It would partially depend upon the capacities for each option. Option C would look tremendous but I would still call it St James’ Park.
That would have just about stuck Hung in the first row and that sod gets too much telly time as it is
St James is a pile of old scrap metal and concrete. The location is the same and it'll all depend on the design. It's already full of tourists.
Bit dramatic, but I expect nothing less. 6 Japanese in front of me on Saturday... fully kitted out from the club shop, carrier bags in hands. Not sure they were really feeling it in the first 20 mins, as some of the language was a bit choice and we were all somewhat boisterous... By the end they were all off mad Can't imagine for a second they were all international members - all in UK here on their holidays. Have to say, Gallowgate atmosphere was very good Saturday. Good pockets of us starting / building songs from the off. Voice was toast at FT.
RE the video, it's option C for me. Said as much re Leazes park site since we started talking about it, as I feel the council could be persuaded if the alternative would be to move further from the existing site. I don't think we'll ever be able to do enough to the existing site for it to become "Elite", sadly, and that's where we're heading as a club.
Some fans want to hold the business back worrying about some turf that's been replaced 100 times, scaffolding and concrete. Hopefully the owners will ignore them and do the best thing regardless. If it's use the same old ****hole and upgrade it then fine, but if the Saudis want to build something worth more than anything else in the city then you say yes please and thankyou very much.... or stfu one of the two.
The grounds in a ****ing state like, really expected them to have done more both inside and out by now. They've hung a few flags up and pained some walls once.
Needs a new stadium for me. Building on Leazes Park would be the most romantic option, to keep it atop the hill. Besides which, that works far better for RB who would want to do something with the land that's left over, as well as be involved in the new project. But down the quayside is just as good. It's tired and ugly on the inside now. The fact they've done practically nothing to it tells its own story, for me. Dog and pony show - they are well aware what needs to be done. I think it'll be quayside, because it's possibly the only option that stops the current ground getting in the way. Dead land, relatively cheap, great access, then you just call it something sponsor-y - I'd imagine it'll be the Aramco Arena. Time heals - were Arsenal always at the "Emirates"? City the "Etihad"? Spurs have done it differently, but Tottenham Hotspur Stadium sounds naff. Newcastle United Arena? Honestly dont give a toss, if it means we'll be watching players like Isak and Bruno for years to come.
