# Six Nations Championship Venues



## Noostairz (Sep 11, 2002)

*Six Nations - Your Favourite Venue?*

3 Feb: Italy v France
3 Feb: England v Scotland
4 Feb: Wales v Ireland 
10 Feb: England v Italy 
10 Feb: Scotland v Wales
11 Feb: Ireland v France
24 Feb: Scotland v Italy 
24 Feb: Ireland v England
24 Feb: France v Wales
10 Mar: Scotland v Ireland
10 Mar: Italy v Wales
11 Mar: England v France
17 Mar: Italy v Ireland
17 Mar: France v Scotland
17 Mar: Wales v England 



*Stade de France, Saint-Denis, France*
Capacity: 79,959
Opened: 1998






















*Millenium Stadium, Cardiff, Wales*
Capcity: 74,500
Opened: 1999






















*Twickenham Stadium, Twickenham, England*
Capacity: 82,000
First Opened: 1909






















*Croke Park, Dublin, Ireland*
Capcity: 82,500
First Opened: 1913






















*Murrayfield, Edinburgh, Scotland*
Capcity: 67,800
First Opened: 1925






















*Stadio Flaminio, Rome, Italy*
Capcity: 24,973
First Opened: 1959


----------



## Noostairz (Sep 11, 2002)

i should say as well that obviously croke park's only a temporary venue. ireland's real home, lansdowne road, is undergoing redevelopment to go from looking like this:










to this:










:cheers:


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

I voted for Stade de France of course but I like Millennium Stadium too.
I never understood why so many british stadium are built with only 3 sides on the same level like Murrayfield, Twickenham or Croke Park.

The new Lansdowne Road look nice and would be able to host major events such has RWC 2015: England could get WC 2018 (soccer) and Celtic nations could get RWC 2015 with an oppening match in Cardiff and the final in Dublin.


----------



## The Hunted (Jan 12, 2006)

^They have nearly finished the new stand at Twickenham, it is a complete bowl now.


----------



## cinosanap (Aug 10, 2004)

Stade de France - Nice roof. I don't like the inside, though.
Millenium Stadium - Best looking stadium but I think it looks strange with the largest tier being the top one.
Twickenham - Hate the outside. The inside is a bit boring aswell.
Murrayfield - I like the stands and the rest of the inside apart from the stupid running track. Similiar outside to Twickenham.
Croke Park - Would be better without the one small stand. Boring inside and I'm not too fond of the outside.
Stadio Flaminio - Boring

Millenium Stadium gets my vote.


----------



## The Hunted (Jan 12, 2006)

Twickenham for me, it's the only one on the list i've been to and I think it has the best interior appearance of the stadiums listed. 
I know the exterior of the stadium is is not great, but this should improve with the comletion of the south stand and anyway the exteriors of the other stadiums apart from the Millennium are no better.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Its between the millenium stadium and stade de france with stade de france as the winner.


----------



## Neda Say (Feb 17, 2006)

This one is no brainer right now! Twickenham is right now the best six nation tournament stadium. But when new Landsdowne will be erected it will be tough to beat. Although I still don't understand why they haven't made it a levelled bowl. 

Millenium has the techie roof. Stade de France the techie removable stand system. Murreyfield has a great atmosphere but is just functional. Flaminio is cute. but the winner rigth now yeah it's the dark green giant


----------



## 3SPIRES (Dec 14, 2006)

millstad by a mile.


----------



## danJonze87 (Jun 7, 2004)

Twickenham atmosphere is a bit hit n' miss sometimes i find. Not as hit n' miss as the french atmosphere mind


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

edennewstairs said:


> *Millenium* Stadium, Cardiff, Wales





eomer said:


> I voted for Stade de France of course but I like *Millenium* Stadium too.





cinosanap said:


> *Millenium* Stadium - Best looking stadium but I think it looks strange with the largest tier being the top one.





The Hunted said:


> I know the exterior of the stadium is is not great, but this should improve with the comletion of the south stand and anyway the exteriors of the other stadiums apart from the *Millenium* are no better.





Mo Rush said:


> Its between the *millenium* stadium and stade de france with stade de france as the winner.





Neda Say said:


> *Millenium* has the techie roof.


Aaarrrggghhhh!!! There are two Ns in Millennium!


----------



## cinosanap (Aug 10, 2004)

Good for you.


----------



## Noostairz (Sep 11, 2002)

my first ever chaliep warning for poor spelling! :banana:


----------



## Welshlad (Apr 22, 2003)

3SPIRES said:


> millstad by a mile.



clever, avoiding having to spell it...


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

CharlieP said:


> Aaarrrggghhhh!!! There are two Ns in Millennium!


Sorry: it's corrected in my post.


----------



## Neda Say (Feb 17, 2006)

sorry about the "n" thing. But I still go with the 82000 seater Twick


----------



## matherto (Oct 17, 2005)

Millennium looks great, and is a fantastic stadium to watch sport in, been then and the stadium, and the location is brilliant

Stade de France looks great, never been, but yeah from pictures it looks huge/stylish

Twickenham is a boring bowl on the inside, which has only it's size going for it, the outside is vomit-inducing

Murrayfield is fairly impressive, though the outside is as bad as Twickenham, and the inside isn't level

Croke Park is huge but again, mismatched

and Flaminio is basically pathetic


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

I went for Murrayfield, simply because it is one of the few stadia out there to successfully negotiate large changes in stand height / tier angle.

I find Twickenham and Croke Park excessively boring stadia in all respects, Twickenham more so. The pitch of the lower tier at Millenium Stadium creates terrible, terrible views as anyone that has sat half way back behind one of the goals will tell you. And while I understand the reasons as to why, I really dislike the saddle-line upper tiers so many stadia have. I find the inside of Stade de France somewhat boring as well. Stadio Flaminio is quaint, nice, but very small and nothing terribly special.

I won't even include the debacle that is the new Lansdowne Road in a list of criticism - given how bad it is, I wish they'd just left the old one alone.


----------



## legslikeaspider (Nov 9, 2006)

None of them are great stadia. Murrayfield and Twickers look awful from the outside. I don't like the gap between the roof of the Stade de France and the top the tier. I don't like the end at the millennium that has two tiers when all the the other stands have three and the height of the stands also means that the pitch is usually in poor condition. The open end at Croke Park has been woefully mismanaged and the Stadio Flaminio is atmospheric but is of little architectural interest. 

Think I'll go with the Stade de France, because it does look amazing when its lit up at night.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

I think probably Milennium Stadium is the best looking out of the lot. Twickenham, eventhough the outside is fairly average, is still up there.


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

Neda Say said:


> But when new Landsdowne will be erected it will be tough to beat. Although I still don't understand why they haven't made it a levelled bowl.


Lansdowne Road is in a rather nice, leafy area of Dublin. D4 is basically the embassy belt and is home to some very nice and very expensive houses. Some of which are behind the North End at Lansdowne Road. The house owners are very rich and these houses are listed buildings. As such, there are, for many reasons, direct limitations on how developed the IRFU / FAI / Irish Government can make the North End - it has to be below a certain height or planning legislation and powerful residents groups will oppose the development. 

I'm surprised that the IRFU didn't attempt to build and open terrace at the North End, to be honest. There's no real stipulation about terraces in rugby, seating at the North End in the present guise wouldn't add significantly to capacity by being unusable for football, it would have increased capacity for rugby (much needed) significantly and given the slope of the stands and roof, it could easily be made to look like a design feature if the roof dovetailed out and down to the ground. 

It would improve the situation dramatically.


----------



## legslikeaspider (Nov 9, 2006)

^^ I agree with you NeilF. The little stand at the new Landsdowne Road looks ridiculous - like somebody very fat has sat on the end of the stadium and driven two of the tiers below ground. Lots of North American stadia have a horseshoe shape with one end open and still manage to look pretty good. Perhaps they could have done something similar to German stadia and install seats on the standing terraces when the stadium is being used for football.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

*Dublin, Ireland
Croke Park, during the refurbishment of Lansdowne Road Stadium (2007-2010)
82,300 Seats*


























*Edinburgh, Scotland
Murrayfield
67,800 Seats*


























*Cardiff, Wales
Millennium Stadium
74,500 Seats*


























*London, England
Twickenham Stadium
82,000 Seats*


























*Paris, France
Stade de France
81,338 Seats*


























*Roma, Italy
Stadio Flaminio
24,973 Seats*


----------



## pierretoulouse (Sep 9, 2007)

Why do the Italians play in such a small stadium, surely their are bigger stadiums in Rome, and what about San Siro ?


----------



## Zeno2 (Jan 22, 2006)

Rugby is not that popular in Italy


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Zeno2 said:


> Rugby is not that popular in Italy


I'm surprised the Italian stadium is as big as it is. Will they be able to fill it?


----------



## pierretoulouse (Sep 9, 2007)

Zeno2 said:


> Rugby is not that popular in Italy


Hmmm it's a shame =(. So in Europe rugby is a big thing only the UK, France and Ireland hno:


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

isaidso said:


> I'm surprised the Italian stadium is as big as it is. Will they be able to fill it?


Stadio Flaminio is actually getting too small in Italy, there are rumours that they are going to use another stadium as Six Nations venue (Olympic stadium in Rome, or move to Genua or Parma, http://www.scrum.com/sixnations/rugby/ground/16198.html). 

A great collection of stadiums for a great tournament by the way!


----------



## likasz (Sep 4, 2008)

Rugby is popular in only few countries because national teams of England, RSA, Australia, Wales, France or New Zeland don't want to play with countries where rugby is a new sport.They even don't have to play in the qualification round to World Cup.


----------



## G.C. (Apr 23, 2007)

Dublin, Ireland
Croke Park, during the refurbishment of Lansdowne Road Stadium (2007-2010)
82,300 Seats

Republic of Ireland.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

pierretoulouse said:


> Why do the Italians play in such a small stadium, surely their are bigger stadiums in Rome, and what about San Siro ?





isaidso said:


> I'm surprised the Italian stadium is as big as it is. Will they be able to fill it?


For Six Nations games, temporary seating is used at both ends to increase capacity - you can see this in the third photo in post #1 but not the first two. As far as I know they always fill the ground, especially against England.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

G.C. said:


> Dublin, Ireland
> Croke Park, during the refurbishment of Lansdowne Road Stadium (2007-2010)
> 82,300 Seats
> 
> Republic of Ireland.


Not for rugby, the team of Ireland is a selection of best players from Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. 
The anthem played is "Ireland's Call", an anthem for all Ireland. In the tournament, Ireland is United, even during the Northern Ireland conflict.

"Side by side
We stand like brothers
One for all and all together
We will stay united through darker days
And we'll be unbeatable forever

Iiiiireland, Iiiiiiireland !
Together standing tall
Shoulder to shoulder
We'll answer Ireland's call....."


----------



## Mr.Underground (Jan 15, 2007)

isaidso said:


> I'm surprised the Italian stadium is as big as it is. Will they be able to fill it?


Absolutely yes, beacause during 6 nations come from every part of Italy to see the match.

San Siro and Olimpico in Rome are busy always during w.e. and rugby will not fill stadiums so big. For 6 nation in Italy is Ok a stadium with 40 k seats


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

The others Anthems:

Flower of Scotland






Hen Wlad fy Nhadau






God Save The Queen






La Marseillaise (Millennium Stadium)






Fratelli d'Italia


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

pierretoulouse said:


> Why do the Italians play in such a small stadium, surely their are bigger stadiums in Rome, and what about San Siro ?


Italia doesn't want to play in a bigger stadium (San Siro, Olimpico...) because if they play in a 80 K stadium it will be an away game with 55,000 visitors.


----------



## Mr.Underground (Jan 15, 2007)

parcdesprinces said:


> Italia doesn't want to play in a bigger stadium (San Siro, Olimpico...) because if they play in a 80 K stadium it will be an away game with 55,000 visitors.


Yes. 45.000 maybe 50.000 visitors and no more. 

A good idea to give more appeal would be to pass from 6 nations to a 7 nations, including Argentina, like was proposed.

Pumas would give a best appeal to this tournment


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

parcdesprinces said:


> Italia doesn't want to play in a bigger stadium (San Siro, Olimpico...) because if they play in a 80 K stadium it will be an away game with 55,000 visitors.


Like I said, there is talk that the Italy will move their Six Nations venue to another city like Parma or Genoa. Rugby is more popular in the northern part of Italy in any case, I can imagine they'd attract a larger crowd there than in Rome.


----------



## Mr.Underground (Jan 15, 2007)

Joop20 said:


> Like I said, there is talk that the Italy will move their Six Nations venue to another city like Parma or Genoa. Rugby is more popular in the northern part of Italy in any case, I can imagine they'd attract a larger crowd there than in Rome.


Yes, for an half. Rugby was more popular in northern part of Italy and idea isn' to move to Parma or Genoa but to Padua or Veneto, but I think will stay in Rome for many years again. The rugby headquartier is there and I think is difficult to move 6 nation to North Italy.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

Mr.Underground said:


> Yes. 45.000 maybe 50.000 visitors and no more.
> 
> A good idea to give more appeal would be to pass from 6 nations to a 7 nations, including Argentina, like was proposed.
> 
> Pumas would give a best appeal to this tournment


The Pumas are more likely to join the Tri-Nations (South Africa, New Zealand and Australia) then joining the Six Nations. The problem with Argentina is that it doesn't a have a professional league in Argentina, and all good players are playing in France or England... 

Some people have argued that if the Pumas were to join the Six Nations, their home venue should be somewhere in Europe, which sounds absolutely ridiculous to me, even though most Pumas are playing for European clubs at the moment. I think it would be much better to develop the game in Argentina, and have some real Argentinian professional teams join the Super 14 in say 5 years. The Pumas can join the Tri-nations at the same time.

The only future expansion of the Six Nations that I can imagine is that one or more of the more succesfull Six Nations B teams would join the Six Nations tournament. Current countries playing in the Six Nations B are:

Georgia
Portugal
Russia
Romania
Spain
Germany


----------



## Welshlad (Apr 22, 2003)

parcdesprinces said:


> Not for rugby, the team of Ireland is a selection of best players from Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
> The anthem played is "Ireland's Call", an anthem for all Ireland. In the tournament, Ireland is United, even during the Northern Ireland conflict.
> 
> "Side by side
> ...


I went to dublin last year, got pissed up and started singing that anthem on the walk home from a night out and nearly got my head kicked in about 20 times in half hour, seems like many people in dublin don't like the anthem.

grumpy twats


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

parcdesprinces said:


> World third largest sporting event....


Thanks for the info, but I'm completely floored that 4 billion people watch this. Where are they all? I'm looking at the countries where rugby is popular and I'm struggling to even get to 1 billion, let alone 4 billion. Are we talking about viewers, or people who have access to a channel that broadcasts this? There's a big difference between availability and actual television audience.

A case in point: the Grey Cup is seen in 140+ countries representing 2 billion people, but the actual number of people that tune into watch it beyond Canada is very small.

The UK, France, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. Excuse my ignorance, but what significantly large nations beyond these is rugby popular in? It's not my intention to insult, but rugby gets less press than figure skating on this continent. Where is the 4 billion coming from? It's not popular in India or China and that's 2.5 billion out of 6.5 billion right there. 4 billion sounds like a big stretch.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^ accumalated figure, over the course the tournament...


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

whats up with the running track at murryfield?


----------



## Welshlad (Apr 22, 2003)

I think its meant to be a warm up track for players. Maybe they hadn't invented exercise bikes or hadn't thought of letting the players warm up in the goal area at each end of the pitch when they built the stadium..... its a bit of a waste of space really


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

^^

I often wondered the same thing. Having been to the stadium a few times, I think I have the answer but don't take this as definite fact, just a good guess. 

Despite how it looks, Murrayfield was developed in three different stages. The East Stand, which is the smaller one, was built first. Before this, the only seating in the stadium was at the West Stand, with a large bowl of terracing on the other three sides:

*Before new East Stand was built:*










*After new East Stand was built:*










You can sort of see the rather weird design of the West Stand here; a two tiered central portion and one tiered wings as well.

Following the Taylor Report, plans were made to convert the stadium into an all-seated facility. With seating already available on the East and West sides of the ground, the North and South stands were built. Unfortunately, whoever decided to build these stands was rather myopic; while the plans always linked the smaller East Stand with the larger North and South stands, no consideration was given as to future renovation of the West Stand or how to link it with the North and South Stands, so the North and South Stands were built as wide as the available space allowed. As a result, the North and South Stands are wider than the pitch. 

As a result, when it came to replacing the old West Stand, designers were faced with a problem; either built a totally separate new stand that didn't connect with the North and South Stands and sacrifice up to about 8,000 seats in the new stadium, or build a new stand with quadrants that would be some distance from the pitch. In the end, they chose the stand with quadrants. Due to the lack of space caused by the width of the North and South Stands, the only way to incorporate quadrants was the design we currently see.

Then, in a bid not to just have a big patch of unused space at the West side of the pitch, the SRU decided to build the running track.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

NeilF said:


> ^^
> 
> I often wondered the same thing. Having been to the stadium a few times, I think I have the answer but don't take this as definite fact, just a good guess.


<snip>



> Following the Taylor Report, plans were made to convert the stadium into an all-seated facility. With seating already available on the East and West sides of the ground, the North and South stands were built. Unfortunately, whoever decided to build these stands was rather myopic; while the plans always linked the smaller East Stand with the larger North and South stands, no consideration was given as to future renovation of the West Stand or how to link it with the North and South Stands, so the North and South Stands were built as wide as the available space allowed. As a result, the North and South Stands are wider than the pitch.


Good guess, but in fact the North and South Stands were only built as wide as the pitch:










Looking at the stadium today, you can still see where they stretched to, as there are two large gaps on the lower level - the West Stand was deliberately built set back from the pitch, with the upper tier wrapped around to meet the North and South Stands.

I have a couple of different theories - if you stand outside the East Stand it's clear to see that there's no room on that side for expansion, given the slope of the ground and neighbouring properties. Building the West Stand further away gives the potential to move the pitch in the future and build a larger East Stand. Secondly, Murrayfield has a long history of holding sprinting events, although I'm not sure to what extent that still happens...


----------



## limerickguy (Mar 1, 2009)

can i just add that the capacity of croke park is actually between 82,500 and 83,000 and not the 82,300 suggested..kinda irrelivent but it is said that with the terracing on the hil 16 side it has the capability toswell past its original size


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

NeilF said:


> The Stadio Olimpico is probably much too large just now and the athletics track would make it terrible for watching rugby - football in athletics stadia are bad enough but when the ball is almost always in hand or on the ground in rugby, good rugby stadia require a particular set of criteria to be good for watching the sport in.


Not only that - the athletics track limits the size of the pitch. IAAF rules say that it must be a 400 m circuit, but not how long the straights and curves are. If you consider that 2x + Pi.y = 400 (where x is the length of the straights and y the distance between them), a track with 100 m straights will only have a separation of 63.66 m.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

limerickguy said:


> can i just add that the capacity of croke park is actually between 82,500 and 83,000 and not the 82,300 suggested..kinda irrelivent but it is said that with the terracing on the hil 16 side it has the capability toswell past its original size


From crokepark.ie



> Match day capacity: 82,300 people


So I don't know, maybe the all-seater capacity ???


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

Seated capacity at Croker is about 73,500. I think what the poster was suggesting is that while official capacity at Croke Park is 82,300, the stadium is capable of holding more fans than that because of available space on the terrace. Having been to Croke Park for a rugby game and seen the security systems around the stadium, I can't see anyone without a ticket getting in, however. 



CharlieP said:


> Not only that - the athletics track limits the size of the pitch. IAAF rules say that it must be a 400 m circuit, but not how long the straights and curves are. If you consider that 2x + Pi.y = 400 (where x is the length of the straights and y the distance between them), a track with 100 m straights will only have a separation of 63.66 m.


Quite an interesting point. I had assumed that the Stadio Olimpico would just about manage the 70m width required for international rugby because, if it's capable of hosting the Champions League final, it's playing surface is at least 68m wide. Having looked at pictures of the football layout, however, that isn't the case - the corner flags are but a few inches in from the track and there is, perhaps, 2m behind each goal. At 105m long (again a guess based on hosting the Champions League final), plus this little extra, there also wouldn't be room for the minimum in-goal areas. 

Thinking about it, it would seem almost impossible to fit an international rugby union pitch inside an athletics track without some modification. With that being the case Italy's Rugby World Cup bid could begin to look a little sparse.croke park


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

isaidso said:


> Thanks for the info, but I'm completely floored that 4 billion people watch this. Where are they all? I'm looking at the countries where rugby is popular and I'm struggling to even get to 1 billion, let alone 4 billion. Are we talking about viewers, or people who have access to a channel that broadcasts this? There's a big difference between availability and actual television audience.
> 
> A case in point: the Grey Cup is seen in 140+ countries representing 2 billion people, but the actual number of people that tune into watch it beyond Canada is very small.
> 
> The UK, France, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. Excuse my ignorance, but what significantly large nations beyond these is rugby popular in? It's not my intention to insult, but rugby gets less press than figure skating on this continent. Where is the 4 billion coming from? It's not popular in India or China and that's 2.5 billion out of 6.5 billion right there. 4 billion sounds like a big stretch.


The 4 billion figure is a cumulative figure for all matches during the tournament I suppose. Note that 2,263,223 actually attened a match during the 2007 Rugby World cup, which means an average of 47,150 per match.

I can imagine that the scale of a Rugby World cup or even a Six Nations tournament is hard to imagine for someone from North America, but you might say the same for NFL (and CFL) - it has hardly any popularity outside North America, while NFL is the most popular league in the USA. Actually, of the 4 major North American sports, NFL is the least popular outside North America I guess. To use your words - NFL gets less press then figure skating in the rest of the world  

Outside the countries you mentioned, rugby is also quite popular in countries like Argentina, Japan, Italy, Georgia, Romania, the Pacific Island nations, etc etc. Add to this that a tournament like the Rugby World Cup attracts a larger audience then just the traditional following. In my country, the Netherlands, we normaly don't get any live rugby on TV, but the top matches from the Rugby World cup were broadcasted live.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

bigbossman said:


> ^^ accumalated figure, over the course the tournament...


OK, thank you. That makes far more sense. 



Joop20 said:


> The 4 billion figure is a cumulative figure for all matches during the tournament I suppose. Note that 2,263,223 actually attened a match during the 2007 Rugby World cup, which means an average of 47,150 per match.
> 
> I can imagine that the scale of a Rugby World cup or even a Six Nations tournament is hard to imagine for someone from North America, but you might say the same for NFL (and CFL) - it has hardly any popularity outside North America, while NFL is the most popular league in the USA. Actually, of the 4 major North American sports, NFL is the least popular outside North America I guess. To use your words - NFL gets less press then figure skating in the rest of the world
> 
> Outside the countries you mentioned, rugby is also quite popular in countries like Argentina, Japan, Italy, Georgia, Romania, the Pacific Island nations, etc etc. Add to this that a tournament like the Rugby World Cup attracts a larger audience then just the traditional following. In my country, the Netherlands, we normaly don't get any live rugby on TV, but the top matches from the Rugby World cup were broadcasted live.


Thank you for the explanation. So, we're talking 4 billion viewers spread over 48 games, or an average of 83 million viewers/game? In view of that, it makes a little more sense. Shouldn't they be using the 83 million figure though? That's how most sports count their viewership. 

The 4 billion figure is more useful in terms of marketing potential to advertisers than a measure of global appeal. It would be like counting viewership at the Winter Olympics by counting the cumulative numbers for all 84 events. If there were on average 100 million viewers around the world per event, you've got 8.4 billion viewers. You could do the same for the 62 events of the World Aquatics Championships, the 39 games of the World Baseball Classic, the 75 games of the World Basketball Championships, the 52 games of the World Ice Hockey Championships. 

Aquatics wouldn't stack up well to rugby despite the number of events, but the others would. In each, you're talking about popularity in a number of countries with very large populations. 

Baseball: US, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Venezuela, then an interest in a lot of smaller nations.
Hockey: US, Canada, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, then a passing interest in a lot of other nations.
Basketball: US, Canada, China, Russia, Spain, France; really an endlessly long list.

In each case, we're talking about a core support of countries that have a far larger population than that for the core support of countries for rugby. Surely, at least the cumulative figure for basketball would outstrip that of rugby?


----------



## ArchieTheGreat (Feb 10, 2009)

IHaveNoLegs said:


> whats up with the running track at murryfield?


When Murrayfield was built originally it had a 100 yard sprint track in front of the main stand. This was due to the popularity of professional sprint races. These are different to normal athletics, with the sprinters having handicaps / "head starts" and people bet on the sprinters. I don't no whether these are still run, but they obviously decided to keep that facility with the redevelopment.



Still run: http://www.sportingworld.co.uk/newyearsprint/index.html


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

NeilF said:


> Thinking about it, it would seem almost impossible to fit an international rugby union pitch inside an athletics track without some modification. With that being the case Italy's Rugby World Cup bid could begin to look a little sparse.croke park


Stade de France has an athletics track.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

limerickguy said:


> croke park is my favourite stadium in the tournament..unreal size and very loud too!


Nothing to do with you being Irish, of course.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

parcdesprinces said:


> Stade de France has an athletics track.


Fair point (though you can see how they've had to lay carpet in the corners as the grass doesn't completely fill the in-goal areas, and the pitch won't be anywhere near the 70 m maximum width).


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

> In each, you're talking about popularity in a number of countries with very large populations.
> 
> Baseball: US, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Venezuela, then an interest in a lot of smaller nations.
> Hockey: US, Canada, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, then a passing interest in a lot of other nations.
> ...


What hasn't be mentioned is that Rugby Unions traditional strength still to this day is Internationals. Rugby national squads play many serious games annually, essentially in a mini league. I can imagine only rivaled by the cricketing tours as another sport which places so much emphasis on national teams. The aspiration of the elite player is to represent ones country as opposed to a powerful club. The sports you mentioned are dominated by powerful leagues and clubs with International comming second, though I'm aware that Hockey internationals are picking up. My point is that Basketball, Baseball and Hockey may have following' from larger population bases but they don't have the same culture of international competition as the Rugby Union nations who have been playing almost constantly for 120 years. Hockey is picking up on the International more, Basketball is club dominated and while its World Championships have been around a while, they can't hold a candle to the Rugby World Cup. Baseball may begin to embrace the international more and that would be great but at the moment all is dictated by the league's as in Rugby Union the league's are all directed at producing talent for the national teams.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

I've just done a bit more "research", and while my algebra was correct it was based on an incorrect assumption. It turns out that IAAF tracks usually have 85 metre straights (which I should have realised, since 100 m sprinters start *before* the curved lines merge with the straight lines), which means there's a grass area 73.21 m wide in the middle of the track. Obviously you can't use the entire width without making the pitch 15 m too short, but given the large radius of the curves at each end, bringing the touchlines in a bit gives you quite a bit more length.

According to Pythagoras, a 70 m wide pitch could be 85 + 2 x sqrt (36.6^2 -35^2) = 106.40 m long before hitting the athletics track. So it works fine if the pitch is slightly under 70 m wide or you carpet the in-goal area...


----------



## Federicoft (Sep 26, 2005)

isaidso said:


> I'm surprised the Italian stadium is as big as it is. Will they be able to fill it?


It's usually sold out months in advance. 
We definitely need a bigger stadium.


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

CharlieP said:


> Good guess, but in fact the North and South Stands were only built as wide as the pitch:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Charlie;

I initially agreed with your assessment here but having thought about this, and noticed a few things while looking at a few pictures of Murrayfield, I'm not sure I do agree.

First of all, there was no sprint track in front of the old West stand. The sprints at Murrayfield were, generally, run on tracks painted onto the pitch. I can see no reason why this would change with the redesign of the West stand - it makes that side of the stadium less desirable to sit in for a majority of the events held at the ground in order to facilitate an incredibly minor function of the stadium that wasn't directly accommodated before.

You are right - the North and South stands only go as far West as the touchline on that side of the pitch, but the quadrants that join the East stand to the North and South stands begins a few metres (maybe as many as five metres) in from the touchline on the east side of the stadium.










I know this is the pitch in a football configuration but since the rugby pitch tends to be two metres wider than a football pitch, you should definitely be able to see what I mean; given that the East stand was already in place when the North and South stands and their quadrants were designed, this would suggest, to me, that at least some of the distance between the West stand and the west touchline, can be explained by the width of the previously existing North and South stands. 

You also mention that the gaps between the lower tiers of the North & South stands and the West stand is suggestive of a deliberate attempt to set the stand back from the pitch. I'm not so sure; if they were a deliberate attempt to set the West stand back from the pitch, then they wouldn't follow the curvature of the stadium bowl but the gaps do. In other words, it isn't a straight line from the last seat in the North & South stands to the first seat in the West stand. With this being the case, I think these gaps are nothing more than pitch access.










Notice, for example, that the curve of the upper tier begins right where the North and South stands end. In other words, I think the way the North and South stands were designed and built, there was always going to be a larger gap between the West stand and the touchline as there was between the East stand and the touchline.

That said, I'm not sure that this would account for the size of the gap in question. The most easterly part of the straight sections of the North and South stands are, at most, about 10m further west than the front row of the East stand. The gap between the most westerly seats in the North and South stands and the front row of the West stand is clearly much larger than that, so perhaps there is some other reason - your idea of a complete bowl may make sense but I'm not so sure. 

Another thing that this thread hasn't touched on is that the front row of the West stand doesn't run parallel to the touchline; it angles away from the pitch as it approaches the half-way line. I see absolutely no aesthetic reason for this and it could only have made the internal design of the stand more difficult than it otherwise would have been, so I think this may suggest that there were problems with joining the West stand to the North and South stands that led to compromises in the way the West stand was built - perhaps suggestive that, had the front row of the West stand been kept parallel to the pitch, it would have had to be set even further back?

To me, the only satisfactory conclusions are either to do with problems joining the existing and new structures, or that there was a plan to move the pitch West as you suggest. The later is actually seeming very possible to me but, given the cantilevered nature of the West stand would probably not have needed such a large gap:

The maximum distance from the front row of the West stand to the touchline is 15m and the minimum distance about 12m. The East stand is about 31m from front to back, the West stand is about 52m but the actual footprint is no greater than the East stand because of the cantilevered upper tier. 

The distance between the back of the East stand and the steps down the hill is about 10m, which would have been plenty of room to create access to the upper tier of the new East stand in the same way as access to the upper tier of the West stand, in my opinion. It certainly wouldn't require the extra 12m-15m provided by the athletics track and new West stand. It doesn't make sense, to me at least, to built the West stand so far back from the pitch when, (a) there were never any definite plans to rebuild the East stand and, (b) that extra space may never have been necessary in the first place. So, I'm not so sure that is valid either.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

TreeBeard said:


> Let's say there was no such thing as NA football and everyone from Canada and the USA instead had to play rugby. Do you think that would change the global positioning of the sport in the world?
> 
> I am not trying to undermine the current top rugby countries in the world, but all the top talent in NA goes towards football. I know at my University the stronger more athletic players where all in football and the rugby team was a niche sport.
> 
> I guess it is all a moot point, however it would be very interesting to see how the rugby power ranking would be if the United States and Canada put the players, money, and effort into rugby that they do into football.


If rugby was the main winter sport in the US, I would expect them to be the best in the world. They certainly should be given the vast population of the US and the vast resources that it pumps into its major sports.


----------



## Kazurro (Jan 23, 2005)

@parcdesprinces: Unfortunately I dont think rugby is improving in popularity in Spain.


----------



## Pimpmaster (Mar 10, 2009)

TreeBeard said:


> Let's say there was no such thing as NA football and everyone from Canada and the USA instead had to play rugby. Do you think that would change the global positioning of the sport in the world?
> 
> I am not trying to undermine the current top rugby countries in the world, but all the top talent in NA goes towards football. I know at my University the stronger more athletic players where all in football and the rugby team was a niche sport.
> 
> I guess it is all a moot point, however it would be very interesting to see how the rugby power ranking would be if the United States and Canada put the players, money, and effort into rugby that they do into football.


USA would probably be good an be in the top 5 in the world but i still think the top 3 (new zealand, south africa and australia) would still beat them. i got no idea how canada would do but some of their NHL players are pretty tough and would go well. sometimes you dont have to be an freak athlete that runs a 4.3 in the 40 to be a good rugby player. a good example of this is new zealands captain richie mccaw. though i would love to see some nfl players in rugby such as adrian peterson. and vice versa players like greg inglis and jarryd hayne (NRL players) in the nfl


----------



## juanico (Sep 30, 2005)

*Millennium* by a country mile. This one is a tenner and has everything a stadium should have. I love its "bowl" shape which isn't ruined by too many suites nor a business tier... Fans are very close to the pitch. The retractable roof is tech at its best. They nicely dealt with the constraint of adjacent Arms Park by preserving the north stand of former national stadium, which adds some unique feature to the whole. Last but not least, it is located right off Cardiff's centre! On top of my list, 10/10

*Stade de France* is a half-success IMO. First of all, I fail to see the necessity for having an athletics track since bidding for the Summer Olympics was a mistake (hope they learnt their lesson :| ) and we already had athletics-dedicated 20K-seater Charléty stadium in Paris for annual track-and-field events (this one was rebuilt in 1994, it was brand new at the time it was decided to build Stade de France!). Consequence of this, the shape is not optimal for pitch games.
Secondly, even though the place is nowadays waaaay better than what it used to be (i.e. a toxical industrial waste) it still lacks the appeal of a true urban centre and there is very little to do apart from having a drink in the two overpriced _brasseries_ facing the gates, or having some dodgy hot dog off a street vendor :runaway:
Thirdly, way too much seats are reserved for business and sponsors, whatever the game or the event is resulting in poor cheering. I know that's how it works now, and it may be the price to pay to fill a 80K, but still...
On the other hand the inside looks very elegant and well proportioned, architecturally it's stunning, access by PT is excellent (2 RER + 1 métro lines), and this part of town definitly needed a good facelift, but still, it could have been better for the reasons I explained above, hence the feeling of a half-success.

Never attended a game at any of the others, but overall we are very lucky to have this quality of stadia for the tournament.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

likasz said:


> It does not mean that rugby is popular in this country.For Women's Rugby World Cup you need just a few pitches.


My point was that these are countries where the popularity of rugby is growing, which is what I thought you were asking for...


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

JimB said:


> If rugby was the main winter sport in the US, I would expect them to be the best in the world. They certainly should be given the vast population of the US and the vast resources that it pumps into its major sports.


If rugby had become the main winter sport in the USA before gridiron took hold, either rugby would be completely different the world over by now, or they'd have broken away and come up with their own unique sport.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

parcdesprinces said:


> ^^ You forgot Argentina..... Which became certainly one of the strongest nations in the world, even stronger than some of the Six Nations such as Scotland, Wales or Italy !
> 
> The IRB is even thinking to integrate them into the Tri-Nations or into the Six-Nations (because most of the "Pumas" play in European clubs, especially French ones).


See http://www.rugbyweek.com/news/article.asp?id=24723


----------



## TohrAlkimista (Dec 18, 2006)

In Italy there is a growing interest in Rugby, but it still lacks of fundings.
It is probably the fourth most followed game after Football, Basketball, Volleyball...but if you think that even Football faces problems about the development of new stadiums and it is the most funded game, I can't think to any serious plans about new projects involving Rugby. 

Let's see the future, especially considering that two Italian teams from the Super10 - the major italian Rugby league - will move to the Celtic League.


----------



## romano89 (Jan 7, 2010)

TohrAlkimista said:


> In Italy there is a growing interest in Rugby, but it still lacks of fundings.
> It is probably the fourth most followed game after Football, Basketball, Volleyball...but if you think that even Football faces problems about the development of new stadiums and it is the most funded game, I can't think to any serious plans about new projects involving Rugby.
> 
> Let's see the future, especially considering that two Italian teams from the Super10 - the major italian Rugby league - will move to the Celtic League.


volleyball? :nuts:

a part from that, I think you're right, the rugby league in italy is not considered at all, the national team is quite important, but if you see the players they all play in france or england


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

If gridiron had not branched off, we'd be a league nation and thus not relevant to this thread.


----------



## gho (Oct 9, 2007)

TohrAlkimista said:


> Let's see the future, especially considering that two Italian teams from the Super10 - the major italian Rugby league - will move to the Celtic League.


Is that still on, i thought they couldn't come to an agreement


----------



## Pimpmaster (Mar 10, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> If gridiron had not branched off, we'd be a league nation and thus not relevant to this thread.


league as in rugby league ?


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Pimpmaster said:


> league as in rugby league ?


Yeah. If there was money to be made in sport, America would be doing it.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

> *Six Nations 2010: France's Grand Slam charge can only be halted by massive upset*
> 
> *There are six lessons to be learned from this season's Six Nations Championship, which has two rounds to run before the final match in Paris on March 20.*
> 
> ...


telegraph.co.uk


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Double post


----------



## TohrAlkimista (Dec 18, 2006)

gho said:


> Is that still on, i thought they couldn't come to an agreement


It is official now:



> *Two Italian Magners teams next season*
> 
> The Magners League will be expanded to twelve teams next season to include two Italian "super sides", Celtic Rugby announced on Monday.
> 
> ...


Benetton Treviso and Aironi Parma. :cheers:


----------



## Pimpmaster (Mar 10, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> Yeah. If there was money to be made in sport, America would be doing it.


back up a sec. you do realise there are two types of rugby. rugby league and rugby union (the more popular one) im not taking about a rugby league as in a competition but as the sport of rugby league itself


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^ I think what he is trying to say is that if Walter camp and friends had not developed additional rules for the sport and just played rugby as prescribed by the IRB that when the split occured they (the yanks) would've sided with the northern union instead of with amatuer RFU, because "money is the american way".

Then again with american money backing a split I doubt there would've been one, a compromise similar to what hap.pened in football would surely have been found.


----------



## Highveld Lion (May 26, 2009)

Pimpmaster said:


> back up a sec. you do realise there are two types of rugby. rugby league and rugby union (the more popular one) im not taking about a rugby league as in a competition but as the sport of rugby league itself



We are playing both kinds here in the USA. The Rugby league is played mainly on the eastern seaboard ( DC area to New England ) and the US national team is named the Tomahawks. There is a team in Jacksonville, Florida also.
Rugby union is played all over the country and the main competition is the Rugby Super league which is struggly financially right now. Two of the greatest teams in the US rugby history have left the competition. We are still amateurs and as players we pay our own airfaire and hotels when we travel. It takes a lot of dedication and a great love for the game to play in the RSL. We train in the evening after work and have no facilities even for changing . My garage is my weight room and high school stadium behind my house is where I run everyday. On game days we draw maybe 400 to 500 spectators including our families and dogs. We play and train in a public park. This year whe have the luxury of two portables bathrooms on matchday. We grill hot dogs and burgers and sell beers and wine on the side of the pitch. This is not the six nations but we play the game with the same pride... For me it is on last season in the sun until I hung these boots ... I am the oldest player in the league.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Pimpmaster said:


> back up a sec. you do realise there are two types of rugby. rugby league and rugby union (the more popular one) im not taking about a rugby league as in a competition but as the sport of rugby league itself


I'm not an idiot, sir.


bigbossman said:


> ^^ I think what he is trying to say is that if Walter camp and friends had not developed additional rules for the sport and just played rugby as prescribed by the IRB that when the split occured they (the yanks) would've sided with the northern union instead of with amatuer RFU, because "money is the american way".


Exactly what I mean.


----------



## Pimpmaster (Mar 10, 2009)

they are starting a professional rugby league competition this year called NRLUS


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

There's also a weird proposal to run a new "rugby league" competition on American football pitches, using the existing markings and teams of 11. It doesn't have official recognition, unsurprisingly!

http://www.gridironrugby.com/


----------



## Highveld Lion (May 26, 2009)

CharlieP said:


> There's also a weird proposal to run a new "rugby league" competition on American football pitches, using the existing markings and teams of 11. It doesn't have official recognition, unsurprisingly!
> 
> http://www.gridironrugby.com/


Both those proposals emulates from the AMRL and its passionate president David Niu. Unfortunatly, We are far from being there yet. Believe me, I have been trying to develop a rugby league club in Texas for six years now.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

*The "Six" in their "gardens" :cheers::*



*Paris* (81K+):










*London* (82K+):










*Cardiff* (75K+):










*Edinburgh* (67K+):










*Dublin* (82K+):










*Rome* (32K): 

















*Miscellaneous:*


----------



## Highveld Lion (May 26, 2009)

Those are not gardens , they are theaters of dreams. Do you have pictures of the old stadiums like Colombe in the 60s, The Arms Park, london and Murrayfield before redevelopment ? Another question for you do you remember the name of that French commentator who used to call the French players " petits " . I remember he used to say " allez les petits" and also " un coup de pied de Mammouth " . I believe he died in the spring of 84...


----------



## juanico (Sep 30, 2005)

^^ The name you're looking for is Roger Couderc.

BTW nice experience you've shared with us.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Pimpmaster said:


> they are starting a professional rugby league competition this year called NRLUS


That was the word about a year ago, but there's been no new info since. Doesn't look good.


----------



## Highveld Lion (May 26, 2009)

juanico said:


> ^^ The name you're looking for is Roger Couderc.
> 
> BTW nice experience you've shared with us.


ah Roger couderc, he is the voice of the 5 nations . I will never forget him. Here I am so far away in time and distance and when I watch the 6 nations on TV I think of him and wish he was commenting every game. I am sure he is watching them right know and will be saying " allez les petits " as the French might win the grand chelem. I hope they win it with a coup de pied de mammouth.... If the French Federation build a stadium in Paris they should name it stade Roger Couderc...


----------



## Highveld Lion (May 26, 2009)

http://www.wat.tv/video/roger-couderc-dprr_co6o_.html

Here you are guys, the voice of the 5 nations tournament. Mr Roger couderc


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

I’d be more inclined to think the USA would have held on to an amateur game for as long as possible just like the rest of the rugby world (although the game would have certainly gone professional a good 30 years earlier). The northern unions breaking away from the RFU (like in Australia and NZ) was created by players power demanding that they should be paid to play the game at a very high level; player power that is rarely seen in the USA due to the power and influence of the team owners. Given the option of making up some bullshit about ‘the ideals of the amateur game’ or spending large amounts on player’s wages what would you do? More importantly what do you think the Charles Comiskey's of the world would do?
Besides the USA has been able to hold onto amateurism in other sports at a college level so it’s not impossible they could stick to it in other areas, when the country experienced its heyday in Rugby it was largely done so through the Colleges.

Is the Italian national team ever going to consider playing their games in somewhere slightly better?


----------



## MS20 (Apr 12, 2009)

The Italians have played against NZ in San Siro (80,000). But Italy is the least rugby-centric of all those nations. Whether they would get 80,000 at San Siro, or Stadio Olimpico in Rome against European teams is another question. 

Maybe someone else would like to shed some light on this.


----------



## MS20 (Apr 12, 2009)

The Italians have played against NZ in San Siro (80,000). But Italy is the least rugby-centric of all those nations. Whether they would get 80,000 at San Siro, or Stadio Olimpico in Rome against European teams is another question. 

Maybe someone else would like to shed some light on this.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

MS20 said:


> The Italians have played against NZ in San Siro (80,000). But Italy is the least rugby-centric of all those nations. Whether they would get 80,000 at San Siro, or Stadio Olimpico in Rome against European teams is another question.


I reckon they would against England - thousands more fans would happily make the trip to Rome or Milan if more tickets were available, and the home fans always seem to pack Flaminio to the rafters...


----------



## limerickguy (Mar 1, 2009)

CharlieP said:


> I reckon they would against England - thousands more fans would happily make the trip to Rome or Milan if more tickets were available, and the home fans always seem to pack Flaminio to the rafters...


and france! as they absolutely hate each other! also id say they could fill it with scotland because they are always close..and i suppose ireland as the are current champs..we also travel well too


----------



## Evil78 (Mar 16, 2009)

parcdesprinces said:


> Numbers I'd just found....
> 
> The Six Nations Championship has the largest average attendance (per game in history) of International competitions :cheer: :
> 
> ...


I don't know who made this ranking, but it does not show all of the competitions in history. Why is the FIFA World Cup'94 held in the USA left out?? It was the WC with the highest attendance ever recorded. 3,587,538 spectators in total, with an average of 68,991 per match.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Cup_1994


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Evil78 said:


> I don't know who made this ranking, but it does not show all of the competitions in history. Why is the FIFA World Cup'94 held in the USA left out?? It was the WC with the highest attendance ever recorded. 3,587,538 spectators in total, with an average of 68,991 per match.


I know, that's why I wrote/added "in history" which means the average of all editions (or at least the last decades).

Here is another list which seems much complete:










WC '94 had the best average with 69K, but the overall average attendance of all world cups is much below this number. On the other hand, the Six-Nations which is annual, has an average attendance above 60-65K since decades (including the former Five-Nations Tournament with the terraces in the 5 stadiums)

*London, Twickenham* (best attendance 75,500):










*Cardiff, Arms Park* (best attendance 65,000):










*Edinburgh, Murrayfield* (best attendance 104,000):










*Dublin, Lansdowne Road* (best attendance 53,500):










*Paris, Colombes* (best attendance in Five-Nations 63,145) 
& the All-seater *Parc des Princes* from 1972 to 1997 (best attendance in Five-Nations 50,370):


----------



## Highveld Lion (May 26, 2009)

Thank you for these beautiful pictures. The Arms Parks was the greatest rugby stadium in the world. What a team Wales was in the 70s with JPR Williams and Gareth Davies and that immortal game of 73 between the All Blacks and The Barbarians. Le Parc des Princes ( For me Jean Pierre Rive's Home just simply become again a temple of Rugby and PSG shall be kicked out and Le Stade Francais should make it its home). Murrayfield, well my best memory was 1984 and the Australian win 37 to 12 to Scotland to complete their grand slam.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

It's stupid to compare a neutral-site world cup to the 6N, which has teams playing at home.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

^^ No problem: The Six-Nations has also a higher average attendance than any domestic league (where every teams always play at home)  !


----------



## Evil78 (Mar 16, 2009)

parcdesprinces said:


> I know, that's why I wrote/added "in history" which means the average of all editions (or at least the last decades).
> 
> Here is another list which seems much complete:


^^
How is this more complete? Where did the 2006 football World Cup disappear in this list? Where is the 2002 World Cup, which had also over 2 mil. spectators? I like rugby very much, but if you are trying to convince somebody here, that it's the most popular sport in the world, it won't work. We all know that football competitions (both club and international) are number one in every statistics (more viewers world-wide, more spectators, more professional clubs, more competitions, more money invested, etc.) . 
And like "*krudmonk*" said, you cannot compare the six-nations cup with a football world cup, because in the six-nations there is always a home-team to fill up the stadium. And even so just to bring you an example, in the '94 world cup, the game between Saudi Arabia and Morocco had an attendance of 76.000, even though two not so important football-nations played on a neutral stadium. (there are lots of other such examples: WC'98 Romania-Tunisia 77.000, etc.etc.)
No offense, the Six-Nations Cup is a great competition, don't get me wrong. These are just statistics i was talking about.


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

oh no! 

This stadium was symetric after years of dissymetry and what they want now? to remake this awful neverending 90's horror stadium


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

There's a lot of room around the pitch. They could dig down and add another 5000 fairly cheaply


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

As a stadium i have been to at least 50 or 60 times and is my favourite stadium or at least closest to my heart. Got to say why they didnt look at this when the south stand was being constructed but if it was a case of just digging down im sure they could make 90k. Whether complete by 2015 is another matter


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

JYDA said:


> *There's a lot of room around the pitch.* They could dig down and add another 5000 fairly cheaply


Indeed:



Some nice red and white seats (using a similar seating pattern to the new national stadium in Warsaw) would be rather smart.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

Also would rather they improved transport links at twickenham, while i would call.it abysmyl it isnt world class by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## funnyhouse88 (Feb 18, 2012)

i vote for *Stade de France, Saint-Denis, France it has unique beautiful! *


----------



## gavstar00 (Apr 26, 2009)

Has there been any update on the Stadio Flaminio redevelopment? I've tried looking on the Italian forum but there doesn't seem to be any photos or updates of construction, has it been delayed or postponed?


----------

