Could someone tell me, and ignorant American, what exactly all the fuss is about the fact that it seems that Craven Cottage can no longer be used? I'm not saying that I think the complaints are unwarranted, I just don't know the basis for them, but I'm sure there's more to the story than what I've seen. It just seems to me Fulham were told that the Cottage couldn't be used for Premiership matches unless it was upgraded. And from what I'd read, Fulham tried their damnedest to get it done (at least they did initially), but the local residents blocked the upgrades. Now al Fayed says that, considering the current economic climate in the game, redoing the old home just wouldn't be feasible. Now to me, this seems a reasonable thing to say, considering what I've seen happening all over Europe, and considering that it seems like they made a good faith effort to get the stadium done. I went to a couple of games there a few years ago, and I enjoyed it, but the place certainly didn't seem all that new. I'm not saying the stadium bother me at all (although, I may have been preconditioned, as I'm used to Boston's Fenway Park), but I guess my questions boil down to: do the fans not think that Fulham honestly did all they could to get the stadium redone, and/or do the fans think that Fulham should be able to play in the stadium pretty much as is? Again, I'm not saying that I think they should tear the place down or anything, I loved going there, strolling around the stadium as well, I'm just curious what the fans' side of the story is. Is it just a fear of losing the clubs spiritual home, and moving to some new structure that has no character whatsoever (see Boston's Fleet Center, unlike the old Boston Garden, going there has about as much atmosphere as going to a mall), or is there more to it? BTW, this question has nothing to do with the new groundshare with Chelsea. I've been wondering about this for a while, since long before the proposed move to Stamford Bridge, which I would think would be seen as heresy.
It would have been great if they found a way to upgrade Craven Cottage. I don't know if it's the correct view, but I think that the sporting clubs have always been the ones bending over backwards when it comes to stadium issues and location. Chelsea did it vis-a-vis the Stamford Bridge upgrade. Arsenal is doing the same with their new stadium. Tottenham's trying to get anybody to listen about their plans for continuing at WHL. Why won't someone just say "The Hell With It!" and just flip the anti-sports types the bird?! It's always the clubs that have to be saddled with the burden of proof, when it should be the other way around.