pitch is awful at times and needs relaying, now they have money to burn but why not go down this route, surely there must be a draw back to using it?

A friend pointed me to this site last night it explains a bit more - apparantley all teams will be moving to this kind of surface eventually.

http://www.sportsvenue-technology.com/contractors/surfaces/desso/index.html

still not sure myself though!
 
Incidentally, they could just use combinations of real grass that provide durabilty for rugby and football. I work in the synthetic turf side so i'm biased towards that!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1128
2Manchester C  1123
3Chelsea1119
4Arsenal1119
5Nottm F1119
6Brighton1119
7Fulham1118
8Newcastle1118
9Aston Villa1118
10Tottenham 1116
11Brentford1116
12Bournemouth1115
13Manchester U1115
14West Ham1112
15Leicester1110
16Everton1110
17Ipswich118
18Palace117
19Wolves116
20Southampton114

Latest posts

Back
Top