bennymacca wrote:Bacon wrote:I have, and will continue, to call it "Howmuch Stadium" because of the beat up & blow-outs, but if the government at the time (and even now) had even the slightest bit of foresight, they'd have made the place bigger.
why would you build a stadium to hold 30 thousand when it would only ever be filled once in a blue moon? they usually dont sell out when the ground holds 16 thousand or whatever it is.
now that is a waste of money.
boo hoo, people are going to miss out. its life. if they wanted more crowd, they could have moved it to aami or adelaide oval, but they prefer to keep a genuine home ground advantage, and that is fair enough.
apparently they are going to put up a big screen somewhere
I love it when you don't know what you are talking about benny the cunt

I actually agree with your first point about it just being built bigger in the first place. The size of the stadium is about right for the amount of use they envisaged it would actually get. The only problem with that is the sport got reformed (and I'm very, very happy about this) and there are now international club games which actually mean something being played there. Suddenly it could have been bigger.
AAMI stadium was overlooked almost instantly (so I read) because it's just plain not suitable at ALL. The
only thing going for it is that it holds more people.
Adelaide Oval is a much better option than AAMI stadium, and they've played there before, however there's something to do with the cricket at around that time (again, so I read).
So, if the only other realistic option isn't available who's fault is that?
Absolutely nobodys.
In addition, home ground advantage is a MASSIVE thing in a two legged tie
especially when the 2nd leg is at your home ground. They'd be crazy to negate that factor. Vidmar himself is dead against the game being moved to another ground because of that very reason.
Pardon me, but I think you'll find that's a shovel. See you next Tuesday!