Saint-Armstrong Posted 19 October, 2011 Share Posted 19 October, 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/15373362.stm 1:10 in. "We'll play at St. Mary's in Southampton." The debate has finally ended, they are going to play at SMS. I would've liked to see them agree with the Don! In fact, maybe they'll help cover an expansion and I'm sure we will benefit from the hosting financially! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 19 October, 2011 Share Posted 19 October, 2011 Maybe not an expansion, but a train station for shuttle services could be on the cards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint-Armstrong Posted 19 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 19 October, 2011 Maybe not an expansion, but a train station for shuttle services could be on the cards? We could do very well. As far as I am aware, SMS does not meet current requirements for the hosting of RWC group matches... I think they need to add another 6-10 thousand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 19 October, 2011 Share Posted 19 October, 2011 We could do very well. As far as I am aware, SMS does not meet current requirements for the hosting of RWC group matches... I think they need to add another 6-10 thousand. To be fair if we progress at the rate we have been would not suprise me to see Cortese start the stadium expansion. 4 years is a long time. Getting a full house on a cold tues evening in the championship shows that in the pl we could add a lot more people if we had the seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 SMS does not meet current requirements for the hosting of RWC group matches. Yes it does. The 2011 Rugby World Cup in New Zealand was held in stadiums of under 20,000. Gloucester's stadium is potentially being used for the 2015 World Cup and is tiny compared to St Mary's. Saints will be hosting minor fixtures in the group stage only. Togo vs Georgia at a Rugby World Cup doesn't exactly need a huge stadium. In any case, there simply isn't any money to be made from Rugby World Cup's to justify large stadium expansions or new stadiums like there is for FIFA and UEFA competitions in football. St Mary's will be increased as an when Cortese decides it is the time, given the progress at the moment I think that will be relatively soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Jonny Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 Cool. With regards to expansions (which to me seem rather unlikely regardless of where we end up), I'd love to see a second tier added to the kingsland, like they have at pride park along one side, it looks mint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 Cool. With regards to expansions (which to me seem rather unlikely regardless of where we end up), I'd love to see a second tier added to the kingsland, like they have at pride park along one side, it looks mint. Thinking about it, surely there would be seats with obstructed viewing if they did that due to where the TV cameras need to go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamesaint Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 To be fair if we progress at the rate we have been would not suprise me to see Cortese start the stadium expansion. 4 years is a long time. Getting a full house on a cold tues evening in the championship shows that in the pl we could add a lot more people if we had the seats. Oh no. Not this old chestnut!! For reasons that defeat me this subject gets people going on here.How dare you suggest that SMS will be expanded. You will soon be subject to torrents of abuse and ridicule from Delldays and Turkish with Asda and climbing Everest being brought into the debate. I know that it is a sensible option but some people get very worked up on this subject!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulwantsapint Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 Just out of interest how long would it take for any expansion to take place from plans being drawn to 1st game it could be used Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 The RFU should f**k off. I dont want to see rugby at SMS. The pitch is absolutely gorgeous. The rugger-buggers will ruin it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 Just out of interest how long would it take for any expansion to take place from plans being drawn to 1st game it could be used I suspect basic plans are already in existance (with loadings/stresses calculated) as the stadium was designed with expansion in mind. How long it would take to throw up an extra tier on one side I've no idea. There must be the odd site agent on here, so let's wait an see.:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spakes Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 I'm sure I heard the other day that a stipulation of having a Rugby World Cuip venue is that no other sports matches can be played there while the world cup is on. If true, we could have a lot of away matches scheduled! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 We'll be in a new stadium by then. St Mary's will be the new home of Soton Saints RFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edprice1984 Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 Have a look at the pitch at Swansea or Cardiff...Rugby and football played on both and the pitch is absolutely fantastic! Gloucester (my local rugby team - I am a season ticket holder) is currently 16,500 capacity and there may be some expansion in the next few years to make it 18 - 20K. SMS is actually bigger than Cov's ground too which is being used as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 The RFU should f**k off. I dont want to see rugby at SMS. The pitch is absolutely gorgeous. The rugger-buggers will ruin it. I appreciate it may have been difficult to see on the radio Alps but the pitch was tearing up a treat on Tuesday. Massive great divots being pulled up all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This Charming Man Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 Who cares if a load of postmen from Georgia will be chucking an egg around at SMS? I wouldn't cross the road to my local park to watch that rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 I appreciate it may have been difficult to see on the radio Alps but the pitch was tearing up a treat on Tuesday. Massive great divots being pulled up all over the place. I just cannot imagine that the level of damage is even approximately the same though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 I just cannot imagine that the level of damage is even approximately the same though. Although SMS pitch HAS been relaid more than once. Think it would be a fair guess to say that the costing for that was built into the proposal Anyway, 2015? yeah they can use SMS - last match before it's bulldozed to make a Marina complex as we move into our sold-out 60,000 seat luxury business class stadium on Jacksons Farm.... yeah right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattio Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 Looking forward to this, I quite like rugby, wish football was a bit more like it in terms of refereeing etc, never been to a pro game either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 Looking forward to this, I quite like rugby, wish football was a bit more like it in terms of refereeing etc, never been to a pro game either. Yeah like a half fench ref sending of the French opponants captain for a ticking off offence in the first quarter of a world cup semi final. But I know what you mean though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 I just cannot imagine that the level of damage is even approximately the same though. I was at a business meeting at the Reading Madjeski stadium last week and looked out on the pitch and it looked immaculate and that is used as much by London Irish RFC as it is by Reading so I don't a couple of RWC matches will do much damage to SMS so you can cross this one of of your list of things which drive you to the depths of depression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 - Saints currently play 23 league games a season on the St Mary's pitch. - By the time 2015 comes there is a good chance Saints will be in the Premier League and playing 19 games a season. - Unlikely St Mary's will get more than 3 or 4 games at the World Cup in the group stages. So no real difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Lindford Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 We could do very well. As far as I am aware, SMS does not meet current requirements for the hosting of RWC group matches... I think they need to add another 6-10 thousand. It easily meets the requirements. Only 2 stadiums used for RWC 2011, Auckland and Wellington, have a capacity bigger than SMS. Of the other 11 that have been used 4 have a capacity of below 20,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMojoRisin Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 We'll be in a new stadium by then. St Mary's will be the new home of Soton Saints RFC. I wish we had other sports team in southampton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 I wish we had other sports team in southampton I don't, you'd get less people going to the football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr saint Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 The RFU should f**k off. I dont want to see rugby at SMS. The pitch is absolutely gorgeous. The rugger-buggers will ruin it. Swansea have rugby played on their pitch most week yet have one of the best pitches in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This Charming Man Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 Swansea have rugby played on their pitch most week yet have one of the best pitches in the country. They don't in the middle of winter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Lindford Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 Yeah like a half fench ref sending of the French opponants captain for a ticking off offence in the first quarter of a world cup semi final. But I know what you mean though. You clearly do not know the rules then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 feking egg chasers on our Field of Dreams. That snooty public school boy should never have picked the ball up in the first place. If they damage one single blade of grass with their clod-hopping ghey scrumming around and diving on top of each other then the Don should shoot them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 Swansea have rugby played on their pitch most week yet have one of the best pitches in the country. Quite easy to be one of the best in the country when Cardiff are the only opposition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 I wish we had other sports team in southampton I don't, you'd get less people going to the football. Southampton Saints RFC already exist, they play at Test Park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/15373362.stm 1:10 in. "We'll play at St. Mary's in Southampton." The debate has finally ended, they are going to play at SMS. I would've liked to see them agree with the Don! In fact, maybe they'll help cover an expansion and I'm sure we will benefit from the hosting financially! I didn't realise this was up for debate. I thought SMS was going to host some matches anyway. Excellent news though, I'll be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 This is good news for the local economy. Perhaps we could also temp the English team to be based in a SO hotel. Think of the extra revenue the Clubs and pubs would receive if the team were based in the City.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsland Red Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 Just out of interest how long would it take for any expansion to take place from plans being drawn to 1st game it could be used I reckon if Southampton City Council support a planning application for the extension andthe existing structure is designed to take a further tier then it could all be done within say a year. Hope this helps. Kingsland Red ( Architect) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Jonny Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 Thinking about it, surely there would be seats with obstructed viewing if they did that due to where the TV cameras need to go? They would just move them to the back of the stand surely? The optical zoom on a modern TV camera must be pretty good these days. That or they would have an area similar to the directors box in the middle of the stand. Easy to get around either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 I reckon if Southampton City Council support a planning application for the extension andthe existing structure is designed to take a further tier then it could all be done within say a year. Hope this helps. Kingsland Red ( Architect) sure, but could it be done without reducing numbers for a while? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 sure, but could it be done without reducing numbers for a while? You have two off seasons to work in to the programme. So with a bit of planning the work could only require a minimal amount of seats to be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 You have two off seasons to work in to the programme. So with a bit of planning the work could only require a minimal amount of seats to be closed. good point. So what would be the plan? Extra level on the Kingsland? Surely the Itchen couldn't take it because of all the corporate stuff and offices etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 (edited) Wolves knocked down the Stan Cullis Stand in May 2011 when the season finished and started using the partially built new stand on 10th September 2011 vs Tottenham. They continue to work on the second tier and roof whilst using the lower tier for games. As of 10 minutes ago it looks like this... You can see it is a long way from being finished, but is still safe for supporters to use for games. A significant amount of the work on another tier at St Mary's could be added during the summer months I reckon, with work continuing whilst using the lower tier for games. Edited 20 October, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 20 October, 2011 Share Posted 20 October, 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/15373362.stm 1:10 in. "We'll play at St. Mary's in Southampton." The debate has finally ended, they are going to play at SMS. I would've liked to see them agree with the Don! In fact, maybe they'll help cover an expansion and I'm sure we will benefit from the hosting financially! When was this debate then? This was announced ages ago - even before the Swiss takeover if I am not completely mistaken. Either way I think I have missed this debate that is "finally over". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 21 October, 2011 Share Posted 21 October, 2011 You clearly do not know the rules then. Not judging by a lot of the post game comment by those that know more than us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 21 October, 2011 Share Posted 21 October, 2011 good point. So what would be the plan? Extra level on the Kingsland? Surely the Itchen couldn't take it because of all the corporate stuff and offices etc. The trouble is for it to be worth it the increase has to be at least 13000-15000, so an extra tier of that size on one stand may look a bit unbalanced, considering that the kingsland probably holds about 10000. But the more stands and roofs you disrupt is more costlyit will be so it will take a good design to get the balance right. Still an odd looking ground will be a good homage to the Dell and it will make SMS unique which would keep a lot of people happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Lindford Posted 21 October, 2011 Share Posted 21 October, 2011 Not judging by a lot of the post game comment by those that know more than us. Well they were wrong to comment as they did. The referee was absolutely correct in the red card and if the so called experts had read the IRB memorandum produced in 2009 they would have known. The following is a extract of the pertient facts. 1. The player is lifted and then forced or “speared” into the ground. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle. 2. The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle. Warburton fell into the latter point as he let go of the player. Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 21 October, 2011 Share Posted 21 October, 2011 Thats where the commentators rightly disagree with you as the word in the rules is 'should' and so the referee had discretion not too. Warburtons tackle was not made with malice, the player was not injured and he does not have a past record of dirty play. No one not even the French would have complained if he was not sent off. The technicalities of rugby rules is what ruins it, what sport would cancel out a scoring event because the toe of someones boot may have broken the inside of a white line and spend 5 mins looking at TV to prove it. So you can keep rugby referring it sucks. And why have a half French referee. Now the respect players have for decisions is something I would like to see football embrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Lindford Posted 21 October, 2011 Share Posted 21 October, 2011 Thats where the commentators rightly disagree with you as the word in the rules is 'should' and so the referee had discretion not too. Warburtons tackle was not made with malice, the player was not injured and he does not have a past record of dirty play. No one not even the French would have complained if he was not sent off. The technicalities of rugby rules is what ruins it, what sport would cancel out a scoring event because the toe of someones boot may have broken the inside of a white line and spend 5 mins looking at TV to prove it. So you can keep rugby referring it sucks. And why have a half French referee. Now the respect players have for decisions is something I would like to see football embrace. 1. No it is a red card offence as was made clear to all unions in 2009 and again in December last year. Ticked every box the referee has to consider. - Tackled player lifted from the ground; Check - Legs still in the air; Check - Tackled player dropped by the tackler; Check - Landed on his head or upper body; Check 2. Because the technology is there and is utilised - shame that football does not embrace it. Rolland is one of the best in the world and is often used in games with France as he is fluent in the language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 21 October, 2011 Share Posted 21 October, 2011 Thats where the commentators rightly disagree with you as the word in the rules is 'should' and so the referee had discretion not too. Warburtons tackle was not made with malice, the player was not injured and he does not have a past record of dirty play. No one not even the French would have complained if he was not sent off. The technicalities of rugby rules is what ruins it, what sport would cancel out a scoring event because the toe of someones boot may have broken the inside of a white line and spend 5 mins looking at TV to prove it. So you can keep rugby referring it sucks. And why have a half French referee. Now the respect players have for decisions is something I would like to see football embrace. What a ridiculous comment. The same could be said for football, eg. if the toe of a strikers boot is even just half an inch past the heel of the defender, he is offside, and conversely, how many times have balls crossed the goal line by a small margin, only for the goal to be wrongly disallowed. The only difference is that in RU they use the technology to correctly judge these marginal decisions. In football the powers that be are afraid of technology & leave the refs open to critiscism by not using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 21 October, 2011 Share Posted 21 October, 2011 No the same couldn’t be said for football, you would never be given offside for such small margins. Football is the whole of the ball has to cross the line and that’s it, it doesn’t matter where the players body parts are, but with rugby you can have the most marvelous try with the ball planted three or four foot in from the byline but because the toe of the player has broken the line by a few millimeters the try is disallowed, that’s rubbish. It would be interesting to know if this is the case in rugby league, as normally the northerners are a bit more modern in their approach. I agree that TV replys should be brought into football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 21 October, 2011 Share Posted 21 October, 2011 No the same couldn’t be said for football, you would never be given offside for such small margins. Football is the whole of the ball has to cross the line and that’s it, it doesn’t matter where the players body parts are, but with rugby you can have the most marvelous try with the ball planted three or four foot in from the byline but because the toe of the player has broken the line by a few millimeters the try is disallowed, that’s rubbish. It would be interesting to know if this is the case in rugby league, as normally the northerners are a bit more modern in their approach. I agree that TV replys should be brought into football. I sincerely hope that never happens. Goal line technology, yes please, and then that'll do thanks. Video replays in football would utterly kill the game IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 22 October, 2011 Share Posted 22 October, 2011 No the same couldn’t be said for football, you would never be given offside for such small margins. Football is the whole of the ball has to cross the line and that’s it, it doesn’t matter where the players body parts are, but with rugby you can have the most marvelous try with the ball planted three or four foot in from the byline but because the toe of the player has broken the line by a few millimeters the try is disallowed, that’s rubbish. It would be interesting to know if this is the case in rugby league, as normally the northerners are a bit more modern in their approach. I agree that TV replys should be brought into football. Thats my point though, a goal can be ruled out precisely because of the players body position, as I said, when he is half an inch off-side. In that respect it's no different to rugby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 8 October, 2012 Share Posted 8 October, 2012 Kris Temple @kristemple Good to see St Mary's remain on the list of Rugby WC 2015 venues this morning. List of 17 will be cut to final 12 in early 2013. #saintsfc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now