Jump to content

Is PP becoming second rate?


Bris Vegas

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bris Vegas said:

Before I start, I’m not advocating for a new stadium or anything silly like that.

But when PP was built, it was deemed one of the top stadiums in the country. At least in the top 12 or so.

Since then, Leicester, Southampton, Brighton, Swansea, Cardiff, Reading and Coventry have all built stadiums of similar ilk.

I remember when Derby was looked at as a potential option for a WC stadium had we won I believe in 2006.

Was it considered in 2018? Now, there is no chance.

Man City, West Ham, Arsenal, Spurs have all got far better stadiums. Everton’s is underway. I saw the list for the Euro bid and noticed stadiums like Old Trafford and Anfield weren’t there.

I think it’s just a further realization that we have become a second tier club (third momentarily).

I always thought Derby ‘belonged’ in the top flight. The more I think about it, especially looking at the modern game, I don’t think that is the case anymore.

WALOB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeaaaaah, have been thinking it could do with a lick of paint.

The Christmas themed cladding and reusable cup holders were enough to make me think we’re starting to make an effort again.

Even though they’re identical stadiums, Leicester was a lot nicer than PPS and this was six years ago.

We are where we are now, thankful the ground was even getting a jet wash at the start of the season but, yeah, she’s looking her age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two tier stadiums are much better IMO but I imagine they cost significantly more. 
 

In this day and age everything costs so much money. I would guess PP would cost £100m to build now easily.

Would PP be considered second rate if we were in the PL, selling our every week and being successful? I don’t think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David said:

Pride Park is not “second rate” or where we are as a club, we would still be comfortably in the top 20 in the country yet when picking stadiums for World Cup/Euro competitions, it’s not just the stadium that is under consideration.

Geographically we would be up against Villa Park.

10k more seats, Birmingham has better transport links, better airport, more hotels and just a generally bigger city to accommodate thousands of tourists descending on the city.

Would you honestly say in isolation that Villa Park is a better stadium than Pride Park? Only by capacity really.

Obviously as years go on, other clubs will build bigger and better stadiums, we will be pushed down the list unless we can secure Premier League football and look to expand the stadium, even then, unless we added a significant number of seats we still wouldn’t be chosen ahead of Villa Park for the other reasons mentioned.

Villa are about to start work on increasing their capacity by an extra 8,000 too.

What is 'second rate' anyway? Perhaps second tier, so 21st best or lower?

In terms of capacity, we're 16th in England, but we're also in a group of 15 with a current capacity ranging from 30k to 35k. This puts is in the 14th to 28th bracket, which incidently is roughly where a club of our size and history would typically rank - we've finished lower than 28th on 37 occasions, with 44 top 13 finishes.

The top 13 capacity stadiums are in London (5), Manchester (2), Liverpool (2), Newcastle, Sunderland, Birmingham (Villa) and Leeds.

The 'chasing pack' are mostly stadiums in smaller cities - Derby, Sheffield (2), Middlesbrough, Coventry, Southampton, Leicester, Wolverhampton, Brighton, Blackburn, Milton Keynes, Nottingham, Stoke, Ipswich (and Birmingham). 

Truth is, there isn't much which sets any of those stadiums apart from the rest on that list. I feel confident in saying we still have a top 20 stadium.

 

If you also want to consider stadiums suitable to host the Euros or a World Cup, the city itself is very important. Derby is one of the smallest cities of those I've listed. It's also in a less desirable location than some which are placed closer to the middle of the city. You also have to consider accommodation, bars, restaurants, etc.

 

Until we're established in the Premier League, our stadium is more than adequate. Once we reach that level, we should improve the facilities rather than capacity. Fan park, bars, restaurants, club museum, etc. Developments to make the stadium more unique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

I miss the BBG 😔

Yes but you’re just weird. What with wanting a return to blue shorts as well. 😀

Seriuosly though, I think many of us have a selective memory when it comes to the BBG. Often a great atmosphere especially in the Popside underneath the “posh seats” in the Ley/Co-op stand but, there was a lot wrong with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

Define best.

Capacity, facilities, design and comfort are surely the most important aspects?

I mean, we can safely say Wembley, City, United, Liverpool, Everton, Newcastle, Sunderland, Leeds, Villa, Arsenal, Spurs, West Ham and Chelsea are better in those.

After that we have Saints, Leicester and Coventry which are more modern and of similar size. 

Brighton, while smaller, is more modern too.

Middlesbrough’s is older, but slightly bigger and you’ve got to admit, more original.

Hillsborough is bigger. But lacks elsewhere.

Wolves, Sheff Utd, West Brom, Forest, Stoke, Norwich, Birmingham and Ipswich are all relatively comparable in size. But I don’t think none are as nice.

I’m not even talking UK where Hampden, Ibrox, Celtic Park and Millennium Stadium are all better. But those would get picked ahead of PP for a UK based tournament.

Edited by Bris Vegas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

Capacity, facilities, design and comfort are surely the most important aspects?

I mean, we can safely say Wembley, City, United, Liverpool, Everton, Newcastle, Sunderland, Leeds, Villa, Arsenal, Spurs, West Ham and Chelsea are better in those.

After that we have Saints, Leicester and Coventry which are more modern and of similar size. 

Brighton, while smaller, is more modern too.

Middlesbrough’s is older, but slightly bigger and you’ve got to admit, more original.

Hillsborough is bigger. But lacks elsewhere.

Wolves, Sheff Utd, West Brom, Forest, Stoke, Norwich, Birmingham and Ipswich are all relatively comparable in size. But I don’t think none are as nice.

I’m not even talking UK where Hampden, Ibrox, Celtic Park and Millennium Stadium are all better. But those would get picked ahead of PP for a UK based tournament.

Leicester and Soton are practically the same age. We aren't going to relocate or massively expand.

The next thing we can do is have safe standing in the south stand and most of away end.

Beyond that, better food/drink in the concourse and show the game highlights and interviews in the concourse after would improve the match day experience 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Yes but you’re just weird. What with wanting a return to blue shorts as well. 😀

Seriuosly though, I think many of us have a selective memory when it comes to the BBG. Often a great atmosphere especially in the Popside underneath the “posh seats” in the Ley/Co-op stand but, there was a lot wrong with it.

What d ya mean?  Apart from getting crushed every time you left, walking through p*** at back of popside, missing about a quarter of all goals scored, after a good sway forward by crowd, drinking beer straight from Derwent in the Cambridge. nowt wrong with it.    

Atmosphere is rubbish at PP compared to a big match at BBG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

Capacity, facilities, design and comfort are surely the most important aspects?

I mean, we can safely say Wembley, City, United, Liverpool, Everton, Newcastle, Sunderland, Leeds, Villa, Arsenal, Spurs, West Ham and Chelsea are better in those.

After that we have Saints, Leicester and Coventry which are more modern and of similar size. 

Brighton, while smaller, is more modern too.

Middlesbrough’s is older, but slightly bigger and you’ve got to admit, more original.

Hillsborough is bigger. But lacks elsewhere.

Wolves, Sheff Utd, West Brom, Forest, Stoke, Norwich, Birmingham and Ipswich are all relatively comparable in size. But I don’t think none are as nice.

I’m not even talking UK where Hampden, Ibrox, Celtic Park and Millennium Stadium are all better. But those would get picked ahead of PP for a UK based tournament.

So you’ve answered your own question, yes it is in the top twenty 

I’ll give you the first thirteen, though Everton falls down on design with three of its stands having pillars.

You have explained away the rest.

The one no one else has mentioned but is definitely up there is MK Dons.

sorry GoC just noticed you mentioned MK Dons.

Edited by Foreveram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...