http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Bris...Rovers-Colin/story-16143126-detail/story.html
Reading this article on Colin Sexstones opinion (a completely unwanted and ridiculous one I might add) and hearing David Gold's (West Ham Chairman) opinion on their bid for the olympic stadium it made me realise just how unqualified these people are to run a football club.
Colin Sexstone is a moron as we all know, and he is quite possibly the worst thing to have happened to the club in decades. Someone from the BBC in one article practically gave him the credit for GJ's and SL's achievements of getting us into the Championship and narrowly missing out on promotion to the prem, something I found farcical. But that's another story.
This latest stuff on Bristol Rovers possibly being the next big thing in the world of Sport in the area if their supposed new stadium in frenchay goes ahead is utterly absurd. A new stadium is NOT what makes a team better, it doesn't improve a managers tactics, it does not bring in a flurry of youth talent, and it doesn't get you promoted from fifteen hundred new fans taking a brief interest in a new shiny building still housing the same results of poor football.
I mean no disrespect to Bristol Rovers, this isn't aimed at them, it's aimed at all football clubs. David Gold's completely moronic "survey" apparently indicates that "well over 50% of West Hams fans are all for the move to the new olympic stadium" according to his comments on TalkSport this morning. He, like Colin Sexstone, for some reason credits a new stadium to a whole new infrastructure at a football club, saying "from what we see in football all over the country a new, bigger, better football stadium drives a club forward in terms of growth".
I have to strongly disagree with BOTH the opinions of Colin Sexstone and David Gold. I see no link whatsoever. I don't credit Brightons upturn in fortune down to their new stadium, I credit it to having a good manager. If we look at the likes of the clubs I've listed below, can we honestly say their clubs have grown in stature because of their new stadium, or has it worsened?
*Darlington
*Southampton (After St Marys was built they slipped from the top tier of English football to mid table of the THIRD through financial strife)
*Middleborough
*Cardiff (Crippled with debt)
*Plymouth
These are just the few examples I can come up with at the top of my head. I'm not saying I am against a new stadium, I am saying to claim a new stadium is the answer to gaining a bigger fan base and progressing is financially irresponsible and it makes me thank our lucky stars he has gone.
Reading this article on Colin Sexstones opinion (a completely unwanted and ridiculous one I might add) and hearing David Gold's (West Ham Chairman) opinion on their bid for the olympic stadium it made me realise just how unqualified these people are to run a football club.
Colin Sexstone is a moron as we all know, and he is quite possibly the worst thing to have happened to the club in decades. Someone from the BBC in one article practically gave him the credit for GJ's and SL's achievements of getting us into the Championship and narrowly missing out on promotion to the prem, something I found farcical. But that's another story.
This latest stuff on Bristol Rovers possibly being the next big thing in the world of Sport in the area if their supposed new stadium in frenchay goes ahead is utterly absurd. A new stadium is NOT what makes a team better, it doesn't improve a managers tactics, it does not bring in a flurry of youth talent, and it doesn't get you promoted from fifteen hundred new fans taking a brief interest in a new shiny building still housing the same results of poor football.
I mean no disrespect to Bristol Rovers, this isn't aimed at them, it's aimed at all football clubs. David Gold's completely moronic "survey" apparently indicates that "well over 50% of West Hams fans are all for the move to the new olympic stadium" according to his comments on TalkSport this morning. He, like Colin Sexstone, for some reason credits a new stadium to a whole new infrastructure at a football club, saying "from what we see in football all over the country a new, bigger, better football stadium drives a club forward in terms of growth".
I have to strongly disagree with BOTH the opinions of Colin Sexstone and David Gold. I see no link whatsoever. I don't credit Brightons upturn in fortune down to their new stadium, I credit it to having a good manager. If we look at the likes of the clubs I've listed below, can we honestly say their clubs have grown in stature because of their new stadium, or has it worsened?
*Darlington
*Southampton (After St Marys was built they slipped from the top tier of English football to mid table of the THIRD through financial strife)
*Middleborough
*Cardiff (Crippled with debt)
*Plymouth
These are just the few examples I can come up with at the top of my head. I'm not saying I am against a new stadium, I am saying to claim a new stadium is the answer to gaining a bigger fan base and progressing is financially irresponsible and it makes me thank our lucky stars he has gone.
