I remember once there was a rugby match on the BBC, The North vs New Zealand or something, which was played at Anfield. I'm sure this was Rugby Union.
Quite possibly. Wouldn't be the first time the Argus has got something wrong.
I remember once there was a rugby match on the BBC, The North vs New Zealand or something, which was played at Anfield. I'm sure this was Rugby Union.
Quite possibly. Wouldn't be the first time the Argus has got something wrong.
Regarding Anfield? Regardless of the pitch size, I think the spectator facilities there are well dated anyway. Poor views and seat leg room that is cramped for anyone over 5ft 4in. If you're at the back of the Anfield Road end, the view goes from poor to almost non existent. Then again, as people have suggested, chances are many of the pool games won't be a full house anyway.
We have an amazing playing surface-I'd prefer it if we kept it that way. Let Southampton have it.
Psl holders should get their tickets never been to a rugger bugger match before if we get it I will certainly check it out.
This should be titled Brighton versus Southampton rather than Amex V St Mary's as the council/club etc are bidding to be a HOST CITY not just a venue. If you've been to a world cup (football or rugby) you'll know that being a host city is a really big deal. Surely it's no contest... Brighton is one of the most tourist friendly and vibrant cities on the UK with thousands of hotel beds and superb transport links including Gatwick Airport. Southampton offers none of those things. Plus the Amex is 100 times better than St Mary's. Fan park on the beach would be fun!
True.
However, they already have their sightlines and floodlighting optimised for up and unders.
Of course they won't. It wouldn't be a BHA-promoted match. Did you get 'your' seat, for the England representative games? No, thought not.