dave_ragg1984

I've just looked into this and can find (cant you tell I'm having a great Friday!) Ac/Inter (85000), Lazio/Roma (80000), Sampdoria/Genoa (37000), Chievo Verona/Hellas Verona (39000), Atalanta/Albinoffe (25000), Juve/Torino (27500...new ground being built but not sure if both teams are to play there). All them stadiums are much bigger than anything we would build (sharing or not), and all them clubs are (historically) from the same town/city as each other. They have all pretty much played in a shared stadium for the majority of their history, and by playing in a shared groun they are not losing any of their identity (as its always been the case)...whereas if we shared with 'Dale then I think both clubs would be losing something. Also....us and whoever we share with would have to rely on the other team being successful. If we shared with Rochdale, 50/50 split of the ground, and one of us went out of business, the other one would be knackered. In Germany, 1860 Munich almost went out of business and had to sell their share of the stadium to Bayern to survive, so now instead of being co-owners of a superb stadium, they are their rivals tenants and asset-less. Hardly ideal, and could easily happen to us.

These foreign teams that are sharing, generally they: 1) Share a huge stadium (Stadio Olimpico - 80,000. San Siro - 85,000. Allianz Arena - 60,000) 2) Are teams from the same city. I can't think, off the top of my head, anywhere where teams from different towns share small stadiums. It doesn't happen....most probably because one team would have to move from their town and lose their identity.

I'd rather go Salmon Fields than Failsworth. It's not far from BP, a lot closer to centre of Oldham, and I could still booze in the White Hart before/after the game. Win Win.

They wouldn't. They would most likely start going to the boozer and watching City on some foreign satellite channel. Anyway, why would we want a load of City fans watching us? They are a bunch of c**s.

I don't know where you read that, but it would be wrong. Since 2000, they have won 1 cup, lost another final, lost in the playoffs twice and not qualified a whopping FOUR times. Whereas the mighty New Jersey Devils have won 2 cups, lost one final, and made the playoffs every year in the same timescale. If you want to see good 'ol workmanlike hockey...winning hockey we call it...this is the place to go: *am thinking Ack should move most of this thread before people complain!*

I know....that's why I put 3 Stanley cups (95, 2000, 2003). But we didn't make the playoffs in 95/96. Saying that, we didnt make the playoffs in 88/89, and have made the playoffs every year bar one since. Since our first post season appearance in 1988, we have only failed to make the playoffs twice. Pretty amazing stuff.

Sod that, I'm claiming bragging rights for the genreal aceness of the New Jersey Devils... 3 Stanley Cups. Playoffs every season since '96. The "winningest" (surely thats not a real word!) NHL goalie.....ever! Doc Emerick does the play by play.

Brodeur Langenbrunner Elias Pandolfo White Your right....we could only dream of watching them every week

I dont know though....having watched a lot of NFL, quite a few of them don't seem to be the sharpest tools in the shed!

Don't know....still in negotiations!

I watched Frost/Nixon last week too. What did you think? I really enjoyed it, thought it was entertaining, but nowhere near as serious as I was expecting.

But true...

To be honest, I couldn't see it working. Might be worth a look at but I doubt we would get anyone decent. Anyone who is good will already have MLS (higher standard than league one) in their sights. And I doubt the chances of us actually finding a player good enough would be too low to make it worth the risk financially.

Are Manchester University and MMU in the USA now or something? If you are on about scouting America, its pointless. Would not be able to get a work permit for any of the players.

Will we not already have scouts watching University football? What is the standard of Uni football too?

Yeah, cant see us bowling the Aussies out twice in a test playing like this! O/T... Who is the picture of in your sig Nava? Dawkins has not yet played a game for the Broncos so how would you have managed to get a picture of him in a Broncos shirt/helmet?

There is a very funny one based on Michael Jackson's death, and one where he gets banned from Xbox Live.

Not a player name, but there is a club in Peru called "Deportivo Wanka."

You really need to get a job.

Every woman is someones daughter....does that mean we can never cross the line? Boooooo!

Its not the sharing ground I have a (big) problem with. Its the possibility of moving out of Oldham which I'm not having.

Yes. My objection to Failsworth would be that the only place I can think we would build a ground would be the Lancaster club, and I think its too close to COMS. But like I said, I could get over that....plus you struggle to find anyone in Failsworth who will admit that they are in Oldham.

Yes because they "genuinely want to be permanently based in Oldham." Whereas we would be permanently based out of Oldham. And the Rugby do keep coming back to town, its not their fault they were messed around by the council, and now have to move for a couple of months every year.

No, because they have always moaned like f**k about having to move about and they genuinely want to be permanently based in Oldham.

It would be name only, a token gesture. It would mean absolutely cock all. If we aren't based in Oldham, there is no professional football in Oldham, and therefore, we would not be Oldham's team.