Can't use Stamford Bridge, using White Hart Lane would be a spit in the face of Tottenham fans, Wembley is being used. Villa Park is probably the closest large stadium...Old Trafford is further away, right?
Thank Aston Villa!!! They certainly won't be complaining, the extra revenue for them would be more than they would of got on certain days this season!!
Let's forget about fans....again!!
Seems a sensible choice for fans actually.
And I assume those complaining about a stadium in London not being used did actually read the Premier Leagues statement.
White Hart Lane could be used but might be deemed a bit politically insensitive if it's Spurs who've just missed out on the Champions League at Chelsea and Arsenal's expense. Plus it doesn't generally get used for neutral matches and there might be other issues etc. Villa Park is hardly that far away relatively speaking.
It was a great game... Well done Setanta for showing it in Ireland
Get a grip. A broadcaster showed an event they had the rights to. It hardly deserves a well done. They were hardly going to show another game when Sky had already chosen the important fixtures. I dread to think how you would've coped had the game not been shown.
Get a grip. A broadcaster showed an event they had the rights to. It hardly deserves a well done. They were hardly going to show another game when Sky had already chosen the important fixtures. I dread to think how you would've coped had the game not been shown.
Ah don't worry I would have coped alright but it was nice to watch it live, it was fitting that the greatest manager in PL history took part in a brilliant end to end game to finish his amazing career.
I don't see how that's true. Surely it would only have been "fitting" if it had a dull 4-0 win for United, or a tight 1-0 victory secured with a controversial penalty in the ninth minute of added time?
The only thing "fitting" about today was that Jamie Carragher played a match without scoring a goal, and that Paul Scholes was booked for a ridiculous tackle.
I don't see how that's true. Surely it would only have been "fitting" if it had a dull 4-0 win for United, or a tight 1-0 victory secured with a controversial penalty in the ninth minute of added time?
... the vast majority of the time it would have been the 4-0 win with a fine performance.
Comments
Football ground = fee stays in football.
Rugby ground = fee goes to rugby.
Seems a sensible choice for fans actually.
And I assume those complaining about a stadium in London not being used did actually read the Premier Leagues statement.
It can only be used a certain number of days in a year for Rugby
They have to go for a license for the summer music gigs if needed
Yes the 'neutral' venue Stamford Bridge...
White Hart Lane could be used but might be deemed a bit politically insensitive if it's Spurs who've just missed out on the Champions League at Chelsea and Arsenal's expense. Plus it doesn't generally get used for neutral matches and there might be other issues etc. Villa Park is hardly that far away relatively speaking.
If it stays the same at Stamford Bridge, Arsenal would need to win 3-2 for there to be a play-off.
They'd have had a decision to make if there'd been another 7-4.
Get a grip. A broadcaster showed an event they had the rights to. It hardly deserves a well done. They were hardly going to show another game when Sky had already chosen the important fixtures. I dread to think how you would've coped had the game not been shown.
Sky won't.
The only thing "fitting" about today was that Jamie Carragher played a match without scoring a goal, and that Paul Scholes was booked for a ridiculous tackle.