Boy, what's up with the "beat up the Rose Bowl" crowd? Can you think of a better stadium for the U.S. to have as it's final? At least most of our stadiums allow the fans to be in the sun, when it's out.

I've nothing against Rose Bowl, butI myself attended 2 world cup first round matches at this stadium, for a start it is not a football stadium, no history, no nothing, related to football, sure has a great tradition for american football, but when I was there i didnt felt myself in a football stadium until I saw the pitch lines,,,

the stadium didnt had a jumbotron at that moment, no seats ( only bench), the sound system sucked, every time the crowd made some noice, i couldnt hear any of the starting lineup, i mean at least they could have used a major upgrade for the world cup.

Originally Posted by Jack Rabbit Slim
The USA wouldn't be able to enter the Rose Bowl as a World Cup stadium these days anyway, not with FIFA's rule that each stadium submitted must have all its seats under cover! I have to admitt though, that is one of the lesser world cup stadiums in history, and its a surprise that it comes from America, who have an abunance of stadiums and money to build new ones.

right but if you think about it had germany used the same stadium they are going to this year as it was in 1994 they wouldnt be able to host it today because it didnt have a roof covering all the seats, that is a large part of why it has the new roof these days, if America would bid again im sure theyd either
A. bid another stadium that is roofed or
B. because of capacity/location stick with rose bowl and follow the German model and add a roof.
but its difficult to make a comment about usability when todays rules didnt apply in 1994 or 1978 or 1974 all years where all seats were not covered...

and at last but not least, traing to get something to eat or drinks was really, i mean really dificult because of the long lines, same for the toilets..


still i enjoyed my world cup experience

So, where should the 1996 World Cup final should of been located, for those who think the Rose Bowl was the worse?

So, where should the 1996 World Cup final should of been located, for those who think the Rose Bowl was the worse?


In a new stadium that later could have easily turn into a NFL stadium

and it was in 1994, not 1996

What exactly was "wrong" with the Rose Bowl? No athletics track, fans very close to the pitch and 100% unrestricted views! Seems like one of the better stadiums to have hosted a World Cup final!!

As for "no history"??? What has that got to do with the quality of watching a game from a stadium? Sightlines are what matters, not who played there 50 years ago!! and how does a stadium get history if no games are played there?

No jumbotron?? Who cares? You are there to watch football, not TV (and the Rose Bowl did have a jumbotron during the World Cup, as seen below).


http://www.skypic.com/sports/11-5556.jpg

http://www.skypic.com/sports/4-5555.jpg

http://www.homesoffootball.co.uk/1481_USA.jpg

http://www.homesoffootball.co.uk/1480_USA.jpg

What exactly was "wrong" with the Rose Bowl? No athletics track and 100% unrestricted views! Seems like one of the better stadiums to have hosted a World Cup final!!

As for "no history"??? What the hell has that got to do with the quality of watching a game from a stadium? Sightlines are what matters, not who played there 50 years ago!! and how does a stadium get history if no games are played there?

No jumbotron?? Who cares? You are there to watch football, not TV (and the Rose Bowl did have a jumbotron during the World Cup, as seen below).


http://www.skypic.com/sports/11-5556.jpg

http://www.skypic.com/sports/4-5555.jpg

http://www.homesoffootball.co.uk/1481_USA.jpg

http://www.homesoffootball.co.uk/1480_USA.jpg


Those pics look fantastic to me! Thanks for posting those.

Look, i know a lot of you like to bag on us Yanks for being soccer-inept. Beleive me, i hate the fact that less than 30% of our population would even care if there was never another footie match played again, but there ARE huge soccer fans in the US. Trust me, we exist and as bleedin passionate about the Beautiful Game as you. yes, you.

That said, The RB was a great facility to host the final.. Look at those pics ... that is a thing of beauty in the USA's most famous stadium.

And please, if you're gonna bitch about bathrooms and concession lines during the world's premier sporting event, maybe you should stick to the Cricket World Cup.

because of capacity/location stick with rose bowl and follow the German model and add a roof.


LOL, no.

If the WC were to be played this year in the states, there is little doubt it the final would be at Reliant or Cardinals stadium. For FIFA to regulate that an overhang needs to be over WC venues is a percieved slap in the face for Americans, similar to the IOC eliminating baseball from the Olympics.

We dont care. you can do what you want, but it dont make a shit. FIFA would cream themselves to have 15% of the USA market. This isnt nationalism talking, because i couldnt care less where the WC is held, as long as its fuckin televised, but FIFA is counting the minutes when they can offer the WC back to the USA without the spastic flailing, heavy breathing, and redness in the face of our European and Latin friends.

That is all.

The Rose Bowl is a large shallow bowl without a roof. Its a nice stadium but there were stadiums that would have been much more suitable for a World Cup final in the USA at the time. Even without a roof, The Giants stadium with its more enclosed design and steeper stands would have been excellent for example.The Dallas Cowboys stadium is another one that would have been good . Nowadays somewhere like Seattle or The Reliant stadium would be perfect.
I don't regard it as having a pop at USA to say so.
This years World Cup Final is being held an athletics bowl which is just as irritating considering its in the same country that has just about the best modern soccer specific football stadium in the world.
Of the stadia that have held the World Cup Final I would say Bernabeu and The Azteca were the best.

I like Denver's Invesco Field for a WC final.

http://www.fischpop.de/Stadionweb/images/Denver_InvescoField.jpg

rose bowl was the worst. And hosted the worst final because of the UEFA and the the shape of the stadiums. UEFA let the final game to be played under the helly sun in the day time because of European TV hours. And then both Brazilian and Italian players had no power to play properly. stadium has no roof, and other stuffs. Players and fans were burning and at last, match ended up without goal and resulted witht he penalty shoot outs first time at the World Cup history as a shame :(

Best stadium was Stade de France of Paris in 1998 and Azteca of Mexico City in 1986.

as was said before, the best stadium for the final has been the Azteca, simply awesome, and simply far more exhillirating than anything in this years world cup.
I forgot that Italy 1990 had their final in the Olympic stadium Rome, I always thought it was the San Siro. Infact, a quick check on wikipedia showed that the San Siro didn't even make the semi's!!

so, perhaps we should get back to football?

I agree. Who gives a damn about how many troops such and such a country provided for military operation xyz.

Exactly its got nothing to do with this discussion on football, which clearly shows that the Scandinavians are far superior at football. Is the Scottish League big? Relatively so, but England hosts the world's biggest tennis tournament, and its very very far from being a tennis power.

And these Scots should be very aware that there were major organisations in Scotland trying to secure a deal in which Scotland would become independent but remain neutral of the Nazi's, by no means the majority but this movement was successful. On the other hand no country behaved more admirably under occupation than Denmark - far better than trying to cut a deal with Nazi's.

Guess Scandinavia beats Scotland in more than just sport.

And I'm sorry to just continue in the diversion but total ignorance needs to be put at rest.

Why do you think the Romans built Hadrian's wall? It was to keep Scots in and to stop us killing Romans. Caledonia (Scotland) could never be defeated, even by the Romans!!

1. Look up your history, there were no Scots in Britain at that time only Britons (Welsh) the Scots were in Hibernia at the time.

2. Read Tacticus Agricola.

Ubi Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

Well, personaly i dont know much about scotish football, but it sure seam like they have some lager stadiums. Im not really surprised though. As someone has already said here, the whole idea of professional football is only about 25 years old, and up untill 4-5 years ago you could still find clubs in the best leage, excisting mainly on amateur basis. Running a professionel club is something very new, as is the idea of clubs going together, to try and get bigger and have a chance. So far it has mostly been thousinds of very small clubs, and mostly for fun.

And the money havent been that big either. The best clubs in the Danish leage today, are also those who are doing well financialy. And none of them have huge debts in the million pounds range. They dont have a rich uncle who can make sure they get what they wont, without worring about cost. So they have to be very thrifty and only buy what they can afford. But i do have high hopes for the leages, and as i think it was kingdomce said, i dont want the leage to turn into a leage with only a few rich clubs, with no chance of getting better because everyone else sucks.

Scotish football was good only at ninties (i mean 1890s not 1990s).Now it is only a parody.Scandinavian football is the future.Espacially Swedish footabll .

Bubomb and The Hoops: you two are prize idiots.

You simply don't understand the Scottish mentality or our military history. Germany could never have occupied Scotland, as we would never have surrendered. We would of fought to the last man!! We are fighters, always have been, always will be!!

Scottish soldiers are famous around the world for our Bravery. We will never be defeated, we will never be occupied.......as we would rather die!

Why do you think the Romans built Hadrian's wall? It was to keep Scots in and to stop us killing Romans. Caledonia (Scotland) could never be defeated, even by the Romans!!

"Hadrian's Wall (Latin: Vallum Hadriani) was a stone and turf fortification built by the Roman Empire across the width of Great Britain to prevent military raids by the tribes of Scotland to the north"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian's_Wall


I'm not sure if they teach WW2 in Dutch schools, as like the French, you have a shameful cowardly past. But always remember, you owe your lives to the bravery and sacrifices of Scots, British, Canadians and Americans.

In WW2, a tiny percentage of Dutch men fought the Germans. If Germany had invaded Scotland, nearly every single man would have fought the Germans. Even women and children would of fought them. Even if we only had knives left, we would still of kept fighting. I have two close friends risking their lives in Iraq right now. Whether they should be there or not is irrelevant......the fact is that when called upon, they answered their country. We will never surrender, we will always fight to the death, and the Dutch should be eternally grateful for that!

No doubt we will be called upon to save you again in the future, and once again, we will not hesitate to answer that call, as we will never ever stop fighting until the day we die.

What a truly embarrassing post!

I admire the british war effort imensely and consider it perhaps the most crucial effort in human history.
But your suggesting that Scotland is somehow morally superior and would have fought to the last man and all that is just childish nonsense from someone who must have seen too many movies and not understood real suffering.

If England had been defeated and occupied and the nazis came full force at Scotland, are you saying you would have ordered millions of scots into combat?
You would have send 500,000 scottish children armed with sticks and stones to be machine-gunned down? Hardly. Its empty nationalistic nonsense.

Ever heard of Dunkirk.
British troops were running for their lives in full-speed retreat back over the water.
Without that channel, Britain would have been as doomed as the rest of europe.
The water offered a chance and it was taken showing remarkable courage and determination and winning enormous gratitude and admiration all over the continent to such an extent that it still has deep impact on a political level in many countries including Denmark, where Britain is seen as the crucial major ally on whose side we always want to be.

Its a huge and controversial issue as to hoe exactly the occupied nations should have behaved, but to say that all continental nations landlocked with Germany should have "fought to the last man" sacrificing millions and millions of lives for symbolic reasons as the "great scotland "would have done is just ridiculous and frankly not something I think the generation of brits who had to the actual fighting, and experince the suffering, would be impressed with.

Churchill himself thought as much, but of course what did he know about true resolve and courage compared to some scots here.

For those relatively new to the forum, this thread has also been done to death. It was already established that:

- Azteca's video boards are relatively new, so the video board criticisms are moot.
- There is no 100% stand coverage regulation by FIFA, but rather UEFA. FIFA requires certain parts of the stand to be covered. Germany chose to provide more roof than necessary, though not as much as is being said here.
- Stand coverage is defined by the sun. If the sun hits the stand, its not covered.
- Lumens has a larger place in the rules than roof coverage. Roof coverage is more concerned with dignitary and media areas. Lumens are required to a certain level for TV coverage.
- World Cup, not English Cup. We don't have to have English style soccer stadiums for the world cup.
- This American could care less if our stadiums are fit for the World Cup, or if the World Cup hits our soil ever again.

Think we established this stuff several times.

I didnt think the Rosebowl was a bad stadium at all but it was a slightly odd choice given the alternatives and the bench seating. Its quite shallow but after this summer is going to be the only world cup final stadium in the last 20 years to not have either a track of a large gap between fans and the pitch.

If the US gets the WC again I'd guess somewhere on the east coast would get the final, the new Giants/Jets and Cowboys stadiums being the obvious choices.

It's really a shame that the US had to waste their World Cup bid for the next who-knows-how-long back in the early 90s, when nothing here really conformed to soccer. Stadiums are sprouting up for it everywhere today, and the popularity of the MLS is skyrocketing.

Hello Boy David,

I tried to get an objective overview of Scottish football and what it means to our phsyche a few posts earlier but this thread appears to be too far down the road of irrelevant nonsense. Pity.

By the way Boy David can you remember a few years ago there was talk of an Atlantic League with the bigger Scottish clubs joining with Dutch and Portugese teams to create a league to compare with the bigger countries. I think Fergus McCann was partly behind it when he owned Celtic.

I haven't read this whole thread but glancing at a few posts reminds me why I'm a less frequent visitor than I used to be.

Incorrect. Either get your facts right or don't bother posting.

He's not far off. It was 149,415 set on April 17 1937 between Scotland and England. Also 10,000 extra people apparently snuck in under the barriers.

Hello Boy David,

I tried to get an objective overview of Scottish football and what it means to our phsyche a few posts earlier but this thread appears to be too far down the road of irrelevant nonsense. Pity.

By the way Boy David can you remember a few years ago there was talk of an Atlantic League with the bigger Scottish clubs joining with Dutch and Portugese teams to create a league to compare with the bigger countries. I think Fergus McCann was partly behind it when he owned Celtic.
Indeed - your level headed, extremely relevant and mater-of-fact post seems to be lost on some of the folks round here.

If anything though it has proved that not all Scots are mindless barbarians, so thanks :)


------


As for the Atlantic league, I has completely forgotten about that! Fergus McCann was one ambitious guy! It was a sound idea, but totally infeasible. Realistically, I don't think there was any way it could have worked (the logistics would be a nightmare!), but it showed the sort of ambition that the Scottish game lacks just now. I can't remember though: was that Atlantic league before or after the Old Firm first started to hint at joining the English Premiership?

It's a good (and more sensible) tangent to go off on though - practicalities aside, do you think the idea would work, creating another "super-league" like the Premiership or La Liga?

You simply don't understand the Scottish mentality or our military history. Germany could never have occupied Scotland, as we would never have surrendered. We would of fought to the last man!! We are fighters, always have been, always will be!!

Scottish soldiers are famous around the world for our Bravery. We will never be defeated, we will never be occupied.......as we would rather die!

Why do you think the Romans built Hadrian's wall? It was to keep Scots in and to stop us killing Romans. Caledonia (Scotland) could never be defeated, even by the Romans!!

"Hadrian's Wall (Latin: Vallum Hadriani) was a stone and turf fortification built by the Roman Empire across the width of Great Britain to prevent military raids by the tribes of Scotland to the north"

I'm not sure if they teach WW2 in Dutch schools, as like the French, you have a shameful cowardly past. But always remember, you owe your lives to the bravery and sacrifices of Scots, British, Canadians and Americans.

In WW2, a tiny percentage of Dutch men fought the Germans. If Germany had invaded Scotland, nearly every single man would have fought the Germans. Even women and children would of fought them. Even if we only had knives left, we would still of kept fighting. I have two close friends risking their lives in Iraq right now. Whether they should be there or not is irrelevant......the fact is that when called upon, they answered their country. We will never surrender, we will always fight to the death, and the Dutch should be eternally grateful for that!

No doubt we will be called upon to save you again in the future, and once again, we will not hesitate to answer that call, as we will never ever stop fighting until the day we die.
Ok, now I have to agree with kingdomca here, this is possibly the stupidist and embarrassing comment I have ever had the misfortune to read. You're starting to make BuBomb look like quite a nice guy.
I think it is this bit that makes you looks the worst:

"I'm not sure if they teach WW2 in Dutch schools, as like the French, you have a shameful cowardly past. But always remember, you owe your lives to the bravery and sacrifices of Scots, British, Canadians and Americans."

WTF??? A shamefully cowardly past...? Becasue Scotland was on an island, with never any land invasions against it, its people are considered to be braver then countries attached by land to the rest of Europe, open to invasion by German troops?? You can only fight on up untill a certain point, when it becomes more a matter of wasting millions of lives in a futile attempt at freedom. The French and the Dutch both had resistance fighters repelling the Germans, and never gave up. But obviously the Scottish, protected by the English channel, on their island, safe from danger, were much braver then those cowardly Europeans who who surrendered when they had guns pointed in their faces.... :ohno:

"In WW2, a tiny percentage of Dutch men fought the Germans. If Germany had invaded Scotland, nearly every single man would have fought the Germans."

....What on earth makes you say that??? It is all very nice and easy to say 40+ years on what Scottish people would have done if Germany had invaded Scotland, but I doubt if any nation anywhere would have fought with pocket knives and bricks to the death when they were facing armed men with machine guns. In fact, there is so much wrong with your entire post that it would take up an entire page for me to reply to it, so I'm not gonna.

Please, anyone reading this, don't judge all British people by one guy who's seen a few too many war films, and has read too many Scottish-written history books!

I beleive, BuBomb, that this more then qualifies Hoops to be a....what was that term you used...a 'fanboy'....is that it??? I'm sure you just forgot to post your objections to his comments, after all, he isn't English.... ;)

How exactly did a thread about Scottish vs Scandinavian football get onto the subject of WW2 anyway....???

It is really wierd trying to talk about football with all this rubbish from armchair warriors going on.

But let's persevere.

One of the posts from a Scandinavian friend talked about a league to incorporate the various countries around the Baltic, presumably Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and eventually Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

I do not think this will work. The distances are too great and awkward with players, press fans etc all having to constantly travel by plane and ferry.

But the main reason is that the clubs in these countries are too small and that is unlikely to change.

Yes the national teams punch above their weight and the fans turn out to support them in great numbers and in a most colourful and good humoured way and for that the rest of the footballing world should be greatful.

Scotland on the other hand contains two of the biggest clubs in the world but they will never reach their full potential until they are allowed to play in the (English) Football League. Celtic and Rangers can generate crowds of 50/60,000 week in week out playing agains minor opposition.They should be playing along with Liverpool and Chelsea and Manchester United.

Then this "British Premier League" would be by far the best in the world even compared to Italy or Spain.

Meanwhile the rest of the Scottish professional football would go from strength to strength as the likes of Hearts Dundee and Aberdeen compete on an even playing field.

Scandinavia have produced better players and better national teams in recent years but they will never have a Celtic or Rangers and, as colourful as their national team fans are, no country could match the Tartan Army if only they had a decent side to follow.

Then this "British Premier League" would be by far the best in the world even compared to Italy or Spain.

Rubbish. Changing it from an English to a British League will only add a couple of clubs, and I would not expect them to be challenging for even UEFA Cup Places.

invesco field reminds me of a modern, smaller version of Nou Camp in Barcelona, if the end zone were completed as the other 3 sides, it could be the "same"

I like Denver's Invesco Field for a WC final.

http://www.fischpop.de/Stadionweb/images/Denver_InvescoField.jpg

LOL, those english* with their pretty white unis would lose their lungs at that elevation. They'd have to shorten the match to 60 minutes.

* it would happen with any national side, unless Nepal made it to the WCF:D

Actually, i'd lay my house down on the US side vs. any national side in this venue because of the elevation ... and the US conditions some in Colorado Springs, i believe.

LOL, those english* with their pretty white unis would lose their lungs at that elevation. They'd have to shorten the match to 60 minutes.

* it would happen with any national side, unless Nepal made it to the WCF:D

Actually, i'd lay my house down on the US side vs. any national side in this venue because of the elevation ... and the US conditions some in Colorado Springs, i believe.


What is Denver's elevation, because Mexico plays at Estadio Azteca's 2400 meters above sea level, (7894 ft), also Bolivia plays at more than 3000 meters, Chile and Peru have also significant elevations at their national stadiums.

- This American could care less if our stadiums are fit for the World Cup, or if the World Cup hits our soil ever again.

And I think the rest of the World would be very grateful if Americans never touched a foreign soil aswell. Be gone.

It's really a shame that the US had to waste their World Cup bid for the next who-knows-how-long back in the early 90s, when nothing here really conformed to soccer. Stadiums are sprouting up for it everywhere today, and the popularity of the MLS is skyrocketing.

well, without the 94 WC, there would be no MLS, which is a reason why we're leading a nice charge in the WC as it is.

But i agree. The USA held the most profitable and most attended cup in history (both in average attendance [69,000] and total attendence [3.6 million]), and this is even back when there were only 24 teams. I would like to have seen what we could have done with 32 teams, and possibly 2 more host venues. They dispersement of matches across the country was well done, but now, with all the new stadiums popping up around the country, we would nail this tournament.

These were the old host stadiums:

Foxboro Stadium: Boston,Massachusetts 61,000
http://www.skypic.com/sports/6-5560.jpg

Soldier Field: Chicago, Illinois 67,000
http://www.globalstadia.com/campo_chicago2.jpg

Cotton Bowl Dallas, Texas 67,000
http://www.dowell.com/dondowell/tcu/waccd96/smustd.jpg

Pontiac Silverdome Pontiac, Michigan 80,000
http://www.clarkcompanies.com/Site%20Revision/images/Large%20Project%20Photos/Pontiac%20Silverdome%20World%20Cup%2094.jpg

Rose Bowl Pasadena, California 91,000
http://www.skypic.com/sports/4-5555.jpg

Giants Stadium East Rutherford, New Jersey 77,000
http://www.clarkcompanies.com/Site%20Revision/images/Large%20Project%20Photos/Giants%20Stadium%20World%20Cup%2094.jpg

Citrus Bowl Orlando, Florida 70,000
http://www.soulofamerica.com/images/photosfl/orlando/photos/CitrusBowl.jpg

Stanford Stadium Palo Alto, California 80,000
http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/stan/galleries/080805_HistoricalStadium/Stadium96_WorldCupA-lg.jpg

RFK Stadium Washington, D.C. 56,000
http://www.skypic.com/sports/5-5715.jpg


12 years later, 6 out of those 9 stadiums are obsolete. They went from WC worthy to just an afterthought due to the massive obsession with stadium building in the United States. The only 3 that havent had massive upgrades or been destroyed are Giants Stadium, The Rose Bowl, and the Citrus Bowl.

If the USA were to host this year, it would be:

Cardinals Stadium: Phoenix, Arizona
http://www.cmxsportsengineers.com/430x320%20Photos/New%20Cardinals%20Stadium%20rendering.jpg

The Rose Bowl: Los Angeles, California
http://www.skylinepictures.com/soccer_-_rose_bowlf.JPG

Reliant Stadium: Houston, Texas
http://www.concacaf.com/competitions/goldcup/2005/downloads/RELIANT_STADIUM/Reliant.png

Soldier Field II: Chicago, Ill
http://www.kenn.com/images/soldier_field03.jpg

Fed Ex Field: Washington, D.C.
http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/nfc/fedex701.jpg

Ford Field: Detroit, Michigan
http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/nfc/ford503.jpg

Gillette Stadium: Boston, Mass.
http://www.splis.com/SolutionSummaries/images/gillette_stadium_001.jpg

Raymond James Stadium: Tampa, Florida
http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/nfc/raymond103.jpg

Giants Stadium: East Ruthorford, N.J.
http://www.skypic.com/sports/4-6097.jpg

Quest Field: Seattle, Washington
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/mitig_traf_cong/images/seahawks_stadium.jpg

And I think the rest of the World would be very grateful if Americans never touched a foreign soil aswell. Be gone.

oh please. way to blow shit out of proportion. :|

. On the other hand no country behaved more admirably under occupation than Denmark - far better than trying to cut a deal with Nazi's.

What the fuck are you talking about you fucking halfwit? Who tried to cut a deal with the Nazi's? The hundrerds of thousands of Scots who died or were injured fighting them? The millions of men and women who worked non-stop for 6 years building ships and weapons to fight the Germans? 99.9% of Scots would never even have considered 'cutting a deal' with the Nazi's before or during the war.

Do you know how many Scots died or were seriously injured fighting in WW1 and WW2 sacrificing themselves to protect Britain and Europe form tyranny? Hundreds of thousands, many of whom were volunteers!!....and we weren't even invaded!! Denmark was actually invaded, and how many of them died? You can count them on one hand!!

Have you ever visited Scotland? Every city, town and village have Memorials listing endless names of their men who died in battle. Even the smallest villages have got war Memorials and the list of names always seems far far too large for the size of the village/town. In Glasgow, the endless list of names would scare you!! Separate Glasgow transport groups (trams, trains, bus drivers etc) have all got their own individual Memorials as so many died from each different group of workers!

Denmark behaved more admirably??? They fucking surrendered without a fight!! Yes, what real brave men!!! Just another bunch of useless Euro Cowards!! In WW2 Scotland suffered terrible losses!! Per head of population in WW1, Scotland, followed by Serbia, lost more men than any other country in Europe (and we weren't even invaded!!!). In WW2 God knows how many Scots would of been killed fighting the Germans if we had actually been invaded!! The number would of been huge!!

Countries like Finland and Serbia were invaded in WW2 and they still managed to fight. Serbia (part of Yugoslavia at the time) was a very small country, smaller than The Netherlands, but they kept on fighting for the whole of the war. Finland put up a great fight against the might of the Soviet Union. The Greeks (population less than eight million) managed to defeat an Italian army twice its size and with many times its firepower, and then hold off the German and Bulgarian invasion for 2 months. This was longer than any other nation up to that point. The difference was that these countries were not Euro Cowards like Denmark and The Netherlands.

Winston Churchill famously said after the Greek-Italian battle, "From now on we won't say Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks". The measure of resistance was also paid considerable homage to by German officals - Hitler's Chief of Staff Field Marshall Keitel stated at Nurenberg that, "The unbelievable strong resistance of the Greeks delayed by two or more vital months the German attack against Russia; if we did not have this long delay, the outcome of the war would have been different in the eastern front and in the war in general.”


Come up to Scotland and say what you said and I will cut your throat you disrespectful piece of human shit!! Two of my relatives died protecting human waste like you!!

What the fuck to they teach these braindead morons in schools these days???

With the money from TV Rangers and Celtic would get in England, both clubs would be winning the English league very very soon. It's not going to happen though!


I've done some research on the Glasgow forums, and it appears you are totally hated over there. You have also admitted to being anti-Scottish and a general hater of all things Scottish. So I think it is fair to say that you are simply a bigoted moron. You are going to be negative about Scotland to matter what the situation, so your opinion is illogical and irrelevant as it simply based on a hatred of all things Scottish instead of being based on logical thinking.

You should be banned for admitting you hate Scots as this is clearly racist.

1. Look up your history, there were no Scots in Britain at that time only Britons (Welsh) the Scots were in Hibernia at the time.

So why did they Romans build a wall you fucking clown? Why is there a Roman Bath House in Bearsden (very near Glasgow) 2 miles from my house?

Scotland has been inhabited for 4000 years!! The people in Caledonia at the time of the arrival of the Romans might not have been called "Scots", but they are still the ancient ancestors of modern day Scots. Modern day Scots descend from a mixture of indigenous Picts along with Celts and Scotti who settled in Scotland. Here are some links, I suggest you read them -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonii
http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/origin1.html
http://www.scotlandforvisitors.co.uk/history/beginning.php
http://www.scotlandforvisitors.co.uk/history/romans.php
http://www.scotlandforvisitors.co.uk/history/time1.php

"The Roman occupation of Scotland was never as comprehensive as the occupation of England. Although they built forts and walls, the indigenous tribes, especially in the north, were never very troubled by the might of Rome."

http://heritage.scotsman.com/timelines.cfm?cid=1&id=40522005


Seriously, are you in primary school or something? At the time of the Romans, Scotland (Caledonia) was a populated area!! Read the links you fucking mongol!


"The whole area up to the highlands was covered in villages"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonia

"Hadrian's Wall (Latin: Vallum Hadriani) was a stone and turf fortification built by the Roman Empire across the width of Great Britain to prevent military raids by the tribes of Scotland to the north"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian's_Wall


You better listen harder at school son, because you are heading for a big fail in life!

I'm not going to reply to you anymore, as you are either at school and are not doing well at school, or you are simply a grown man who is not intelligent! I've tried to explain important history to you and educate you, but I am clearly wasting my time!

What is Denver's elevation, because Mexico plays at Estadio Azteca's 2400 meters above sea level, (7894 ft), also Bolivia plays at more than 3000 meters, Chile and Peru have also significant elevations at their national stadiums.

Denver is 5,431 feet above sea level, so its not as high as Azteca ... plus Denver doesnt have the choking fumes of Mexico City, so thats always a plus, too.

rose bowl was the worst. And hosted the worst final because of the UEFA and the the shape of the stadiums. UEFA let the final game to be played under the helly sun in the day time because of European TV hours. And then both Brazilian and Italian players had no power to play properly. stadium has no roof, and other stuffs. Players and fans were burning and at last, match ended up without goal and resulted witht he penalty shoot outs first time at the World Cup history as a shame :(

Best stadium was Stade de France of Paris in 1998 and Azteca of Mexico City in 1986.

How was the shape worse than Munich or Olimpico in Rome? Out of all the stadiums, The Rose Bowl and The Azteca had the fans closest to the action. This is just Eurotwats and Donkeyboys knocking the USA for the sake of it!!

A roof wouldn't protect the players from the sun, only the fans. Was there no sun in the Azteca in 86?? Yes there was, and it was a classic final. The 94 final was crap due to the teams, not the sun or lack of roof!

And I think the rest of the World would be very grateful if Americans never touched a foreign soil aswell. Be gone.


I would be thankful if the USA lets you Eurotwats rot next time you go begging to the USA for help!!

"We hate the USA, burn that flag" - 10 years later - "Oh please save us USA, please save us from this evil dictator/country"

invesco field reminds me of a modern, smaller version of Nou Camp in Barcelona, if the end zone were completed as the other 3 sides, it could be the "same"

no, it would be miles better.

well, without the 94 WC, there would be no MLS, which is a reason why we're leading a nice charge in the WC as it is.

But i agree. The USA held the most profitable and most attended cup in history (both in average attendance [69,000] and total attendence [3.6 million]), and this is even back when there were only 24 teams. I would like to have seen what we could have done with 32 teams, and possibly 2 more host venues. They dispersement of matches across the country was well done, but now, with all the new stadiums popping up around the country, we would nail this tournament.

Great stadiums! real monoliths.

is the Cardinals stadium being built at the moment?

http://www.mnartists.org/uploads/users/user_6659/45c0c9be0723a9272e90d43fffd23d19/45c0c9be0723a9272e90d43fffd23d19.jpg

Peter Eisenman is one my favourite architects, but I'm not quite sure what he's up to here.

To keep jingoism out of this (if it's not already too late), I'd have to say that the old Wembley was not that special as a venue. It would not be in my top three venues - but then neither would the Rose Bowl be:

1 Estadio Azteca, Mexico City (1970 & 1986)
2 Estadio Santiago Bernabeu, Madrid (1982)
3 Stade de France, Paris (1998)

I think the 1994 final should have been played at Giants Stadium, NJ. Three reasons for, one against:

FOR:
A more 'classic' football configuration with close proximity and high, atmospheric stands

5hrs behind Europe, not 8hrs would have given the game a local kick off time three hours later and therefore cooler

East coast, not Californian climate would have been more conducive to fast-fowing football.

AGAINST

Capacity differential of around 12,000.

And one more thing:


Originally Posted by vivayo
What is Denver's elevation, because Mexico plays at Estadio Azteca's 2400 meters above sea level, (7894 ft), also Bolivia plays at more than 3000 meters, Chile and Peru have also significant elevations at their national stadiums.

>Denver is 5,431 feet above sea level, so its not as high as Azteca ... plus Denver doesnt have the choking fumes of Mexico City, so thats always a plus, too.

You're asking what's Denver's elevation? On a stadium forum? erm, does the phrase 'Mile High' sound familiar?

The world does not revolve around Europe (that ended a long time ago). 5/8 hours, who cares? It is the WORLD cup, not the Europe Cup. It was held in the USA, the time in Europe was irrelevant.

As for heat - 1986, very hot Mexico, best World Cup final ever.

LA is far more of a football city (S.American immigration), than New York. Look at the crowds in LA -

Romania v Colombia - 91586!! (You would get 35000 in Europe for this kind of game)
United States v Colombia - 93869!!
Sweden v Cameroon - 93194!!
Romania v Argentina - 90469!!
Brazil v Sweden - 91856!!
Sweden v Bulgaria - 91500!!
Brazil v Italy - 94194!!


LA deserved the final! New York was almost 20000 smaller than the Rose bowl for the 94 World Cup, as it's capacity for the World Cup was 77000.

The world does not revolve around Europe (that ended a long time ago). 5/8 hours, who cares? It is the WORLD cup, not the Europe Cup. It was held in the USA, the time in Europe was irrelevant.

As for heat - 1986, very hot Mexico, best World Cup final ever.

LA is far more of a football city (S.American immigration), than New York. Look at the crowds in LA -

Romania v Colombia - 91586!! (You would get 35000 in Europe for this kind of game)
United States v Colombia - 93869!!
Sweden v Cameroon - 93194!!
Romania v Argentina - 90469!!
Brazil v Sweden - 91856!!
Sweden v Bulgaria - 91500!!
Brazil v Italy - 94194!!


LA deserved the final! New York was almost 20000 smaller than the Rose bowl for the 94 World Cup, as it's capacity for the World Cup was 77000.


World Cups do revolve around Europe. Hence the silly kick-off times in 1986 and 1994.

Actually, i'd lay my house down on the US side vs. any national side in this venue because of the elevation ... and the US conditions some in Colorado Springs, i believe.

The US isn't the only country with cities that are located at a high altitude so I'm pretty sure you'd be homeless.

The world does not revolve around Europe (that ended a long time ago). 5/8 hours, who cares? It is the WORLD cup, not the Europe Cup. It was held in the USA, the time in Europe was irrelevant.


Most of the teams are from Europe though, so it makes sense to schedule the games with European viewers in mind.

Spot on murdomac, I reckon that the Scottish Premier league would grow stronger if the Old firm left it - a level playing field makes for much more interesting games, and where ever there is entertaining football, people will pay good money to watch it. I would definitely disagree with people who say that the Old Firm are the only teams holding the SPL together - I genuinely think their absence would benefit teams like Aberdeen, Hibs, Falkirk etc greatly - it would make the Scottish people more inclined to support their local team, a mentality that does not exist up here just now.


I have to disagree with you, Lostboy. With the addition of Celtic and Rangers, the English Premiership would become even stronger, attracting even more interest worldwide (mostly from American, Canadian and Australian Celtic supporters), and easily fortifying its place as the strongest domestic league in the world. Of course Celtic and Rangers should not be handed Premiership status on a plate, but I'm convinced that they would qualify for the Premiership in the fastest possible manner.


Scandinavian national teams do punch above their weight for the simple reason that all of their best players end up playing in England/Spain/Italy etc. Much like the Irish, these players are quick to move where the big money is, and so leave the home nation leagues with the dregs that are not good enough for top flight football. It's a sad situation, but in reality no-one has benefited more from this than the Republic of Ireland.

Thankfully, (although some would argue that it is little consolation) the best Scottish players get snapped up by the Old Firm, thus staying in the country. However too many good Scottish players have had their careers ruined buy the Old Firm - this is something that needs to be rectified.



-----------



Calm down "The Hoops" or "Bubomb" (I know it's you as you put Rangers before Celtic in a previous post), you're embarrassing yourself.

By the way Boy David can you remember a few years ago there was talk of an Atlantic League with the bigger Scottish clubs joining with Dutch and Portugese teams to create a league to compare with the bigger countries. I think Fergus McCann was partly behind it when he owned Celtic.

It would make more sense for the Netherlands to join forces with Belgium (this was proposed before but I don't know what happened to that proposal). Having Anderlecht, Club Bruges in the Eredivisie, or a newly created league, would liven things up a bit. 5 to 7 clubs would then have a realistic shot at winning the league (PSV, Feyenoord, Ajax, Anderlecht, Bruges, perhaps Standard Liege and AZ), you can't say that about too many European leagues these days.

The Scandinavian countries already have some sort of combined league: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_League

World Cups do revolve around Europe. Hence the silly kick-off times in 1986 and 1994.


Yup, I remember watching all those games at 5:30am in the morning from Japan/Korea!! and watching Scotland v Denmark at 1am in 1986!! That was really handy!

Twat!


GMT times-

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/world/2002/world_cup/countdown/schedule/

Japan times -

http://web-japan.org/region/wcup/info/matchscd.html

Photo from Amsterdam on the eve of German invasion -

http://www.cleveleyparkorganics.co.uk/images/info_organic_chickens.jpg

Although this thread has irretreivably went down the toilet - I have to admit that this photo was pretty funny ^^

Most of the teams are from Europe though, so it makes sense to schedule the games with European viewers in mind.

Within reason, you can change a few hours, but the games still have to kick-off at sensible times in the host country otherwise nobody will be able to go to the games!!

and most teams are from outside Europe, although Europe has the largest individual percentage.

Within reason, you can change a few hours, but the games still have to kick-off at sensible times in the host country otherwise nobody will be able to go to the games!!

and most teams are from outside Europe, although Europe has the largest individual percentage.

WTF. 16 out of the 32 WC teams are European!

Spot on murdomac, I reckon that the Scottish Premier league would grow stronger if the Old firm left it - a level playing field makes for much more interesting games, and where ever there is entertaining football, people will pay good money to watch it. I would definitely disagree with people who say that the Old Firm are the only teams holding the SPL together - I genuinely think their absence would benefit teams like Aberdeen, Hibs, Falkirk etc greatly - it would make the Scottish people more inclined to support their local team, a mentality that does not exist up here just now.


I have to disagree with you, Lostboy. With the addition of Celtic and Rangers, the English Premiership would become even stronger, attracting even more interest worldwide (mostly from American, Canadian and Australian Celtic supporters), and easily fortifying its place as the strongest domestic league in the world. Of course Celtic and Rangers should not be handed Premiership status on a plate, but I'm convinced that they would qualify for the Premiership in the fastest possible manner.


Scandinavian national teams do punch above their weight for the simple reason that all of their best players end up playing in England/Spain/Italy etc. Much like the Irish, these players are quick to move where the big money is, and so leave the home nation leagues with the dregs that are not good enough for top flight football. It's a sad situation, but in reality no-one has benefited more from this than the Republic of Ireland.

Thankfully, (although some would argue that it is little consolation) the best Scottish players get snapped up by the Old Firm, thus staying in the country. However too many good Scottish players have had their careers ruined buy the Old Firm - this is something that needs to be rectified.



-----------



Calm down "The Hoops" or "Bubomb" (I know it's you as you put Rangers before Celtic in a previous post), you're embarrassing yourself.


I agree with what you say about the SPL, and it should be noted that Rangers are massive in Canada (Scots built Canada, with some help from the French) and big in Australia. The largest Rangers Supporters Club in the world is in Toronto and they have an annual meeting attended by thousands! Rangers don't have much of a following in America as the large number of Scots/Ulster immigrants to the USA over time simply became 100% Americans. Celtic have a big support in America from descendants of Irish immigrants who still think of themselves as part Irish part American.

I'm also not Bubomb. Is it impossible for a Celtic or Rangers fan to admit when their rivals do something better than them???

I would also say that the although Irelands National team has gained from Irish players going to England, their league has greatly suffered and is one of the worst in Europe. Players leaving for abroad is a 2-headed coin. Your national team gets better, but your league get's worse. This is one of the reasons Scandinavian teams have such low ranked leagues.

Look at Sweden, great national team, but a terrible domestic league and average crowds half the size of Scotlands despite their country being twice the size!!

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/current/aveswe.htm
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method3/crank2006.html

WTF. 16 out of the 32 WC teams are European!

WRONG!!

43.75% are from Europe (14 teams), 56.25% are from outside Europe (18 teams).

I love it when people get their facts wrong!! Lesson one mate - always get your facts right!

And for future World Cup final stadiums:

2010, South Africa: Soccercity (FNB) stadium
http://www.bkajhb.co.za/images/newprojectimages/soccercity1.jpg

2014, Unknown: most likely South America- Brazil in particular, and if so, most likely the Maracana stadium
http://www.fotoajans.com/cities/rio_de_janeiro/rio_de_janeiro_maracana_stadium_1.jpg

But there are also possible hints that the USA might want it, and if so, the Reliant stadium
http://www.concacaf.com/competitions/goldcup/2005/downloads/RELIANT_STADIUM/Reliant.png

^^ Whether it goes to America or (most likely) South America, it will be the first time the World Cup has been held outside of Europe twice in a row.
So, is is quite likely that a European nation, or possibly Australia, will get to host the 2018 World Cup.

And in that spirit, I say:

2018, England: Wembley stadium
http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/TV2/archive/00210/wembley_210768c.jpg
http://www.luzonet.com/magazine/mag12/beststadiums_clip_image004.jpg
http://wooller.com/sites/wooller/gallery/10262/IMG_4793.JPG

:okay: :master: :D

:cheers:

Yup, I remember watching all those games at 5:30am in the morning from Japan/Korea!! and watching Scotland v Denmark at 1am in 1986!! That was really handy!

Twat!


GMT times-

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/world/2002/world_cup/countdown/schedule/

Japan times -

http://web-japan.org/region/wcup/info/matchscd.html

Were you to get an adult to read my comment to you you'd have grasped the fact that I mentioned '1986 and 1994'

Were you to get an adult to read my comment to you you'd have grasped the fact that I mentioned '1986 and 1994'

So if you were an adult, you would of wrote "Sometimes, the World Cup revolves around Europe"

The USA times were also pretty normal for people living in the USA, as were the Mexico times (as seen by the fact that I watched Scotland v Denmark at 1am in Scotland). Sorry pal, better luck next time!

Great stadiums! real monoliths.

is the Cardinals stadium being built at the moment?

http://www.mnartists.org/uploads/users/user_6659/45c0c9be0723a9272e90d43fffd23d19/45c0c9be0723a9272e90d43fffd23d19.jpg



yes. Completion date will be sometime VERY soon. The Arizona Cardinals (Am. Football team) must be ready to play in their new stadium by September.

^^ I already forgot where they played...

was it sundevil?

^^ I already forgot where they played...

was it sundevil?

Yes, the Cardinals did played at Sun Devil Stadium.

Cracking images! As for most others here, Lego was the be-all and end-all when I was a kid! What great reproductions! Someone here mentioned building real lego stadiums... have you seen Sporting Lisbon's new stadium?! All the coloured tile cladding on the exterior makes you look twice. First time I saw it, they instantly reminded me of Lego! Not necessarily bad though - at least it's a very different look in the context of a stadium, but still fits in very well with the country's heritage of glazed tiles.

Denmark behaved more admirably??? They fucking surrendered without a fight!! Yes, what real brave men!!! Just another bunch of useless Euro Cowards!! In WW2 Scotland suffered terrible losses!! Per head of population in WW1, Scotland, followed by Serbia, lost more men than any other country in Europe (and we weren't even invaded!!!). In WW2 God knows how many Scots would of been killed fighting the Germans if we had actually been invaded!! The number would of been huge!!

Had we not surrendered we'd all been slaughtered, we had virtually no army, and no good terrain to use to our advantage, like Finland and Serbia for instance. We could have decided not to surrender, but it would only have led to a huge number of unnecessary casualties with the outcome of the struggle given in advance. I don't know if you'd preferred that, but I don't call that bravery, I call that stupidity. It wouldn't only have been young men - and women who'd been murdered; it would have been a virtual blood bath of all.

Secondly, our government might have surrendered, but we had the highest percentage of resistance people, when looking at the population of the country, in Europe. Secondly, we were one of the countries that saved the most Jews, by hiding them and shipping them to Sweden.

Sorry to bring it up again in this thread, but I'm childish enough to be unable to be unable to simply ignore such provocations.

The USA held the most profitable and most attended cup in history (both in average attendance [69,000] and total attendence [3.6 million]), and this is even back when there were only 24 teams. I would like to have seen what we could have done with 32 teams, and possibly 2 more host venues. They dispersement of matches across the country was well done, but now, with all the new stadiums popping up around the country, we would nail this tournament.
Great post and it's hard to disagree with anything you said. What you guys achieved in '94 will probably never be matched let alone surpassed by another nation(s).

Yet another WC in the USA would be even better with the new stadiums.

...and as for the final??? :cheers:

Fed Ex Field: Washington, D.C.
http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/nfc/fedex701.jpg

Those pics look fantastic to me! Thanks for posting those.

Look, i know a lot of you like to bag on us Yanks for being soccer-inept. Beleive me, i hate the fact that less than 30% of our population would even care if there was never another footie match played again, but there ARE huge soccer fans in the US. Trust me, we exist and as bleedin passionate about the Beautiful Game as you. yes, you.

That said, The RB was a great facility to host the final.. Look at those pics ... that is a thing of beauty in the USA's most famous stadium.

And please, if you're gonna bitch about bathrooms and concession lines during the world's premier sporting event, maybe you should stick to the Cricket World Cup.



LOL, no.

If the WC were to be played this year in the states, there is little doubt it the final would be at Reliant or Cardinals stadium. For FIFA to regulate that an overhang needs to be over WC venues is a percieved slap in the face for Americans, similar to the IOC eliminating baseball from the Olympics.

We dont care. you can do what you want, but it dont make a shit. FIFA would cream themselves to have 15% of the USA market. This isnt nationalism talking, because i couldnt care less where the WC is held, as long as its fuckin televised, but FIFA is counting the minutes when they can offer the WC back to the USA without the spastic flailing, heavy breathing, and redness in the face of our European and Latin friends.

That is all.

So we are not allowed to be critical of American stadia?I new the minute somebody said something negative about the Rose Bowl,the Yanks would throw their toys from the pram

Had we not surrendered we'd all been slaughtered, we had virtually no army, and no good terrain to use to our advantage, like Finland and Serbia for instance. We could have decided not to surrender, but it would only have led to a huge number of unnecessary casualties with the outcome of the struggle given in advance. I don't know if you'd preferred that, but I don't call that bravery, I call that stupidity. It wouldn't only have been young men - and women who'd been murdered; it would have been a virtual blood bath of all.

Secondly, our government might have surrendered, but we had the highest percentage of resistance people, when looking at the population of the country, in Europe. Secondly, we were one of the countries that saved the most Jews, by hiding them and shipping them to Sweden.

Sorry to bring it up again in this thread, but I'm childish enough to be unable to be unable to simply ignore such provocations.

http://www.newtek-europe.com/uk/community/lightwave/phillips/images/chicken_x_road2.jpg

I think, South America will get it, USA already hosted it in 94, too close to host it again. Australia have a good chance to host it too.

If the US held it again I doubt it would be at Relient simpley because other stadiums offer much larger capacities and the final brings in masses of income with tickets going for £150-250. I wouldnt be supprized if it wasnt even used actually as the new Cowboys stadiums will be open by then.

Countries always want to showcase their most famous or largest city for a final, so it would be either New York, Washington or LA for the location of the final.

It is really impressive that the U.S could host the World Cup today using only stadiums built AFTER the 1994 World Cup!

My suggestion would be to hold the next U.S World Cup in the northeast parts due to the relatively colder climate, "just" six hours of time difference to central Europe and easy to travel between venues.

Some stadiums that could be used:
Fedex Field D.C 91600-100000
New Giants stadium 80000
New Jets stadium 80000
M&T Bank Stadium Baltimore 69500
Gilette Stadium Boston 68756
Lincoln Financial Field Philiadelphia 68532
Heinz Field Pittsburgh 64450


Cleveland Browns stadium 73200
Paul Brown stadium 65352
Ralph Wilson stadium 73967
Bank of America (Ericsson) stadium 73248

Soldier Field 61500
Ford Field 64 500
Conseco Fieldhouse 63000

Rome was quite poor. It was a bit like Berlins stadium. The Final also turned out to be crap. It's very disapointing that Germany haven't delibrately avoided using a track and field venue for the final. Munich Olympic Stadium was almost as good as the Berlin stadium but Germanys biggest football team regarded it as obsolete and now have a real football stadium.
Italy's 1990 World Cup stadia were regarded at the time as state of the art. They were often mentioned as the model for future development in Britain. Their stadiums were huge with elaborate architecture. It turned out they were almost all white elephants. As a result, as far as I can see, they now only have 2 world class football stadiums Genoa and the San Siro.

Munich's Olympic Stadium is nothing like new Berlin Olympiastadion. The only thing they have in common is a running track. The new Berlin stadium has amazing facilities from underground media centers and underground car parks to 5 star restaurants, bars, conference halls and even a museum! You also get a decent view of the action due to the first rows of seats being well above pitch level. It is perfect apart from the athletics track and some unavoidable roof supports.

I just think it would be a great idea for host nations to choose their best stadium for the Final, even if it means losing a few thousand seats for spectators.The difference financially would be miinimal.You dont see the Superbowl being played in a huge college stadium do you.
In Italy it should have been the San Siro, in Germany The Allianz Arena. Afterall you only get to host a finals tournament once or twice in a life time.

but Berlin was always going to the choice, as it is the German capital, by far their largest city and a European centre for travel, communications, accommodation, flights etc. The fact that 66000 fans (capacity of Munich) will have a slightly worse view of one single game is no big deal and totally irrelevant to FIFA/German FA. There is far more to a final than 66000 fans view of the pitch for 90 minutes.

So, is is quite likely that a European nation, or possibly Australia, will get to host the 2018 World Cup.



There is very little chance of Australia hosting the 2018 World Cup. We need 4-5 new stadiums, and I cannot see our government paying for them by 2018.

I just think it would be a great idea for host nations to choose their best stadium for the Final, even if it means losing a few thousand seats for spectators.The difference financially would be miinimal.You dont see the Superbowl being played in a huge college stadium do you.
In Italy it should have been the San Siro, in Germany The Allianz Arena. Afterall you only get to host a finals tournament once or twice in a life time.

Italy should definately have used the San Siro as not only is it a much better design for football, its also larger and in the most famous footballing city. Germany I can see the reasons for using Berlin as its the capital and shifts some focus onto the eastern part of the country although if Munich had held the final I'm sure they could have built a 75,000 seat version of the Allianz Arena.

The next three world cups will IMHO be...

2014 - Brazil with an outside chance of a co host between two other South American nations(Chile/Argentia for example).
2018 - England or Spain
2022 - China, Australia or the USA

http://www.newtek-europe.com/uk/community/lightwave/phillips/images/chicken_x_road2.jpg

Yeah, that'd been funny if it wasn't coming from someone who lives in a country (I assume) that continues to be England's bitch ;)

I like how you talk about the brave and mighty Scots, while Scotland has been ass wiped by another country for so many years.

WC 2018 - EU?

Stadiums:

Camp Nou, Barcelona, Spain: 99.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/spanien/camp_nou/830.jpg

Wembley, London, England: 90.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/neubau/fotos/wembley/modell/100.jpg

Giuseppe-Meazza-Stadion (San Siro), Milano, Italy: 83.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/italien/guiseppe_meazza/380.jpg

Signal Iduna Park (Westfalenstadion), Dortmund, Germany: 81.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/deutschland/westfalenstadion/150.jpg

Stade de France, Paris, France: 80.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/frankreich/stade_de_france/100.jpg

Croke Park, Dublin, Ireland: 80.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/irland/croke_park/110.jpg

Olympiako Stadio (Spyros Louis), Athens, Greece: 66.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/griechenland/spyros_louis/120.jpg

Estádio da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal: 66.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/euro_2004/estadio_da_luz/images/innen_01.jpg

Amsterdam Arena, Amsterdam, Netherlands: 53.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/niederlande/amsterdam_arena/130.jpg

And, of course, the final in Brussels:

Stade Roi Baudouin / Koning Boudewijnstadion, Brussels, Belgium: 50.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/belgien/stade_roi_baudouin/190.jpg

Actually, we rule England!! We have our own parliament, England doesn't. We have far more MP's in Westminster than we should have if you look at our population compared to England's, and it has been like that for a long long time. Scots actually have 2 parliaments!! One for Scotland, and one for telling England what to do!

Scots MP's decide what England specific laws get passed and which one's don't, whilst English MP's don't have a say in any Scottish specific laws!!

It's actually hilarious how much power Scotland has over England!! If I was English I would be really pissed off over the whole situation!

....so I suggest you check your facts again spineless Euroboy!

It's really hilarious that in a Scottish vs Scandinavian football thread, thanks to the Scots and Brits this thread turns into a World War II thread.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39988000/jpg/_39988784_waldner203.jpg

Martuh, we had an earlier discussion about having a World Cup in Europe (or EU), excluding the countries that potentially can hold a World Cup on their own (Germany, England, France, Italy and Spain).

back to football. Now Henrik Larsson - He is a superb Swedish player. So much so that the Barcelona fans don't want him to go!! Per minutes on pitch, he has Barcelona's best strike rate this season!!

Actually, we rule England!! We have our own parliament, England doesn't. We have far more MP's in Westminster than we should have if you look at our population compared to England's, and it has been like that for a long long time. Scots actually have 2 parliaments!! One for Scotland, and one for telling England what to do!

Scots MP's decide what England specific laws get passed and which one's don't, whilst English MP's don't have a say in any Scottish specific laws!!

It's actually hilarious how much power Scotland has over England!! If I was English I would be really pissed off over the whole situation!

....so I suggest you check your facts again spineless Euroboy!

Well if that is the case why do scots always whinge about how england gets everything and that they hate the english when infact (by what your saying) its the scots that you hate, looking in the mirror is not always fun is it.
:rofl:

Well if that is the case why do scots always whinge about how england gets everything and that they hate the english when infact (by what your saying) its the scots that you hate, looking in the mirror is not always fun is it.
:rofl:


Do they? I've never known any Scots who genuinely hate English people. I know loads who like to see England get beat at football, and then joke and laugh about the game the next day with their English colleagues in the office. A bit of old fashioned sporting rivalry doesn't mean you 'hate' somebody!!

I'm sure there are a few idiots in Scotland who genuinely hate English people, just like there are a few idiots in England who genuinely hate Scots, but you get 'bad eggs' in every country in the world.

You should visit Scotland and you will see how friendly we are to English people and all types of people!! It's not far to travel and then you will see how daft your stereotype image of Scotland is!!

^^ Its not daft you fool it is quite true. although i think scotland is great

WC 2018 - EU?

Stadiums:

Camp Nou, Barcelona, Spain: 99.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/spanien/camp_nou/830.jpg

Can't use Camp Nou, becasue it does not have a roof, and therefore does not have every seat under cover, as per FIFA regulations, though Spain is still a pretty strong candidate.

Wembley, London, England: 90.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/neubau/fotos/wembley/modell/100.jpg

Most likely option, though will still need some work doing


Giuseppe-Meazza-Stadion (San Siro), Milano, Italy: 83.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/italien/guiseppe_meazza/380.jpg

There is a slight possibilty of Italy hosting it, but their overall stadium situation is quite poor, and the recent reports of trouble in the Italian league won't help.


Signal Iduna Park (Westfalenstadion), Dortmund, Germany: 81.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/deutschland/westfalenstadion/150.jpg

Germany won't be hosting it again in 2018, not after 2006.


Stade de France, Paris, France: 80.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/frankreich/stade_de_france/100.jpg

France hosted it in 98, and their satdium situation isn't that great either.


Croke Park, Dublin, Ireland: 80.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/irland/croke_park/110.jpg

Just...no...no chance!


Olympiako Stadio (Spyros Louis), Athens, Greece: 66.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/griechenland/spyros_louis/120.jpg

Greece don't have nearly enough quality stadiums even to have a decent starting bid, no offence here btw, it's just the facts of the matter.


Estádio da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal: 66.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/euro_2004/estadio_da_luz/images/innen_01.jpg

Portugal hosted Euro 2004, so that might count against them, but they do have some pretty good stadiums, though maybe not enough for a World Cup bid.


Amsterdam Arena, Amsterdam, Netherlands: 53.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/niederlande/amsterdam_arena/130.jpg

Basically the same situation as Greece.


And, of course, the final in Brussels:

Stade Roi Baudouin / Koning Boudewijnstadion, Brussels, Belgium: 50.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/belgien/stade_roi_baudouin/190.jpg
Same situation as Greece and the Netherlands.

Unless there is a joint-bid between two of these countries, I can only really see it being England, or possibly Spain for the 2018 World Cup.

:cheers:

It is really impressive that the U.S could host the World Cup today using only stadiums built AFTER the 1994 World Cup!

My suggestion would be to hold the next U.S World Cup in the northeast parts due to the relatively colder climate, "just" six hours of time difference to central Europe and easy to travel between venues.

Some stadiums that could be used:
Fedex Field D.C 91600-100000
New Giants stadium 80000
New Jets stadium 80000
M&T Bank Stadium Baltimore 69500
Gilette Stadium Boston 68756
Lincoln Financial Field Philiadelphia 68532
Heinz Field Pittsburgh 64450


Cleveland Browns stadium 73200
Paul Brown stadium 65352
Ralph Wilson stadium 73967
Bank of America (Ericsson) stadium 73248

Soldier Field 61500
Ford Field 64 500
Conseco Fieldhouse 63000


It's not that "cold" in the northeast either. Summer highs are usually above 30°C as well, so you might as well give some games to the west coast too.

Hey guys in terms of facilities Karaiskaki is the best.It is the newest and has everything a visitor can demand for

Check this out and then vote.
http://www.stadia.gr/karaiskaki/karaiskaki.html <---THE ULTIMATE KARAISKAKI

Then watch this www.karaiskaki.gr

And then u can vote!But why in the bigining of the topic there is only on pic from Karaiskaki showing just seats?

http://www.stadia.gr/karaiskaki/karaiskaki2.jpg
http://www.stadia.gr/karaiskaki/karaiskaki12.jpg
http://www.stadia.gr/karaiskaki/karaiskaki19.jpg
http://www.stadia.gr/karaiskaki/karaiskaki18.jpg
http://www.stadia.gr/karaiskaki/karaiskaki9.jpg
http://www.stadia.gr/karaiskaki/karaiskaki7.jpg
http://www.stadia.gr/karaiskaki/karaiskaki15.jpg

:)

It also has a museum,a large shopping centre with shops and restaurants,the above restaurant http://www.prest.gr mini football piutches and so on.More pics from th restaurant

http://www.karaiskaki.gr/_img/pr1.jpg
http://www.karaiskaki.gr/_img/prest/big/11.jpg
http://www.karaiskaki.gr/_img/prest/big/6.jpg
http://www.karaiskaki.gr/_img/prest/big/9.jpg
http://www.karaiskaki.gr/_img/prest/big/8.jpg

For sure it's the most luxurious from all the above :)

And the last pics (the area around may seem a little muddy but the fotos are old.It wasn't completed yet)
It is located exactly in the Faliro center

http://www.daniilidis.gr/main/olympic/images/karaisk_090604.jpg http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200408/r26563_65834.jpg
http://www.daniilidis.gr/main/olympic/images/54237.jpg

And this is the whole area from space!!!Just magnificent!!!!!!
http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/spacepics/Athens_Port_Area_SINA_06_13_04.jpg

So we are not allowed to be critical of American stadia?I new the minute somebody said something negative about the Rose Bowl,the Yanks would throw their toys from the pram

Sure. you're allowed to voice your opinion. and its my right to tell you your opinion is wrong.
;)

The USA wouldn't be able to enter the Rose Bowl as a World Cup stadium these days anyway, not with FIFA's rule that each stadium submitted must have all its seats under cover!

In October 1989 FIFA's minimum criteria were:

Stadia for opening ceremony/final: minimum 80,000, 3/4 covered.
Other stadia: minimum 40,000, main seated area covered.

(Source: The Football Grounds of Europe by Simon Inglis)

So it seems as though rules can be bent as and when required :)

By the standards of any pro sport the rose bowl isnt a great stadium, like many have said it has bench seating and is just a giant bowl, also if you like a roof its not so great. Personally, I dont care about a roof. The Rose Bowl's history was made as an American Football venue, and thats what makes it so great. This years Rose Bowl (and national championship game) was great and just adds to the history of this great stadium. Keep in mind the rose bowl is a college stadium and constant upgrades arent necessary and arent always affordable for the school, but like any stadium, the atmosphere, the teams, and the fans have as much to do with it as the architecture and convienence.

As far as roofed stadiums in the US go, currently in use are:
The New Cardinals Stadium, Glendale, Az: up to 75,000 (under construction)
Georgia Dome, Atlanta, Ga: 75,000 (maybe less after the renovations)
Texas Stadium Irwin, TX: 65,675
FOrd Field, Detroit, Mi:70,000
Reliant Stadium Houston, TX: 69,500
Lucas Oil Stadium Indianapolis, In:63,000-75,000 (estimated) (under construction)
RCA Dome Indianaoplis, In:60,272
Metrodome Minneapolis, Mn: 63,000
Superdome New Orleans, LA: 72,003
Edward Jones Dome St. Louis, Mo:66,000
Carrier Dome Syracuse, New York: 51,000
Pontiac Silverdome Pontiac, MI:80,311 (No longer in use)
Astrodome Houston, Tx: 62,439 (no longer in use)
Alamo Dome San Antonio Tx:72,000

Some Partially roofed stadiums include
Qwest Field Seattle, Wa: 67,000
Paul Brown Stadium Cinncinnatti, Ohio:65,535

Baseball Fields which might be able to Host:
Chase Field Phoenix, AZ:48,569
Minute Maid Park Houston, Tx: 40,950
Miller Park Milwaukee, Wi: 43,000
Safeco Field Seattle, Wa: 46,621
Tropicana Field St. Petersburg, Fl: 43,500

All of these Stadiums are either partially or fully enclosed, some have retractable roofs. Most of them should be up to World Cup standards. The Baseball fields can be converted to play football. Also there are proposals for new stadiums in New Orleans, a baseball and football field in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and New York City. Any of these could have roofs, although I dont think all of them will be built and they probably wont all have roofs.

By the standards of any pro sport the rose bowl isnt a great stadium, like many have said it has bench seating and is just a giant bowl, also if you like a roof its not so great. Personally, I dont care about a roof. The Rose Bowl's history was made as an American Football venue, and thats what makes it so great. This years Rose Bowl (and national championship game) was great and just adds to the history of this great stadium. Keep in mind the rose bowl is a college stadium and constant upgrades arent necessary and arent always affordable for the school, but like any stadium, the atmosphere, the teams, and the fans have as much to do with it as the architecture and convienence.

As far as roofed stadiums in the US go, currently in use are:
The New Cardinals Stadium, Glendale, Az: up to 75,000 (under construction)
Georgia Dome, Atlanta, Ga: 75,000 (maybe less after the renovations)
Texas Stadium Irwin, TX: 65,675
FOrd Field, Detroit, Mi:70,000
Reliant Stadium Houston, TX: 69,500
Lucas Oil Stadium Indianapolis, In:63,000-75,000 (estimated) (under construction)
RCA Dome Indianaoplis, In:60,272
Metrodome Minneapolis, Mn: 63,000
Superdome New Orleans, LA: 72,003
Edward Jones Dome St. Louis, Mo:66,000
Carrier Dome Syracuse, New York: 51,000
Pontiac Silverdome Pontiac, MI:80,311 (No longer in use)
Astrodome Houston, Tx: 62,439 (no longer in use)
Alamo Dome San Antonio Tx:72,000

Some Partially roofed stadiums include
Qwest Field Seattle, Wa: 67,000
Paul Brown Stadium Cinncinnatti, Ohio:65,535

Baseball Fields which might be able to Host:
Chase Field Phoenix, AZ:48,569
Minute Maid Park Houston, Tx: 40,950
Miller Park Milwaukee, Wi: 43,000
Safeco Field Seattle, Wa: 46,621
Tropicana Field St. Petersburg, Fl: 43,500

All of these Stadiums are either partially or fully enclosed, some have retractable roofs. Most of them should be up to World Cup standards. The Baseball fields can be converted to play football. Also there are proposals for new stadiums in New Orleans, a baseball and football field in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and New York City. Any of these could have roofs, although I dont think all of them will be built and they probably wont all have roofs.


nice informative post, but as previously mentioned ... the rules dont really apply to the US. Its just too damn delightful in June-July to waste time indoors.:)

Rome was quite poor. It was a bit like Berlins stadium. The Final also turned out to be crap. It's very disapointing that Germany haven't delibrately avoided using a track and field venue for the final. Munich Olympic Stadium was almost as good as the Berlin stadium but Germanys biggest football team regarded it as obsolete and now have a real football stadium.
Italy's 1990 World Cup stadia were regarded at the time as state of the art. They were often mentioned as the model for future development in Britain. Their stadiums were huge with elaborate architecture. It turned out they were almost all white elephants. As a result, as far as I can see, they now only have 2 world class football stadiums Genoa and the San Siro.

I'm sure that Germany would rather have the final in the classic, good looking, intimidating (from the outside) Olympic Stadium in the capital city, than the boring, bland Allianz in Munich. It's mostly about politics, so obviously the final would be in Berlin and I think the Olympiastadion is perfectly adequate for the final. If you've seen the opening ceremony for that stadium, it's far more impressive than the one in Munich.

Berlin is terrific. Possibly the best athletics stadium in the world. Beautiful architecture. I prefer football in a football stadium. Simple as that.

I don't think we should have the 2014 finals in South America, their stadiums are awful and they don't really have the funds to build lots of completely new ones.

The USA should probably host it again as they have probably the best stadiums in the world. I would love to see the final in Reliant Stadium as that is my favourite, followed by Qwest Field, but it wouldn't be half bad at FedEx Field (the most likely stadium due to proximity to D.C)

I really don't think the US would use the Rose Bowl as it's too outdated. For California, aren't San Francisco supposedly getting a new stadium? that would be the only one used there.

To be honest, the only one they could use from 1994 is Giants Stadium, but maybe the Giants and Jets will have new stadiums so they won't use it.

WC 2018 - EU?

The only point to such a WC would IMHO to feature all the nations who would struggle to host one by themselves I.E. Portugal, Holland, Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Wales, Greece, Turkey, Ukraine etc. If you wanted to have only massive stadiums then an England/Spain co hosted one would provide almost as many anyway...

Nou Camp 98,000-120,000
Wembley 90-100,000
Bernabeu 80,000
Old Trafford 76-95,000
New Valencia stadium 70,000
La Cartuja or New Betis Stadium 70,000
New Anfield 61,000
Emirates Stadium 60,000
St. James Park 52-65,000
New Athletico Stadium 60,000+

Munich's Olympic Stadium is nothing like new Berlin Olympiastadion. The only thing they have in common is a running track. The new Berlin stadium has amazing facilities from underground media centers and underground car parks to 5 star restaurants, bars, conference halls and even a museum! You also get a decent view of the action due to the first rows of seats being well above pitch level. It is perfect apart from the athletics track and some unavoidable roof supports.

Underground car parks and conference halls might be sexy to some but Berlin has still got to hold the WC final. An athletics track is an athletics track. For 90+ minutes on July 9th its unfortunately going to be in the way

Do you know what the regulations are?

i think winner world2006 - italy

Well if that is the case why do scots always whinge about how england gets everything and that they hate the english when infact (by what your saying) its the scots that you hate, looking in the mirror is not always fun is it.
:rofl:

Stopp generalising my nation you tosser!

it is only the small minded twats that you give the satisfaction to by rising to their utter nonsense, I think you will find that if you go to the Glasgow forum neither Bubomb or The_Hoops get much credence there! Please don’t make sweeping statement when I am sure having come across Scots south of the border you will have found us to in the most part a king and generous people, unfortunately we do have our elements of white trash!

He's not far off. It was 149,415 set on April 17 1937 between Scotland and England. Also 10,000 extra people apparently snuck in under the barriers.

It's true!

The Gelredome by a mile

The only point to such a WC would IMHO to feature all the nations who would struggle to host one by themselves I.E. Portugal, Holland, Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Wales, Greece, Turkey, Ukraine etc. If you wanted to have only massive stadiums then an England/Spain co hosted one would provide almost as many anyway...

Nou Camp 98,000-120,000
Wembley 90-100,000
Bernabeu 80,000
Old Trafford 76-95,000
New Valencia stadium 70,000
La Cartuja or New Betis Stadium 70,000
New Anfield 61,000
Emirates Stadium 60,000
St. James Park 52-65,000
New Athletico Stadium 60,000+
Yer, you would never ever ever get any kind of EU bid, even between the lesser stadium nations such as Portugal, Holland, Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Wales, Greece, Turkey, Ukraine etc.

While an England-Spain bid would produce probably the best stadium collection for any World Cup in history, there would be arguements about who hosts which games, and in particular, the final, plus you'd have to travel back and forth between the two countries.

And anyway, I think both England and Spain could produce winning bids on their own relatively easily, especially England, which is what I think, and hope, will happen for 2018.

:cheers:

What the fuck are you talking about you fucking halfwit? Who tried to cut a deal with the Nazi's? The hundrerds of thousands of Scots who died or were injured fighting them? The millions of men and women who worked non-stop for 6 years building ships and weapons to fight the Germans? 99.9% of Scots would never even have considered 'cutting a deal' with the Nazi's before or during the war.

Do you know how many Scots died or were seriously injured fighting in WW1 and WW2 sacrificing themselves to protect Britain and Europe form tyranny? Hundreds of thousands, many of whom were volunteers!!....and we weren't even invaded!! Denmark was actually invaded, and how many of them died? You can count them on one hand!!

Have you ever visited Scotland? Every city, town and village have Memorials listing endless names of their men who died in battle. Even the smallest villages have got war Memorials and the list of names always seems far far too large for the size of the village/town. In Glasgow, the endless list of names would scare you!! Separate Glasgow transport groups (trams, trains, bus drivers etc) have all got their own individual Memorials as so many died from each different group of workers!

Denmark behaved more admirably??? They fucking surrendered without a fight!! Yes, what real brave men!!! Just another bunch of useless Euro Cowards!! In WW2 Scotland suffered terrible losses!! Per head of population in WW1, Scotland, followed by Serbia, lost more men than any other country in Europe (and we weren't even invaded!!!). In WW2 God knows how many Scots would of been killed fighting the Germans if we had actually been invaded!! The number would of been huge!!

Countries like Finland and Serbia were invaded in WW2 and they still managed to fight. Serbia (part of Yugoslavia at the time) was a very small country, smaller than The Netherlands, but they kept on fighting for the whole of the war. Finland put up a great fight against the might of the Soviet Union. The Greeks (population less than eight million) managed to defeat an Italian army twice its size and with many times its firepower, and then hold off the German and Bulgarian invasion for 2 months. This was longer than any other nation up to that point. The difference was that these countries were not Euro Cowards like Denmark and The Netherlands.

Winston Churchill famously said after the Greek-Italian battle, "From now on we won't say Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks". The measure of resistance was also paid considerable homage to by German officals - Hitler's Chief of Staff Field Marshall Keitel stated at Nurenberg that, "The unbelievable strong resistance of the Greeks delayed by two or more vital months the German attack against Russia; if we did not have this long delay, the outcome of the war would have been different in the eastern front and in the war in general.”


Come up to Scotland and say what you said and I will cut your throat you disrespectful piece of human shit!! Two of my relatives died protecting human waste like you!!

What the fuck to they teach these braindead morons in schools these days???

your post is just a disgrace. In fact you use the sacrifice of those scottish war heroes to further your own narrow-minded beliefs. Its sad. They wouldnt sign up to your nonsense.
Denmarks role was indeed not great and remains a big issue here, but as Churchill knew,you cannot make a straight comparison between countries in massively different circumstances.

Well, you can if you have no brain activity to cloud the issue

Let's play guess the stadium!!! The game where you get to guess what stadium is pictured in each photo..... I'll start, anyone feel free to add... Guess away...

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/afc/ralph851.jpg

Its the Bufalo Bills stadium, Ralf Wilson

It is really wierd trying to talk about football with all this rubbish from armchair warriors going on.

But let's persevere.

One of the posts from a Scandinavian friend talked about a league to incorporate the various countries around the Baltic, presumably Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and eventually Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

I do not think this will work. The distances are too great and awkward with players, press fans etc all having to constantly travel by plane and ferry.

But the main reason is that the clubs in these countries are too small and that is unlikely to change.

Yes the national teams punch above their weight and the fans turn out to support them in great numbers and in a most colourful and good humoured way and for that the rest of the footballing world should be greatful.

Scotland on the other hand contains two of the biggest clubs in the world but they will never reach their full potential until they are allowed to play in the (English) Football League. Celtic and Rangers can generate crowds of 50/60,000 week in week out playing agains minor opposition.They should be playing along with Liverpool and Chelsea and Manchester United.

Then this "British Premier League" would be by far the best in the world even compared to Italy or Spain.

Meanwhile the rest of the Scottish professional football would go from strength to strength as the likes of Hearts Dundee and Aberdeen compete on an even playing field.

Scandinavia have produced better players and better national teams in recent years but they will never have a Celtic or Rangers and, as colourful as their national team fans are, no country could match the Tartan Army if only they had a decent side to follow.

There isnt actually much doubt that a scandinavian league will happen.
It has just been all over the media again and there is no opposition.
Its only a question of what format and when?

It will be Denmark, Norway Sweden only at first. Finland are much weaker as are the baltics where football is basically dead and has to be revived.
Distances arent really a concern. there is already long-distance travelling in Norway and Sweden. There might actually be less travel for some clubs.

Support for football is nothing like Britain, but its not bad compared to europe and there has been serious growth the last several years.
In Denmark many clubs are merged clubs. Its as if pro football was only really begun for real in the 90´s.

Norway have just made a £ 100m tv deal, this is way up on before and comparable to what english football gets per capita and this is for a 26-round summer football league. Its much more than the scottish tv deal.


Denmark´s leading club,FCK, isnt even 15 years old yet owns 40,000 all-seated Parken, has an annual turnover of perhaps £25 million and an average support now up to round 20,000.
This is achieved by 15,000 crowds against minnows and 40,000 for top games.
I cant see why these crowds wouldnt continue to grow even without a scandinavian league but especially with one with less minnows.
I would think AIK Solna would eventually inhabit a planned new 55,000 stadium in Stockholm.

A scandinvian league would feature several capital clubs. Capitals suck-in general wealth an high-earners etc in all countries opening up opportunities for clubs and as scandinavia is already very wealthy, I think clubs will be very competitive. Relative to size. Malmo isnt even a real capital but have secured a long term sponsorship deal at £ 4 million annualy, in relative terms an impressive sum, whith staggering potential

Its just my opinion but I predict a scandinavian league, richer than the spanish league within a decade.

You gotta admit scotish national team blows big time and the club teams are lucky to have all those foreign players. Can some hot headed scot, any one really, explain to me the concept of skirt wearing? It is easier to get it on :)??? Oh, and if scotland rules england why is it that the scotish parliament is only like 7 years old. This is what it says on the scot site

"When the Scotland Act 1998 was passed it led to the establishment of the first Scottish Parliament since 1707. This devolution settlement was the result of many years of campaigning for devolved government in Scotland . In this section you can learn about the history of the Scottish Parliament from the twelfth century and the path to devolution from the 1970s onwards. The What’s Happening in the Scottish Parliament (previously known as WHISP) pages include archived issues of this publication, which provide information on everything that has happened in the Parliament 1999-June 2004. In this channel you can also read about the Parliament’s first First Minister, Donald Dewar, and the collection of his material that the Parliament inherited after his death in October 2000. For more information on the Parliament or anything in this leaflet you can visit our website at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk or contact the Public Information Service"

BTW is it just me or do you scot like to talk too freakin much you make me tired, its not really important stuff you say just the volume is tedious like in thie last paragraph, wow, boring.

http://www.ticketcity.com/images/ncaa_football/stadium_sunbowl.jpg

I have to say that Braga's Municipal Stadium is really interesting!
One side being carved out of the cliff, when I watched Bulgaria-Denmark during the Euro'04, I was stunned to see its architecture.
I don't understand why there was a need to carve it out on the cliff, instead of building it on open ground to make space for more seats?!

Sun Bowl; El Paso, Texas

You gotta admit scotish national team blows big time and the club teams are lucky to have all those foreign players. Can some hot headed scot, any one really, explain to me the concept of skirt wearing? It is easier to get it on :)??? Oh, and if scotland rules england why is it that the scotish parliament is only like 7 years old. This is what it says on the scot site

BTW is it just me or do you scot like to talk too freakin much you make me tired, its not really important stuff you say just the volume is tedious like in thie last paragraph, wow, boring.

To answer your questions yes it is easier to get it on wearing a Kilt most girls love it, have ‘got it on’ more time wearing a kilt than any other night!

Actually had a couple of bridesmaids reaching for gold to see what was under ma kilt three weeks ago in Newcastle (Australia, for all those yanks out there).

Also it is obvious from your post that you are pretty ignorant (like a couple of my fellow country men above) so lets try and get this forum back on track!

Scotland doesn't rule England and England doesn't rule Scotland!

Simple as that!

Scotland does have a disproportionally high number of politicians in high office and also the first King of Britain was actually Scottish, nothing more than interesting points of note!

The UK is a complicated maze of parochialism, history, unity and contradiction. If we are talking to each other we argue like mad but if you try and do harm to us we are the most united country in the world! We tend to not like foreigners commenting on subject they know little about!

Underground car parks and conference halls might be sexy to some but Berlin has still got to hold the WC final. An athletics track is an athletics track. For 90+ minutes on July 9th its unfortunately going to be in the way

Yes, and for 90+ minutes, only 74000 out of an audience of 3000000000 are going to care!!

A lot of people don't realise that the stadiums are not the be all and end all in a World Cup. They are actually a bit of a side-issue. The most important things are transport, accommodation, media facilities, training facilities etc. As long as 74000 can safely be seated in the stadium, then everything is fine as far as the organisers are concerned.

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/9315/stadium9ty.jpg

I whited out some of the advertising, otherwise it would have been too obvious.

Dairy Farmers Stadium, Townsville?

Yer, you would never ever ever get any kind of EU bid, even between the lesser stadium nations such as Portugal, Holland, Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Wales, Greece, Turkey, Ukraine etc.

While an England-Spain bid would produce probably the best stadium collection for any World Cup in history, there would be arguements about who hosts which games, and in particular, the final, plus you'd have to travel back and forth between the two countries.

And anyway, I think both England and Spain could produce winning bids on their own relatively easily, especially England, which is what I think, and hope, will happen for 2018.

:cheers:

I'd guess the only way you'd see an England/Spain WC is if the former felt it would give them more support and the latter wanted to host another competition sooner rather than latter. If such an event did take place it would be along the lines of Korea/Japan I expect in that one side of the draw happened in each country so you'd only potentially have to travel between them for the final game.

Massive capacities are not espeically important in the bidding process(desided almost entirely by FIFA politics) for a world cup bubomb but I think you'll find the average fan does care alot whether he gets a ticket or not.

Now just about one thing I agree with bubomb/whatever name comes next when he's banned is that Scotland has a disproportionate amount of power over England. When you have a nasty ugly Scottish Lord Chancellor going and telling the English that there will not even be a debate on English Autonomy, and that the English don't need to have representation or legislative equality then you have got a rule of the minority.

Ten Percent of the Country has two of the party leaders, one of whom is the Prime Minister, it also includes the Chancellor, Lord Chancellor, Transport Minister, Minister of Health and a whole number of others, then we are not in an acceptable state. Now these are all things I wouldn't have so much of a problem with, if England was gifted a Parliament also. Labour has behaved disgracefully.

Back onto football

Stopp generalising my nation you tosser!

it is only the small minded twats that you give the satisfaction to by rising to their utter nonsense, I think you will find that if you go to the Glasgow forum neither Bubomb or The_Hoops get much credence there! Please don’t make sweeping statement when I am sure having come across Scots south of the border you will have found us to in the most part a king and generous people, unfortunately we do have our elements of white trash!

Yeh i agree of course a lot of scots are fine but you have to agree that scots have a bigger problem with the english then the other way round, and by what hoops said it is the scots own doing :bash: since he thinks that the scots are the decision makers and rulers of england.

ANd i think we've lost already one idiotic scot already, no need to go off the rails with insults. jUST AN OPINION

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/5497/whatisit5or.jpg

You serious?

Nokia Arena is very old.About 35 years old!I new NBA style arena is needed!!

Isn't it?Feel free to post any images of how you would like Maccabi's new arena.

Also it is planned by NBA that Maccabi joins the league sooner that season 2014-1015.So something must be done until then.

Now just about one thing I agree with bubomb/whatever name comes next when he's banned is that Scotland has a disproportionate amount of power over England. When you have a nasty ugly Scottish Lord Chancellor going and telling the English that there will not even be a debate on English Autonomy, and that the English don't need to have representation or legislative equality then you have got a rule of the minority.

Ten Percent of the Country has two of the party leaders, one of whom is the Prime Minister, it also includes the Chancellor, Lord Chancellor, Transport Minister, Minister of Health and a whole number of others, then we are not in an acceptable state. Now these are all things I wouldn't have so much of a problem with, if England was gifted a Parliament also. Labour has behaved disgracefully.

Back onto football

There was a project recently by the Deputy PM's office that aimed to set up regional assemblies round England, with similar powers that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have.

There was a vote on it for the people in the North East - they rejected it and so the project was dead in the water.

SO it wasn't the Labour Government that behaved disgracefully.

There was a project recently by the Deputy PM's office that aimed to set up regional assemblies round England, with similar powers that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have.

There was a vote on it for the people in the North East - they rejected it and so the project was dead in the water.

SO it wasn't the Labour Government that behaved disgracefully.

Was that ironic, equating parcelling up England into artificial regions, with the restoration of constitutional recognition of one of the oldest nation-states in the world.

Yes it has. There is a difference between offering to divide and rule England, and ultimately abolish England, its not the fault that the people of England did not want regional assembilies, which are aritificial constructs.

England needs a Parliament of its own.

*sigh* I just wanted to end an argue and they started another. :lock:

Can't use Camp Nou, becasue it does not have a roof, and therefore does not have every seat under cover, as per FIFA regulations, though Spain is still a pretty strong candidate.


Most likely option, though will still need some work doing


There is a slight possibilty of Italy hosting it, but their overall stadium situation is quite poor, and the recent reports of trouble in the Italian league won't help.


Germany won't be hosting it again in 2018, not after 2006.


France hosted it in 98, and their satdium situation isn't that great either.


Just...no...no chance!


Greece don't have nearly enough quality stadiums even to have a decent starting bid, no offence here btw, it's just the facts of the matter.


Portugal hosted Euro 2004, so that might count against them, but they do have some pretty good stadiums, though maybe not enough for a World Cup bid.


Basically the same situation as Greece.


Same situation as Greece and the Netherlands.

Unless there is a joint-bid between two of these countries, I can only really see it being England, or possibly Spain for the 2018 World Cup.

:cheers:

:weirdo: I've got no idea where you're talking about. Can you see the 'WC 2018 - EU?' That means a WC in the European Union, spreaded over the EU-countries. And okay, then don't use Camp Nou, use Bernabeu, I don't care. Still big enough. What I did was to select the biggest (and of course decent) EU-stadiums, but just one per coutry, and select the biggest and best 10 of them.

Martuh, we had an earlier discussion about having a World Cup in Europe (or EU), excluding the countries that potentially can hold a World Cup on their own (Germany, England, France, Italy and Spain).

I know, I know. I participated in that topic. But wouldn't a EU-host be the best WC ever held?

This 'Lostboy' character is one boring twat!! I think a Scotsman must have pumped his bird or something!!

The NBA wants Real Madrid to join that league too. This is what we are going to do http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=6293576&postcount=50

Also it is planned by NBA that Maccabi joins the league sooner that season 2014-1015.So something must be done until then.

Do you have any article or link talking about that? I´m interested in the NBA plans overseas.

I have also heard about panathinaikos.The have the biggest av. attendance in top 16 and last year they had att. of 18500 people against efes pilsen.Plus that there r many greek in the usa.

Some sort of NBA Europe?

This is pretty new to me.

Was that ironic, equating parcelling up England into artificial regions, with the restoration of constitutional recognition of one of the oldest nation-states in the world.

Yes it has. There is a difference between offering to divide and rule England, and ultimately abolish England, its not the fault that the people of England did not want regional assembilies, which are aritificial constructs.

England needs a Parliament of its own.

An English Parliament wouldnt be on the same footing as a Scottish one though, due to the substantially extra population that would be governed. SP governs over 5m, an English Parliament would govern over approximately 10 times that.

Therefore any constitutinal amendments must take account of demographics - regional assemblies governing over comparable populations in comparably sized 'regions' to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Although for the record - I am not in favour of a Scottish Parliament, though since it is in existance I would favour the establishment of an 'equivelant' English institution - if only to preserve the overarching superiority of the UK Parliament and make the nation of Great Britain more distinct internationally from England than it is now.

Stern said in 2002 about the possible NBA overseas expansion, but not before the next decade. He mentioned as possible countries to host a new franchise Spain, England, Italy (if I remember well..). He suggested that the capacity of the european arenas should be increased till de NBA standars, but I find a lot of problems to create a sort of European Conference: the calendar witn so many teams (30 now plus 3 or more in the future witn the international expansion), the distance to mantain the NBA competition rythm, the tradition of many european clubs (completly new franchises in Europe will not be popular; instead of a sort of tranformation of the most powerful european clubs could be the solution; the Euroleague is good point to begin I think), FIBA rules, ticket prices etc..

I do the prediction it will be a sort of global competition around the next decade. But the NBA is pure marketing and business, and sport in Europe is pure passion..the mix is not so easy.I also fell we will see a new franchise in Mexico or China (huge market after the Yao Ming impact in the NBA).

So, huge arenas in Europe are welcome. In Spain, already 4 or 5 arenas are more than 10.000.

I just don't see that happening, unless a good number of teams can spring up over there to cut travel down. There's already cities chomping at the bit over here to get a team, plus the whole Oklahoma City - New Orleans fiasco.

MLB's been beating around the bush about placing a minor league team in Anchorage, but the idea of travel expenses always cuts it down. If staying in our own continent is even too much...eh.

I have no idea....

:weirdo: I've got no idea where you're talking about. Can you see the 'WC 2018 - EU?' That means a WC in the European Union, spreaded over the EU-countries. And okay, then don't use Camp Nou, use Bernabeu, I don't care. Still big enough. What I did was to select the biggest (and of course decent) EU-stadiums, but just one per coutry, and select the biggest and best 10 of them.

Ah, sorry man, I misunderstood your post, I thought you were posting the stadiums of countries that you thought could hold a world cup. :)

:cheers:

I don't know Euro basketball, what is it, Balkan states, Greece and Italy are powers and Spain has a good league?
Anyway for fun a Euro conference based on large cities with the proper future arenas;
London, 02 Arena
Manchester, MEN Arena
Paris, Bercy
Koln, Koln Arena
Berlin, Berlin Arena
Prague, Sazka Arena
Stockholm, Globen Arena
Vilnius, Siemens Arena
Belgrade, Belgrade Arena
Rome, BPA Palace or Eur Arena
Helsinki, Hartwell Arena
Athens, OAKA
Istanbul, Atakoy Sports Complex
Probably plenty more or quality, just can't remember. Especially those in Spain and Russia. Israel would be inclueded I'd imagine.

^^ Hey Jack like your signature! here's another one.
Some days you're the dog, & some days you're the hydrant

.......But wouldn't a EU-host be the best WC ever held?
Considering the amount of cool stadiums scatterd across Europe, it would be nice, but at the end of the day who's gonna benifit? Plus plane tickets to the various venues will cost the spectator a peacket! then sponsers come in. It will be a BIG mess!

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/9315/stadium9ty.jpg

I whited out some of the advertising, otherwise it would have been too obvious.
Its the old Queensland REDS stadium, before they moved to suncorp. It had those "Bank of Queensland" boards everywhere!

In terms of marketing the European team which is closest to NBA is Maccabi.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y112/greenman32/TOF14.jpg

At MoreOrLess

Mongolia, Thailand, Singapore, Wales?

Its the old Queensland REDS stadium, before they moved to suncorp. It had those "Bank of Queensland" boards everywhere!

You're thinking of Ballymore, but it definitely isn't - the end and side stands are wrong. I'm 99% sure it's Townsville in RWC garb...

^^ London i think quite rightly has its own parliament(assembly)

Has anyone got any pictures of Fedex Field in soccer configuration? I have been browsing for it but haven't found anything good. M&T Bank stadium and Bank of America stadium would also be nice to see in soccer configuration.

At MoreOrLess

Mongolia, Thailand, Singapore, Wales?

Mongolia is the closest of those not still not that close.

These two are the only arena i imagine for MACCABI

1)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/LAlive1.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/61/LAlive2.jpg


2)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a1/Staples.jpg/800px-Staples.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/aa/Staples2.jpg/800px-Staples2.jpg

But wouldn't a EU-host be the best WC ever held?

No, it would be one of the worst. The best tournaments are the ones held in a single country, which can then go to town on organising all the special events, inventing a common look and feel to the tournament etc. When you spread a World Cup out you just dilute the effect, as can be seen with the 1991 and 1999 Rugby World Cups, which weren't a patch on 1995 and 2003...

Kyrgyzstan?

I little info for those who don't know MACCABI.(R there any???)

http://www.maccabi.co.il/
http://www.maccabifans.co.il/

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Maccabi.gif

Maccabi Tel Aviv (basketball)


Maccabi Tel Aviv
Arena Nokia Arena
(commonly Yad Eliyahu)
Tel Aviv, Israel
Club colours Yellow and Blue
President Shimon Mizrahi
Head coach Pinhas Gershon
Assistant coach(es) Dan Shamir
Address 293 HaYarkon st.
Tel Aviv 63504 Israel
Tel: 972-3-6059333
Fax: 972-3-6059992
Website www.maccabi.co.il

Maccabi "Elite" Tel Aviv (hebrew: מכבי תל-אביב) is a basketball team based in Tel Aviv, Israel. It is part of the Maccabi Tel Aviv sports club, and their main sponsors since 1969 have been the Elite confections company, so Maccabi also carries its name.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Overview
* 2 History
* 3 "Pro-" and "anti-maccabists"
* 4 Current Season
* 5 Trophies and Titles
* 6 Current roster
* 7 Famous past players
* 8 External links

[edit]

Overview

To say that Maccabi Tel Aviv is the Israel's best basketball team is an understatement. The club dominates Israeli basketball, collecting 45 national championship titles (including 23 in a row between 1970 and 1992) and 35 national cups. Maccabi is also among Europe's best basketball teams, having won the European cup 5 times since 1977, and finishing second 6 other times.

Although within Israel there are many fan communities behind Hapoel Tel Aviv, Hapoel Jerusalem, Bnei HaSharon, Hapoel Galil Elyon and several others, Maccabi Tel Aviv's is by far the largest, and except for a few hard-core fans of other clubs, almost every Israeli identifies with Maccabi during international competition as representing them. The club became something like second national team, and much more successful than the official one.
[edit]

History

Maccabi Tel Aviv sports club started its basketball activities in the mid-thirties. In 1954, the Israeli Basketball League was founded and Maccabi won the first championship. They have been in control ever since, collecting 45 national championship titles (including 23 in a row between 1970 and 1992) and 35 national cups. The team never finished below the third place in the national league.

In 1958, Maccabi joined international competitions and gradually became one of the best basketball teams in Europe. As of Aug 2005, Maccabi played 577 games in European competitions and won 359 of them, scoring 50012 points to opponents' 48150. Twice (in 1994 and 2004) Maccabi hosted the Euroleague Final Four and four times European All Star event. Seven Maccabi players participated in European All Star Selections: Cohen-Mintz, Brody, Silver, Berkovich, Jamchy, Nadav Henefeld and Oded Katash.

The first European championship was the Championship Cup in 1977, under coach Ralph Klein. In the final game in Belgrade, Yugoslavia Maccabi edged Mobilgirgi Varese 78:77, thanks to Jim Boatwright (26 points), Miki Berkovich, Aulcie Perry and the rest of the team. But perhaps of even bigger symbolic value was the semifinal win over CSKA Moscow. In the eyes of the whole country, it was not only an important win, but kind of revenge on Soviet Union, the country that provided support to Israel's enemies. "We are on the map," - proclaimed captain Tal Brody after the game, - "We are staying on the map, not only in sports, but in everything". Maccabi indeed stayed on the European basketball map, and in 1981 it won another Championship Cup, this time defeating Sinudyne Bologna 80:79.

The crosstown nemesis Hapoel Tel Aviv have been considered the most bitter rival of Maccabi for a long time, but the last title of the "reds" came in 1969. Since that year, the only team to challenge Maccabi successfully in the Israeli championship was Hapoel Galil Elyon in 1993, led by Doron Sheffer and coached by Pinchas "Pini" Gershon. Eventually both Sheffer and Gershon moved to Tel Aviv.

Gershon, considered then perhaps the most vocal "anti-maccabist", came to the town in 1999. The Gershon era in Maccabi proved to be a fruitful one. The team reached the Euroleague final in 2000, falling to the highly touted Panathinaikos in a close game (ironically, former Maccabi and Israeli NT star Oded Katash excelled in the Greek club). Next year in Suproleague finals in Paris, Panathinaikos tried again to stand between Maccabi and the championship, but this time Israeli club, led by Ariel McDonald, Anthony Parker and Nate Huffman, downed the Greeks (81:67). The rivalry continued in 2002, when Pana stopped David Blatt's Maccabi in semifinal.

Before 2003-04 season Gershon came back from retirement, Parker from Italy, Jasikevičius joined the team and in May 2004 Maccabi also came back - to the top of European basketball - trouncing Skipper Bologna in the Euroleague final game in an unprecedented landslide (118:74). They returned to the Euroleague Final Four in 2005, facing tough odds due to the rise of the dominating CSKA Moscow club that was favoured and was also hosting the event. They were also matched in the semifinal against Panathinaikos (once again), known for one of the best defenses in Europe. However, in a scenario that few in European basketball community envisioned, TAU Cerámica stunned CSKA and Maccabees celebrated yet another victory over the Greeks. Maccabi proceeded to defeat TAU Cerámica in a very competitive final 90:78 on May 8, 2005.

Gershon benefited greatly from the last Euroleague title, his third, and has become one of the most sought-after coaches in Europe, not to mention a national hero. However, Gershon has signed with the club for one more season. Meanwhile, Šarūnas Jasikevičius, a key contributor, went to the NBA and several other players left the team.

On October 16, 2005, Maccabi set another milestone in their basketball history when they beat the NBA's Toronto Raptors. It was their first win in over 27 years over an NBA team, and the first win over an NBA team by any Euroleague team in 17 years. Anthony Parker's jumper with 0.8 seconds lifted the Euroleague champion over Toronto 105-103.
[edit]

"Pro-" and "anti-maccabists"

Part of basketball community in Israel sees Maccabi's dominance as a root of various problems of Israeli basketball. Some of them claim that the lack of competitiveness in Israeli basketball causes the fans and the investors to "migrate" to football (which is also very popular in Israel, both as a street game and as a pro sport). Others say that Maccabi signs the most talented local players to more attractive contracts than any other team in Israel can afford and then gives them limited playing time and limited roles behind the stars (mostly of American or European origin), thus hindering the development of domestic talent.

"Pro-maccabists" counter that it is Maccabi's high-level basketball and international success that creates the fan base and that Maccabi gives young players an opportunity to play alongside and against some of the brightest stars of European basketball.

From time to time, ideas arise of reform in Israeli basketball that will prevent Maccabi from trampling the rest of the league and/or will protect domestic players. Some proposals featured measures similar to those introduced by the NBA, such as salary cap or draft. However, so far no significant changes have been made.
[edit]

Current Season

So far Maccabi is nearly perfect in the Israeli League, with 15 wins in 16 games.

In the Euroleague, after a disappointing 3-3 start the team has won 5 straight games and has qualified to the Top 16, where it currently holds second place in Group E with 3 wins in 4 games.
[edit]

Trophies and Titles

* Domestic championships: 45
* Domestic cups: 35
* European championships: 5
o 1977, 1981 - Victories in the European Cup, the direct predecessor to today's Euroleague, officially recognized by FIBA and ULEB as Euroleague titles.
o 2001 - Suproleague title.
o 2004, 2005 - Euroleague titles.
* European finals: 11 (1977, 1980, 1981,1982, 1987, 1988, 1989, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005)
* Intercontinental Cups: 1981

[edit]

Current roster
4 Israel Regev Fanan Point guard/Shooting guard
5 United States Maceo Baston Power forward/Center
6 United States Israel Derrick Sharp Shooting guard/Point guard
7 Croatia Nikola Vujcic Center
8 United States Anthony Parker Shooting guard/Small forward
10 Israel Tal Burstein Point guard/Shooting guard
11 Israel Sharon Sasson Small forward
12 Israel Asaf Dotan Shooting guard
14 Israel Omri Caspi Small forward
15 United States Will Solomon Point guard
20 New Zealand Kirk Penney Shooting guard
23 United States Israel Jamie Arnold Power forward
41 Israel Yaniv Green Center
Updated September 22, 2005
[edit]

Famous past players

* Tanhum Cohen-Mintz
* Miki Berkovich
* Tal Brody
* Lou Silver
* Aulcie Perry
* Moti Aroesti
* Doron Sheffer
* Oded Katash
* Nadav Henefeld
* Doron Jamchi (Israel's top scorer)
* Nate Huffman
* Ariel McDonald
* Šarūnas "Sharas" Jasikevičius

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/NokiaArena.jpg/800px-NokiaArena.jpg

Maccabi sets records in final!!

Maccabi scored the most points, 118, in the history of continental finals dating back to the start of European basketball almost 50 years ago.

Maccabi has tied a defensive record in an Euroleague final as Skipper was limited to 13 first-quarter points tonight, tying the previous record which Maccabi already had by limiting Panathinaikos to that amount of points at the end of the first period in the 2001 SuproLeague final.

Maccabi has also set a new record of most points scored in the first half, as the Israeli champs scored 55 in the first half of tonight's final. The previous record was set by Philips Milano (1988) and Kinder Bologna (2001), with 52 points. Maccabi is also the team to have scored more points in the second half of a Final, 63. The last record belonged to Tau Ceramica, when it scored 53 in 2001.

Maccabi is the team who has won a Euroleague Final with the biggest score difference in the end, 44 points. The previous record was set by Olympiakos, when it defeated FC Barcelona in 1997 by 15 points, 73-58.

Maccabi has scored the most field goals in a Euroleague Final, 42. The previous record was set by Tau in 2001, Split in 1989 and Milano in 1988 all with 32.

Maccabi has been the team to dish more assists in a Euroleague final, 31. The previous record was for Barcelona in 1996 with 18.

Maccabi has also set the best percentage in two-point shooting, 74% (28 of 38). The previous one belonged to Panathinaikos since 2000, 63%

Maccabi has also beat the record in field-goal percentage, 69%. The previous one belonged to Tau Ceramica since 2001, 57%.

Maccabi has also set a new record of points in a quarter, with 38.

Maccabi has allowed only 22 rebounds to Skipper Bologna. The previous marks were 23 by Zalgiris in 1999 and Pop 84 in 1991.

Maccabi has been the team to score more two-point shots, 28. The previous record was 27 by Philips Milano in 1988.

I don't know Euro basketball, what is it, Balkan states, Greece and Italy are powers and Spain has a good league?
Anyway for fun a Euro conference based on large cities with the proper future arenas;
London, 02 Arena
Manchester, MEN Arena
Paris, Bercy
Koln, Koln Arena
Berlin, Berlin Arena
Prague, Sazka Arena
Stockholm, Globen Arena
Vilnius, Siemens Arena
Belgrade, Belgrade Arena
Rome, BPA Palace or Eur Arena
Helsinki, Hartwell Arena
Athens, OAKA
Istanbul, Atakoy Sports Complex
Probably plenty more or quality, just can't remember. Especially those in Spain and Russia. Israel would be inclueded I'd imagine.

Greece and Serbia are superpowers as well as Italy in Eurobasket.
Greek leauge is arguably the second best in the world with greek club Panathinaikos being the most successful Basketball club in European history. Olympiakos is also a very successful basketball club.

Hampen is used for NFL.
So was old Wembley...I'm guessing New Wembley will be used aswell.

Erm, that's all I know for GB.

Israel is not a superpower in Eurobasket but it is a superpower in Euroleague with only one good team Maccabi.

Id say scotland.

I just love the Ibrox stadium.

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/ibrox_stadium/images/aussen_06.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/ibrox_stadium/images/aussen_09.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/ibrox_stadium/images/aussen_11.jpg

the dressing room :)

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/ibrox_stadium/images/Ibrox_c3_11.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/ibrox_stadium/images/Ibrox_c3_17.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/ibrox_stadium/images/Ibrox_c_21.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/ibrox_stadium/images/Ibrox_c_19.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/ibrox_stadium/images/Ibrox_c_16.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/ibrox_stadium/images/Ibrox_c_02.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/ibrox_stadium/images/Ibrox_d_02.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/ibrox_stadium/images/Ibrox_a_13.jpg

Celtic park is also great.

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/celtic_park/images/aussen_21.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/celtic_park/images/haupt_11.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/celtic_park/images/links_03.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/celtic_park/images/links_01.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/celtic_park/images/rechts_01.jpg

Minnesota Vikings vs Chicago Bears was played at Ullevi, Gothenburg, Sweden on 14 augusti 1988 in front of 33 150 spectators.

In terms of marketing the European team which is closest to NBA is Maccabi.
Don't forget that Real Madrid Basketball and Real Madrid Football are the same Club, the same institution.
']Greece and Serbia are superpowers as well as Italy in Eurobasket.
Greek leauge is arguably the second best in the world with greek club Panathinaikos being the most successful Basketball club in European history. Olympiakos is also a very successful basketball club.
Why you say that?
It is a great league but I don't think the greek league is the second best in the world, you must count on the spanish league; for example, we have 3 teams in the quaterfinals playoffs of Euroleague.
Panathinaikos is not the most successful Basketball club in European history, it is a fact.

RealMadridBasketball1 (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=6779420&postcount=105)
RealMadridBasketball2 (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=6779431&postcount=106)
OfficialWeb (http://www.realmadrid.es/baloncesto/portada_esp.htm)

I remember some past news about possible future invitations to Real Madrid and FC Barcelona basketball sections to join NBA, Don´t forget TAU Vitoria and Unicaja Málaga, with arenas around 10.000 or even more.

I would say as a possible European Conference into a global competition:

FC Barcelona
Maccabi Tel-Aviv
Real Madrid
Panathinaikos ¿Olympiakos?
CSKA Moscow
Zalguiris Kaunas
Bolonia ¿Treviso?

7 teams instad of the 5 teams in NBA by conference. More ideas? Possible names? Would you keep the club names in an hipotetical global basketball competition?

I would support FC Barcelona. :cheers:

I will open a new thread about NBA Global expansion

Tibet

I will open a new thread about NBA Global expansion

That´s a good point; tell me where and maybe put another title like: NBA-FIBA future global competition, since the moment that the NBA is not so far away in level comparing to the past. You only have to watch the last years of national team competitions or the huge impact of international players as Pau Gasol, Yao Ming, Dirk Nowitzki etc..

No, it would be one of the worst. The best tournaments are the ones held in a single country, which can then go to town on organising all the special events, inventing a common look and feel to the tournament etc. When you spread a World Cup out you just dilute the effect, as can be seen with the 1991 and 1999 Rugby World Cups, which weren't a patch on 1995 and 2003...
Yer I totally agree with you there, but I get what Martuh is trying to say. He's thinking more about the greatness of having the top selection of all the best stadiums in Europe for one tournament -Wembley, Bernabeu, Stade De France etc etc. But the actual reality of it, with the distance between countries, and the organisation and all the rest of the problems, kinda takes the gleam off the idea!

:cheers:

Tibet

Very close.

Katmandu, Nepal.

Rumor was that the NFL is trying to get a game in at Wembley sometime in the next few years.

Rumor was that the NFL is trying to get a game in at Wembley sometime in the next few years.

Glazer want's the Bucaneers to play at OT once a season as well.

Penn. State (State College, PA)

Average attendance: 104,859
City Population: 38,420

2.72:1

http://naproom.mu.nu/pics/beaver-stadium-lg.jpg


Texas A&M (College Station, TX)

Average attendance (2001): 82,711
City population: 67,890

1.21:1

http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/Big12/TexasA&M/aerial.jpg


I'm sure there are others...

Penn. State (State College, PA)

Average attendance: 104,859
City Population: 38,420

2.72:1

http://naproom.mu.nu/pics/beaver-stadium-lg.jpg


Texas A&M (College Station, TX)

Average attendance (2001): 82,711
City population: 67,890

1.21:1

http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/Big12/TexasA&M/aerial.jpg


I'm sure there are others...


I don't think that really counts, as unless the town goes through a Gremlins style reproduction scenario on matchday, then obviously most fans are from out of town.

I think the thread means the highest ratio of local people who attend a local stadium, which will always be hard to judge.

Panathinaikos is not the most successful Basketball club in European history, it is a fact.[/QUOTE]

What the hell? It is indeed the most successful in recent years.
http://www.24sec.net/article.asp?index=1626

Sorry for taking over the thread Maccabi.

The most successful in recent years is Maccabi.With 2 Euroleague wins and 1 Suproleague in last 5 years.

Two more sadiums i would like for Maccabi

1)http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/michigan/auburn_hills_palace1.jpg

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/michigan/auburn_hills_palace2.jpg


2)http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/texas/houston_toyota1.jpg

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/texas/houston_toyota2.jpg

Karaiskaki no doubt.

Not to mention the awesame Saitama Super arena which would be ideal for all Maccabi depoartmants such as basketball,football,volleyball and so on

Does anyone has any photos which show how Yad Elyahou used to be without the roof?Post them please.

A little history about Maccabi and how it ended up playing in its current stadium

Maccabi Tel Aviv - History Review

45 Championships, 35 Cups, 5 European Cups
Maccabi Elite Tel Aviv is the first and most successful basketball club in Israel. It all started in the mid-thirties in the center of Tel Aviv as part of the Maccabi Tel Aviv Sports Club (founded in 1906).

Maccabi Tel Aviv Sports Club, which has been active in many other sports like Soccer (17 league title), Handball, Volleyball, Tennis, Table Tennis, Track & Field, Swimming, Wrestling, Weight Lifting & Judo (1992 Olympic silver medallist Yael Arad was a member of the club).

The Basketball League in Israel started in 1954 and Maccabi Tel Aviv were the first champions. They have dominated the championship ever since, winning the title 45 times, including a run of 23 titles in a row between 1970 & 1992, most probably a world record. The team has also won the national cup 35 times. Maccabi is considered as Israel's national sporting representative in the world.

Another unique record was the fact that during the seventies Maccabi Tel Aviv had three teams playing in the national league: two in the men's and one in the women's.

Since 1969 Maccabi Tel Aviv has been sponsored by ELITE, Israel's largest food company and it also carries its name.

Most of Maccabi head coaches, were ex-players at the club: The late Yehoshua Rozin was involved with the club for 40 years; Ralph Klein started as an 18 years old player and later had several spells as a coach and led the club to its first European title in 1977. Zvi Sherf played for Maccabi's second team and coached the team on three spells. All of them were also in charge of the national team.

Maccabi Tel Aviv has always been proud to provide the national team with a large number of players. Five of Maccabi players, headed by the late Avraham Shneur, were on the team which represented Israel in its first European Championship in 1953 in Moscow.

Tanhum Cohen-Mints was one of Europe's top centers in the sixties and was selected for the first European All Star Team which played in Madrid in 1964. Mickey Berkowitz, Motty Aroesti, Lou Silver & Eric Minkin, played a major part in winning the silver medal in the European Championship in 1979 in Torino.

Doron Jamchy played 16 years for the national team and holds the record for appearances (191 international games) and points scored (3,515).

Four of Maccabi players are members of the national team : Shelef, Burstein, Halperin & Green .

Maccabi Tel Aviv was the first Israeli club to enter the European Cup for Champions in 1958. Since then they have played 577 games in European competitions and were the first and only Israeli club to play in a Final (1967 Cup Winners Cup) and to win the Champions Cup on five occasions (1977, 1981, 2001, 2004, 2005). So far Maccabi has played in 11 Champions Cup Finals. In 1980 Maccabi won the Intercontinental Cup.

In 1994 and 2004 Maccabi Tel Aviv Basketball Club organized the European Final Four in Tel Aviv.

In the 2002/03 season, Maccabi Elite Tel Aviv participated for the first time in the Adriatic League and ended the regular season in first place with a 17-4 record. The Final Four was to be played in Tel Aviv but because of the war in Iraq, was switched to Ljubljana. Maccabi reached the final but lost 88-91 to Croatian club KK Zadar.

European All Star Selections played four times in Tel Aviv in honor of Maccabi Elite Tel Aviv players: Tani Cohen Mints, Tal Brody, Lou Silver and Mickey Berkowitz. Seven of Maccabi Tel Aviv players played for European All Star Selections: Cohen Mints, Brody, Silver, Berkowitz, Jamchy, Nadav Henefeld & Oded Katash.

Maccabi Elite Tel Aviv was first Israeli team to take part in the McDonald Championship, in London in 1995. In December 1997 the club organized the FIBA Eurostars in which top European players clashed in the game between East and West selections. Five of Maccabi Elite players were selected to play in the Eurostars games: Nadav Henefeld, Oded Katash, Doron Sheffer, Randy White & Rashard Griffith. Captain Gur Shelef & Nikola Vujcic appeared In October 2002 in the Euroleague All Star team in an exhibition game in Madrid as part of Real Madrid Centenary celebrations. Maccabi Tel Aviv played in December 2002 in Madrid in the final event of those celebrations.

The Miami Heat who played in Yad Eliyahu Sports Palace in October 1999, was the fifth NBA team to play vs Maccabi in Tel Aviv.

http://www.maccabi.co.il/mtpic/gallery/History/1977_3.jpg
http://www.maccabi.co.il/mtpic/gallery/History/1999_3.jpg http://www.maccabi.co.il/mtpic/gallery/History/50_3.jpg

Agreed, but distances not larger than in 94...

Such a world cup would only IMHO happen after England and probabley Spain have hosted it again thus meaning all the major nations will have had two WC's. I'd guess you'd have to organise it so each nation provided two stadiums to allow them to host a group each with a spot reserved for them should they qualify.

Moreorless, that is the national stadium in Bhutan!

The new Maccabi arena will be an entertainment center as well.

Moreorless, that is the national stadium in Bhutan!

Correct.

MACCABI TEL AVIV
http://www.euroleague.net/images/ELteams/05/TEL05o60.gif
Answering history's call

The history books of European basketball will always have a unique place for the 2004-05 edition of Maccabi Tel Aviv, the first team in 14 years to win back-to-back Euroleague titles. History cannot record, however, that very few teams anywhere have won with such flair as Maccabi. It had always been the law that defense won titles. But there's a new law on the books now, and Maccabi continues writing it. A winning tradition at home – which included new Israeli League and Israeli Cup titles in 2004-05 – has always meant confidence on the international scene for Maccabi. The club has now won 45 of a possible 51 domestic league titles since 1954, in addition to 35 Israeli Cup trophies. In Europe, Maccabi only looks up at a couple teams after having now won five European club titles and finished second six other times. Its first European crown, in 1977, put Maccabi on the basketball map to stay. Its second, in 1981, was all the extra proof anyone needed.
A formula of complementing the best Israeli players with the most select players from abroad keeps working for Maccabi. A Suproleague title in 2001, Maccabi's first in 20 years, broke a string of continental title-game appearances that ended without trophies. For the next continental title, Maccabi fans didn’t have to wait long. It came in 2003-04, to top off a season to remember for all Maccabi fans. A miracle three-pointer to survive the Top 16 that year has become one of the classic shots in European basketball history. Once in the 2004 Final Four, Maccabi turned to record-breaking with a 118-point title game performance that had to be seen to be believed. Now, after a 2004-05 title repeat nearly as commanding, everyone believes. Maccabi's dedication, hard work and great style make it the team to beat in the 2005-06 Euroleague season.

http://i2.tinypic.com/smvbsg.jpg

It could work, yes, but what would be the point of having the venues spread out over that many nations?

Mmmmm, let me take a wild guess Socrates...could it possibly be IBROX

Unmistakeable cladding! Now that is character!

Those 3 people walking along the pitch in the bottom right of the picture. Are they the same 'cheeky chappies' we talked about in a previous thread?

Those 3 people walking along the pitch in the bottom right of the picture. Are they the same 'cheeky chappies' we talked about in a previous thread?

I don't think we have spoken before.

I don't think we have spoken before.

If you say so... :yes:

I'm assuming that you think I'm bubomb. Jeez.
Do you think that there is only 1 glaswegian with internet access?
Do Rangers only have 1 supporter?

Do you all have a complex about this guy?

http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/SanFrancisco49ers/oldaerial2.jpg

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/nfc/lamb150.jpg

That's Kezar Stadium, former home of the San Francisco 49ers.

That would be Green Bay, Population 90,000 Attendance 70,000. Years ago, there were more people in the stadium then there were in the town....

That would be Green Bay, Population 90,000 Attendance 70,000. Years ago, there were more people in the stadium then there were in the town....

Green Bay is 103,000. close!

And they still pack that sucker to capacity in unbelieveabley cold winter days.

OK guys in the small country of Croatia there is a stadium. It is called Maksimir and right beside a zoo with the same name (which is very nice by the way). Anyway around 1997 they began to upgrade the stadium. Slowly but surly the constuction slowed to a halt. Now suposadly there is a new praposal which should have the constuction resume at the end of 2006 and finish in 2008. However givin the history of the slow constuction do you think they will ever finish it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maksimir_5.jpg

^^True it wont be benifiting anyone!

WE DID GUYS!!!!WE ARE FIRST AND NOW WE R GONNA SWEEP POOR OLYMPIAKOS.WE R GONNA BEAT THEM TWICE,ONE TIME IN NOKIA ARENA AND ONE IN ATHENS!!!

POOR GUYS...

No chance in hell.

Would you like to place a little bet with me?If Maccabi wins in SEF you say publicly Maccabi is 1000 times better than any other team in Europe.If Maccabi loses i say Greek teams are 1000 times better than any other teams in Europe. :)

R u scared?

Why would I be scared? The greek clubs are far better than the Israeli :D

Than the rest israeli maybe.Than Maccabi i don't think so.What about the bet?

New stadium instead of old :
NEW Stadium will have capacity 15.550 places
It will grant all norms UEFA&FIFA
cost 40 million
http://tomcio.roxtet.com/korona/galeria/index.php
http://72.232.54.178/~stadionk/sk/foto/060330_elseba/big/IMG_8130.jpg
http://72.232.54.178/~stadionk/sk/foto/060330_elseba/big/IMG_8132.jpg

WHICH TEAM WILL BE?

Lyon really wants it. they have the support of about everybody and hold the long term credibility to such a stadium.

I thing the idea of inter and milan leaving san ciro un-understadable.
Dito for barcelona.

I also thin that 73/75000 for valencia is too much.

I've seen renders for Liverpool, Lazio and Galatasaray:

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/past_future/pictures/future_stadiums/liverpool_stanley1.jpg
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/past_future/pictures/future_stadiums/liverpool_stanley2.jpg
Stanley Park, Liverpool (60,000)

http://www.stadiumguide.com/alisamiyennew1.jpg
New Ali Sami Yen, Istanbul (41,000)

http://www.stadiumguide.com/aquile2.jpg
http://www.stadiumguide.com/aquile1.jpg
Stadio delle Aquile, Rome (40,000)

Interestingly, Juvé are not on the list and they're looking to move from the Delle Alpi. Have they started to build yet? Is that why they're no included?
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/past_future/pictures/future_stadiums/torino_juventus_arena1.jpg
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/past_future/pictures/future_stadiums/torino_juventus_arena2.jpg
Juventus Arena, Turin (40,000)

If Juve have very few fans in Turin, and are looking for a new stadium, why don't they just build it elsewhere?

i think you've got to forget about real, barca and the milans for starters. liverpool want to move but need to fund it. chelsea want a bigger stadium so dont be suprised if they suddenly go for it, theres already been talk about them moving down the road to earls court, as said above i've got a feeling juve are actually going ahead with a move to the stadium shown so i suppose it does'nt count, is there anyone who knows more about this?

Nice.......... OK, try this.....

http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/Pac10/Washington/interior.jpg

Lyon really wants it. they have the support of about everybody and hold the long term credibility to such a stadium.

I thing the idea of inter and milan leaving san ciro un-understadable.
Dito for barcelona.

I also thin that 73/75000 for valencia is too much.



i don't think it's too much , they should have 65000 average attendance with this stadium considering the logical increasing due to a new building and better ambition/facilities .

That's Husky Stadium, home of the University of Washington collegiate (American) football and track teams.

Nice.......... OK, try this.....

http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/Pac10/Washington/interior.jpg


Husky Staduim in Seattle, WA (University of Washington)

That it for stadium?
http://www.stadion-slaski.com.pl/galeria/albums/userpics/10001/normal_01%20OKLADKA.jpg

I'm assuming that you think I'm bubomb. Jeez.
Do you think that there is only 1 glaswegian with internet access?
Do Rangers only have 1 supporter?

Do you all have a complex about this guy?

Do you have denial issues? or maybe schizophrenia?

Come clean, man. We might as well run a book on how quickly you'll be banned in this guise!

Anyway, where's this? (no cheating!)

http://www.thesonsofscotland.co.uk/images/hampden%20park/v.jpg

That it for stadium?
http://www.stadion-slaski.com.pl/galeria/albums/userpics/10001/normal_01%20OKLADKA.jpg

Stadion Slaski in Chorzow

Do you have denial issues? or maybe schizophrenia?

Come clean, man. We might as well run a book on how quickly you'll be banned in this guise!

Anyway, where's this? (no cheating!)

http://www.thesonsofscotland.co.uk/images/hampden%20park/v.jpg

Hampden Park, Glasgow

That it for stadium?
http://www.stadion-slaski.com.pl/galeria/albums/userpics/10001/normal_01%20OKLADKA.jpg

i cant say that studium is beutiful but i can say around is suberb! :)

BALTIC ARENA :
capacity - 40 000
club - LECHIA GDAŃSK
country - POLAND
cost - 80 mln Euro
http://stadiony.net/projects/arena_baltycka/arena_baltycka01.jpg
http://stadiony.net/projects/arena_baltycka/arena_baltycka02.jpg
http://stadiony.net/projects/arena_baltycka/arena_baltycka06.jpg
similar for ALIANZ ARENA and SCHALKE ARENA

That Poland one looks great! I would prefer the Liverpool one though, as only few hours from my house

http://www.thesonsofscotland.co.uk/images/hampden%20park/v.jpg[/QUOTE] Ibrox Glaskow ?!

http://www.thesonsofscotland.co.uk/images/hampden%20park/v.jpg Ibrox Glaskow ?!
No, my good man, thats Glasgow's other decent stafium, Hampden. ^^


Who knows this one (taken circa 1990):

http://i2.tinypic.com/so91td.jpg

No, my good man, thats Glasgow's other decent stafium, Hampden. ^^


Who knows this one (taken circa 1990):

http://i2.tinypic.com/so91td.jpg

Bloody hell, for f*cks sake, Socrates I'm sure your bubomb, cause I'm almost certain that when I say "that's Celtic Park" you'll say, it is and say it's shi*te or something. And if you're not Bubomb, then every Rangers fan is just a clone of one singular Rangers fan, and you all think alike

BALTIC ARENA :
capacity - 40 000
club - LECHIA GDAŃSK
country - POLAND
cost - 80 mln Euro
http://stadiony.net/projects/arena_baltycka/arena_baltycka01.jpg
http://stadiony.net/projects/arena_baltycka/arena_baltycka02.jpg
http://stadiony.net/projects/arena_baltycka/arena_baltycka06.jpg
similar for ALIANZ ARENA and SCHALKE ARENA

Great stadium man.Really great.Thank you for sharing the pics with us!

Which do you consider as the best Arenain Europe?

I'm going to do something wild here, and nominate a british arena.

http://www.association-of-noise-consultants.co.uk/Spotlights/Spotlight%20Pictures/CGF6.jpg

The Busiest arena in the world, and 21,000 seats.
Voted best arena in the world many times.


P.S
Your signature is annoying.

It must be the Evening News Arena ,huh?

Ah, yes, I forgot to say.

The Manchester Evening News Arena

Really impressive arena.

Not sure if it's the best but, but one of them is Palau Sant Jordi, Arata Isozaki. Barcelona

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/thehushpics/dsc04002800x6001il.jpg
^^ by pakooooh
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/thehushpics/bar4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/thehushpics/barcelona2003_02_1024.jpg

It's a nice little stadium perfect for a team like Korona Kielce and for the Polish league in general.
http://stadiony.net/pictures/pol/stadion_korony_kielce/stadion_korony_kielce06.jpg
http://stadiony.net/pictures/pol/stadion_korony_kielce/stadion_korony_kielce09.jpg
http://stadiony.net/pictures/pol/stadion_korony_kielce/stadion_korony_kielce15.jpg
http://stadiony.net/pictures/pol/stadion_korony_kielce/stadion_korony_kielce18.jpg

Post some pics of em so the less informed of us can judge.

Sazka arena (multipurpose), Prague, 18,000 seats

http://www.sazkaarena.cz/pics/galerie/Letecky/screen/b_01.jpg.http://www.sazkaarena.cz/pics/galerie/Letecky/screen/b_03.jpg
http://www.e-architekt.cz/stavbaroku2004/21/xl/11-xl.jpg
http://www.sazkaarena.cz/pics/galerie/Exterier_SA/screen/SA-exterier_noc.jpg.http://www.sazkaarena.cz/pics/galerie/Interier_SA/screen/SA_interier_vestibul02.jpg
http://www.sazkaarena.cz/pics/galerie/Interier_SA/screen/SA_interier_vestibul03.jpg.http://www.sazkaarena.cz/pics/galerie/Interier_SA/screen/SA_interier_restaurace_3patro_02.jpg
http://www.sazkaarena.cz/pics/galerie/Interier_SA/screen/SA_interier_restaurace_2patro_02.jpg.http://www.sazkaarena.cz/pics/galerie/Interier_SA/screen/SA_interier_Lokomotivka01.jpg
http://www.sazkaarena.cz/pics/galerie/Interier_SA/screen/SA_interier_restaurace_1patro_02.jpg.http://www.sazkaarena.cz/pics/galerie/30rijna02/zakresy/big/b12.jpg
http://www.sazkaarena.cz/pics/galerie/oc/large/12.jpg.http://www.sazkaarena.cz/pics/galerie/30rijna02/zakresy/big/b04.jpg
http://www.jiping.cz/Vzduch_Sm/original/Sazka_Arena.jpg
http://www.fotos.cz/fotky//harries/04-09-18_philipsjazz/56.jpg.http://www.fotos.cz/fotky//harries/04-09-18_philipsjazz/91.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_arenen/templates/eishockey_hallen/hallenlisten/tschechien/sazka_arena/100.jpg
http://www.fotos.cz/fotky//harries/04-09-18_philipsjazz/213.jpg


Final Four 2006 (http://www.euroleague.net/finalfour06/noticia.jsp?temporada=E05&jornada=25&id=869) Sazka arena is the most modern multipurpose venue for sports, culture, entertainment, exhibits, fairs, and other events in Europe, featuring the most advanced technology, universal usage, sophisticated marketing, comfort and all-embracing services for spectators and visitors.

Pavilhão Atlântico
Lisboa, Portugal

Hosted the ATP Masters Cup 2000, the Youth Basketball World Championship in 1999, one group of the UEFA Futsal Cup, the UEFA Euro 2004 final stage draw, the MTV Europe Music Awards 2005, the majority of the biggest concerts in the country, etc.

(Yeah, I know it's not best. But hey, f... the rest!!! :hilarious )

http://www.math.ist.utl.pt/~jpnunes/AMIII/whyam3/pavilhaoatlantico.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Pavilhao_Atlantico_Lisboa.JPG
http://fumacas.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/PARQUEDASNACOES10.jpg
http://www.gavezdois.com/images/pavilhao.jpg
http://flowerpower.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/Outubro1(04).jpg
http://www.pavilhaoatlantico.pt/site/resources/docs/SALAS/GALERIA/ATLANTI2.jpg
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/portugal/lisboa/lisbon_multiusos2.jpg
http://www.portugaltravelguide.com/images/ib/1024/lisboa09.jpg

Hey man.Atlantico i just fine but with average faciliteis.In this class (6000 seats) there are many good stadiums in Europe.In the poll i included only top (in terms of capacity and facilities) stadiums.

Stade delle Aquile
SS Lazio
http://www.stadiumguide.com/aquile1.jpg
http://www.stadiumguide.com/aquile2.jpg
http://www.stadiumguide.com/aquile3.jpg

New Valencia Stadium
Valencia
http://www.stadiumguide.com/valencianew2.jpg
http://www.stadiumguide.com/valencianew3.jpg
http://www.stadiumguide.com/valencianew4.jpg
http://www.stadiumguide.com/valencianew5.jpg
http://www.stadiumguide.com/valencianew6.jpg
http://www.stadiumguide.com/valencianew7.jpg
(Many different proposals fto Valencia.Final not confirmed yet)

Votanikos Stadio
FC Panathinaikos Athens
http://www.stadiumguide.com/paoathens3.jpg
http://www.stadiumguide.com/paoathens4.jpg

AEK Stadium
FC AEK
http://www.stadiumguide.com/aeknew3.jpg
http://www.stadiumguide.com/aeknew4.jpg

I see all the new arenas that r being buid in europe and i am jeallous!!!!!

is that polish stadium, baltic arena a copy of the allianz... i wouldn't mind, it is a great looking stadium

KölnArena, Cologne, Germany

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/4269/1003pn.jpg

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/4315/1017mb.jpg

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/2959/1026cm.jpg

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/9552/1038xf.jpg

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8638/bb14qk.jpg

Pretty good arena

Certainly not one of the best in Europe but the only decent one we currently have in The Netherlands: Ahoy Rotterdam (indoor sports aren't very popular here, Ahoy is therefore mostly used for concerts)

During a Korfball match, the lamest sport in the world:
http://www.queenconcerts.com/inc/venues/rotterdam_ahoy.jpg

Gymnastics and track cycling:
http://www.worldgymrank.com/AhoyArena01.jpg

During the ABN-Amro World Tennis Tournament (apparently the best attended indoor tennis tournament in the world for many years):
http://www.abnamrowtt.nl/images/menu_toernooi/centrecourt.gif

Preperations for a Shakira concert:
http://homepage.mac.com/okkibokki/iblog/B377254671/C279947415/E1370321975/Media/IMG_0069.JPG

Totally agree Maccabi!!
Huge:eek:

i don't think it's too much , they should have 65000 average attendance with this stadium considering the logical increasing due to a new building and better ambition/facilities .

OK, I admit you"re surely right.
They have the money or hpope for external help.

I think that polish one is very similar to the Allianz too, althought it has a great design.

Well it would probably be Swedens new national stadium, as final confirmation of that going ahead is expected at an annual meeting today, I think.

It will also be the home of AIK Solna.

Capacity will be 50,000 for football and it will have a retractable roof.

To be completed by 2010-2011, when it will replace Rasunda which will then be demolished.
Rasunda was the home of the 1958 world cup final, where a young Pele helped Brazil destroy Sweden. Its best days was back in those days with lots of terracing

Hey man.Atlantico i just fine but with average faciliteis.In this class (6000 seats) there are many good stadiums in Europe.In the poll i included only top (in terms of capacity and facilities) stadiums.

Average facilities? Good Lord, you've never been there, haven't you?
Check it out: Pavilhão Atlântico (http://www.pavilhaoatlantico.pt)

By the way, Atlântico is 16.000 just in stand seats. Try to get yourself informed before talking about next time, OK? Cheers! :drunk:

SEF
Peace and Friendship in Athens.
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/9817/iriis9zz.jpg