Torwin Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 I've been enjoying my career with a rather small polish club, and in the fourth season I have finally gotten into the Champions League qualifiers. Due to the fact that my stadium is really small (capacity about 6000) the home game had to be moved elsewhere (which is perfectly understandable). What I don't understand however is why was it moved to my club's worst rival stadium? It's like having Celtic play a home game at Ibrox (ok, maybe not as bad as that, but you get the drift). You'd think there have to be some more places in the region, where you could play the game without the risk of broken windows, destroyed cars and general riots In short - I believe the choice of stadium your team has to move to due to inadequate home grounds is completely random (within a certain area of course), but maybe there should be some exclusions to the pool of available places? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tajj 7 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 There seem to plenty of reports of people ground sharing at rival stadiums whilst their stadium is expanded like Portsmouth sharing at St Marys or Sunderland playing at St James Park. I don't think FM takes any rivalry considerations into account, it must choose the nearest most suitable stadium so it probably needs looking at. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robzilla Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 There seem to plenty of reports of people ground sharing at rival stadiums whilst their stadium is expanded like Portsmouth sharing at St Marys or Sunderland playing at St James Park. I don't think FM takes any rivalry considerations into account, it must choose the nearest most suitable stadium so it probably needs looking at. Before we decide it "needs looking at", we need to establish whether or not this is something that would happen in real life. Has it - or something similar - ever happened in real life? I can't think of a good reason why it wouldn't. The stadium-sharing example is not really relevant (IMO) as we are talking about only a few games, not an entire regular season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemeures Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Before we decide it "needs looking at", we need to establish whether or not this is something that would happen in real life. Has it - or something similar - ever happened in real life? I can't think of a good reason why it wouldn't. The stadium-sharing example is not really relevant (IMO) as we are talking about only a few games, not an entire regular season. It wouldnt happen without a life or death reason. This may surprise you but a lot of fans dont give a flying **** about how many games it is for, why would they?! Ground shares generally only happen in real life, when there is a catastrophy behind it. The Gerries blew up your ground, yeah we can share for now. Not oh yeah, come make a load of cash off of us, and please dont smash up the ground EVERY game Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
deerokus Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 A good example would be when at one point Tynecastle's pitch was too small for European competition. Hearts had to play European games elsewhere. They didn't move to Easter Road - nearby, similar size, belongs to rivals. They moved to the national rugby stadium at Murrayfield, even though they could probably only fill about a quarter to a third of it. That probably wouldn't happen unless specifically coded in the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tajj 7 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Before we decide it "needs looking at", we need to establish whether or not this is something that would happen in real life. Has it - or something similar - ever happened in real life? I can't think of a good reason why it wouldn't. The stadium-sharing example is not really relevant (IMO) as we are talking about only a few games, not an entire regular season. Well it wouldn't, unless the two actually share a joint stadium (i.e. Inter/Milan) I doubt any club that owned it's stadium would lend it to their arch rivals regardless of the number of uses, be it a few games or a whole season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robzilla Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 OK but instead of saying "it wouldn't happen" can anyone come up with any real life examples of where a particular stadium would be the "logical" choice (local rivalries aside) but was not used because of a local rivalry? Not trying to be awkward but I think there are other factors that would come into play such as the capacity of the ground, the convenience, the amount of money that could be generated by playing games at this stadium or that, which may trump any fans' objections when it came down to it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cider Ed Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Not sure how big rivals they are, but Charlton shared with Crystal Palace in the early 90's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemeures Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 OK but instead of saying "it wouldn't happen" can anyone come up with any real life examples of where a particular stadium would be the "logical" choice (local rivalries aside) but was not used because of a local rivalry? Not trying to be awkward but I think there are other factors that would come into play such as the capacity of the ground, the convenience, the amount of money that could be generated by playing games at this stadium or that, which may trump any fans' objections when it came down to it. How much money is expected to be raised that will cover the damages to the ground, extra police and transport, vandalism to property throughout city etc... I live just outside Saint Marys, I can see the stadium now in fact over looking my window. I can assure you Portsmouth will never play games here, and that will be the case for most rival clubs. Stop imagining a unrealistic world where money stops people being aggressive towards each other! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwfan Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 I will certainly agree that it is highly unlikely Portsmouth will ever play a European game at St Mary's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewis999 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 I had the same when I was Southampton, I came 4th and then in the second season I was playing my European games at the Madejski whilst St. Marys was getting an expansion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tajj 7 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 OK but instead of saying "it wouldn't happen" can anyone come up with any real life examples of where a particular stadium would be the "logical" choice (local rivalries aside) but was not used because of a local rivalry? Not trying to be awkward but I think there are other factors that would come into play such as the capacity of the ground, the convenience, the amount of money that could be generated by playing games at this stadium or that, which may trump any fans' objections when it came down to it. There was an example further up the page of the exact same thing described by the OP A good example would be when at one point Tynecastle's pitch was too small for European competition. Hearts had to play European games elsewhere. They didn't move to Easter Road - nearby, similar size, belongs to rivals. They moved to the national rugby stadium at Murrayfield, even though they could probably only fill about a quarter to a third of it. That probably wouldn't happen unless specifically coded in the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forameuss Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 There was an example further up the page of the exact same thing described by the OP And I'm sure a move to Murrayfield was completely about not wanting to use Easter Road, and nothing about being able to cram more fans in, making more money... If Murrayfield wasn't there, and they really had to move, maybe it would've been Easter Road. If they qualified in the way that Tynecastle doesn't. Not sure about that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tajj 7 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 And I'm sure a move to Murrayfield was completely about not wanting to use Easter Road, and nothing about being able to cram more fans in, making more money...If Murrayfield wasn't there, and they really had to move, maybe it would've been Easter Road. If they qualified in the way that Tynecastle doesn't. Not sure about that. Money was probably involved but then do you think Easter Road would have ever been considered? I can't see any club allowing a rival club to use it's ground, the fans would go mental. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forameuss Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Money was probably involved but then do you think Easter Road would have ever been considered? I can't see any club allowing a rival club to use it's ground, the fans would go mental. Depends if there was no alternative. I'm sure they would grin and bear it if it was the only way they could play in Europe. Not exactly the same, but back when the FA Cup semi-finals used to be played at Villa Park/Old Trafford/wherever, were there any reports of widespread civil unrest and the complete razing to the ground of the stadium as a result of rival fans being in there? I don't remember any. Liverpool played the 2006 FA Cup semi against Chelsea at Old Trafford, whereas Arsenal (back when they were actually a legitimate rival to Utd) played three semis in four years in Manchester. Maybe I'm just being too nice to think that fans might be able to be mature enough to visit a rival's stadium without literally or figuratively taking a dump on the seats before leaving. But anyway, back on topic, whether it's a bug or not is up to interpretation. All it is is probably picking the closest stadium to the current clubs one that satisfies criteria. Some of these may be poorer decisions than others, depending on your viewpoint. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reiver Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 I'm pretty sure that way back in the 30s or 40s, Sporting and Benfica groundshared while one of them had works done in their stadium. Not completely unheard of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllUrBase Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Danish side Brøndby IF (BIF) played their home games in the 1998 Champions League at PARKEN stadium. PARKEN is home field to their fiercest rivals F.C. København (FCK). I think it was mainly due to Brøndby Stadion (pre-renovation) not being suited for CHL, not being an all-seater. Renting PARKEN, at the time a 43.000 capacity all-seater, was probably also economically more attractive, with expected sell-outs agains Manchester United, F.C. Barcelona and Bayern München. Converting stands at Brøndby Stadion to seats and generally meeting UEFA standards for the 3 games would be expensive and reduce capacity. Brøndby Stadion was renovated in 2000 and is now at 29.000 capacity with 23.400 seats. The stands are converted to seats for international games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmydaze Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Christ its a game. Who honestly cares what ground a game is played at. On FM12 Chelsea on my game moved into their new stadium called "Zola Road" or something like that while he was manager. Not being funny this seems fairly unlikely it would happen in real life but gave me a giggle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.