Last night, I watched
a replay of Real Madrid's La Liga game against Eibar, which was played on
Sunday.
The game was not
played at Real Madrid’s home, the Santiago Bernabeu stadium in Madrid, which
has a capacity of 81,044.
It was built in 1947.
Real Madrid have used
the shutdown of the league to begin renovations at the Bernabeu.
With no spectators
allowed anyway, they were not going to lose money by not playing at the Bernabeu. There is a lot of dirt and debris on the
pitch at present so the playing surface would not be suitable for play.
The club used the
Estadio Alfredo di Stefano for the game
against Eibar and they will play all their home games there until the end of the
current season.
It is where their
youth team, Castilla, usually plays.
It's a beautiful
ground with a pitch the same size as that at the Bernabeu and a capacity of
just 6,000.
Such a stadium would
be the ideal set-up for Tasmanian football.
If we had such a stadium
it would end all the arguments about us not having a suitable venue for, say,
the A-League, or for a Tasmanian team in the A-League.
The location would
obviously cause arguments. Should it be
in Hobart or Launceston? Perhaps
Campbell Town would be the idea central location?
The location is
important as factors such as facilities and accessibility need to be
considered.
But, the really
important factor, I think, is ground capacity because the debate has often
involved grounds that would potentially hold 10,000 or even 20,000 spectators.
We don’t need a
stadium of that size for football in Tasmania.
Past experience of competitive A-League games in Tasmania, as well as
A-League friendlies and games involving visiting teams, clearly show that.
It’s always been a
struggle to get 6,000.
Forget about
capacities of 10,000 or 20,000, therefore, and try and fill a 6,000-capacity
stadium.
Counter intuitively,
if spectators were turned away because capacity had already been reached, that
might be good.
People may end up
buying tickets early for the next game lest they miss out.
Surely it would be
better to have a full house in a 6,000-cpacity ground than, say, 5,000
spectators in a 10,000- or 20,000-seater stadium.
The cost of building
such a stadium would surely be considerably less than the cost of building one
that holds double or triple that number.
Anyway, this is an
idea that I feel needs consideration and perhaps government and sponsors may be
more amenable to the idea.
If you want to know
more, read the following article from the Evening Standard in the UK:
2 comments:
Agreed Walter. A boutique stadium would serve the purpose, and a crowd of 6,000 (full stadium) would have a far better atmosphere than 6,000 at Bellerive. The disputes, as per usual, would come from it's location. The State capital is Hobart.
Totally agree Walter. Its a far more realistic situation. If you look at small grounds in the UK for football and rugby it always looks great having a packed 6,000 seater!
Far better than the NRL getting 8,000 in a 80,000 seater
Post a Comment