No motivation, no common sense. If you cant get good performances with players like Rooney, Geerard, Lampard, Terry in your team, you quite simply are'nt a good manager.

Same applies for Steve McClaren. His an absolute waste of space. The easy option for the F.A.

But couldnt you say the same for Brazil? Ronaldihno, Kaka, Adriano, Robinho and the likes.

Having a whole bunch of world class players doesnt always translate to a world class team.

ITALY

^^ In the last WC we had the WORST coach and, IMO, that's why we went so bad. But now Brazil's been playing pretty well, especially last September when we beat Argentina 3-1 or 3-0 (dun remember). Sometimes coaches make the worst decisions. In the WC, for example, our best match was against Japan with a completely renewed team. In the next one, Parreira put all the old school guys and won with an ugly 3-0 match.

But couldnt you say the same for Brazil? Ronaldihno, Kaka, Adriano, Robinho and the likes.

Having a whole bunch of world class players doesnt always translate to a world class team.

But thats where British teams are different. The game over here is based on the word "Team" everyone fights for each other. Unfortunately, they were wrapped in cotton wool and treated like kings.

A manager like Mick McCarthy or Steve Coppell could take an English side to a world cup with players half as good as what we have now and come away with something.

The only time we played well was for that final 60 minutes against Portugal with 10 men where we quite simply had to dig deep and battle for our lives. And in that 60 minutes England trounced all over them. We only seem to perform when the odds are against us.

You need a manager with a bit of passion to lead a national team (any team for that matter) A quiet Swede certainly wasnt it and a flimsy transparent northerner is'nt going to be much better.

Glenn Hoddle, Sven Goran Erikkson, Steve McClaren, Kevin Keegan, Graham Taylor etc etc

Managers with no guts or people skills. Now if only we kept hold of Terry Venables :ohno:

VERY small and VERY few pictures. They'll never beat SW.de

It's true. WS has no info, less pics, and what pics they do have are smothered in the web address. Like this.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/past_future/pictures/future_stadiums/beijing_olympic2.jpg

^^

England simply played like crap.
No, no, no: every soccer fans know that England always got the best team and should have won without injuries, referees mistakes, weather, wrong tactical choices, the trainer, the goalkeeper (calamity james), a penalty kick, an expeled player, calendar or the queen's hat...
It's the same story after all WC and all EC since 1966. :)

Note: that's a joke. England desserve to win the next EC in 2008.
English people (especialy English women) have generally a great sense of humor.

i hate how none of it is in English

Why don't we just re-name the thread: 'Discuss England's performance at the WC'...? ;)

As we're on the subject though. The reasosn imo for England not doing well:

1) Rooney and Owen, as the two main strikers, were injured, leaving only Peter Crouch up front as a lone striker...disaster!! And Sven only took 4 strikers, including Walcott, who he didn't even put on once.
2)Sven, as a manager, is just not right for England. Spent too much time with Italian football, and it is not in the English style of play to try and clinch one goal then hang onto that lead. Sven had a few good moments with England, (5-1 in Germany stands out), but overall, he was not the man to win you a WC, just didn't have the right tactics or balls.
3)Nobody played to their full potential. Simple fact of the matter really. Not one person (possibly barring Hargreves) played like they do for their respective league clubs. England was filled with world class players, but none played like it...team of stars, not star team!

Steve McClaren is another big mistake imo. Why in the name of holy hell did the FA hire a guy who was mediocre at best when he managed a Premiership club?? He's the kind of guy with no fire or passion, who will stodge along and say "we'll perform better next time, we know what mistakes we made".... :ohno:

The thing that seperates people like him from people like Alex Ferguson, Jose Mourinho, Arsene Wenger, Phil Scolari, is they all have a fire about them. They have all had moments of controversy. Everyone who does not support their teams tends to hate them, but they don't care, because they always win, they don't take any crap! McClaren is just an old duffer with no anger or flare!

Hopefully if 2018 goes to England, it should provide some motivation.

Still, England did better then Canada in terms of the WC! :( Dam country is too focussed on Hockey and Lacrosse! With Toronto FC joining the MLS the future looks a little brighter though! :)

Anyway.....Wembley.....Germany first, then Argentina, then Brazil...imo. Forget who can/will/won't beat who, who gives a crap, just line up the best games!

:cheers:

Are you serious?

i hate how none of it is in English


That is not a problem if you don't pay for your account

You guys should have hired the Klinsmeister!

http://www.idelberavelar.com/post-images/klinsmann.jpg

some of u idiots need to read the thread title

Good to see England get knocked out early.... again.

Better luck next time huh. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

i don't know what you're laughing at, chuckles. one average world cup (2 losses, 1 draw and 1 win) and you reckon you're world beaters!

AUSTRALIA'S WORLD CUP HISTORY:

WC 1950: DNQ
WC 1954: DNQ
WC 1958: DNQ
WC 1962: DNQ
WC 1966: DNQ
WC 1970: DNQ
WC 1974: 1st Round
WC 1978: DNQ
WC 1982: DNQ
WC 1986: DNQ
WC 1990: DNQ
WC 1994: DNQ
WC 1998: DNQ
WC 2002: DNQ
WC 2006: 2nd Round

Try qualfying against nations like Argentina and Uruguay fool

Englands squad was rubbish and due to a easy route and were lucky ot get to the QFs

Typical Git response we had the best players(rubbish) but it was our sh*t manager.

Lampard> Rubbish
Gerrard> Possibly the most overrated player in the world
Neville> has been
Rooney> should never of played
Beckham> past his prime but had a good tournament
Jamie Carrigher> sh*t defender
Canadian> played very well
Owen> second rate striker.
Crouch> good world cup

That doesn't come across as the team to win the world cup IMHO. Just a team of muppets.

England will struggle to make it to the Euros under McSven

If StadionWelt was English i would pay for it.

have you'll tried fussballtempel.net ?????

stick to gay afl skippy.

Try qualfying against nations like Argentina and Uruguay fool...

try qualifying against the likes of holland, poland, turkey and norway (1994), italy and poland (1998), germany and greece (2002)...

i don't really know what you're complaining about. while the rest of the football world was fighting their way to the finals in competitive international leagues you waltzed through a qualifying group of south pacific fishermen and got handed two-legged golden ticket ties against the mighty iran (1998) and uruguay (2002 and 2006) - piece of piss, but you still managed to mess two out of three of them up!

no second chances in our qualfying.

unfornuate too see such football powerhouse macedonia and Israel giving you a run for your money,

Qualifying against the might of the likes of the Solomon Islands and Iran is a mighty task cobber:lol: :lol: :lol:

stick to gay afl skippy.

How old are you?

Because your physical age may (somehow) be i dunno around 20-ish, but your mental maturity doesn't exceed that of a 10 year old's.

Please either contribute to reasonable discussion or get lost, I don't come here to read utter BS, and I don't suspect anybody else does either.

I'd like to see it against Germany.

i don't know what you're laughing at, chuckles. one average world cup (2 losses, 1 draw and 1 win) and you reckon you're world beaters!

AUSTRALIA'S WORLD CUP HISTORY:

WC 1950: DNQ
WC 1954: DNQ
WC 1958: DNQ
WC 1962: DNQ
WC 1966: DNQ
WC 1970: DNQ
WC 1974: 1st Round
WC 1978: DNQ
WC 1982: DNQ
WC 1986: DNQ
WC 1990: DNQ
WC 1994: DNQ
WC 1998: DNQ
WC 2002: DNQ
WC 2006: 2nd Round


If England were tasked with only playing 1 competitive and meaningful tie every 4 years you'd struggle to have qualified to. Same goes for anybody else. Thank god we've moved to Asia, where our full strength squad will play
more than 2 matches together per World Cup cycle.

As for Germany 06

- 1 loss against Brazil (then world champs), where the score line (2-0) was flattering to them, we had more chances, they had more finishing class. Certainly a respectable result, even if a horribly frustrating one.

- 1 draw against Croatia where 2 deliberate hand balls in the box were denied, as was a blatant rugby tackle. An Aus goal was denied at the final whistle because the ref (a shocker of a pom called Graeme Pol) decided to blow the final whistle a few seconds early and as the ball was in flight, and then after the final whistle gave a Croat guy his 3rd yellow card then finally realised "hey, maybe I should give him a red" about half an hour after his 2nd yellow. That match, and the Englishman's officiating of it, could be described as THE definition of "farcical"

- 2nd loss against eventual champions Italy. 1-0. Goal was from a penalty that was the very last kick of the game. Penalty was dubious, the guy clearly dived. Honestly though we were one man up for the majority of the second half and should have won it, oh well, losing to the world champs in that tournament in such a close contest with both our best player (Kewell), and the workhorse of our Midfield (Emerton) out was very respectable.

I, for one, am tremendously proud of what our team achieved, especially considering the challenges and people who so clearly wanted them to fail (both in Aus and internationally).

The game here has made great steps, even with alot of people, and most of the media doing everything they can to kill it.

So shut your mouth about Australian football, or at least get off your high horse.

i don't know what you're laughing at, chuckles. one average world cup (2 losses, 1 draw and 1 win) and you reckon you're world beaters!

Now your just making things up. I was replying to hes post(be it a pathetic one) and i never said Australia were world beaters.

AUSTRALIA'S WORLD CUP HISTORY:

WC 1950: DNQ
WC 1954: DNQ
WC 1958: DNQ
WC 1962: DNQ
WC 1966: DNQ
WC 1970: DNQ
WC 1974: 1st Round
WC 1978: DNQ
WC 1982: DNQ
WC 1986: DNQ
WC 1990: DNQ
WC 1994: DNQ
WC 1998: DNQ
WC 2002: DNQ
WC 2006: 2nd Round

Ok sure u went ahead and googled AUstralia's qualifying records but did you also realise that in 1994, 1998 and 2002 all it took for us to not qualify was losing 1 game (couldnt be bothered with the rest of the years but in 1990 we got knocked out by friggen Argentina). And your telling me the likes of Saudi Arabia, USA, China are better than us. Pffff.

try qualifying against the likes of holland, poland, turkey and norway (1994), italy and poland (1998), germany and greece (2002)...
The thing is, you can lose one game and still be alright. For us its generally down to a do or die 180 mins. Thank heavens for us moving into Asia.

i don't really know what you're complaining about. while the rest of the football world was fighting their way to the finals in competitive international leagues you waltzed through a qualifying group of south pacific fishermen and got handed two-legged golden ticket ties against the mighty iran (1998) and uruguay (2002 and 2006) - piece of piss, but you still managed to mess two out of three of them up!
WHich is a disadvantage to us. How are we suppose to know how good we really are by playing a bunch of amatuers. Heck some of our qualifiers were against their youth team. Yes we waltzed through the pacific region beating everyone with our 3rd string team but do you really think we want this???

and two legged golden ticket??? Would you like to play in 40 + degrees or on pitches that are 2000m or whatever above sea level??? Heck we should of built a park on Aryes Rock and played our Home tie there.

FFS to avoid any more time wasting, lets get back on topic.

Don't really understand why the Germans are No.1 choice, the last matches between ENG & GER were rather unattractive, although England's 5-1 win in Munich a couple of years ago has got to rank as one of the better football games played in the past 15 years. Perhaps it may be Didi Hamann's winning free kick in 2000, the last goal to be scored at old Wembley stadium??

I'd rather see a match against the Scots or the Irish and save the game against Germany for the Euro-Final 2008 (that would rule!).

I think it might be time to :lock: the thread! It has turned into a bitch fight between people argueing over England and Australia's Wc history.....wtf.....

Not sure this thread was actually appropriate for a 'stadiums and sports arenas' section....

I live 85 km from the main arena (Ejendals Arena) and attended the Sweden - Canada game without a camera. With some luck I can hopefully provide some 7Mpixel pics from the final (my friend is going there).

Here is though a pic from the inaguration game of the arena, october 2005.
http://www.graninge-outdoor.com/upload/ejendals/Pressbilder/Ejendals%20Arena.jpg

I noticed that TSN had their "main" camera on the opposite side of the "normal" camera position, which is used for the regular Leksands IF games and for the official TV production of WJHC, probably because the opposite side of the rink was covered with canadian advertising. The camera angle must have been very steep, are there any TSN videos available of the SWE-CAN game?

Like i said there are alot of idiots who cant read the thread title, i should name the first person who started this 'bitch fight' namely an aussie!

have you'll tried fussballtempel.net ?????

:lol: LOL the Millenium Stadium is on the home page, funny considering its primarily a Rugby Stadium.

btw looks like they havnt updated some of their pics, still good tho.

How about you go f**k yourself you stupid git!!!

How about you go f**k yourself you stupid git!!!

:lol: u seem like a clever one

Canada beat USA!! :banana: Good luck to you guys with Russia.

Try qualfying against nations like Argentina and Uruguay fool

Englands squad was rubbish and due to a easy route and were lucky ot get to the QFs

Typical Git response we had the best players(rubbish) but it was our sh*t manager.


Soccepoos
Lampard> Rubbish
Gerrard> Possibly the most overrated player in the world
Neville> has been
Rooney> should never of played
Beckham> past his prime but had a good tournament
Jamie Carrigher> sh*t defender
Canadian> played very well
Owen> second rate striker.
Crouch> good world cup

That doesn't come across as the team to win the world cup IMHO. Just a team of muppets.

England will struggle to make it to the Euros under McSven
.
You dont no mutch about football stick to cricket.
Australia have never had a world class player in there football history. England have had hundreds with atleast 10 in present day.
Gerrard and Lampard are two of the best midfielders in the world.Owen/Rooney are world class strikers when fit.John Terry Jamie Carrigher being world class defenders.Aswell as the future Lennon,Baines,Wallcott.Robbinson the goalkeeper is useless.

Viduka-wont score more than 8 EPLl goals
Baiano-Could never make it in EPL
kewell-If he were English he would be on 0 caps.
Neill-only good player in the team.
scwartzer-clumsy keeper.
Emerton-shit defender
Aloisi-Fucking useless

Nothing beats good ol' http://footballgroundguide.com/

have you'll tried fussballtempel.net ?????

It's ok, but still not as good as SW

Nothing beats good ol' http://footballgroundguide.com/

If your after UK Stadiums it's ok, but for anywhere else, i'd find more info on the Boeing website

http://www.pilkington.com/resources/1212109_a.jpg

http://www.pilkington.ca/resources/1212110_a.jpg

:lol: u seem like a clever one

Lampard is Sh*t and only good at Chelski when surrounded by World Class players.

You only won the World Cup once and it was at home playing every match at Fortress Wembley and forget the final you did plenty of cheating to get to it.

Useless nation with nothing offer the world expect a disenchanted and stupid youth. Your finest hour is well behind you and so is with your football team. You will never win a tournament with the Premier League import policy you have.

At Germany Only you guys thought you had the team to win everyone else knew better and knew you were sh*t. IF you had been in a tougher group you wouldn't of gotten through.

you come from a pathetic insignificant nation whose only contribution to world culture is that hat with corks on it:lol: :lol: :lol:

Lampard is Sh*t and only good at Chelski when surrounded by World Class players.

You only won the World Cup once and it was at home playing every match at Fortress Wembley and forget the final you did plenty of cheating to get to it.

Useless nation with nothing offer the world expect a disenchanted and stupid youth. Your finest hour is well behind you and so is with your football team. You will never win a tournament with the Premier League import policy you have.

At Germany Only you guys thought you had the team to win everyone else knew better and knew you were sh*t. IF you had been in a tougher group you wouldn't of gotten through.

Don't u understand English? Read the thread title. Some people:ohno:

dont forget hes australian..so its not all his fault.:nuts:

dont forget hes australian..so its not all his fault.:nuts:

Aussies are a lot smarter than Brits. Especielly here in Perth where everyone is a Engineer making farkloads:) :) :)

what a muppet:nuts:

Yep sadly stadionwelt is now charging money.
Its sad because its the best stadium website out there.

you come from a pathetic insignificant nation whose only contribution to world culture is that hat with corks on it:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh but we also do win actually sporting events that has some credibility. More so than a Football WC which was played at home, a Rugby WC which was turned into a mini kicking comp and the Ashes which lasted how long?

Oh and were a insignificant country as well. Thats why Britain are first in line of the George Bush 'kiss my ass and suck my balls' club.

As i said before, back on topic.

Anyway this thread is about which rival team should play England first at Wembley.England are not interested in playing one of the lesser nations ranked 40-50 like Australia,canada,new zealand,and Kuwait.

Lets get back on topic now.
I would like to see England play Argentina first at Wembley.

Some people are so ridiculous. But to put one thing straight. Going to war with Iraq has nothing to do with this thread. Not to mention agreeing on one thing does'nt exactly deserve the name "ass kisser" otherwise, everybody would be ass kissers. Including Australia. Now put your swords and shields down and get back on subject.

Canada beat USA!! :banana: Good luck to you guys with Russia.

Thanks, but it didn't help :( Embarrased to see the weak swedish power play once again, and also the weak performance by Bäckström and Bergfors, but in general a very good team performance by the swedes.

Good luck in the final!

Some people (namely the aussies) move over to the skybar/sport forums. This thread isnt about you, stop taking it off topic!!

heres my view:

im finding it hard to decide, i think if we just want a 'fun' showcase game then it should be against Brazil, if we want it to be alittle more 'spicy' then it should be against Argentina. If we want it for more emotional purposes then it should be Germany, but apperently they already are in line to play England in August.

Just something to throw into the mix. If the proposed friendly is out of the regular football season, why not have a mini tournament with all 4 countries and spread it out over a week or so. Even games not involving England like Brazil vs Argentina will generate plenty of interest. It gives the players a good run out, the fans a chance to see great players and would be a fitting way to welcome international football back to Wembley.

I noticed that TSN had their "main" camera on the opposite side of the "normal" camera position, which is used for the regular Leksands IF games and for the official TV production of WJHC, probably because the opposite side of the rink was covered with canadian advertising. The camera angle must have been very steep, are there any TSN videos available of the SWE-CAN game?

Yes its true. I found the camera to be very steep, and all the ice adverts were facing the other way. Is one side of the rink all european adverts? Cause all I saw were Canadian tire adverts (pizza pizza, canadian tire, etc.)

Some people are so ridiculous. But to put one thing straight. Going to war with Iraq has nothing to do with this thread. Not to mention agreeing on one thing does'nt exactly deserve the name "ass kisser" otherwise, everybody would be ass kissers. Including Australia. Now put your swords and shields down and get back on subject.

I wont respond to that in fear of going off thread again.

Some people (namely the aussies) move over to the skybar/sport forums. This thread isnt about you, stop taking it off topic!!

heres my view:

im finding it hard to decide, i think if we just want a 'fun' showcase game then it should be against Brazil, if we want it to be alittle more 'spicy' then it should be against Argentina. If we want it for more emotional purposes then it should be Germany, but apperently they already are in line to play England in August.

WAMBULANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes it is, it is actually swedish adverts like "Gille kakor" and "Leksandsbröd" :D Felt strange to see canadian adverts on the rink :D. The camera angle used in "normal" position is not as steep.

Yeah,you should come Soufain,you wouldn't leave hehe..

By the way,there have been NHL games in the Coliseum...

Yes it is, it is actually swedish adverts like "Gille kakor" and "Leksandsbröd" :D Felt strange to see canadian adverts on the rink :D. The camera angle used in "normal" position is not as steep.

Yeah I think Canada really is the force behiend this tournament. It's a huge tradition here durring the christmas break. It's the biggest sports talking point for all Canadians for the week and half of the tournament. It wouldn't surprise be if 95% of all television spectators are from Canada.

Hello. I want pics. of Shawfield Stadium in Glasgow.

why? it is a shithole

why? it is a shithole

Old classic stadium.

Old classic stadium.

go there and take the pics yourself!

Why not arrange the Ice Hockey World Championships here? :)

I won't bother using up any skyscraper bandwidth with the pictures, because they really are UGLY... But try google - here...

http://images.google.com.au/images?hl=en&q=%22Shawfield+Stadium%22&btnG=Search+Images

http://www.fussballtempel.net is a one man site ;)

hey sercan! long time no see!

whoops, delete this post

I tend to use World Stadiums to find the names, etc., then google to find the best images I can.

Fortuna Dusseldorf

plays in Regional Liga Nord ( Like 3rd division ) and plays in the LTU Arena with a capacity of 51.000

http://www.europlan-online.de/Deutschland/D/Duesseldorf/LTU_Arena/01.jpg

http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/GER/LTU_Arena6.jpg

AS Bari

Stadium of 58.000

http://www.freewebs.com/barifc/PIX/bari%204.jpg

http://www.bennyweb.it/images_X/FotoBari/StadioSN_giorno.jpg

fc Sachsen Leipzig ( 3rd League)
45.000

http://www.wldcup.com/pictures/wld2006/stadium/leipzig-in.jpg

Which other do you know???

Darlington play in a 27,500 stadium yet they are in the 3rd league of english football and get average attendances of around 5000

http://images.skysports.com/images/stadia/70.jpg

http://www.darlingtontown.co.uk/images/DFCa2.jpg

hey sercan! long time no see!

yeah
still problmes with my internet :(

Aston Villa :poke:

the most famous must be Queens Park at 52,500 Hampden Park

http://www.eurotopfoot.com/img/hampden.jpg

they play in the 4th tier of scottish football and last season attracted a massive average att. of 506!

^^
That's just crazy...!

Fortuna Dusseldorf looks pretty good...

manchester city has to be one

Aston Villa :poke:

the most famous must be Queens Park at 52,500 Hampden Park

Surely the same point could be made about Lansdowne and Wanders playing at Lansdowne Road?

Glentoran F.C. playing at The Oval in Belfast. Average gate is about 1500 in stadium that can legally hold 14,000, but is the physical size of a stadium that can hold at least 25,000 - 30,000 on account of having some 33 rows of terracing around most of the ground.

http://www.groundhopping.de/glentog1.jpg
http://footballnomad.wordpress.com/files/2006/03/Belfast_TheOval_15.jpg
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/d/d7/250px-The_Oval,_Belfast.jpg

The fact that the place is falling apart doesn't really help anything.

My vote went with Queen's Park in Glasgow. 3SPIRES, you beat me to it.

If you think it's mad now for such a small team (are they still fiercely amateur?) to inhabit a 52,000 National stadium, bear in mind that the same club used to inhabit a Hampden park that had a capacity cloer to 135,000

http://www.thesonsofscotland.co.uk/images/hampden%20park/Hampden%203.gif

...although I would concede that they may have been slightly more successful in those days. I don't think they've ever been considered a 'big club' - even in Scotland.

I read in Alex Ferguson's autobiography that when he was an apprentice at QP, their fitness regime was running up and down the vast terraces repeatedly.

Are Darlington the only one of the teams listed above who own the stadium in question (rather than being tenants of a bigger club or a national association).

You can add MK Dons to Darlo as well - once their new stadium is finished they'll be rivalling Darlo for empty seats.

i love this thread already. i'd go for Leeds Utd (Elland Road), Sheffield Wednesday (Hillsbrough) and Nottingham Forest (City Ground). not because they're small teams but because they were once established Premier League teams who have fallen down the leagues and attendances that arent what they used to be

*cough* and Villa Park *cough*

im going to say all the teams that recieved new stadiums in euro 2004, excluding benfica, sporting and porto,

My vote went with Queen's Park in Glasgow. 3SPIRES, you beat me to it.

If you think it's mad now for such a small team (are they still fiercely amateur?) to inhabit a 52,000 National stadium, bear in mind that the same club used to inhabit a Hampden park that had a capacity cloer to 135,000

...although I would concede that they may have been slightly more successful in those days. I don't think they've ever been considered a 'big club' - even in Scotland.

I read in Alex Ferguson's autobiography that when he was an apprentice at QP, their fitness regime was running up and down the vast terraces repeatedly.

Yes, they are still amateurs, currently sitting 5th in Scotland's 4th tier, although a couple of seasons ago they were nearly promoted to the next tier. Prior to the rebuilding of Hampden Park, QP used to play their home games at Lesser Hampden, which was a much smaller stadium situated immediately adjacent to the the main ground. They only used the big stadium if they drew a larger team in one of the cups. These days lesser Hampden has made way for safe pedestrian access and QP do indeed play their games inside the echoey confines of Hampden Park filled to about 1% of its capacity.

Prior to the rebuilding of Hampden Park, QP used to play their home games at Lesser Hampden, which was a much smaller stadium situated immediately adjacent to the the main ground.

Is Lesser Hampden in this image, then?

http://www.thesonsofscotland.co.uk/images/hampden%20park/Hampden%203.gif


Concerned Potato, I agree with you about Aston Villa. At United, I'm used to visiting fans ironically 'SSSSHHHHHHH'-ing us and chanting '70,000 muppets' (and I often find myself in some agreement with the sentiment).

It was a bit rich, however having less than 6,000 Villa fans (bearing in mind the club was entitled to 10,000 away fans under the rules of the FA Cup) on Sunday telling us that 'Your support is f***ing shit'. Okay we may not seriously call them a 'small' club (even with your local animosity considered), but as a following they often undersell their ground - even now in the O'Neil/Lerner era - and that's what keeps this point vaguely on-topic.

Over the last ten years, AVFC have always behaved like a small club while living in the home (or 'Villa', if you will) where the club's aspirations vastly exceeded that of ther following.

in your dreams.....

So does Darlington FC afford to own & maintain such a stadium?

I agree with Benjuk about it not being such a big deal over a small team playing out of a big stadium when they are only tennants & not owners.

http://www.indianfootball.com/pics/calcutta/2005/2005ebmb05.jpg

Mohun Bagan and East Bengal are small in world terms I suppose. They have a bigger stadium than any European team though.

I guess you could include San Marino at Bologna's Stadio Renato dall'Ara (39,561)

Is Lesser Hampden in this image, then?

http://www.thesonsofscotland.co.uk/images/hampden%20park/Hampden%203.gif



Yep, its on the extreme left, you can just see the top corner of the pitch. As I recall, Lesser Hampden was oriented at 90 degrees to the main stadium.

Stats for premiership 06-07 up to game 11

Team - Played - Total - Highest - Average - Capacity - %

1 Manchester United (1) 11 833116 76018 75738 76212 99.3%
2 Arsenal (4) 11 660297 60115 60027 60432 99.3%
3 Chelsea (2) 11 460343 41953 41849 42294 98.9%
4 Reading (9) 11 263033 24110 23912 24225 98.7%
5 Sheffield United (16) 11 333574 32591 30325 30864 98.2%
6 Tottenham Hotspur (7) 11 391640 36170 35604 36237 98.2%
7 West Ham United (18) 11 380900 35000 34627 35303 98.0%
8 Portsmouth (6) 11 217653 20194 19787 20328 97.3%
9 Liverpool (3) 11 478027 44330 43457 45362 95.8%
10 Newcastle United (14) 11 549553 52302 49959 52387 95.3%
11 Watford (20) 9 170870 19750 18986 19920 95.3%
12 Charlton Athletic (19) 11 283853 27111 25805 27113 95.1%
13 Fulham (12) 11 232932 24510 21176 22602 93.6%
14 Everton (8) 11 407501 40004 37046 40394 91.7%
15 Bolton Wanderers (5) 11 257883 27229 23444 28101 83.4%
16 Aston Villa (13) 11 385835 42551 35076 42551 82.4%
17 Manchester City (10) 11 429978 42192 39089 47500 82.2%
18 Middlesbrough (15) 11 308381 32013 28035 35041 80.0%
19 Wigan Athletic (17) 11 193551 22089 17596 25138 69.9%
20 Blackburn Rovers (11) 11 237601 29342 21600 31154 69.3%

Man City (which someone mentioned) play to 82% crowds on average with 39089 in a 47500 capacity arena.
Aston Villa also play to 82% crowds. Premiership teams Do not belong in this forum.

Queens Park on the other hand are on 0.96%
Dusseldorf about 7.9%

Are Darlington the only one of the teams listed above who own the stadium in question (rather than being tenants of a bigger club or a national assocition).

I think Queen's Park own Hampden or at least they used to.

Landmark Stadiums

Which stadiums do you think tha are not only sport facilities , but they are real landmarks and attractions.This list includes old and newer stadiums.Which do you think belong here?

In Canada definately the SkyDome, BC Place and Stade Olympique.

landmark for rotterdam is de kuip feyenoord football stadium.. to think ze germans nearly toar it down for resources... :ohno:

For me it would me San Siro and Camp Nou in Europe and Maracana in Brasil.

USA

Obviously in baseball you have Wrigley, Fenway, Yankee; of the newer baseball stadia probably Camden, Safeco, and PacBell would qualify.

College Football: The Rose Bowl for sure. Maybe Michigan's and Ohio State's. I'm from the Northwest and Husky Stadium has that rep in Seattle but I don't know about nationally.

NFL: Lambeau for sure, the Meadowlands and Texas Stadium maybe. Of the new, probably Reliant, Qwest, and both the Ohio stadia, Paul Brown and Cleveland Browns Stadium.

Madison Square Garden for basketball.

Estadio Azteca in Mexico
LA Colesseum in USA
Stade Olympique and SkyDome in Canada
Maraca in Brazil
Bernabeu and Camp Nou in Spain
La Bombonera in Argentina
The Olympic Stadiums Of Gemany (Both Berlin and Munich)

Leeds Tykes Rugby Union play at Headingley (shared with sister club Leeds Rhinos Rugby League) which has capcity 22k for Rugby - they average 3-5k per game with highest ever attendance 12k. Rhinos regularly sell out Headingley though.

Wembley, London
Centre Court, London
Camp Nou, Barcelona
Bernabeu, Madrid
Yankee Stadium, New York
Allianz Arena, Munich
Olympiastadion, Berlin
San Siro, Milan
Old Trafford, Manchester
Anfield, Liverpool
Lord's, London

Slight UK bias of course here.

Madison Square Garden for basketball.

and New York Rangers Hockey.

And boxing, historically.

If we had to pick 1 American stadium and 1 America area, what would it be ?

LA Colliseum?
Rose Bowl?
Yankee Staium?
etc.. ?

Madison Square Garden has no competition for arenas.

bird's nest in Beijing is the first landmark stadium comes to my mind.

Olympia Stadium Munich and Olympia Stadium Berlin

I would have to say Hillsborough in Sheffield as it is home to the first full length cantilever roofed stand in Britain (the North Stand) , introducing a new era of unrestricted views and the technology allowing huge stands such as the the North Stand at Old Trafford to be built

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/doingthe116/Sheff%20Wednesday%20North%20Stand%20Vol.jpg

http://www.groundhopping.de/shefwdg5.jpg

So does Darlington FC afford to own & maintain such a stadium?

I agree with Benjuk about it not being such a big deal over a small team playing out of a big stadium when they are only tennants & not owners.

Until recently (not sure about now) they had a wealthy, ambitious, and misguided chairman. They had to move from Feethams cause it was about to fall down, new stadium was pretty cheap from memory (relative to it's size) - once they decided to build it they discovered that, relatively speaking, it didn't cost that much more to do 25k rather than 12k - so they went big.

Dissapointed that the Aussie contingent haven't kicked in with the MCG yet... So I will.

MCG, Melbourne. Landmark, excellent stadium.

And St James' Park (Exeter).

I would have to say Hillsborough in Sheffield as it is home to the first full length cantilever roofed stand in Britain (the North Stand) , introducing a new era of unrestricted views and the technology allowing huge stands such as the the North Stand at Old Trafford to be built

Sadly it will forever be remembered for another reason :(

If we had to pick 1 American stadium and 1 America area, what would it be ?

LA Colliseum?
Rose Bowl?
Yankee Staium?
etc.. ?

Madison Square Garden has no competition for arenas.

I'd say based soley on the qualities of being a landmark AND a stadium you have to select the Rose Bowl. Most baseball fields don't feel stadium like...hence being called "Fields" or "Parks." But if you include baseball parks, then its really a toss up between Fenway, Yankee, and Wrigley. You really have to take all three because the all hold extremely significant history and relevance to their towns and are all revered as landmarks. But for a real "stadium," I think the Rose has to take the cake. And you are right, MSG is the obvious arena of choice.

Oh yeah, the Coliseum is pretty significant as well, but the Rose Bowl edges it out as a landmark I think.

How about ol' MLG.

i think this is going to be the best copa america ever and is the one that's going to have the best stadiums congratulations chamos:okay: for th great country you get and great for all those stadiums you're building

only if the participating countries take the cup at least halfway seriously, instead of always sending their shitty C-teams (not even enough respect for a descent B squad from most countries) as almost always happens.

These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more.

International Stadiums:

Wembley (London)
Wimbledon (London)
Highbury (London)*
Lords (London)
Old Trafford (Manchester)
The Original Oylmpic Stadium (Athens)
Oylmpic Stadium (Berlin)
Camp Nou (Barcelona)
Santiago Bernabeu (Madrid)
Melbourne Cricket Ground
Yankee Stadium (New York City)
Madison Square Gardens (New York City)
Estadio da Luz (Lisbon)*
San Siro (Milano)
Roland Garros (Paris)
Stade Louis II (Monaco)
Azteca (Mexico City)

*Personal Favourite

Canadian Stadiums

International:
Le Stade Olympique (Montreal)
Skydome (Toronto)

National:
The Forum
Maple Leaf Gardens
Pengrowth Saddledome
BC Place

Los Angeles has 3 obvious Choices...

1) Colosieum - 2 Olympics, World Cup, USC, Dodgers, Concerts, Etc etc etc

2) Rose Bowl - See Above, add UCLA football and the Rose bowl game

3) Dodger Stadium - Championships, History, most attended stadium in sports history, concerts, etc

in the future

4) Staples Center - Arena of the year numerous times, 5 pro teams (Lakers, Kings, Clippers, Sparks, Avengers) Championship Boxing, DNC, Concerts, World Events, etc etc

^^ can anyone say homer?


BASKETBALL - MSG (NYC) I think for basketball it is without dbout the MSG. Definatly the old Boston Garden and maybe even the old Chicago Stadium could have staked a claim as well but they are no more.

HOCKEY - MSG maybe. But I would tend to go with the Bell Centre or Air Canada center since those places are more where hockey's soul is at. Really, I am not sure if there any "special" hockey or basketball arenas anymore.

BASEBALL - Wrigley or Fenway. I would go with Wrigley but wouldn't begrudge those who pick Fenway. I DON'T think its Yankee stadiums. Real relics don't get torn down and discarded like it will in three years. Plus it is a very differant creature then when it was at its most iconic before the 1970's and the renovation.

FOOTBALL - I would go with the Rose Bowl or LA Col. For NFL I may go with Lambeau or Soldier but there is not one that clearly stands out.

So if I pick one indoor arena and one outdoor stadium in NA I would go with MSG and the Rose Bowl.

Nothing more than this:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/51/135118437_a61f54e151_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/114/295763823_e53234e174_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/32/45364661_0334586940_o.jpg

^^ can anyone say homer?




i did say these were the LA Choices. i didn't say these were the only arenas that should be included.

Queens Park were once deemed the greatest team in World football. Probably why they own such a stadium.
Nearly won the English FA Cup a couple of times too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Park_F.C.

Stats for premiership 06-07 up to game 11

Team - Played - Total - Highest - Average - Capacity - %

1 Manchester United (1) 11 833116 76018 75738 76212 99.3%
16 Aston Villa (13) 11 385835 42551 35076 42551 82.4%

Aston Villa also play to 82% crowds. Premiership teams Do not belong in this forum.

Queens Park on the other hand are on 0.96%
Dusseldorf about 7.9%

Good to see a bit of factual evidence being used to make a point. I quite agree with you about Premiership teams - but then I did say vaguely on-topic...

I think that's right...Yankee has definitely lost some of its luster as of late. I'd probably go Fenway. Wrigley second.

I think the Rose Bowl games for the last hundred years alone gives the Rose the edge over the Coliseum.

Lambeau is hands down the only NFL stadium that qualifies as a landmark. All others are too new or too renovated.

As for arena, Staples will someday get there, but MSG just has too much important history. So my choices for each of the major American sports are as follows:

Baseball - Fenway
College - Rose Bowl
NFL - Lambeau
Arena - Madison Square Garden

Maracana - Rio de Janiero
Nya Ullevi - Gothenburg
Olympiastadion - Munich
Wembley - London
MCG - Melbourne
Sapporo Dome - Sapporo
LA Coliseum - Los Angeles
Shea Stadium - New York

Maracana - Rio de Janiero
Nya Ullevi - Gothenburg
Olympiastadion - Munich
Wembley - London
MCG - Melbourne
Sapporo Dome - Sapporo
LA Coliseum - Los Angeles
Shea Stadium - New York

good list except for shea stadium

I thought long and hard about it, which is why it's last on the list. I'd classify it as a landmark stadium for two reasons:

It is significant enough to be (literally) a landmark that was pointed out to me in the taxi from JFK to Manhattan ans we drove through Queens. That's because it's one of the few baseball grounds (or should I say parks) that are fairly widely know outside the US.

To Americans, its true metaphorical landmark status is I'm sure down to the many baseball dramas played out over the years. However, it was also the venue for the first true 'stadium gig' (The Beatles in 1967(?))*. That more than anything has heightened its status to those who know nothing about baseball and couldn't even tell you which team play there.

*By all accounts, it was a pretty crap gig for sound quality as there just wasn't the technology available at that time to suit the purpose. It is even cited by some as being a supplementary reason why the Beatles stopped touring shortly after. However, it changed the face of live music and provided an early instance of an iconic rock performance.

Woodstock, Reading, Lollapolooza, Isle of Wight, Ozzfest and a thousand stadium tours can all trace their heritage back to that night at Shea Stadium.

Here is my list for the United States and US Sports. I'll start with colleges.

College Basketball
Undisputed
Pauley Pavilion - UCLA Bruins : Home to the dynasty of college basketball. 11 National Championship Banners hang in the rafters with the jerseys of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Walton, Reggie Miller and other greats. Home of the legendary and maybe best coach in college basketball history John Wooden and the home court of a team that set a record with 88 straight wins and 7 straight championships.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0d/Theden.jpg/800px-Theden.jpg

Allen Fieldhouse - Kansas Jayhawks : When the first coach of your program is the guy who invented the game you know you have something special. James Naismith, Phog Allen, Larry Brown, and Roy Williams coached for this legendary team, with the latter two pacing the sidelines in the Phog Fieldhouse. Wilt Chamberlin and JoJo White played here. 4 National Titles and the 3rd most wins all time for this storied program.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/AllenFieldHousephone.jpg

Rose Hill Gymnasium - Fordham Rams : Known for its age rather than the great teams it housed, the oldest gym for a major college basketball team still around (built in 1925) and located in New York City it has been a host to not only great college but also legendary high school games with some of the finest players to ever grace the hardwood.

http://www.fordham.edu/images/Athletics/rosehill5.jpg

The Palestra - Pennsylvania Quakers : Home to the University of Pennsylvania's basketball team it is not known as a building of a powerhouse program but is instead a gem from the 1920s and the crown jewel of Philadelphia basketball. Another arena that has hosted its fair share of great high school games or games featuring other schools. Still a legendary venue for competition between the big 5 Philly basketball schools. In fact while looking for a picture for this I came across an intresting stat, it has hosted more college basketball games and more NCAA tournaments than any other arena.

http://graphics.fansonly.com/schools/penn/graphics/palestra-crowd-250.jpg

Nonorable mentions
Rupp Arena : Kentucky Wildcats
Dean Smith Center : North Carolina Tarheels
Cameron Indoor Stadium : Dook Blue Devils


College Football
undisputed
Notre Dame Stadium - Notre Dame Fighting Irish : The stadium is known for its classic slash lined endzone, and being overshadowed by "Touchdown Jesus", this stadium is the home field of the team tied for the most National Championships (11) and most Heisman Trophy Winners (7). Legends that have graced this field include, Knute Rocky, Frank Leahy, Ara Parseghian, Lou Holtz, The Gipper, The Four Horseman, Johnny Lujack, Angelo Bertelli, Johnny Lattner, Paul Hornung, John Huarte, Joe Montana, Joe Theisman, Tim Brown, Rocket Ishmail, Jerome Bettis and Brady Quinn.

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Notre-Dame-Stadium-Photograph-C10106575.jpeg

The Big House / Michigan Stadium - Michigan Wolverines : College Footballs largest stadium and one of its most historic. Numerous national champions, Heisman trophy winners, and college football legends have called this stadium home.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/MichiganStadium.jpg

The Rose Bowl - UCLA Bruins : Home to the UCLA Bruins, who have had some very good football teams in their own right, but also home to the "granddaddy of them all", college footballs biggest bowl game with the most tradition.

http://static.flickr.com/43/82449665_fa64438372.jpg

Neyland Stadium - Tennessee Volenteers : The 2nd biggest Stadium in college football, held the title for a brief time before being overtaken by Michigan again, home to the Tennessee Volenteers of the Southeastern Conference. Another program that is littered with NFL stars both now and in the past.

http://www.bestsportsphotos.com/images/stadiums/Tennesee.jpg

Ohio Stadium / The Horseshoe - Ohio State Buckeyes : Made famous both for the great football teams which have called it home and its distinctive shape, Ohio Stadium is another gigantic monument to college football. Also home to Ohio States track and field team, where Jesse Owens set numerous collegiate and world records.

http://www.skylinepictures.com/OSU%20Ho9.jpg

Yale Bowl - Yale Bulldogs : Historic, inspirations design, even hosted the New York Giants while their stadium was under construction.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/97/YaleBowl-Field1a.JPG/800px-YaleBowl-Field1a.JPG

Harvard Stadium - Harvard Crimson : Another great historical stadium, host to great rivalry games between Harvard and Yale.

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~mcsteven/Harvard03.gif

Michie Field - Army Black Nights - one of college footballs all time great programs and maybe part of the best rivalry in all of sports, the Stadium for the United States Military Academy Football Team definitly deserved a mention.

http://www.clarkcompanies.com/Site%20Revision/images/Large%20Project%20Photos/Michie%20Stadium.jpg

Notable Mentions (some of these could be argued to be undisputeds but there are just so many great college football stadiums i couldnt go on forever).
Ben Hill Griffin Stadium / The Swamp - Florida Gators
Beaver Stadium - Penn State Nittany Lions
The Cotton Bowl
Memorial Stadium - Nebraska Cornhuskers
Tiger Stadium - LSU Tigers
Kyle Field - Texas A&M
Bobby Dowd Stadium - Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets
Bryant Denny Stadium - Alabama Crimson Tide
Memorial Stadium - Texas Longhorns
and I'm sure I'm missing a bunch more here.

and for some of you wondering where The Colesseum is or maybe the Carrier Dome, Madison Square Gardens, ect. I will put them in a seperate category for combinations of events.

^^ I'm sure all of those are fantastic stadia, but I would define a landmark as something that is instantly, internationally recognisable as being synonymous with the place where it is sited to such an extent that they define the identity of that city or country. With the greatest respect I've only heard of two or three of those that you list above - there's no way I would call Yale or Harvard's stadia landmarks, even if they do have prestigious histories.

To give you an idea of what I mean, I think the best example of a landmark would be the Eiffel Tower - anybody in the world would be able to tell you that its in Paris, France. I think there are very few, if any, stadia that would be similarly famous. I accept that I'm Scottish and therefore don't have a keen interest in US College football but nonetheless I know more than most about North American sport (my wife is from Virginia and I have family in Vancouver).

All the same, I'm going to stick my neck out here and have a go;

Wimbledon - London, England. Grass courts, strawberries and cream, The Queen - where else in the world could you be?

Augusta National, Georgia. Ok, so not technically a stadium, but if other people have been posting arenas, then surely I can have the most famous and beautiful golf course in the world? Instantly recognisable and hugely evocative of Southern American culture.

Indianapolis Speedway. The most famous motor race in the world. Such a famous place that most non-US citizens would be troubled to think of anything else to have come out of Indianapolis.

Olympiastadion - Munich. It still looks groundbreaking more than 30 years on. In a city that lacks other landmarks it makes a great statement against the stereotype of teutonic efficiency and functionalism. Not in any way overshadowed by the new Allianz Arena, which is also a wonderful building.

The Coliseum - Rome. So its a ruin but its the most famous ruin in the world. Imagine the atmosphere inside, standing on those steep terraces, bellowing for blood. Brilliant.

I'm sure there are others, but I am excluding the following -

Maracana; yes, its a famous stadium with a lot of history but its a little too bland looking to be considered a landmark in a city that also boasts the Statue of Christ, Ipanema Beach and Sugar Loaf mountain.

Wembley - may become one in time but could equally date really badly like the stadium in Montreal.

I don't know that I would call alll of those football stadiums (not Neyland or Mitchie anyway) Iconic, Also Tennessee is th 3rd largest at about 104,000. Michigan Stadium is about 107,500 and Beaver Stadium at Penn state is about 107,000. That photo of Ohio Stadium is few years old, they have since removed the track, lowered the field, added new endzone and upper level seating. It now seats 101,000 and is definately Iconic.

Also I would add Minnesota's Williams Arena and Butler's Hinkle Fieldhouse to the arena List.

But my two cents as far as iconic American stadiums go:
1.Rose Bowl
2.Fenway Park
3.Wrigley Field
4.Lambeau Field
5.Ohio Stadium

Woodstock, Reading, Lollapolooza, Isle of Wight, Ozzfest and a thousand stadium tours can all trace their heritage back to that night at Shea Stadium.

sorry, as important and cool as the Beatles playing Shea was that is about the only thing really cool about it. It is generally thought of as one of the worst baseball stadiums in the U.S. with relative low charecther or uniqueness. If it had any kind of importance Mets fans themselves (like at least some Yankee fans) wouldn't be clamoring to get the new one built and the old one torn down ASAP.

More then one night in the 60's needs to make a stadium somewhat iconic.

Bizzarely, there was a programme on the BBC tonight about the history of the Beatles as a touring band. I was not completely comfortable watching it, hoping it wouldn't announce some fact that I wasn't aware of and that was contrary to what I had written.

In fact, it seems I was laregly correct, although the year was 1965. It was the Beatles' second US tour and it was indeed 'credited' (if that's the right word) for being the begining of the end of their love of performing live. They performed to 56,000 that night.

Incidentally, the last-ever Beatles gig was at Candlestick Park, San Francisco a year and two whole tours later. The fact that the paucity of equipment and organisation was largely unimproved even by that stage seems to me to be a bigger factor than just the shortcomings on that first night at Shea. You have thought someone would have tried to make some changes by then...

nomarandlee, I'm sure Shea is not considered as iconic in the US for the reasons you outlined. However, this is an issue of perspective and opinion. Even then, I spent a while reasoning it, which is why I'm unwillling to change my view.

Maybe as a baseball venue, in its 44 years, it has not proved as significant as one night in 1965. I'm not in a position to say either way. I just feel that that one night in 1965 was incredibly important to the future usage of stadiums everywhere. Perhaps the fact that it involved music and not sport may be seen here by some as a lesser factor but by definition it is not, because it proved that stadiums do not always have to be about the sports for which they were built.

Also the fact that lots of fans want to see it razed and replaced by a newer stadium hardly consigns it to the dustbin of historical significance by default. I see Texas Stadium has appeared on this thread but thet won't stop thousands of Cowboys fans ticking off the days until JerryWorld opens!

Maple Leafs Gardens:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/25/92965398_3032df3f80.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/117650436_71811df7fc.jpg?v=0

Australian rugby league team, the South Sydney Rabbitoh's.
2006 average attendance - 10,627
They play at Telstra Stadium - capacity 83,500!

What about Victorian cricket team, home ground Melbourne Cricket Ground. 25 odd days of cricket a year.

Average attendance circa: 500. (Including seagulls, pidgeons and resident possums)
Stadium size: 98,500

Australian rugby league team, the South Sydney Rabbitoh's.
2006 average attendance - 10,627
They play at Telstra Stadium - capacity 83,500!

...which by any stretch of the imagination must be described as being in North Sydney or West Sydney but most definitely not South Sydney.

Of course sports teams everywhere play fast and loose with their location, given that you'd think their name ties them to one. Texas Stadium, home of the Dallas Cowboys is in Irving, halfway between Dallas and Forth Worth. The New York Jets and Giants play in a ground that is neither in the city or even state of New York. Liverpool's Anfield ground is marginally closer to the district of Everton than Goodison Park, the home of the team bearing that name. Increasingly, the name represents the brand and the geographical affiliation of its following rather than the location of the 'home' games.

It's only more farcical here because the many Sydney teams all differentiate themselves by carving up the city into the bits they claim to represent. That all seems rather inconvenient whe the time comes to appoint a venue to play at.

Here's another one for the topic. Juventus in Serie B. Currently averaging 19,509 which equates to 29% of the Delle Alpi's 67,229 capacity. Even before the scandal, they could only muster an average of 30,469 souls for Serie A games last season, still only 45.3% of available seats. Hardly impressive for La Fidanzata d'Italia.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

You can watch any match in Italy for under 5 euro a game at home, not freezing at the stadium or putting up with the idiotic antics of some spectators.

Its the way of the future.

It doesn't help matters but this would affect all teams so it deosn't fully explain Juve's plight entirely.

AC Milan's average crowds (fill rate) over the same two seasons are 59,993 (70%) in 2005/6 and 50,106 (58.5%) this season. With more seats to fill, surely Milan have more to lose with the advent of PPV TV, yet they have performed far better than Juve in the same timeframe.

The effects of the match-fixing scandal are clearly not endearing either side to their fans.

Does the worlds greatest hockey catherdal qualify as a landmark? You bet it does! When im in Toronto i always make it a priority to drive by and gaze at it. Without question one of North America's most historic and recognizable sporting venues.

My opinion

Hockey: Maple Leaf Gardens or the Montreal Forum
Baseball: Fenway in Boston or Wrigley in Chicago
Basketball: Boston Gardens!
Soccer: Wembley (old one)
Track and Field/ Olympics: Athens (original Olympic Stadium), Munich
Auto Racing: Bristol Speedway, or Monaco F1
Cricket: Lords, MCG
Golf: Augusta, Pebble Beach
US college sports: Michigan stadium, Rose Bowl, Cameron Indoor Stadium
Tennis: Wimbledon (sp?)

Thats a damn good list Calvin, I would have to agree with most every one of them. It is just too bad the basketball/hockey meccas are no more because I think they were the clear icons in their sports.

Granted I don't know a lot about football but from an outsiders perspective I find Madrids Bernabéu most iconic for club football.

Hockey: Maple Leaf Gardens or the Montreal Forum
Baseball: Fenway in Boston or Wrigley in Chicago
Basketball: Boston Gardens!
Soccer: Wembley (old one)
Track and Field/ Olympics: Athens (original Olympic Stadium), Munich
Auto Racing: Bristol Speedway, or Monaco F1
Cricket: Lords, MCG
Golf: Augusta, Pebble Beach
US college sports: Michigan stadium, Rose Bowl, Cameron Indoor Stadium
Tennis: Wimbledon (sp?)

if we are going by a stricter list than Calvins list is a pretty good start, but I have to add some more to that list, its not nearly enough stadiums for the major US sports because some that are on that list aren't nearly as iconic as ones that aren't.

Baseball : Fenway and Wrigley definitly deserve to be on there, but Yankee Stadium is just as much of a landmark if not more. Also, I would argue Camden Yards deserves to be on the list for starting the whole "retro" stadium thing.

Basketball : the Bostons Gardens was certainly a landmark, but it has been replaced by the Fleet Center, and shouldn't be on the list now (if you want to include it then you have to include the Spectrum in Philly and Chicago Stadium both need to be on there).

For College Sports : You can NOT leave Notre Dame Stadium off the list, its the home to by FAR the most popular college football team with by FAR the most history. I would put Notre Dame Stadium as the #1 or #2 behind the Rose Bowl, no other college stadiums are as big of "landmarks". Also, Pauley Pavillon has to be on the list, it has far more tradition than Cameron Indoor.

For Auto Racing : The Indianapolis Motor Speedway has to be on the list, definitly before Bristol.

For Golf : Definity have to add St. Andrews in Scotland, arguably as famous and important as Augusta.

For Tennis : I would add the USTA National Tennis Center in Queens NYC to the list but I guess that one is a little arguable.

For Professional Football : I would add Soldier Field in Chicago for sure, 80+ years old, home to one of the most storied teams, major city, recognizable name and architecture, definitly a landmark.

Lastly, while both of these could fit into other categories, I would DEFINITLY put the LA Coliseum and Madison Square Gardens (NYC) to the list, and I don't think either could be argued. the LA Coliseum has hosted 2 Olympics, is home to 2nd most storied team in College Football, it has hosted MLB and NFL teams, ect. Again, huge city, unique architecture, recognizable name, history, its all there. Madison Square Gardens is called "the most famous arena in the World" for a reason. On top of the NBA and NHL history you have high school basketball, college basketball, boxing, ect in the middle of Manhattan. I would also put Shea Stadium on there as far as being a "landmark" not necessarily for its baseball. It also hosted NFL games, one of the most famous Wrestlemanias, one of the most famous rock concerts in history (The Beatles), the Pope, ect.


Here is the updated list that I would go with as being fairly obvious.

Hockey: Maple Leaf Gardens (Toronto), Montreal Forum (Montreal)
(I follow hockey but not close, I don't know the arenas, I'll take ur word for it).
Baseball: Fenway Park (Boston), Wrigley Field (Chicago), Yankee Stadium (New York)
Basketball: none to speak of outside of MSG. (maybe I'm missing one)
Soccer: don't know the stadiums and their history / importance.
Auto Racing: Indianapolis Motor Speedway, Bristol Speedway, Monaco F1
Cricket: don't follow
Golf: Augusta, Pebble Beach, St. Andrews
US college sports: Notre Dame Stadium, Michigan stadium, Rose Bowl, Pauley Pavillion, Cameron Indoor Stadium
Tennis: Wimbledon, USTA National Tennis Center
Pro Football : Soldier Field (Chicago)
Multiple Sports : LA Coliseum (Los Angeles), Madison Square Gardens (New York), Shea Stadium (New York).

I dont know how Twickenham stadium has been left out. Its the home of world rugby as Lords is to cricket, Wimbledon is to tennis and Wembley is to football need i go on....

My opinion
Hockey: Maple Leaf Gardens or the Montreal Forum


Historically, yes. However, neither has seen an NHL game in years. The last one at the Gardens was in 1999, and the last at the Forum was in 1996.

The only 'landmark' arena that is currently in use is Madison Square Gardens (imo).

look match mc-algiers vs fiorentina !

http://www.dailymotion.com/mouloudia_org/video/xynx8_mouloudia-11-fiorentina

http://www.acffiorentina.it/images/108017.jpg

http://mouloudia.org/photos/2007/amical/vs_fiorentina_100107/3.jpg

http://mouloudia.org/photos/2007/amical/vs_fiorentina_100107/22.jpg

http://mouloudia.org/photos/2007/amical/vs_fiorentina_100107/53.jpg

http://mouloudia.org/photos/2007/amical/vs_fiorentina_100107/14.jpg

http://mouloudia.org/photos/2007/amical/vs_fiorentina_100107/5.jpg

http://7sc.dyndns.org:1984/~alex/public/Photos/20040920%20Choir%20Tour%20to%20Rome/0914%20Palatine,%20Forum,%20Colloseum,%20TC/P9140067%20Colosseum%20Interior.JPG

Football (Soccer):
- Wembley, Old Trafford (England)
- Berlin Olympiastadion, Munchen WC stadion (Germany)
- Camp Nou, Bernabeu (Spain)
- Stade de France, Marseille's Velodrome (France)
- San Siro (Italy)
- Azteca Stadium (Mexico)
- River Plates, La Bombonra (Argentina)
- Maracana (Brazil)

Rugby
- Twickenham (England)
- Millenium Stadium (Walles)
- Murrayfield (Scotland)
- Lansdowne Road (Ireland)
- Stade de France, Toulouse (France)
- Eden Park (New Zealand)
- Stadium Australia (Australia)
- Ellis Park (South Africa)

PSG plays at Parc des Princes (45 000 all seated)
http://monsieurn.free.fr/parc/parc2.jpg

Historically, yes. However, neither has seen an NHL game in years. The last one at the Gardens was in 1999, and the last at the Forum was in 1996.

The only 'landmark' arena that is currently in use is Madison Square Gardens (imo).

Both the Forum and Maple Leaf Garden have been destroyed right?

I would agree the only landmark arena now is MSG (and some would say the new version isn't really worthy). Rtaher unfortuante becase NA used to have a handfull of them.

Ok, I'm gonna go with what I think are the 3 most famous landmark stadiums/arenas/tracks of each category:

Football (soccer): Wembley, Estádio do Maracanã, Camp Nou/Benabeu/Old Trafford (can't decide between the last three so I had to include them all).

Rugby: Twickenham, SdF, Murrayfield

Golf: St Andrews, TPC at Sawgrass, Augusta

Baseball: Wrigley field, Fenway park, Yankee stadium

American football: ...who cares? ...Rose bowl maybe??

Formula 1: Monte Carlo (Monaco), Spa, Nürburgring (these were really hard to choose becasue there are so many other famous circuits like Silverstone, Interlagos, Magny-Cours, Hockenheim...etc etc)

Cricket: Lords, MCG, Trent Bridge/BRIT Oval/SCG (can't decide between last three)

Tennis: Wimbledon...... ...... ......Roland-Garros, US Open

Basketball: MSG...don't know any others

And any other sports that are not on that list were not important enough so...don't complain! :)

:cheers:

England - Wembley, Centre Court (Wimbledon), Lord's.
Scotland - Hampden Park
Spain - Nou Camp
Italy - San Siro
Brazil - Maracana
Mexico - Azteca
USA - Madison Square Garden
Australia - MCG

Both the Forum and Maple Leaf Garden have been destroyed right?

I would agree the only landmark arena now is MSG (and some would say the new version isn't really worthy). Rtaher unfortuante becase NA used to have a handfull of them.

The Forum was turned into an entertainment complex and I believe the Gardens are being converted into some sort of giant supermarket/general retailer (if you can believe it!).

I dont want anyone jumping down my throat about this but Madison Square Garden has only been around since 1968 as we know it today. Its been burned torn down and rebuilt several times. Aside from it being in NYC what makes it so historic? Im not trying to disrespect it but seriously. Many arenas in N. America has seen much more success from its teams than MSG. In fact its less or equally as historic as the LA Forum, Palace of Auburn Hills, Texas Stadium or Monster Park (Candlestick) if you go by championships. MSG has seen limited success compared to the other stadiums/arenas mentioned, take also into account it being less than 40 years old i just dont see it being mentioned in the same context as the rest.

I dont want anyone jumping down my throat about this but Madison Square Garden has only been around since 1968 as we know it today. Its been burned torn down and rebuilt several times. Aside from it being in NYC what makes it so historic? Im not trying to disrespect it but seriously. Many arenas in N. America has seen much more success from its teams than MSG. In fact its less or equally as historic as the LA Forum, Palace of Auburn Hills, Texas Stadium or Monster Park (Candlestick) if you go by championships. MSG has seen limited success compared to the other stadiums/arenas mentioned, take also into account it being less than 40 years old i just dont see it being mentioned in the same context as the rest.

Bear in mind that I (and nomarandlee) were talking about NHL arenas. I think of it as a 'landmark' because it has been the home of one of the 'original six' teams of the NHL for almost 40 years now. This means a lot to many hockey fans. Sure it isn't the 'original' arena, but it still remains a link to the past. All of the other 'original' rinks have long since closed in every way (even in name):

1. Chicago Stadium (replaced by United Center in 1994)
2. Olympia Stadium (replaced by Joe Louis Arena in 1979)
3. Boston Garden (replaced by TD Banknorth Garden in 1995 (originally called FleetCenter))
4. Maple Leaf Gardens (replaced by Air Canada Centre in 1999)
5. Montreal Forum (replaced by the Bell Centre in 1996 (originally called Moslon Centre))

I dont want anyone jumping down my throat about this but Madison Square Garden has only been around since 1968 as we know it today. Its been burned torn down and rebuilt several times. Aside from it being in NYC what makes it so historic? Im not trying to disrespect it but seriously. Many arenas in N. America has seen much more success from its teams than MSG. In fact its less or equally as historic as the LA Forum, Palace of Auburn Hills, Texas Stadium or Monster Park (Candlestick) if you go by championships. MSG has seen limited success compared to the other stadiums/arenas mentioned, take also into account it being less than 40 years old i just dont see it being mentioned in the same context as the rest.

Very much agree. not many championships, and when was the last major fight there? its not what it used to be. On a side note, i will be there to watch the Lakers take on the Knicks on jan 31st. go Lakers.

I dont want anyone jumping down my throat about this but Madison Square Garden has only been around since 1968 as we know it today. Its been burned torn down and rebuilt several times. Aside from it being in NYC what makes it so historic? Im not trying to disrespect it but seriously. Many arenas in N. America has seen much more success from its teams than MSG. In fact its less or equally as historic as the LA Forum, Palace of Auburn Hills, Texas Stadium or Monster Park (Candlestick) if you go by championships. MSG has seen limited success compared to the other stadiums/arenas mentioned, take also into account it being less than 40 years old i just dont see it being mentioned in the same context as the rest.

Madison Square Garden must be the most famous arena in the world it has numerous film and tv appearances and more importantly than that it is considered the 'mecca of boxing' by millions of boxing fans around the world.

Ok, I'm gonna go with what I think are the 3 most famous landmark stadiums/arenas/tracks of each category:

Football (soccer): Wembley, Estádio do Maracanã, Camp Nou/Benabeu/Old Trafford (can't decide between the last three so I had to include them all).

Rugby: Twickenham, SdF, Murrayfield

Golf: St Andrews, TPC at Sawgrass, Augusta

Baseball: Wrigley field, Fenway park, Yankee stadium

American football: ...who cares? ...Rose bowl maybe??

Formula 1: Monte Carlo (Monaco), Spa, Nürburgring (these were really hard to choose becasue there are so many other famous circuits like Silverstone, Interlagos, Magny-Cours, Hockenheim...etc etc)

Cricket: Lords, MCG, Trent Bridge/BRIT Oval/SCG (can't decide between last three)

Tennis: Wimbledon...... ...... ......Roland-Garros, US Open

Basketball: MSG...don't know any others

And any other sports that are not on that list were not important enough so...don't complain! :)

:cheers:

Most other people have attempted to be civil and have not cut down other sports from other countries. Funny how you picked a baseball list but can't be bothered to do football

Madison Square Garden must be the most famous arena in the world it has numerous film and tv appearances and more importantly than that it is considered the 'mecca of boxing' by millions of boxing fans around the world.


Maybe 30 years ago. the Knicks nor the Rangers, save for the one championship in 94, have not been very successful since the 70's and major boxing is now held in Las Vegas, with some bouts at Staples Center and some at Madison Square.

I dont want anyone jumping down my throat about this but Madison Square Garden has only been around since 1968 as we know it today. Its been burned torn down and rebuilt several times. Aside from it being in NYC what makes it so historic? Im not trying to disrespect it but seriously. Many arenas in N. America has seen much more success from its teams than MSG. In fact its less or equally as historic as the LA Forum, Palace of Auburn Hills, Texas Stadium or Monster Park (Candlestick) if you go by championships. MSG has seen limited success compared to the other stadiums/arenas mentioned, take also into account it being less than 40 years old i just dont see it being mentioned in the same context as the rest.

Madison Square Garden includes versions I, II, III, and IV
It's a package deal. Take it or leave it.

well its true that MSG is more popular because of what it represents then any kind of architectural consideration. Being smack dab in the middle in the middle of Manhatten above a train station that is home to the most beloved basketball/hockey team in NYC (with apolgies to the Nets, Devils, Isladers) is a big deal, even though there haven't been a plethora of championships won in the building. Also the boxing matches and the legacy the name carry on is a big deal. Put the arena in Houston, Miami, or even Chicago and it is largely considered irrevelant.

can any one tell me dat how many rows we can have in a seating tier can they be 35 and after how many rows do we have to give an aisle .................................plus are the vomitory entrance gates be the fire exit gates as well ........ior there are differnet fire exits ????????????????

Here's another one for the topic. Juventus in Serie B. Currently averaging 19,509 which equates to 29% of the Delle Alpi's 67,229 capacity. Even before the scandal, they could only muster an average of 30,469 souls for Serie A games last season, still only 45.3% of available seats. Hardly impressive for La Fidanzata d'Italia.

While they (until recently) were highly reputed in Europe and beyond, they are still the 2nd team in their hometown of Torino.

Most other people have attempted to be civil and have not cut down other sports from other countries. Funny how you picked a baseball list but can't be bothered to do football
Lol, apologies my friend, I didn't mean to take the mickey out of American football...if that's what does it for you, all power to ya!!

And, at least I mentioned it in my list...I was trying to be thorough...but because I had spent so long really thinking about the most popular venues of each sport, I just got fed up when I came to American football (which I actually did as an afterthought and stuck it in the middle), and therefore I couldn't really be bothered at that point to research which venues were had some history...apart from the Rose Bowl.

As I said, no offense intended.

:cheers:

good project so algeria may organize africa cup or world cup or olympic game one day
need more project

^^^^^^^^^^^^

You can watch any match in Italy for under 5 euro a game at home, not freezing at the stadium or putting up with the idiotic antics of some spectators.

Its the way of the future.

But would watching the best 22 players in the world play at an empty stadium be as good as watching 22 average players playing in a full stadium? The point is, without a crowd to create an atmosphere, football is just blokes running around kicking a ball.

Circus Maximus in Rome.

Would Hampden be considered a landmark stadium. It holds so many records, is one of the oldest national stadium in the world and still reguliarly hosts big games.

http://www.premierimage.co.uk/aphampdenpark.jpg

^^ wouldn't have thought so. Personally, I like it, but the reconstruction seems to have attracted a lot of criticism and while it might have been eligible for landmark status 30 or 40 years ago I think most people would agree that the stadium as it stands now is a sad imitation of how it used to be.

That 5 juillet stadium still blows me away, similar concept to that of soccer city in jhb, only this one is more bold

Perhaps Algeria should be given 2010? It makes more sense.

True
The ends are triible but with its history I thought it could still count.

;11328105']Perhaps Algeria should be given 2010? It makes more sense.
seriously ...give it up. you're only making urself look pathetic.

aye, fair enough. On history, yes it should be included. I prefer to think of a landmark as something with architectural/aesthetic interest - sadly, Hampden is now a rather bland looking, medium sized stadium. the best thing about it is the tartan army :)

Bizzarely, there was a programme on the BBC tonight about the history of the Beatles as a touring band. I was not completely comfortable watching it, hoping it wouldn't announce some fact that I wasn't aware of and that was contrary to what I had written.

In fact, it seems I was laregly correct, although the year was 1965. It was the Beatles' second US tour and it was indeed 'credited' (if that's the right word) for being the begining of the end of their love of performing live. They performed to 56,000 that night.

Incidentally, the last-ever Beatles gig was at Candlestick Park, San Francisco a year and two whole tours later. The fact that the paucity of equipment and organisation was largely unimproved even by that stage seems to me to be a bigger factor than just the shortcomings on that first night at Shea. You have thought someone would have tried to make some changes by then...

nomarandlee, I'm sure Shea is not considered as iconic in the US for the reasons you outlined. However, this is an issue of perspective and opinion. Even then, I spent a while reasoning it, which is why I'm unwillling to change my view.

Maybe as a baseball venue, in its 44 years, it has not proved as significant as one night in 1965. I'm not in a position to say either way. I just feel that that one night in 1965 was incredibly important to the future usage of stadiums everywhere. Perhaps the fact that it involved music and not sport may be seen here by some as a lesser factor but by definition it is not, because it proved that stadiums do not always have to be about the sports for which they were built.

Also the fact that lots of fans want to see it razed and replaced by a newer stadium hardly consigns it to the dustbin of historical significance by default. I see Texas Stadium has appeared on this thread but thet won't stop thousands of Cowboys fans ticking off the days until JerryWorld opens!

Interesting view of Shea with regards to the Beatles really being the genesis of big stadium concerts. Shea is over shadowed in NYC of course by Yankee Stadium in baseball because of the history but Shea architecturally was the a basis for many baseball parks to come later.

jim jones

Would Hampden be considered a landmark stadium. It holds so many records, is one of the oldest national stadium in the world and still reguliarly hosts big games.

http://www.premierimage.co.uk/aphampdenpark.jpg

Actually Hampden in its original life had to inovations that people probably could not imagine a stadium being without today.
Turnstyles and a public address system were first introduced at hampdem park.

jim jones

Yeh, along with the first press box and car park and it also hosted the first all-ticket match.

And a landmark doesn't need to be limited to aesthetics. What are the pyramids without the history?

You really need to see these wonderful stadiums

http://www.worldstadiums.com/europe/countries/faroe_islands.shtml

Gandalur Stadium holds a whole 8,020 spectators :banana:

and 3,000 of these get the luxury of premium seating

you really can't beat this town for sporting facilities

I mean, the national Faroe Islands football team also play in Tórshavn, at the wonderful Tórsvøllur stadium, this was apparently built in 2000 and I bet it cost a lot less and was a lot quicker to build that Wembley, I bet the atmostphere is fantastic there as well

Faroe Islands FTW

:spam1: :lock:

nice

Haha

I mean, the national Faroe Islands football team also play in Tórshavn, at the wonderful Tórsvøllur stadium,How can a Danish island have a National team? :lol:

Lay of the homebrew mate! :nuts:

How can a Danish island have a National team? :lol:

Lay of the homebrew mate! :nuts:

Um... I think your the one who needs to have a few less pints of whatever you are drinking if, as a Dane, you don't know that the Faroes do compete as a separate entity in football... just like Scotland and Wales.

:cheers:

These threads are beyond ridiculous now!!

Blimey, Mr. D, are you being serious? Everybody knows the Faroe Islands are self-governing and have their own Prime Minister... :)

Lol, I wanted to open a similar thread about some village in The netherlands but I didn't do it.

Blimey, Mr. D, are you being serious? Everybody knows the Faroe Islands are self-governing and have their own Prime Minister... :)Then everybody needs to read up on the Faroe Islands then :lol:

The Faroe Islands have a Danish system called Homerule - this system is also used in Greenland, and was used in Iceland until they got their independence in 1944...

This is not the same as being a country.. far from it - they are semi-autonomous with a small local goverment called the Løgting that takes care of local issues - Homerule also gives them, despite their small population the right to have 2MPs in the Danish Goverment ( like Greenland )

About the "Prime minister" :lol:

No they do NOT have a prime minister - they have a "Chairman of the Lagting" løgmaður... which is basicly the same as a County-Mayor in Denmark...

The laws, police, defense and everything else is 100% Danish - just as the Faroese themself are Danish Nationals, with Pasport and everything...


Um... I think your the one who needs to have a few less pints of whatever you are drinking if, as a Dane, you don't know that the Faroes do compete as a separate entity in football... just like Scotland and Wales. So? Does a football team make a nation?

Just because Fifa or whatever wants to give the small places a chance doesn't mean they deside what's a country and what's not... :cheers:


It's kinda like Hawaii... it's small.. its isolated and the population are indigones to some degree... but that doesn't make it any less of a US state...


The Faroe Islands can btw become independant... all they have to do is ask for it... ofcouse that would mean that the Danish cash flow would stop and they would have to rely on fishing ( and pay for their education in Denmark ) so.. so far they have declined...

So? Does a football team make a nation?

Just because Fifa or whatever wants to give the small places a chance doesn't mean they deside what's a country and what's not... :cheers:


Did I ever say that the Faroes were a country??? All I said is that they form a separate entity where football is concerned... which is 100% true. They have their own national team and their club teams compete separately from Danish clubs in UEFA competition.

Take a chill pill man.:cheers:

Maybe they are considered a "nation within Denmark". Bastard-ass Harper!

Did I ever say that the Faroes were a country??? All I said is that they form a separate entity where football is concerned... which is 100% true. They have their own national team and their club teams compete separately from Danish clubs in UEFA competition.

Take a chill pill man.:cheers:How can something that's not a nation have a national team?

Do they have some football clubs, you bet ya - do they have a Faroese team.. yep.. does it mean anything.. Nope!


Anyway, this is off topic.. and very simple... so I'll leave you gentlemen to discuss all you want to about our small islands and their small stadiums - have fun! :)

Depends on your definition of a nation. The following "nations" are all members of FIFA:

American Samoa - US unincorporated territory
Anguilla - British overseas territory
Aruba - constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Bermuda - British overseas territory
British Virgin Islands - British overseas territory
Cayman Islands - British overseas territory
England - constituent country of the United Kingdom
Faroe Islands - Danish autonomous region
Guam - US unincorporated territory
Hong Kong - Chinese special administrative region
Macau - Chinese special administrative region
Montserrat - British overseas territory
Netherlands Antilles - constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Northern Ireland - constituent country of the United Kingdom
Puerto Rico - US unincorporated territory
Scotland - constituent country of the United Kingdom
Turks and Caicos Islands - British overseas territory
US Virgin Islands - US unincorporated territory
Wales - constituent country of the United Kingdom

PS I think the reason for all the above having their own soccer team is purely pragmatic - if FIFA decreed that only sovereign states could play on the international stage, soccer would stagnate in territories geographically separated from their "parent", like most of the ones above...

Depends on your definition of a nation.

There is only one definition of a nation: a people. A country is a piece of land, a nation is the people who live in the country.

There is only one definition of a nation: a people. A country is a piece of land, a nation is the people who live in the country. :applause: Precisely! :yes:

What's up with the posts of cities being world sports capitals?? lol Get over it. It fuels flame wars.

def right up there with london and melbourne.

canarywondergod: Scunthorpe United's old ground was the first.

The first cantilever stand was built at Scunthorpe Uniteds Old Show Ground in 1958, 4 years prior to the one at Hillsborough. The stand replaced the old East Stand which was burnt down, it took just over 3 months to erect in readiness for their first game in the Second Division.

There's a big sports arena planned in Skopje (Macedonia) for 2008.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/past_future/future_stadiums.shtml

Has somebody pictures or any infos about the "Boris Trajkovski Arena"?

Hey.When you pick a stadium in the landmark stadiums list consider:

-Would you put this stadiums in this list after ex. 100 years?
-Is the stadiums at least 100 years old?
-Did you chose it only because its a technological breakthrough?Technology is evolving very fast and newer and moremodern stadiums are built on an anual basis.

Well 12,000 is not anything big.I don't think its gonna be anything architectually interesting as well

canarywondergod: Scunthorpe United's old ground was the first.

The first cantilever stand was built at Scunthorpe Uniteds Old Show Ground in 1958, 4 years prior to the one at Hillsborough. The stand replaced the old East Stand which was burnt down, it took just over 3 months to erect in readiness for their first game in the Second Division.

yes you are very right but it didnt cover the full length of the pitch, meerly an area around the centre circle, hillsborough (which i stated) :tongue3: was the first stadium to have a full length cantilevered stand :)

For Europe and especially a small country like Macedonia it's a HUGE arena

Does anyone have any information about stadium/arena projects for Slovenia? The date on their national stadium and indoor arena "Tivoli" has expired.

:?

The reconstruction of Ljudski vrt Stadium in Maribor is underway.

There are also plans to build a new university sports arena, stadium and a new sports hall (or enlarge Tivoli Arena) in Ljubljana.

See the Ljubljana and Maribor project threads in the Alpe Adria subforum of Euroscrapers. :)

Any sportsarena over 10,000 could be considered big imo.

here are the renderings for the arena

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n16/djurob/bimas179md.jpg

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n16/djurob/picture1jb.jpg

and here are some construction photos taken in different stages. Currently they are more or less wrapping up the exterior. The roof is about finished and they've started installing the aluminium framework and the glass.

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n16/djurob/img26295bo.jpg

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n16/djurob/r00202812lh.jpg

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n16/djurob/r0020358hl.jpg

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n16/djurob/IMG_3683-1.jpg

you can always check for updates on it in the Skopje Construction Thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=416931)

:cheers:

very cool

Thank you very much!! :bow:

I guess it's big, but a HUGE arena I would say, would be the Bell Centre in Montreal.

It's fine.Good work! :)

Photos?

ha!

Perhaps the Faroes are an anarcho-syndicalist commune who take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major matters...*

BTW, This thread started silly but it just got serious. So stop that.

* Thanks to http://arago4.tnw.utwente.nl/stonedead/movies/holy-grail/main.html (download the zipped word file) for the whole script for 'The Holy Grail' (for those who didn't recognise the source of the above quote)...

Faroese people are their very own ethnic group, they have very extensive autonomy, and so on and so on.... Of course they are a nation. For god's sake, there exists even The Faroese National Archives!

I believe the Faroese are a cultural group within themselves. However that said are kinsfolk the Danes are heavily related to them, and they sustain a very good deal with their autonomy arrangements.

Closely related to the Faroese, the Orcadians and Shetlanders, have not been so lucky under the cruel hand of the Scottish Overlord through the centuries, and all of us (whether Germanians or just believers in the dignity of every cultural group) have a duty to protect them and ensure increasing autonomy and eventual independence results for these much maligned and forgotten people who have suffered so much oppression from a cruel and dominating foreign people.

How about the Azteca - two world cup finals, the hand of God goal, Maradona's goal where he walked thru the entire England team. The Carlos Alberto goal in the final against Italy in 1970.

Along with the fact that its absolutely f**king huge. Although perhaps slightly worn down now. I still think it deserves its place as a landmark stadium.

well, this thread was started to mock the stupid city ego battles going on, sorry I mean, to show off Torshavn's wonderful facilities, and it's turned into an almost heated political debate

Centenario Stadium in Montevideo - Uruguay - South America, the first football world cup was played there, many Copa America, Copa Libertadores and Intercontinental finals too; built in 1930 for the Fifa world cup.

cap - 67.000

Slovenians should build all-purpose arena with retractable roof capacity ca 35.000 for football, ice hockey, basketball etc.

Faroese people are their very own ethnic group, they have very extensive autonomy, and so on and so on.... Of course they are a nation. For god's sake, there exists even The Faroese National Archives!

Quebec has extensive autonomy compared to the rest of Canada, they have a National assembly, but nobody in the world except for Harper recognizes them as a nation.

well, this thread was started to mock the stupid city ego battles going on, sorry I mean, to show off Torshavn's wonderful facilities, and it's turned into an almost heated political debate

There was really only one person responsible for the first thread being locked and the second one is well on the way because that person insists on doing it again with C v C antagonism.

Tina Maze Arena? :P

any body help me. I'm a student. I try to find the information to design basket ball arena. ( i have no money to buy english book...) :(
thanks my email: thantd1810@gmail.com

Fair enough - I hold my hands up 2 being involved in starting this 'sporting capital' nonsense, and am happy to take the mockery on the chin!!

Can't believe that some people don't seem to get jokes like this either!

Well I don't think you started this recent nonsense. You started a thread that was very valid and you clearly stated "A" as opposed to "The". Big difference.

It was a certain person that went over the top and made your thread into a city v city thread. Problems on message boards usually arise when a person does not do proper research and posts incorrect facts and flippant comments. This was obvious from that person but instead of admitting mistakes this person insisted on ignoring them or spinning them and creating more hostility.

Unfortunately the original thread is locked due to this. So a similar thread was opened and low and behold that person is still continuing his little jabs and hostility against the capital of a particular country off the coast of northwestern Europe, and nothing's being done about it.

With this said, I enjoy the sense of humour involved in the creation of this thread.

^^ ^^ ^^

Good points - glad someone gets what I'm trying to do/say!

Have been off the board since the day I posted the original London thread and have only just realised it's been locked! Have read through some of the posts though, tutting to myself, and yes there are clearly 1 or 2 individuals on the London and L.A threads that seem to be too stupid/ignorant/zenophobic to converse on the same level as most normal people here, and sadly some people are taking the bait, as I've been guilty of before but am trying hard not to do now...

:applause: Precisely! :yes:

He still never said they where a country :cheers:

Quebec has extensive autonomy compared to the rest of Canada, they have a National assembly, but nobody in the world except for Harper recognizes them as a nation.

Do you guys in Toronto live in a bubble or something?? What "extensive autonomy" does Quebec have over say Ontario? Secondly, yes Quebec has a "Assemblee Nationale" (National Assembly) but it is just a name, it is no more than a provincial legislature like all the other provinces have. Finally, who cares what Harper thinks? So he says Quebec is a "nation" and you don't think for one second that it's a politician talking and that his only aim is to get a few more votes in Quebec for the next election???

Eeeesh...

Sorry for the off topic discussion... but some things cannot go unsaid... back to the Faroe Islands!

Madison Square Garden includes versions I, II, III, and IV
It's a package deal. Take it or leave it.

Then I guess we'll leave it.

Might as well add some Faroe Islands content to this thread anyway.....

Faroe Islands Football Team - lads
http://www.football.fo/en/thumb/ShowImage.aspx?img=2005-FR-FO.jpg&thumb=no

birds
http://www.football.fo/UserImages/00000417_2004-10-12-Felagsmynd.jpg

Tórsvøllur Faroe Islands National Football Stadium - built 2000. 7000 seats.
http://www.torsvollur.fo/data/FABB3D81-BFCA-4999-A71C-9DC14E34FA2D/694F8EE0-7015-4F1D-AF76-5B4603AF2B5B.jpg

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=330977&page=15

maybe some more info there or people who can help you

[QUOTE=Overground;11459595]
Faroe Islands Football Team - lads
http://www.football.fo/en/thumb/ShowImage.aspx?img=2005-FR-FO.jpg&thumb=no

birds
http://www.football.fo/UserImages/00000417_2004-10-12-Felagsmynd.jpg
QUOTE]

Oh dear. It's not always apparent which team is which, is it? That must be why they play in different colours.

Thankfully, it's dark there most of the winter, anyway...

^Is that really women???? Yikes!

Nice arial picture btw - feel very free to post more... looks nice :)


Faroese people are their very own ethnic group,
Well sure if you call a mixture of Danes and Nowegians an ethic group....

they have very extensive autonomy, Yes they have the Danish system called Homerule - like Greenland have and Iceland had before it was given full independence...

It is btw not Denmark who's holding back the Faroese from becomming a country - its the fact that Danish funding will stop and they will have to rely on fishing...

and so on and so on.... Oh yes ofcause... :)


Of course they are a nation. No, they are a semi-autonomous area under the Danish State and Kingdom...

They are Danish citizens - use the Danish Krone - speak Danish - and to get a visum, should you need guess which embassy to contact - oh that's right... the DANISH one!

For god's sake, there exists even The Faroese National Archives! Yeah there do... it's real name is "Færøske Landsarkiv" ( "Føroya Landsskjalasavnið" in Faroese ) and it translates to roughly "Faroese Land Archive" where the word "Land" means area like Jutland ( "the area of the Jutes" ) or Finland ( "the area of the Fins" ) and so on... it has nothing to do with being a nation.. infact in Danish Land means both country and rural area "Jeg tager på Landet" ( "I'm going to the countryside" ) "Landmand" ( "farmer" )...

But nice try anyway :)

Think of it like Hawaii... it's small and isolated with it's own culture and language - but it's still not a country...


Here's btw what the Official Site of the Danish Kingdom has to say...

Greenland & The Faroe Islands



When we talk about Denmark, we normally refer to Jutland, Zealand, Funen and the islands scattered in the Danish waters. But the Faroe Islands in the North Atlantic and Greenland, which is part of the North American continent, also belong to Denmark.


Culturally and linguistically speaking, the northern and the southern parts of the kingdom are very different.


Home rule

Greenland and the Faroe Islands both have home rule, a scheme which leaves most of the important decision-making to the local parliaments, the Lagting in Tórshavn on the Faroe Islands and the Greenland Landsting in Nuuk.


Foreign policy is excluded from home rule resolutions, however. This is handled by the Danish government.


Increased home rule?

Both Greenland and the Faroe Islands elect two representatives for the Danish parliament, the Folketing, in Copenhagen.

The question of increased home rule or even total independence, especially for the Faroe Islands, has been a hot political topic for several years both in Copenhagen, Tórshavn and Nuuk.
http://denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=374,520328&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

På halv stanghttp://farm1.static.flickr.com/121/312333484_3bd1039452_b.jpg

Unsure...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/347757095_59de86f086_b.jpg

Torshaven, a world capital of sport? wtf? people are going over the top. I don't even know where it is.

På halv stanghttp://farm1.static.flickr.com/121/312333484_3bd1039452_b.jpg

Nice scenery :eek2:

Look at how they fly the flag... ;)
A mourning nation...

well, this thread was started to mock the stupid city ego battles going on, sorry I mean, to show off Torshavn's wonderful facilities, and it's turned into an almost heated political debate

As the initiator of the second thread that you are referring to, I think the Torshavn thread is funny. I get the joke. Its a shame that a lot of posters have very weak egos.

Panathinaikos Athens last year had an average attendance of 7,500 whilt playing at the 76,000 seat Athens Olympic Stadium.

idunno where you get your stats i think PAO averaged closer to 15-20 000 pps a game and also you need to take into consideration that includes fan bans and such so ...also oaka is not 76000 its closer to 65 000

the stats are acurate.Thsi doesn't mean that pao is a small club but that the fans were disappointed.In the derbies pao had 30,000-40,000 people but in other games rarelymore than 6,000 .OAKA's full capacity is 76,000 .Under this configuration is 72,000.This is not changing anything.Attendance is still around 10%

How is PSG small?

@MiketheGreek: The stats that you have might be misleading because most attendance figures in Greece dont take into season ticket holders.

Whenever I watch a PAO game (which is almost never, since im a gavro:colgate: ) the stadium seems to atleast have 15,000-20,000 fans a match......

I thought I would reverse the topic of the other thread in this section regarding small teams in big stadiums.

So, are there any teams who seem to be "too big" for their current stadiums?

Melbourne Victory's home ground only fits 18000 (and only fits that many because of the terraces) but their average home attendance is over 30000 with most matches moved to Telstra Dome.

A new stadium is proposed but the government's proposal only fits 27000 at most. The club is refusing to accept the proposal.

off the top of my head....Tottenham


Birmingham has a large fanbase (we even got our own Club Football video game lol) but because we havent been able to turn this powerhouse of a city's football team to reflect our city's status at any stage of our 132 year history, most of the fans stay apathetic and unenthusiastic and the attendances stay low for a club with such a huge fanbase. 55,000 Birmingham fans were there to watch Birmingham win the highly prestigious Leyland DAF cup at Wembley lol

but we need to build a great team together first and then concern ourselves with the City of Birmingham stadium because right now a larger stadium isnt necessary (especially when you play the likes of Southend, Barnsley and Colchester in the Championship and are made to pay Premiership prices)

Depends on the definition of 'big club'. One interpretation is overall ticket demand in relation to actual stadium capacity.

Another is achievement level of the team in relation to actual stadium capacity.

Using the second measure, I'd nominate Bayer Leverkusen and more recently Villareal for advancing to the later stages of the Champions league with stadia below 25,000 in capacity.

I believe that Lens had an even smaller ground but played their bigger games at nearby Lille in recent years.

English clubs currently too big for their stadiums...

Man Utd - continually expanding but league attendances, etc., would seem to indicate that they could fill a 100,000 or 120,000 if they could build one.

Liverpool - already building a bigger ground because Anfield's too small.

Sheffield United - capacity of just under 31k, averaging over 26k... With an expanded/improved stadium, cheaper seats, they could pull in a lot more, especially if they stay in the Prem and Wednesday don't manage to get back.

West Ham, Chelsea, Spurs - all could sell more tickets than they have seats.

Possibly also Charlton and Portsmouth.

Newcastle's ground is big enough at the moment, but if they got back up toward the top 3 or 4 they'd soon need more space - the same goes for Sunderland, able to attract 45-48k regularly when we finished 7th, were we ever to threaten to actually win something we'd need more seats.

Melbourne Victory's home ground only fits 18000 (and only fits that many because of the terraces) but their average home attendance is over 30000 with most matches moved to Telstra Dome.

A new stadium is proposed but the government's proposal only fits 27000 at most. The club is refusing to accept the proposal.Melbourne use the Telstra Dome now as their home ground.

The TD seats 54,000 and their average is around 30,000.

The State Government though has plans to build a rectangular stadium for them and the Melbourne Storm Rugby League club. Only problem is they want it to be 20,000 capacity. Considering our (Victory) crowds average 30,000 to make us move into a 20,000 seater is just stupid.

Melbourne use the Telstra Dome now as their home ground.

The TD seats 54,000 and their average is around 30,000.

The State Government though has plans to build a rectangular stadium for them and the Melbourne Storm Rugby League club. Only problem is they want it to be 20,000 capacity. Considering our (Victory) crowds average 30,000 to make us move into a 20,000 seater is just stupid.

This is going to develop into a very interesting story. The State Government seem obsessed with the idea of building a 'mid-sized' stadium, insisting that Telstra is suitable for ALL events likely to attract between 30-54k. They appear to be completely blind to the difference between watching football/rugby in a rectangular stadium rather than a oval one (probably due to none of the Victorian politicians being interested in soccer or rugby).

They also seem to be obsessed with building a state-of-the-art beautiful artistic statement, rather than a functioning stadium. The Sunderland Stadium of Light, The Riverside, Pride Park, St Mary's, etc., are all pretty dull stadia, but they were all relatively cheap and do the job that is required of them. I can't understand why they won't throw out the 'bubble' design and go for a simple, straight-forward, BIG rectangular bowl... A 40000 wrap around single tier of seating would probably come in a lot cheaper than the 20-25k seater they are currently planning.

The only problem with this plan would be that a deal was signed with the Telstra Dome developers that the Government wouldn't support any other venue with more than 25k seats for ten years after Telstra was opened... This is easilly avoided by simply delaying construction of the new ground by one year (so it wouldn't open until late 2010, the tenth anniversary of Telstra Dome opening).

when is a team big enough to be in this topic?

example FC Twente, netherlands has a stadium that is way too small, but to call FC Twente a big team...

http://www.seats3d.com/index2.html

great sight with some crazy arenas
i didm't know that SA Spurs have such a big arena

it is a great site.

I would say any club that could comfortably sell more tickets than it has seats on more than a few occasions each season.

As an aside, when talking of capacities and attendances, it may be worth noting that it costs $20(AU) to watch Melbourne Victory play A-League (equivilent to English League One) games at Telstra Dome, that's about 8 GB pounds, 12 euros or $16 US. I know how much tickets cost for the EPL, but how does that price compare with other leagues around the world?

Boston Red Sox.

Sc Heerenveen, FC Twente and AZ Alkmaar (all Dutch)
Valencia CF, Atletico Madrid, Athletic Bilbao, Cadiz (all Spain)

I believe that Lens had an even smaller ground but played their bigger games at nearby Lille in recent years.
It was the opposite !

Lille used to play at the stadium "Grimonprez-Jooris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stade_Grimonprez_Jooris)" (21 128 seats) but since 2004, it is closed. Today they play at the stadium "Stadium Lille-Metropole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_Lille-Metropole)" (18 800 seats) in Villeneuve d'Ascq (near Lille) but because this stadium is not ratified by the UEFA, the team has to play its european matches in a bigger stadium ie Stade de France (80 000 seats) or Stade Félix Bollaert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stade_F%C3%A9lix_Bollaert) in LEns (41 233 seats). A new stadium will be built (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stade_Borne_de_l%27Espoir) (50 000 seats).
;)

Stade Grimonprez-Jooris in Lille (21 128 seats):
http://stadedumonde.bleublog.ch/files/images/2006/3/450/mob17_1142892665.jpg

Stadium_Lille-Metropole in Villeneuve d'Ascq (18 800 seats) :
http://perso.orange.fr/demeraux.jerome/Cartes/VilleneuvedAscq.jpg

Stade Félix Bollaert in Lens (41 233 seats):
http://stadedumonde.bleublog.ch/files/images/2006/3/mob16_1142892515.jpg

This is going to develop into a very interesting story. The State Government seem obsessed with the idea of building a 'mid-sized' stadium, insisting that Telstra is suitable for ALL events likely to attract between 30-54k. They appear to be completely blind to the difference between watching football/rugby in a rectangular stadium rather than a oval one (probably due to none of the Victorian politicians being interested in soccer or rugby).

Telstra Dome's retractable seating work fine, it's just that its tenants have only ever asked for the seats to be moved on two occasions. The whole issue of a new stadium wouldn't be so bad if MVFC would reach an agreement with the Telstra Dome management about moving the seats in.

A separate stadium of a decent capacity would be a much better solution though, simply because Telstra Dome can be a pretty busy venue and you can end up with problems in scheduling. Although ideally it shouldn't be a problem since games shouldn't be clashing anyway. But with two clashes already this year, I'm not betting on that.

It was the opposite !

Lille used to play at the stadium "Grimonprez-Jooris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stade_Grimonprez_Jooris)" (21 128 seats) but since 2004, it is closed. Today they play at the stadium "Stadium Lille-Metropole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_Lille-Metropole)" (18 800 seats) in Villeneuve d'Ascq (near Lille) but because this stadium is not ratified by the UEFA, the team has to play its european matches in a bigger stadium ie Stade de France (80 000 seats) or Stade Félix Bollaert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stade_F%C3%A9lix_Bollaert) in LEns (41 233 seats). A new stadium will be built (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stade_Borne_de_l%27Espoir) (50 000 seats).
;)

Stade Grimonprez-Jooris in Lille (21 128 seats):
http://stadedumonde.bleublog.ch/files/images/2006/3/450/mob17_1142892665.jpg

Stadium_Lille-Metropole in Villeneuve d'Ascq (18 800 seats) :
http://perso.orange.fr/demeraux.jerome/Cartes/VilleneuvedAscq.jpg

Stade Félix Bollaert in Lens (41 233 seats):
http://stadedumonde.bleublog.ch/files/images/2006/3/mob16_1142892515.jpg

You could put a nice picture of the new stadium in it as well!

hello to everyone

juventus comes to mind now that they're back at the old stadium. still, bearing in my mind how spoiled their fans are by the club's glory i'd say theyr'e better off. small turnouts dont look that miserable in the new tiny stadium as they did in the monstrously huge delle alpi.