40,000 my ARSE

40,000 my ARSE

Post by Sadfis » Sun, 02 Nov 1997 04:00:00


Eddie Hemmings said that there was going to be a crowd of 40,000 at
wembley for the first test!!!! I DON'T THINK SO EDDIE, 40,000 ants
maybe, huge gaps show that this test match should be moved north.

We use Old Trafford and Elland Road

what about using the new Reebok Stadium, surely a full Reebok stadium is
better than an over half empty Wembley, which in my opinion should be
used by RL for the Challenge cup final only!

Any thoughts?

 
 
 

40,000 my ARSE

Post by Sadfis » Mon, 03 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

> --
> Rugby League - The Greatest Game on the Web
> http://greatestgame.simplenet.com

> Remove "nospam" from e-mail address to reply



> > Eddie Hemmings said that there was going to be a crowd of 40,000 at
> > wembley for the first test!!!! I DON'T THINK SO EDDIE, 40,000 ants
> > maybe, huge gaps show that this test match should be moved north.

> > We use Old Trafford and Elland Road

> > what about using the new Reebok Stadium, surely a full Reebok
> stadium is
> > better than an over half empty Wembley, which in my opinion should
> be
> > used by RL for the Challenge cup final only!

> > Any thoughts?

> I think the RFL are right to use Wembley for Tests, but they are wrong
> to
> do so and then do nothing to promote the game. They got 41,135
> (officially,
> at any rate!) for GB v Oz today, despite doing absolutely nowt, as far
> as I
> could see, to get people to go to the game. That's not a bad base to
> build
> on, given all the negative publicity after the WCC. If they advertised
> the
> game more agressively, or even at all, I'm sure they could fill
> Wembley
> fairly easily for a Test against Australia, in the same way they do
> for the
> Cup final. They just never seem to try - that's what bugs me.

> Another thing in Wembley's favour, though it didn't work today, is
> that in
> recent history, it's the only place GB ever manage to beat Australia.

good point John, I stand erected!!