#NEWS: New Stadiums and Arenas [Archive] - Page 9

nomarandlee2

March 21st, 2006, 01:13 AM

Slightly off topic question to Chicagoans. Do the people who sit on top of those buildings surrounding Wrigley Field need to pay the Chicago baseball club anything or just to the landlord of the actual building?

For much of Wrigleys 90 year history most of the buildings beyond the outfield were normal residances. In the early 80's they started to become more and more commercial as the popularity of sitting on top of the buildings became more popular. Eventually most all starting charging admintance to the roof tops (many have entrance fee's of 100 dollars or more which often includes open bar and buffett style food).

In the late 80's and early 90's many of the buildings started putting chairs and seating on top of the roofs. Many of the buildings started to be bought out by more commerical oriented landlords. In some of them people still do live in the buildings but they are at least partly cated on some floors to the game day uses which bring in a lot of money.

A few years ago the Chicago Cubs threatened to bring the landlords to court trying to stay the landlords steal their product. They settled out of court eventually and agreed on a policy where the building owners would give them 15% from the revenue generated from the rooftops (greedy Tribune company).

It should be intreasting this year though as the Cubs built a few more rows of outfield seating so that the vision looking out on the buildings and into the field will be disturbed a little bit at least. Hopefully the change will not be too great though since the views for the fans in the park looking out onto the buildings and the views from the rooftops onto the filed are much loved by the Cubs faithfull and it would diminish from the ballpark experiacne for some if they radically changed that dynamic.

bubomb

March 21st, 2006, 02:29 AM

Well although the tone of this is abit cheeky, i think Germany DOES have the best stadia (comparing top leagues) England next however may overtake germany in a couple of years.
3rd Spain
4th Portugal

I put spain 3rd purely due to the fact that they have some big stadia and lot more than portugal however if it was purely on quality i might not be too sure.

As it's now official Skyscrapercity policy that Germany has the best football stadiums in Europe, it now means Germany is the European entry for 2006 World Champions of Football Stadiums. So the next question is, what are the entries for the other continents (some are very obvious). I say -

Africa - South Africa
Antarctica - No stadiums, expelled from competition
Asia - Japan
Australasia - Australia
South America - Argentina
North America - USA

kichigai

March 21st, 2006, 02:59 AM

They do play cricket at telstra stadium.

Boards

March 21st, 2006, 03:03 AM

I'd go along with that. No point in starting a which city in Europe has the best stadia cos its Glasgow :tongue2:

invincible

March 21st, 2006, 08:27 AM

First of all, it aint "stadium Australia" its Telstra stadium. & they dont play cricket there! just athletics, rugby & the odd soccer game.

People still refer to Telstra Stadium as Stadium Australia, Telstra Dome as Docklands Stadium, Aussie Stadium as the Sydney Football Stadium, Suncorp Stadium as Lang Park, AAMI Stadium as Football Park, Optus Oval as Princes Park and Skilled Stadium as Kardinia Park because they disagree with grounds selling their naming rights, or are traditionalists.

It certainly doesn't host athletics though. Unless the rules are changed to allow all the events to take place on grass.

NavyBlue

March 21st, 2006, 08:48 AM

They do play cricket at telstra stadium.
Only a handful of domestic limited overs matches have been played there but there is potential for future One Day Internationals which are subject to further negotiations between Telsta Stadium, SCG trust and the state government.

btw . . . The new years day Test match is off limits :cheers:

Its AlL gUUd

March 21st, 2006, 01:25 PM

As it's now official Skyscrapercity policy that Germany has the best football stadiums in Europe, it now means Germany is the European entry for 2006 World Champions of Football Stadiums. So the next question is, what are the entries for the other continents (some are very obvious). I say -

Africa - South Africa
Antarctica - No stadiums, expelled from competition
Asia - Japan
Australasia - Australia
South America - Argentina
North America - USA

Thanks for acknowledging my Official status :)

dunwyn

March 21st, 2006, 04:14 PM

Dr Joe,

What year was the skydome built?
Was it the first stadium to have a retractable roof?
Rod Laver Arena (Melbourne) was built in 1987.

Skydome looks impressive!

It is interesting the see the way each roof retract.
The roof on the new Olympic stadium in Beijing spirals out from what I've heard.

Since good stadiums cost a fortune. Spectators now demand the best of facilities. Gone are the days of wooden seats. Stadiums need to be used as often as possible. An adaptable stadium has more af a possiblilty of doing this. This also increases the number of tenants. Clubs can then lower their costs by sharing facilities while still having the best stadiums.

DrJoe

March 21st, 2006, 04:50 PM

Skydome was built in 1989. I believe it was the first stadium in the world with a retractable roof, something along those lines anyway.

And yes the roof is quite interesting. It is basically shaped like a clam shell, there are 4 seperate pieces and they all fit within each other when the roof is retracted.

Here is model
http://www.bsww.de/datenbank/wwfppvs/F4_13.jpg

The one smaller piece goes around the perimeter of the stadium to its final position and then the two larger pieces just slide over of the rest.

Brent H.

March 21st, 2006, 05:26 PM

The Roman Coliseum had a retractable roof (more like shades actually), and Olympic Stadium in montreal had a system of cables which was supposed to pull the roof off but they didnt work.

So the Sky Dome was the first Modern Stadium built with a retractable roof that worked.

bubomb

March 21st, 2006, 07:20 PM

Here's another one of kingdomca's "extremely poor" stadiums -

Volkswagen Arena (Wolfsburg) -

http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/376/untitled5sj.jpg

TalB

March 21st, 2006, 09:17 PM

I don't see anything special with having a retractable roof.

KiwiBrit

March 21st, 2006, 10:38 PM

Not sure about the inside of the Volkswagen Arena, but certainly the outside has to be a classic example of a 'Ikea flat-pack' stadium eh, bubomb!

bubomb

March 21st, 2006, 11:31 PM

Not sure about the inside of the Volkswagen Arena, but certainly the outside has to be a classic example of a 'Ikea flat-pack' stadium eh, bubomb!

erm....No. The roof and the fact that it has 2 tiers and standing areas makes it far better than Ikea flat-packs. The Reebok is also a good example of a smaller stadium that isn't an Ikea flat-pack.

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/vfl_wolfsburg/images/sued_03.jpg

http://www.fussballportal.de/bundesliga/stadien/imago01094957m.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/vfl_wolfsburg/images/alt_01.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/vfl_wolfsburg/images/alt_02.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/vfl_wolfsburg/images/haupt_04.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/vfl_wolfsburg/images/aussen_08.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/vfl_wolfsburg/images/aussen_05.jpg

With Ikea flat-packs, you are hard pushed to tell the difference between stadiums. Walkers and St.Marys are so similar that only the seat colours are different!! Believe it or not, these photos are all different stadiums in England!! They are decent enough stadiums, but My God are they boring!!

Ikea flat-packs -

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/st_marys_stadium/130.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/walkers_stadium/160.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/pride_park_stadium/180.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/britannia_stadium/100.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/btcellnet_riverside_stadium/100.jpg

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/park/yfh45/sunderl31.jpg

http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/ENG/Reynolds_Arena.jpeg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/coventry/content/images/2005/07/14/ricoh_july_gallery_01_470x300.jpg

http://home.skysports.com/images/stadia/108.jpg

eddyk

March 21st, 2006, 11:53 PM

bubomb

March 22nd, 2006, 12:03 AM

Because they only have 1 bowl and no standing area?

Standing areas were removed from top flight english football to allow families to come in and enjoy the show.

Long gone are the days of being crushed in the stands, or ving the guy next to you spill your pint.

Football is now just as much a day out with the kids, as it is a day out with your mates.

Families still go to games in Germany. I much preferred the old days of terracing and meeting your mates in the same place on the terrace each week, having a few drinks before the game and singing songs on the terrace. Most hardcore fans of football will agree with me. The days of packed terraces was what football was all about! Real support among real fans!

Standing areas were removed from UK grounds due to braindead morons not being able to behave themselves. Most UK football fans would love to see some standing areas back in UK grounds. The families can still go and sit in the family seated areas, whilst the lads stand and sing in the terraces.

It's got so bad that I actually got thrown out a ground for the crime of......swearing! The passion has gone from our stadiums!

EADGBE

March 22nd, 2006, 01:14 AM

Re-reading through this thread, I've realised that no-one's given a mention to the (Veltins) Auf Schalke Arena in Gelsenkirchen, Germany (opened 2001, capacity 61,027). It's a classic example of a venue that is utilised to the absolute maximum. In it's most familiar role, it is the home of Bundesliga side Schalke 04.

http://www.degamlerejser.dk/IMGDX-04web.jpg

As a football ground, it is already held in high esteem. A 5* venue, it has already hosted a Champions' League final. Without any significant alterations to the arena, it is also home to NFL Europe team Rhein Fire.

http://www.stevedalgleish.co.uk/gallery/albums/wpw-08/normal_DSCN3653.JPG

The key reason for its adaptability is the removeable pitch, here seen being removed, using an air cushion to its site outside the stadium.

http://www.rag-immobilien.de/riag/presseservice/images/schalke1_02.jpg

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

Without the consideration of pitch damage (and with the added advantage of optimum conditions for grass growth outside), the bare floor is ideal to facilitate a wide variety of activities:

Concerts (in this case, Bon Jovi). Suddenly, the hitherto little-known German town of Gelsenkirchen is found on more and more tour dates for bands on the 'stadium rock' circuit

http://www.ericwithac.de/site/images/myDiary/Bon%20Jovi%20Concert.jpg

Other types of Concert (in this case, an opera by Puccini).

http://www.wdr.de/themen/kultur/musik/turandot_aufschalke/_img/turandot_arena_400q.jpg

Exhibitions

http://www.ic-marl.de/image.php?ImageID=34

biathlon

http://www.f-tichy.de/Bilder/Biathlon/25.12-009.jpg

basketball

http://www.thw-provinzial.de/thw/04091251.jpg

Super-cross

http://www.it-sander.info/keller/Supercross%20auf%20Schalke!/Freestyle07.JPG

If it can be imagined, it's likely it can be done at Auf Schalke. Probably the only limiting factors are the time and cost required to transform the arena so radically, particularly within the football season, when the principle tenant has a regular call on its facilitites. Even faced with all these practical obstacles, it's good to see a venue which is so keen to push the boundaries of what is possible and achieve such a level of versatility.

In a similar vein and in a close second to Auf Schalke, I'd also like to nominate Paris' Palais Omnisport de Bercy. A well-known arena sports and concert venue, regular watchers of the Eurosport channel may have recognised just how frequently and diversely it is employed.

I have fewer pictures of Bercy, but they give a flavour of its significance beyond concerts and the 'usual' arena sports of Basketball and Ice Hockey.

BMX racing. In addition, any number of motor sports from motorbike jumping to the annual Christmas Karting event, at which world champions from all types of motorsport are invited to compete against each other.

http://www.bmxmania.com/Track-Panorama900.jpg

Judo:

http://www.sportportal-holten.de/Judo/Galerie/Galerie2004/DSC07474.JPG

Jetski. They also have a pretty impressive indoor windsurfing event, which I was hoping to find a picture of. As with the jetski event it involves creating a huge 'pool' on the arena floor. In addition, huge fans are erected at one end of the arena to create the amount of wind necessary:

http://www.jetboot.de/data/jetski_02/jet_indoor/halle.jpg

Can anyone find more pictures of thes diverse events at Bercy?

Kampflamm

March 22nd, 2006, 01:15 AM

Because they only have 1 bowl and no standing area?

Standing areas were removed from top flight english football to allow families to come in and enjoy the show.

Long gone are the days of being crushed in the stands, or ving the guy next to you spill your pint.

Football is now just as much a day out with the kids, as it is a day out with your mates.

It's not like 99% of the average German stadium is made up of standing areas. Terracing is usually limited to the spots where the die-hard fans are.

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/fc_schalke_04/images/nord_06.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/fc_schalke_04/images/nord_05.jpg

http://www.schalke-freunde.de/choreo%20gegen%20Lautern%202.jpg

Brent H.

March 22nd, 2006, 01:16 AM

I don't see anything special with having a retractable roof.
The option of basking in the sun when its nice out and shutting it up when its cold and rainy is not attractive to you? I dont think its mandatory, I attend Bank or America Stadium in Charlotte quite frequently for Carolina Panthers games and I dont mind that it doesnt have a roof, but its a nice thing to have. I wouldnt want a permanent roof, thats for sure, I dont mind getting a little sun when its nice out.

Also it allows the option of holding major indoor sporting events (final four etc.) without losing the atmostphere for outdoor events.

bubomb

March 22nd, 2006, 01:22 AM

Great pics of the Veltins Arena. What's happening with Schalke's old ground? as i'm sure I saw some construction work going on.

EADGBE

March 22nd, 2006, 01:25 AM

basketball

http://www.thw-provinzial.de/thw/04091251.jpg

Sorry. This is obviously handball, not basketball. It's getting late...

dunwyn

March 22nd, 2006, 04:04 AM

Thanks everyone. Keep up the discussion, not just about the roof but also configurations.

kingdomca

March 22nd, 2006, 04:06 AM

Here's another one of kingdomca's "extremely poor" stadiums -

Volkswagen Arena (Wolfsburg) -

http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/376/untitled5sj.jpg

why you spend your time misquoting me I dont know,

I have said Germany have 10 excellent football stadiums + 3-4 athletics grounds.
Beyond that I said they have about 5 decent venues that are good but matched by about 50 english venues.

The rest is what is extremly poor, but this one Wolfsburg is not extremly poor and I never wrote that. Try not to invent claims.

Wolfsburg is among the 5 decent venues but I cant see why this should be better than 50 english venues, including even 3rd and 4th level clubs like Nottingham,Huddersfield, and Darlington.

kingdomca

March 22nd, 2006, 04:14 AM

I must admit I am amazed if most people believe Germany have "clearly" the best stadiums.
I certainly overestimated Germany at the beginning of this thread.

Germany only have 10 truly great stadiums, so those favouring Germany must go by such a narrow range of venues.
But if so few venues are included, I would say Spain would have to be in there as well.
Facilities are quite basic in Spain, but thats not much different from the standing areas in Germany.

why is Germany ahead of Spain??

bubomb

March 22nd, 2006, 04:51 AM

why is Germany ahead of Spain??

because their stadiums are miles better.

Just because you have a modern stand with standing terraces, that doesn't mean that stand doesn't have great facilities!! The standing areas in Germany have got just as many facilities behind the terrace/tier as the seated areas have!

2 identical stands with modern facilities - one has seats on the terrace, one doesn't. Both stands still have great facilities.

bubomb

March 22nd, 2006, 05:04 AM

why you spend your time misquoting me I dont know,

I have said Germany have 10 excellent football stadiums + 3-4 athletics grounds.
Beyond that I said they have about 5 decent venues that are good but matched by about 50 english venues.

The rest is what is extremly poor, but this one Wolfsburg is not extremly poor and I never wrote that. Try not to invent claims.

Wolfsburg is among the 5 decent venues but I cant see why this should be better than 50 english venues, including even 3rd and 4th level clubs like Nottingham,Huddersfield, and Darlington.

Darlingtons ground is poor. It is the king of Ikea flat-packs. It is one of the most boring stadiums on earth! I class the Reebok Stadium as the 7th best ground in England (it's about quality, not just size), and I class the Volkswagen Arena as about the same as the Reebok. The Volkswagen Arena would get in the top 10 in England. There isn't 10 grounds in England as good as the Volkswagen Arena, let alone 50 that you claim!! England simply doesn't have that many top quality stadiums! Most of them have at least one crap stand and look unfinished, and the rest are Ikea flat-packs that all look identical.

DrJoe

March 22nd, 2006, 05:33 AM

I don't see anything special with having a retractable roof.

Its pretty self-explanatory. Look at some of these new NFL stadiums being built, they may only be used 10 TIMES!!! a year. Skydome on the other hand always has a full schedule because the retractable roof gives it various different uses other than what it was designed for. Yeah it helps that the MLB plays 81 home games also.

bubomb

March 22nd, 2006, 05:49 AM

Its pretty self-explanatory. Look at some of these new NFL stadiums being built, they may only be used 10 TIMES!!! a year. Skydome on the other hand always has a full schedule because the retractable roof gives it various different uses other than what it was designed for. Yeah it helps that the MLB plays 81 home games also.

Why do they only play 10 games? Some of these stadiums are really nice, they should use them more often.

DrJoe

March 22nd, 2006, 06:02 AM

Because the NFL only has a 16 game schedule, 8 at home, 8 on the road. Yeah, it's kind of strange. They might get a couple pre-season games and a playoff game if they are lucky.

bubomb

March 22nd, 2006, 06:08 AM

Because the NFL only has a 16 game schedule, 8 at home, 8 on the road. Yeah, it's kind of strange. They might get a couple pre-season games and a playoff game if they are lucky.

16 games!! What a bunch of ladyboys!

DrJoe

March 22nd, 2006, 06:23 AM

16 games!! What a bunch of ladyboys!

Yep. And on the flip side baseball has a marathon 162 game schedule.

Durbsboi

March 22nd, 2006, 09:14 AM

1. Ranji Stadium (Eden Gardens)
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/4171/calcuttaranji5mu.jpg
2. Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium (New Delhi)
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/3916/newdelhinehru27nr.jpg
3.Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium (Cochin)
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/1518/cochinnehru1hh.jpg
4.Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium (Madras)
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/373/madrasnehru9ox.jpg
5.Chinnaswamy Stadium
http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/8438/bangalorechinnaswamy29xm.jpg
6.Sree Kanteerawa
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/7707/bangalorekanteerawa29rb.jpg

carvin77

March 22nd, 2006, 09:52 AM

"City of Manchester Stadium" kick ass...

carvin77

March 22nd, 2006, 09:57 AM

http://www.sportsvenue-technology.com/projects/allianz/images/Munich03.jpg

Martuh

March 22nd, 2006, 10:19 AM

I started this one for the argue in UEFA boss wants an Irish/Scots/Welsh euro bid.

Scandinavia
Norway - Sweden - Denmark
Population: 4,6 - 9,1 - 5,4 - in total 19,1 million
UEFA Ranking: 19 - 26 - 23
FIFA Ranking: 39 - 16 - 14

Stadiums bigger than 20.000:

Nya Ullevi, 43.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schweden/nya_ullevi/150.jpg

Parken Stadion, 42.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/daenemark/parken/170.jpg

Råsundastadion, 37.000 seats
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schweden/rasundastadion/120.jpg

Brondby Stadion, 32.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/daenemark/brondby_stadion/110.jpg

Malmö Stadion, 26.500
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schweden/malmo_stadion/110.jpg

Ullevål Stadion, 25.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/norwegen/ulleval_stadion/140.jpg

Århus Stadion, 21.800
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/daenemark/arhus_stadion/100.jpg

Lerkendal Stadion, 21.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/norwegen/lerkendal_stadion/100.jpg

Randers Stadion, 20.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/daenemark/randers_stadion/170.jpg

Gentofte Stadion, 20.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/daenemark/gentofte_stadion/100.jpg

Best performing teams in European cups - above 100 points:
IFK Göteborg 155,5 points
Rosenborg BK 121,5 points
Brøndby IF 108,5 points

Scotland
Population: 5,1 million
UEFA Ranking: 10
FIFA Ranking: 62

Stadiums bigger than 20.000:

Murrayfield, 67.500
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schottland/murrayfield/100.jpg

Celtic Park, 61.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/celtic_park/images/blick_01.jpg

Hampden Park, 52.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/hampden_park/images/blick_01.jpg

Shawfield, 52.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schottland/shawfield/100.jpg

Ibrox Park, 51.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/schottland/ibrox_stadium/images/Ibrox_pan_01.jpg

Pittodrie Stadium, 21.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schottland/pittodrie_stadium/120.jpg

Rugby Park, 20.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schottland/rugby_park/170.jpg

Best performing teams in European cups - above 100 points:
Celtic 287,0 points
Rangers 284,5 points
Dundee United 119,5 points
Aberdeen 112,5 points

To me, Scotland wins.

Martuh

March 22nd, 2006, 10:49 AM

But when it's about size I think Italy wins.

San Siro / Giuseppe-Meazza, 83.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/italien/guiseppe_meazza/100.jpg

Olimpico, 81.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/italien/olimpico/110.jpg

San Paolo, 79.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/italien/san_paolo/110.jpg

Delle Alpi, 68.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/italien/delle_alpi/150.jpg

San Nicola, 58.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/italien/san_nicola/100.jpg

Artemio Franchi, 48.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/italien/artemio_franchi/180.jpg

Marc Antonio Bentegodi, 45.000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/italien/marc_antonio_bentegodi/110.jpg

But they're all poor.

Lostboy

March 22nd, 2006, 11:45 AM

But when it's about size I think Italy wins.

Spain beats Italy on size.

Kampflamm

March 22nd, 2006, 01:36 PM

why is Germany ahead of Spain??

Are you serious? Spain has some decent venues (if you look at size) but they're old. Camp Nou and the Bernabeu are alright but after that it all goes downhill.

We could compare the 15 biggest stadiums (since you've been claiming that Germany only has 10 decent stadia):

1. Camp Nou v Westfalenstadion
I guess Barca wins this one just because of its sheer size and history. The Westfalenstadion is pretty damn good and imposing as well though.

2. Bernabeu v Olympiastadion (Berlin)
Probably the Bernabeu because it doesn't have a running track. Other than that the Olympiastadion is better though (more modern, better architecture).

3. Montjuic v Allianz Arena
Not even close.

4. Mestalla v Veltins Arena
Gotta go with the Veltins Arena. It's simply more modern.

5. Vicente Calderon v Daimlerstadion
Difficult choice. You're definitely closer to the pitch in Madrid but the stadium's pretty old and looks bland (like so many other Spanish stadia). I'd still choose it over Stuttgart though.

6. Ruiz de Lopera v AOL-Arena
Not even close again. The AOL-Arena blows Real Betis' stadium out of the water.

7. Ramón Sánchez Pizjuán v Borussia Park
Gotta go with Borussia Park even though it looks pretty cheap. It's more modern and has a roof. Pretty close though.

8. San Mames v Commerzbank-Arena
The San Mames is one of the more interesting looking Spanish venues. The winner's gotta be Frankfurt's stadium though. It's brand new, has an interesting roof and is much bigger (52,300 compared to 40, 600).

9. Riazor v RheinEnergie Stadion
RheinEnergie wins this one for much of the same reasons as many other German stadiums. It's more modern and it's actually one of my fav venues in Germany. Interesting roof, very close to the pitch...pretty damn good.

10. Estadio La Romareda v AWD-Arena
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/spanien/estadio_la_romareda/140.jpg
v
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/hannover_96/images/innen_05.jpg

Need I say more?

11. Anoeta v Fritz-Walter-Stadion
Anoeta looks great but it has a running track. One of the closest matches though.

12. Balaidos v Frankenstadion
The Frankenstadion sucks, so I'm just gonna give this one to Celta Vigo.

13. La Rosaleda v Zentralstadion
The Zentralstadion simply is more modern.

14. Son Moix v Weserstadion
Difficult choice. I think both stadiums are nothing to brag about. You're a bit closer to the action in Bremen though and the stadium has almost twice the capacity.

15. El Madrigal v MSV-Arena
Pretty close actually. Both stadiums look bland but at the end of the day MSV-Arena is more modern, larger, and it has a roof.

So it's a decisive 11-4 win for Germany (and I actually forgot to mention LTU-Arena, capacity 52,000) . How you could possibly think that Spanish stadia might be better than Germany's is beyond me.

Loranga

March 22nd, 2006, 01:37 PM

I miss the glory days of IFK Göteborg!

2005

March 22nd, 2006, 01:43 PM

I would say Scotland by a country mile.

ManchesterISwonderful

March 22nd, 2006, 01:55 PM

Germany's get better stadiums than Spain. But Spain's got some decent ones in the pipeline... eg Zaragoza, Seville, Valencia, Espanol, Sociedad etc etc

Llanfairpwllgwy-ngyllgogerychwy-rndrobwllllanty-siliogogogoch

March 22nd, 2006, 01:55 PM

SC Heerenveen in Holland

Heerenveen a village with 40.000 people, now average attendance 21.000, stadium is being extended so all people from the waiting list can attent the matches, new capacity 28.500
so 71.25% of total population fits into the stadium

Kampflamm

March 22nd, 2006, 01:58 PM

Wolfsburg is among the 5 decent venues but I cant see why this should be better than 50 english venues, including even 3rd and 4th level clubs like Nottingham,Huddersfield, and Darlington.

I'm beginning to think that you either have something against Germany or that you don't have a clue.

People can make up their minds

Wolfsburg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/vfl_wolfsburg/images/alt_02.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/vfl_wolfsburg/images/haupt_01.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/vfl_wolfsburg/images/haupt_05.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/vfl_wolfsburg/images/sued_01.jpg

Darlington (you gotta be kidding me :laugh: )

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/the_reynolds_arena/120.jpg

Nottingham (looks alright but like so many other English stadia, unfinished)

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/city_ground/110.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/city_ground/120.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/city_ground/130.jpg

Huddersfield (looks nice but still not as good as Wolfsburg IMO)

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/alfred_mcalpine_stadium/140_tb.jpg

ManchesterISwonderful

March 22nd, 2006, 02:01 PM

Forest's ground is pretty shite. Huddersfield's cracking though. Hull's another lower league club with a decent ground.

Kampflamm

March 22nd, 2006, 02:28 PM

But when it's about size I think Italy wins.

Spain beats Italy on size.

Heck, even in size Germany beats 'em all. The combined capacity of the 15 Spanish stadiums I mentioned earlier is 687,288 while that of their German counterparts is 822,824 (admittedly this includes standing areas but it's not Germany's problem that other countries don't have those anymore).

bravoman

March 22nd, 2006, 03:28 PM

I'm beginning to think that you either have something against Germany or that you don't have a clue.

you just figured that out?

Arpels

March 22nd, 2006, 03:33 PM

Europe best football stadia:
- Germany
- UK
- Italy
- Spain
- France
- Portugal
- Olland

Kampflamm

March 22nd, 2006, 04:58 PM

you just figured that out?

I'm special! :crazy:

JimB

March 22nd, 2006, 05:06 PM

I'd have to say that Germany are on top at the moment. I'm sure that the World Cup has something to do with that.

However, I think we might see England overtake Germany in ten years or so, especially if England are awarded the 2018 World Cup.

Lostboy

March 22nd, 2006, 05:14 PM

Heck, even in size Germany beats 'em all. The combined capacity of the 15 Spanish stadiums I mentioned earlier is 687,288 while that of their German counterparts is 822,824 (admittedly this includes standing areas but it's not Germany's problem that other countries don't have those anymore).

Yeah, I don't think you can count standing areas for the size and capacity of the stadia, because the potential for numbers in the Nou Camp with terraces would be astronomical, and it says nothing about the size of the stadia.

That said I clearly believe and have stated so time, that the children of Rome, have nothing on us when it comes to stadia.

Kampflamm

March 22nd, 2006, 05:23 PM

Yeah, I don't think you can count standing areas for the size and capacity of the stadia, because the potential for numbers in the Nou Camp with terraces would be astronomical, and it says nothing about the size of the stadia.

That said I clearly believe and have stated so time, that the children of Rome, have nothing on us when it comes to stadia.

It doesn't make that big of a difference though. The 12 world cup venues have a combined capacity of 639,638 seats. Add to that the 52,000 seats in Düsseldorf and those 13 stadiums already have more seats than the aforementioned 15 Spanish stadiums.

MoreOrLess

March 22nd, 2006, 05:39 PM

It really depends how many stadiums you include, the Spainish and Italians would I'd guess have the most capacity in their top 5-10 stadiums, the Germans in their top 10-15 and England if you include everything.

JimB

March 22nd, 2006, 05:49 PM

2zanzibar

March 22nd, 2006, 06:28 PM

2005

March 22nd, 2006, 06:52 PM

West Ham have plans to make Upton Park 40,600 soon I don't know where you got 45,000.

bubomb

March 22nd, 2006, 07:44 PM

A (by no means comprehensive) list of English clubs certain to increase capacity and improve facilities or move to new, bigger stadiums within the next ten years.

In progress and imminent:

Arsenal (from 38,000 to 60,000)
Man Utd (from 68,000 to 76,000)

Planned:

Liverpool (from 44,000 to 61,000)
Charlton (from 27,000 to 40,000)
Portsmouth (from 20,000 to 35,000)
Aston Villa (from 43,000 to 50,000+)
Birmingham (from 29,000 to 55,000)

Not yet planned but inevitable within the next ten years:

Chelsea (from 42,000 to 55,000 or maybe 60,000)
Everton (from 40,000 to 50,000 or so)
Tottenham (from 36,000 to 45,000 minimum and maybe 55,000)
West Ham (from 35,000 to about 45,000)
Man Utd (from 76,000 to anything up to 95,000)

Probable developments:

Newcastle (from 52,000 to anything up to 75,000)
Leeds, when they return to the Premiership (from 40,000 to 50,000)

This is on top of the number of new grounds being redeveloped / newly built / planned in the lower leagues: MK Dons, Brighton, Cardiff to name a few. And, of course, a huge number of new stadiums have already been completed by lower league clubs.

A lot of these won't happen, and who knows what will happen in Italy, Germany and Spain over the next 10 years!! This is what I think will happen in England over the next 10 years -

Liverpool (from 44,000 to 61,000) - Yes
Charlton (from 27,000 to 40,000) - Maybe
Portsmouth (from 20,000 to 35,000) - Yes, but it will be an Ikea flat-pack
Aston Villa (from 43,000 to 50,000+) - No chance
Birmingham (from 29,000 to 55,000) - Maybe
Chelsea (from 42,000 to 55,000 or maybe 60,000) - No chance
Everton (from 40,000 to 50,000 or so) - No
Tottenham (from 36,000 to 45,000 minimum and maybe 55,000) - Maybe 45000, but no chance of 55000
West Ham (from 35,000 to about 45,000) - Yes, but not that big
Man Utd (from 76,000 to anything up to 95,000) - Possible
Newcastle (from 52,000 to anything up to 75,000) - No chance
Leeds, when they return to the Premiership (from 40,000 to 50,000) - Unlikely

JimB

March 22nd, 2006, 07:48 PM

West Ham have plans to make Upton Park 40,600 soon I don't know where you got 45,000.

They did have plans but, after their financial troubles after relegation, I thought that they had put them on the back burner.

As to the 40,600 figure, I would have thought that, in the long term, West Ham would want a higher capacity. Given that the Chicken Run stand is tiny (far smaller than the old West stand - before its redevelopment - on the opposite side) and given that the West stand development added about 9,000 to capacity, I would have thought that an increase in capacity to 45,000 would be easily achievable.

eievar

March 22nd, 2006, 08:19 PM

my list:

Germany
Spain
Portugal / Italy
England / France

the problem with the spanish ones is that they're quite old, but this isn't always a problem... for example old stadiums like Bernabeu (1947), Nou Camp (1957) and Vicente Calderón (1966), never were as good as they are nowadays, thanks to the great reforms have been done on them, and they have nothing to envy to other more modern stadiums. so they offer all the comfort to the people and perhaps the only bad point with these ones could be the exterior architecture... Nou Camp is really ugly, but Calderon is nice and Bernabeu i think is quite impresive.

besides, other old stadiums will be demolished in a near future: Mestalla (Valencia FC) and Romareda (Zaragoza). here the thread in the spanish forum open by aCidMinD81 about the possible projects for the new Valencia stadium, and a pic of one of them:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=292902
http://acidmind.iespana.es/poll3.jpg

the thread of Zaragoza stadium:

http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=178075

then we have other stadiums, for example Ruiz de Lopera (Real Betis), is a completely new stadium, built over the old Benito Villamarin. yes, it has not roof but, who cares? how many times can you see rain in Seville? xD. Anoeta (Real Sociedad) is fantastic, the only problem is the fuckin* running track (the same for Montjuic, the olympic stadium of Barcelona 92)

JimB

March 22nd, 2006, 08:21 PM

A lot of these won't happen, and who knows what will happen in Italy, Germany and Spain over the next 10 years!! This is what I think will happen in England over the next 10 years -

Liverpool (from 44,000 to 61,000) - Yes
Charlton (from 27,000 to 40,000) - Maybe
Portsmouth (from 20,000 to 35,000) - Yes, but it will be an Ikea flat-pack
Aston Villa (from 43,000 to 50,000+) - No chance
Birmingham (from 29,000 to 55,000) - Maybe
Chelsea (from 42,000 to 55,000 or maybe 60,000) - No chance
Everton (from 40,000 to 50,000 or so) - No
Tottenham (from 36,000 to 45,000 minimum and maybe 55,000) - Maybe 45000, but no chance of 55000
West Ham (from 35,000 to about 45,000) - Yes, but not that big
Man Utd (from 76,000 to anything up to 95,000) - Possible
Newcastle (from 52,000 to anything up to 75,000) - No chance
Leeds, when they return to the Premiership (from 40,000 to 50,000) - Unlikely

Charlton will definitely happen. Plans have already been drawn up. Charlton are in excellent financial health. They sell out every game. No reason for them not to follow up on their plans.

Pompey's new stadium may or may not be an "Ikea flat pack". I haven't seen plans yet. But one or two of the new German stadiums also appear to be Ikea flat packs - soulless and samey. I haven't seen you dismiss them in the same manner. Ikea flat pack stadia may not be ideal in terms of atmosphere but they still offer excellent facilities, sight lines and a comfortable environment in which to watch football.

I believe that Aston Villa have already announced plans to increase capacity. There is no end to Doug Ellis' vanity and he has shown before that he is far more concerned with developing the stadium than developing the team.

Chelsea will definitely increase to at least 50-55,000. Maybe not at Stamford Bridge. But they will increase. Guaranteed. It's not as if they lack the resources - especially if they sell Stamford Bridge.

Everton desperately need a new or redeveloped stadium and there have been a number of options on the table recently for new developments within the city of Liverpool. Again, it is guaranteed that they will not be at Goodison (in its current state and at its current size) in ten years time.

Spurs will either move or redevelop. 45,000 will be the minimum capacity but I think Spurs will be looking to increase to over 50,000 before too long.

Newcastle currently sell out 52,000 every league game. They know that they could sell another 10,000 more comfortably, thereby dramatically increasing revenue. There are technical and legal issues, given the location of St James' Park in the centre of Newcastle. But equally, given the importance of the football club to the identity of the city, I very much doubt that these issues are insurmountable.

Leeds were looking to move to a new 50,000 stadium before their financial meltdown. They had bought a new site, I believe, and plans had been drawn up. Those plans have now been dropped but, with Ken Bates in charge (he loves redeveloping stadiums) and the large fan base I am absolutely certain that Leeds will look to redevelop their main stand (which is both too old and too small) soon after they return to the Premiership.

On a more general level, Germany's recent stadium building activity has largely been encouraged by the imminent World Cup. England are almost certain to host the next World Cup held in Europe - probably in 2018. We can therefore expect a similar increase in stadium development in England - particularly in places such as Leeds, which will be expected to host some games.

As to what might happen in other countries, I agree that they, too, will develop. Italy, however, seems to be downsizing, with both Lazio and Juve planning smaller stadiums than they currently occupy. And I don't expect too much more by way of major stadium development in Germany from now on. After all, you would expect all the new German stadia to have a shelf life of slightly longer than 15 years!

2005

March 22nd, 2006, 08:36 PM

They did have plans but, after their financial troubles after relegation, I thought that they had put them on the back burner.

As to the 40,600 figure, I would have thought that, in the long term, West Ham would want a higher capacity. Given that the Chicken Run stand is tiny (far smaller than the old West stand - before its redevelopment - on the opposite side) and given that the West stand development added about 9,000 to capacity, I would have thought that an increase in capacity to 45,000 would be easily achievable.

Straight after their promotion WHU resubmiited the plans.

http://media.rivals.net/media/jpg/2000062406520899.jpg

http://212.85.13.3/home/showcaseoldfiles/londonoratory/DanielG/West%20Ham/Raw/upton1.jpg

Also Tottenham Chairman Daniel Levy stated in the match day programme against Brimingham this season that the council said that they could have 45,000 but he turned down the offer as he wanted 52,000.

2005

March 22nd, 2006, 09:01 PM

bubomb

March 22nd, 2006, 09:20 PM

Charlton will definitely happen. Plans have already been drawn up. Charlton are in excellent financial health. They sell out every game. No reason for them not to follow up on their plans.

Pompey's new stadium may or may not be an "Ikea flat pack". I haven't seen plans yet. But one or two of the new German stadiums also appear to be Ikea flat packs - soulless and samey. I haven't seen you dismiss them in the same manner. Ikea flat pack stadia may not be ideal in terms of atmosphere but they still offer excellent facilities, sight lines and a comfortable environment in which to watch football.

I believe that Aston Villa have already announced plans to increase capacity. There is no end to Doug Ellis' vanity and he has shown before that he is far more concerned with developing the stadium than developing the team.

Chelsea will definitely increase to at least 50-55,000. Maybe not at Stamford Bridge. But they will increase. Guaranteed. It's not as if they lack the resources - especially if they sell Stamford Bridge.

Everton desperately need a new or redeveloped stadium and there have been a number of options on the table recently for new developments within the city of Liverpool. Again, it is guaranteed that they will not be at Goodison (in its current state and at its current size) in ten years time.

Spurs will either move or redevelop. 45,000 will be the minimum capacity but I think Spurs will be looking to increase to over 50,000 before too long.

Newcastle currently sell out 52,000 every league game. They know that they could sell another 10,000 more comfortably, thereby dramatically increasing revenue. There are technical and legal issues, given the location of St James' Park in the centre of Newcastle. But equally, given the importance of the football club to the identity of the city, I very much doubt that these issues are insurmountable.

Leeds were looking to move to a new 50,000 stadium before their financial meltdown. They had bought a new site, I believe, and plans had been drawn up. Those plans have now been dropped but, with Ken Bates in charge (he loves redeveloping stadiums) and the large fan base I am absolutely certain that Leeds will look to redevelop their main stand (which is both too old and too small) soon after they return to the Premiership.

On a more general level, Germany's recent stadium building activity has largely been encouraged by the imminent World Cup. England are almost certain to host the next World Cup held in Europe - probably in 2018. We can therefore expect a similar increase in stadium development in England - particularly in places such as Leeds, which will be expected to host some games.

As to what might happen in other countries, I agree that they, too, will develop. Italy, however, seems to be downsizing, with both Lazio and Juve planning smaller stadiums than they currently occupy. And I don't expect too much more by way of major stadium development in Germany from now on. After all, you would expect all the new German stadia to have a shelf life of slightly longer than 15 years!

This is all speculation! St James' Park will not get increased simply because they can't, there is no room (and they are hugely in debt).

There is no way you can say for sure Chelsea are changing their stadiums, it the moment it's all talk.

You cannot 'guarantee' Everton will not be at Goodison....do you have a crystal ball or something?

Aston Villa would be nuts to expand, Villa Park is nowhere near close to selling out!

This is all if's and maybe's, until the contracts are signed, nothing is certain!!

bubomb

March 22nd, 2006, 09:26 PM

Bubomb I can't help but think that you some times underestimate the size of certain clubs support i.e. Everton & Spur. Both have a big support but yet you enjoy saying that Maybe Spurs could get 45k!! maybe? and Everton have no chance of getting 50k!!

Your opinion is your opinion (which is of course respected) and mine is that Tottenham COULD get 55k and Everton CAN get 50k.

It is nothing to do with club support, it is to do with infrastructure! Everton might not find a suitable site or the finance to build a new stadium (there must be problems, otherwise they would have done it this year or last year), and WHL has huge problems with transport and lack of area to build stands!

Anyway, there is not a hope in hell Everton could average 50000 a week! They almost never sell out Goodison!

2005

March 22nd, 2006, 10:05 PM

JimB

March 23rd, 2006, 12:09 AM

This is all speculation! St James' Park will not get increased simply because they can't, there is no room (and they are hugely in debt).

Of course they can increase capacity. It won't be easy, because of the nearby housing, but Newcastle United has a strong emotional grip on people within Newcastle. If they really want to increase capacity, I am certain that the local authorities will do all they can do to assist them. It wouldn't be a popular or sensible move within the city to stand in the way of the toon's progress.

As to Newcastle's debt, don't make the common mistake of believing all debt to be, by definition, a bad thing. Debt is what allows us to buy houses. Debt is what gives small companies the wherewithall to grow into big companies. Arsenal are carrying massive debt. In the long term, it will help them to become one of the top five or six richest football clubs in the world. Likewise, Newcastle's debt is well structured. Their debt is purely a consequence of their recent stadium development. But the boost to their income from the redevelopment of St. James' Park more than merely covers their debt and interest repayments. Debt is only a bad thing when it it is badly structured; or at a disadvantageous interest rate; or when it exceeds net assets; or when it is required for unsuitable ends (ie player transfers).

If Newcastle decided that they needed an extra 10,000 seats, they could easily borrow more money on the basis of their strong attendance figures. Sure, that would get them into further debt but it would also grow the company and allow for greater turnover and profit. If you doubt this, read up about a couple called the Wilsons, who appear annually in the Sunday Times rich list. They started off with very little and now own a huge residential property portfolio worth many hundreds of millions - all made possible by the clever use of debt.

There is no way you can say for sure Chelsea are changing their stadiums, it the moment it's all talk.

I can't say for sure, no. But it's very long odds on that their capacity (wherever they are) will be more than 50,000 within the next ten years.

You cannot 'guarantee' Everton will not be at Goodison....do you have a crystal ball or something?

I didn't say that Everton would not be at Goodison. I said that they would either be at a new stadium or at a redeveloped Goodison within ten years.

Aston Villa would be nuts to expand, Villa Park is nowhere near close to selling out!

I agree. But that's never stopped Doug Ellis before.

This is all if's and maybe's, until the contracts are signed, nothing is certain!!

Of course. Anything could happen in ten years. Life on earth could cease to exist. Or we could be invaded by creatures from a galaxy far, far away. But it is highly probable that all the clubs mentioned in my list will be active in terms of stadium development over the next ten years.

JimB

March 23rd, 2006, 12:41 AM

It is nothing to do with club support, it is to do with infrastructure! Everton might not find a suitable site or the finance to build a new stadium (there must be problems, otherwise they would have done it this year or last year), and WHL has huge problems with transport and lack of area to build stands!

Anyway, there is not a hope in hell Everton could average 50000 a week! They almost never sell out Goodison!

Part of Everton's problem at the moment is that they can cater for only a tiny portion of the corporate hospitality market. Goodison simply doesn't have the facilities. This is depriving them of a big slice of income. They are painfully aware that they will have to do something very soon to increase their revenue generating potential. It is one of the big priorities for the Everton board. None of the suggested schemes for a new stadium have yet materialised but there is another one (involving a major urban redevelopment by a large building contractor) currently under discussion. But make no mistake - Everton are definitely looking to redevelop or move.

Contrary to your claim, White Hart Lane has no problem with lack of space. There is a large amount of unused space behind the West stand and, if they wished, Spurs could increase capacity on that one side alone by more than 10,000 (the current West stand has a capacity of only 6,500). Spurs also own all the land behind the Paxton end and could, if required, increase capacity there by (at a guess) a further 6,000. Lastly, under Alan Sugar, Spurs gained planning approval for a redevelopment of the Shelf side, which would have seen capacity increased by 8,000, with the stand being built over Worcester Avenue. When ENIC took over, they shelved that plan. Only the Park Lane end is currently unsuitable for further redevelopment, because of the residential housing just behind it.

In other words, there is theoretically space to increase capacity at White Hart Lane to 60,000.

As to transport difficulties, don't believe the hype. It is a red herring, perpetuated by Spurs in order to put pressure on the local council. White Hart Lane is no worse off for transport than most other grounds. Try getting away from Old Trafford in a hurry. Or Villa Park. Or Highbury. White Hart Lane is served by two network rail stations within a five minute walk. There are plenty of north - south and east - west bus routes nearby. The north circular is half a mile away and the M25 is not too far up the A10. The nearest tube station is, admittedly 25 minutes away, but there is a Victoria line service track that runs to Northumberland Park - a five minute walk away. It would not take much (effort or money) to convert that service track into a passenger line.

bubomb

March 23rd, 2006, 12:43 AM

I don't think Newcastle United's debt is a 'good debt'. It is debatable whether they need a much bigger stadium and they are in a danger of doing a Leeds. Their debt is getting bigger with no extra income and they are falling further behind the big teams. If they were to get relegated they would be in deep shit! I can't see them getting any Champions League money in the near future and over the next 5 years I can see them getting lower and lower down the league!

bubomb

March 23rd, 2006, 12:57 AM

Contrary to your claim, White Hart Lane has no problem with lack of space. There is a large amount of unused space behind the West stand and, if they wished, Spurs could increase capacity on that one side alone by more than 10,000 (the current West stand has a capacity of only 6,500). Spurs also own all the land behind the Paxton end and could, if required, increase capacity there by (at a guess) a further 6,000. Lastly, under Alan Sugar, Spurs gained planning approval for a redevelopment of the Shelf side, which would have seen capacity increased by 8,000, with the stand being built over Worcester Avenue. When ENIC took over, they shelved that plan. Only the Park Lane end is currently unsuitable for further redevelopment, because of the residential housing just behind it.

In other words, there is theoretically space to increase capacity at White Hart Lane to 60,000.

As to transport difficulties, don't believe the hype. It is a red herring, perpetuated by Spurs in order to put pressure on the local council. White Hart Lane is no worse off for transport than most other grounds. Try getting away from Old Trafford in a hurry. Or Villa Park. Or Highbury. White Hart Lane is served by two network rail stations within a five minute walk. There are plenty of north - south and east - west bus routes nearby. The north circular is half a mile away and the M25 is not too far up the A10. The nearest tube station is, admittedly 25 minutes away, but there is a Victoria line service track that runs to Northumberland Park - a five minute walk away. It would not take much (effort or money) to convert that service track into a passenger line.

So why don't they build a 60000 stadium then if everything is rosy? Why wait and fall further and further behind the other stadiums in England?

and why did they build such small stands in the mid 90's if they have all this room and a big support?

There must be problems otherwise work would start this summer on rebuilding WHL. I would be very surprised if WHL is ever bigger than 45000.

Lostboy

March 23rd, 2006, 01:13 AM

besides, other old stadiums will be demolished in a near future: Mestalla (Valencia FC) and Romareda (Zaragoza). here the thread in the spanish forum open by aCidMinD81 about the possible projects for the new Valencia stadium, and a pic of one of them:

That pictures looks fantastic. I have to say on this thread, the Spanish Stadia have been very under-rated. Some might not be modern like Bernabeu, but they look the part, and you get the impression these are European Superpowers in many Spanish Clubs.

Kampflamm

March 23rd, 2006, 01:15 AM

Traitor...sucking up to the hispanic outpost of Rome. :rant:

JimB

March 23rd, 2006, 01:22 AM

So why don't they build a 60000 stadium then if everything is rosy? Why wait and fall further and further behind the other stadiums in England?

and why did they build such small stands in the mid 90's if they have all this room and a big support?

There must be problems otherwise work would start this summer on rebuilding WHL. I would be very surprised if WHL is ever bigger than 45000.

Good questions.

The two stands (Paxton and Park Lane) that Alan Sugar redeveloped in the 90's bear his hallmark - cheap and lacking in foresight or ambition. He only built them because the requirements of the Taylor report would have meant a capacity of only 28,000 had the old stands merely been converted to all seater.

Part of Daniel Levy's problem now is the lack of foresight of previous regimes. All the stands at White Hart Lane were built too small and, other than the West stand, none can really be increased merely by adding another tier since the designs are unsuitable. Which means that completely new stands are needed. And that costs a lot of money, especially in London.

The reason why Levy is holding back, I'm certain, is not because the area cannot cope with a further 9,000 fans. We used to get crowds of 70,000, after all. Furthermore, we received planning approval five years ago for a scheme that would have increased capacity by 8,000. I can't see why the area could cope any less well now with 8-9,000 extra fans than it could five years ago. Nor is it about the lack of money (Spurs agreed loan arrangements with Lazards a few years ago worth £75 million, to be drawn down as and when required).

Levy is, I think, holding back because a tube line and investment in the local area would help to increase local property values. According to leaked plans, Spurs intend to build some residential property - the profits from which would help to pay for the development of the stadium - and obviously increased property values would make such a scheme more attractive. However, if Spurs were to simply go ahead and redevelop White Hart Lane before winning the battle for a tube line at Northumberland Park, then they would have no bargaining power with the local authorities. It is only while the threat of leaving Haringey remains that Spurs can have any hope that they will get the tube line and a subsequent increase in property values.

bubomb

March 23rd, 2006, 01:41 AM

Actually, in a few years Spain might be 2nd (then again, they might not be!) -

Definites -

New stadium in Valencia - 70000 Valencia CF (2006-2009)
New stadium in Sevilla - 64000 Real Betis Balompié (?)
New satdium in Sánchez Pizjuán - 50000 Sevilla FC (2007)
New stadium in San.Sebastián - 43000 Real Sociedad (2007)
New stadium in Zaragoza - 42600 Real Zaragoza (2006)
New stadium in Barcelona - 35000 RCD Espanyol (2006)
New stadium in Murcia - 30911 Real Murcia CF (2007)

along with -

Camp Nou - 98934 (possible 120000!!!)
Santiago Bernabéu - 80354 (who know how big they will go!)
Olímpico - 57619
Olímpic de Montjuïc - 55926
Manuel Martínez Valero - 38750 (under reconstruction)
Riazor - 34721
Carlos Tartiere - 29862 (photos below, as I never knew about this one!)

http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/ESP/Carlos_Tartiere7.jpg

http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/ESP/Carlos_Tartiere.jpg

http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/ESP/Carlos_Tartiere8.jpg.jpeg

bubomb

March 23rd, 2006, 01:44 AM

Good questions.

The two stands (Paxton and Park Lane) that Alan Sugar redeveloped in the 90's bear his hallmark - cheap and lacking in foresight or ambition. He only built them because the requirements of the Taylor report would have meant a capacity of only 28,000 had the old stands merely been converted to all seater.

Part of Daniel Levy's problem now is the lack of foresight of previous regimes. All the stands at White Hart Lane were built too small and, other than the West stand, none can really be increased merely by adding another tier since the designs are unsuitable. Which means that completely new stands are needed. And that costs a lot of money, especially in London.

The reason why Levy is holding back, I'm certain, is not because the area cannot cope with a further 9,000 fans. We used to get crowds of 70,000, after all. Furthermore, we received planning approval five years ago for a scheme that would have increased capacity by 8,000. I can't see why the area could cope any less well now with 8-9,000 extra fans than it could five years ago. Nor is it about the lack of money (Spurs agreed loan arrangements with Lazards a few years ago worth £75 million, to be drawn down as and when required).

Levy is, I think, holding back because a tube line and investment in the local area would help to increase local property values. According to leaked plans, Spurs intend to build some residential property - the profits from which would help to pay for the development of the stadium - and obviously increased property values would make such a scheme more attractive. However, if Spurs were to simply go ahead and redevelop White Hart Lane before winning the battle for a tube line at Northumberland Park, then they would have no bargaining power with the local authorities. It is only while the threat of leaving Haringey remains that Spurs can have any hope that they will get the tube line and a subsequent increase in property values.

hhmmm, very interesting! Who knows what will happen???

NFLeuropefan

March 23rd, 2006, 03:11 AM

The game is too rough for more games, guys would get killed...... Besides, the fact that they play few games make the games more important, and thus more interesting, and therefore better for TV and TV ratings.

NovaWolverine

March 23rd, 2006, 05:49 AM

I have to go with the Alamo Dome in San Antonio, TX. I don't have any pics, but can do NBA, NCAA and NFL, I'm assuming it can do Hockey and Concerts, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if it could do baseball either.

2005

March 23rd, 2006, 11:01 AM

As many know there were leaked photos I personally think they are the plans but you never know. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=236000

There was a pic of a big residential building as but at the moment something is playing up so I can't put it on here at the mo.

At this moment in time no one has any idea of what the plans are for WHL.

Jonesy55

March 23rd, 2006, 11:45 AM

The Reebok is also a good example of a smaller stadium that isn't an Ikea flat-pack.

Galpharm stadium, Huddersfield is another nice smaller stadium (24,500) in my opinion.

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/park/yfh45/hudtown50.jpg

http://terriercelestia.sphosting.com/HTFCstadium.jpg

kingdomca

March 23rd, 2006, 02:13 PM

Darlingtons ground is poor. It is the king of Ikea flat-packs. It is one of the most boring stadiums on earth! I class the Reebok Stadium as the 7th best ground in England (it's about quality, not just size), and I class the Volkswagen Arena as about the same as the Reebok. The Volkswagen Arena would get in the top 10 in England. There isn't 10 grounds in England as good as the Volkswagen Arena, let alone 50 that you claim!! England simply doesn't have that many top quality stadiums! Most of them have at least one crap stand and look unfinished, and the rest are Ikea flat-packs that all look identical.

I like the typical small town english stadium. Facilities are light years ahead of what you have elsewhere in europe.

If you actually slam excellent 20-30,000 capacity all covered grounds even at the third or fourth level of english football for having one old stand because then it doesnt LOOK good or its Ikea or whatever, well then we just look at this very differently.

To me its just extremly impressive what lower league clubs build in England, as it shows just how strong football is in England.

With so many new quality venues its inevitable that many will look similar, especially as they are built by modest small town clubs.
Other nations can still only dream about getting such a problem.

This thread has only made me more impressed with english stadiums having had a closer look at what exist elsewhere.
I know such praise of England tends to make you somehow blow a fuse and come up with those sad posts where any issue is long forgotten, but dont bother, there is no point.

I can only say that England´s overall stadium infrastructure is simply stunning in my opinion.
It doesnt make England perfect, though, far from it.

The really sad thing about english football is that all those lower league clubs dont get to make the best of their great facilities, because the cost of going to football there is beyond a joke and leaves far too many venues too empty most of the time.

rantanamo

March 23rd, 2006, 02:22 PM

Thinking of the ability to do a lot of things, and looking the best doing them, it has to come down to the Astrodome, Veltins, Reliant and the Metrodome.

I'm pretty sure all of them can do rodeo and other dirt events pretty well.

I think Alamodome has the best basketball setup of all the domes I've seen, and pretty good setup for football

http://image10.webshots.com/11/3/14/40/131231440yQmrwx_ph.jpg
http://image10.webshots.com/10/0/46/16/134604616XrsoAZ_ph.jpg

Metrodome has great football setup, good basketball/hockey setup, and decent baseball setup
http://image63.webshots.com/63/6/92/67/480669267foliQL_ph.jpg
http://image02.webshots.com/2/4/91/69/52149169odyjbj_fs.jpg
http://image02.webshots.com/2/2/7/65/82420765FdAPSA_ph.jpg

Reliant has the best soccer setup, really nice football setup, decent basketball and no baseball
http://nandokim77.250free.com/images/Soccer_Reliant_Stadium_Panorama.jpg

Skydome and Astrodome do best in baseball, though Astrodome looks better in the football/soccer setup

I might have to go with the Astrodome believe it or not. Its the one that looks pretty good in any setup.

kingdomca

March 23rd, 2006, 02:55 PM

MARTUH

You have actually not picked the right stadiums for scandinavia as, at least in Denmark, some the biggest are 20,000 capacities all standing holes in the ground that are big because they remain undeveloped, typically because they belong to lower league clubs.
You even included Gentofte, which is one of the former homes of FCK, the club that owns Parken.

But though you make scandinavia look far worse than it is, it doesnt change much.

Scotland clearly wins by a mile. They have 4 big stadiums of a quality only matched by 1 stadium in all of scandinavia.

Looking at smaller stadiums, scotland also matches each scandinavian country and as populations are about the same or larger in scandinavia, there is no question that Scotland win this.

kingdomca

March 23rd, 2006, 03:07 PM

Kampflamm

March 23rd, 2006, 03:17 PM

I'm not sure if Shawfield is up to UEFA regulations:

http://www.duncancumming.co.uk/photos/shawfield.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schottland/shawfield/150.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schottland/shawfield/140.jpg

Record Attendance: 94799

Gentofte isn't exactly impressive either:

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/daenemark/gentofte_stadion/120.jpg

bubomb

March 23rd, 2006, 04:59 PM

However looking at actual sporting achievment, scandinavia beats scotland easily.
I have to admit, this is particularly Sweden, who have an extremly impressive history and culture of sports, staggering in fact, and massively underestimated. I dont think any such small country can even come close to Sweden.

Also scandinavia is a main growth market for football.
Currently the topic of a scandinavian super league is again on the table and it will inevitably happen simply because no one is against it.
It will take years to implement and there are lots of issues and at first will only be sweden-denmark-norway.
Its pretty inevitable though that with time Finland and even the baltics will be included.

Scandinavia isnt exactly a poor place and such a league will have a population base of 30 million+ far richer than for instance Spain.
It raises lots of issues and concerns though.

There are also a few new planned stadiums, such as the famous Rasunda, whcih,will be knocked down soon to be replaced by a 55,000 new stadium in Stockholm, where another 25,000 venue is also being built.

Sweden as international level has done very well at football, but at club level Scotland thrashes them

Who are all these famous Swedish sportsmen and women? Scotland has had loads of famous people in loads of sports (too many to list, but I will if you want!). Outside of football and winter sports (and a tennis player 20 years ago), I haven't heard of any famous Swedish sports stars!!

Also, it is unfair to compare Scandinavia to Scotland, as it is 3/4 countries with a population of 25 million, compared to Scotland's 5 million!! Only one Scandinavian country at a time should be compared to Scotland!!

Look at the Commenwealth games - Scotland is doing amazing!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/commonwealth_games/medals_table/default.stm

Morten M

March 23rd, 2006, 06:22 PM

Stadiums

It is very impressing that a small country like Scotland have 4 such big and modern stadiums like Ibrox, Hamden, Parkhead and Murreyfied.

Randers are as mentioned a by Kingdomca a holde in the ground, but it currently under total renovation.

http://www.student.dtu.dk/~s011574/randers2.JPG

http://www.randersfc.dk/galleri/ombygning/rfcluft5728.jpg

Gentofte stadium are also a hole in the ground, and havn't been used for topfootball since 1992, B1903(My childhood club) played there before they merged with KB and became FC Copenhagen and moved to Parken.

Small good and modern stadiums like Viking Stadion(Stavanger, Norway), SAS Arena (Herning, Denmark), Farum Park (Farum, Denmark), Viborg Stadion (Viborg, Denmark), Aalborg Stadion (Aalborg, Denmark), Fionia Park (Odense, Denmark), Color Line Stadion (Aalesund, Norway), Åråsen (Lillestrøm, Norway), Molde Stadion (Molde, Norway) and Borås Arena (Borås, Sweden) are all a much better examples how Scandinavian stadiums look like.

And their are also a lot of stadium currently under construction:

Parken will be modernised and the "Coca Cola" Stand will be demolished in November. And a new stand like the 3 others and the 4th office tower will be build.

A new "Gamla Ullevi" for football only will be build in in Gothenburg

A new Råsunda is planned in Stockholm

A new 25.000 Söderstadion in Stockholm is planned

New stadium Kristiansand (Norway) is under construction

http://www.nrk.no/img/525782.jpeg

And especially this new one in Frederikstad Norway is very good. They use som old factory buildings as a model for the new stadium. It would be boring if all stadium looked like SAS Arena and Viking Stadion

http://www.student.dtu.dk/~s011574/Frederikstad1.JPG

http://www.student.dtu.dk/~s011574/Frederikstad2.JPG

Football

At national team level Scotland have been in a down period and are not as good as Sweden, Denmark and Norway. But at club level Rangers and Celtic are much bigger clubs than any Scandinavian clubs and have a much bigger budget for better players.

So my ranking is.

Stadiums:
1. Scotland
2. Denmark
3. Norway
4. Sweden

NT Football:
1. Sweden
2. Denmark
3. Norway
4. Scotland

Club Football:
1. Scotland
2. Denmark/Norway
4. Sweden

carlspannoosh

March 23rd, 2006, 08:14 PM

Hull is another little club with a nice stadium.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/kingston2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/190.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/HULL_CITY_6810.jpg

bubomb

March 23rd, 2006, 08:53 PM

Hull are actually quite a big club. I wouldn't be surprised to see them in the Premiership soon!

Carter

March 23rd, 2006, 08:57 PM

Who are all these famous Swedish sportsmen and women? Scotland has had loads of famous people in loads of sports (too many to list, but I will if you want!). Outside of football and winter sports (and a tennis player 20 years ago), I haven't heard of any famous Swedish sports stars!!

It's lame to not include wintersports because then Scotland loses it to the Swedes.
The national Ice Hockey team is currently the best in the world and they are also olympic champions.

carlspannoosh

March 23rd, 2006, 09:17 PM

Hmm depends on what you regard as a big club. They might get into the top 40 or 50 but definately not one of the traditional big clubs. Having said that theyre doing well at the moment and might well get into the Premiership before too long.

bubomb

March 23rd, 2006, 09:58 PM

It's lame to not include wintersports because then Scotland loses it to the Swedes.
The national Ice Hockey team is currently the best in the world and they are also olympic champions.

No, it is unfair to include them as winter sports are dependent on a coutries location. It is like saying Australia are crap at winter sports!! It is an illogical statement as they never have the chance to play them!!

Most winter sports are never played in Scotland as they physically can't be played, so it is unfair to make a comparison!!

You should only include sports where countries can physically play and develop them on a regular basis!! There is snow in areas of Scotland, but not enough for winter sports to be played regularly, and the snow doesn't last long enough. It is only really found in uninhabitable high areas of mountains!

In Glasgow, there was snow for 1 single day in 2005. It is no coincidence that Scandinavian countries are very good at winter sports. They are the very good at them simply because of their location and the fact that their culture has developed over hundreds of years in an area with loads of snow and ice!!

asohn

March 23rd, 2006, 11:39 PM

Lostboy

March 23rd, 2006, 11:54 PM

It should also be remembered that many of the very decent smaller stadia like Hull, Wigan and Huddersfield also host rugby teams, which the rent often helps with income, explaining how they can afford them.

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 12:24 AM

lets not get into this for the hundredth time.

And Bubomb, don't instigate.

I wasn't (sorry if it appeared as if I was), I was just curious why so few games are played, as you don't see that on this side of the pond! Just an honest question!

IcyUrmel

March 24th, 2006, 12:51 AM

An interesting discussion – and a pity I found here so late.

First, some German “insider” informations to reply to statements you made:

@ bubomb:

I do not yet see Stuttgart to be changed in a football only stadium. It is owned by the city which has a great interest in hosting athletic events for decades. Although the club plans to change the stadium from 2008, this will be a damn long way.

Leverkusen is not to be expanded, whatever people may rumour in some forums. It have been Völler (sport director) and Calmund (former manager) who preferred this option, but it’s Holzhäuser (ceo) who runs the club. There’s no need, no fan potential – and no money!

A new stadium in Berlin is an absurd idea. The Olympic Stadium is brand new, the club is almost broke. They can’t and won’t afford to build a new one, although now even players complain that it might have been the biggest fault in the clubs history not to have done before WC.

Some projects you mentioned as “likely to be built in near future” are in fact far away, like Saarbrücken. Dresden is still unclear for financial reasons – it is obvious they are playing on time, waiting for the decision in questions of relegation. Karlsruhe is not sure yet although the signs are very promising.

On the other hand, there are huge plans to build a new stadium in Augsburg, starting with about 35.000, but already preparing an upgrade on 50.000. And Bremen published some plans to increase their ground to 50.000 by adding a third tier, but I suppose without changing the distance in the ends. And these plans are in a very early state, maybe comparable to Everton or Tottenham…

@ kingdomca:
I like the typical small town english stadium. Facilities are light years ahead of what you have elsewhere in europe.Don't be too quick with your "light years" comparisions...

Once you wondered how many totally covered non athletic stadiums with a capacity of +20.000 we would have. You took a guess and said 15 – not really close: it’s 19. And to be fair,
- I only counted theoretic UEFA Cup or Champions League capacities.
- I decided not to pick Bremen which is not, but was an athletic ground.
- I only took existing grounds, not for example the stadium of Magdeburg which is currently under construction.

So we have:
The 9 WC venues of Munich, Dortmund, Gelsenkirchen (Schalke), Hamburg, Frankfurt, Kaiserslautern, Hannover, Cologne and Leipzig
Düsseldorf (52.000 seats)
Mönchengladbach (45.000 seats)
Duisburg (27.000 seats)
Wolfsburg (25.000 seats)
Rostock (25.000 seats)
Bochum (24.000 seats)
Leverkusen (22.000 seats)
Bielefeld (21.000 seats)
Mannheim (21.000 seats)
Freiburg (20.000 seats)

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 01:20 AM

An interesting discussion – and a pity I found here so late.

First, some German “insider” informations to reply to statements you made:

@ bubomb:

I do not yet see Stuttgart to be changed in a football only stadium. It is owned by the city which has a great interest in hosting athletic events for decades. Although the club plans to change the stadium from 2008, this will be a damn long way.

Leverkusen is not to be expanded, whatever people may rumour in some forums. It have been Völler (sport director) and Calmund (former manager) who preferred this option, but it’s Holzhäuser (ceo) who runs the club. There’s no need, no fan potential – and no money!

A new stadium in Berlin is an absurd idea. The Olympic Stadium is brand new, the club is almost broke. They can’t and won’t afford to build a new one, although now even players complain that it might have been the biggest fault in the clubs history not to have done before WC.

Some projects you mentioned as “likely to be built in near future” are in fact far away, like Saarbrücken. Dresden is still unclear for financial reasons – it is obvious they are playing on time, waiting for the decision in questions of relegation. Karlsruhe is not sure yet although the signs are very promising.

On the other hand, there are huge plans to build a new stadium in Augsburg, starting with about 35.000, but already preparing an upgrade on 50.000. And Bremen published some plans to increase their ground to 50.000 by adding a third tier, but I suppose without changing the distance in the ends. And these plans are in a very early state, maybe comparable to Everton or Tottenham…

I was just saying what might happen in the next 10 years. Stuttgart is 2 years away, this is very soon to be honest. I am willing to bet my left nut that Leverkusen expand at some point in the next 10 years.

Saarbrücken and Hertha Berlin were just examples of what might happen in the future. I know there are no plans for these clubs, but that doesn't mean in 5 years time Hertha Berlin will not announce plans for a new football only stadium. You simply can't tell what the situation will be like 5/10 years from now!

Dresden and Karlsruhe will be built. I can feel it in me bones!

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 01:38 AM

I don't undestand why people quote UEFA capacities for German grounds. These are not the capacities!! 99% of games in these stadiums use the capacity the stadium was designed for, which includes standing!.

If you are at a Dortmund game amongst 81000 people, are 15000 of them actually a figment of your imagination? Dortmunds capacity is 81264, end of story! It is not 66000, as if it was, it would be impossible for 81000 people to watch a game in the stadium.

IcyUrmel

March 24th, 2006, 02:49 AM

IcyUrmel

March 24th, 2006, 03:05 AM

I don't undestand why people quote UEFA capacities for German grounds.

I did so to reply on a posting that asked for exactly that point.

These are not the capacities!! 99% of games in these stadiums use the capacity the stadium was designed for, which includes standing!.

Yes, we did awfully bad in the European competitions for some years already... Please, don't pick on that point so hard, it really hurts. Let me keep the illusion that German stadiums saw and will see more than one percent international games. :wink2:

If you are at a Dortmund game amongst 81000 people, are 15000 of them actually a figment of your imagination? Dortmunds capacity is 81264, end of story! It is not 66000, as if it was, it would be impossible for 81000 people to watch a game in the stadium.

I think everybody here got your point, but the capacity is only one aspect of "size". It seems that most people here prefer to discuss other aspects of this.

Welly

March 24th, 2006, 03:14 AM

Bitxofo

March 24th, 2006, 03:33 AM

Spain!
:nocrook:

gorgu

March 24th, 2006, 07:49 AM

That is the worst picture of zpittodire you could have given ha ha!

Here’s a better one though

http://www.apwj49.dsl.pipex.com/aberden11.jpg

It is a shit hole though!

gorgu

March 24th, 2006, 08:04 AM

2zanzibar

March 24th, 2006, 11:31 AM

In my view, Germany and England have a head-to-head race - in the moment. The "moment" started in January, when the last German WC venues were finally finished, and it will end in early autumn, when - besides the emirates stadium - wembley will be finished. Maybe the "moment" of head-to-head will end even earlier, in case some English fans destroy one of our stadiums - what would improve (if it was Nuremberg) or ruin (in Frankfurt or Cologne) the German position in this duel.

But as this thread mainly discusses the near future (with wembley and emirates taken as "existing"), I will do the same. But I will not take the capacity as a criterium, but the quality. Anyway, I try to be as objective as possible.

As some of you said before, it all depends on the extend. Do we look at the top venues? Do we look at a "big tournament quantity"? Or do we compare the stadium landscape in general?

TOP Venue:
Allianz vs. Wembley
Although in Wembley the distance between first row and pitch seems to be far too wide, this stadium wins against the Allianz Arena. It's not "light years" ahead, but a bit.

TOP THREE Venues
Munich, Dortmund, Schalke vs. Wembley, Old Trafford, Emirates
Old Trafford will be better than Dortmund, I don't see Schalke behind Emirates. Some may wonder why; they shall have a look at the incredibly flat lowest tier in Emirates, and see the great technical features of Schalke.
But in total a comfortable lead for England

TOP FIVE Venues
Munich, Dortmund, Schalke, Hamburg and Frankfurt vs. Wembley, Old Trafford, Emirates, Man City and Newcastle
Man City and Hamburg draw in any category, Frankfurt beats St. James' Park because of the technical features and the "complete" design.
Still a slight lead for England

TOP TEN Venues
Top 5 plus Berlin, Düsseldorf, Cologne, Kaiserslautern and Hannover vs. Top 5 plus Chelsea, Sunderland, Anfield, Aston Villa and Bolton
Berlin beating Chelsea, Düsseldorf beating Sunderland, Cologne a little bit ahead of Anfield, Kaiserslautern and Hannover clearly beating Villa Park and Reebok.
Germany takes a strong lead

TOP FIFTEEN Venues
Top 10 plus Leipzig, Mönchengladbach, Stuttgart, Wolfsburg and Bremen vs. Middlesbrough, Hull, Leicester, Tottenham and Everton
Clear victories for Leipzig and Mönchengladbach, a slight advantage for Stuttgart, Wolfsburg drawing with Tottenham, Bremen slightly behind Everton.
Germany even increasing its lead

TOP TWENTY Venues
Top 15 plus Duisburg, Nürnberg, Leverkusen, Rostock and Bielefeld vs. Top 15 plus Derby, Southampton, Coventry, Leeds and Wigan
Duisburg drawing with Derby, Southampton closely ahead of Nürnberg, Coventry a little bit better than Leverkusen, Leeds a bit better than Rostock and Bielefeld (to be completed in summer) equal with Wigan.
Germany still in front, but decreasing again

TOP 25 Venues
Top 20 plus Bochum, Magdeburg, Mannheim, Freiburg and Mainz vs. Top 20 plus Birmingham City, Reading, Wolverhampton, West Ham and Charlton
Three close German defeats: Bochum against Birmingham, Magdeburg (to be completed in summer) to Reading, Mannheim vs. Molineux. Freiburg and Mainz have no chance against their english counterparts.

From now on, it becomes extremely hard to find further German venues of a certain quality. The next five might be Karlsruhe, Cottbus, Essen, Aachen, and Paderborn (to be completed in summer), what answers the question of kingdomca with: "beyond 25, it becomes poor, beyond 30, even very poor".

England still has a some more in reserve:
Swansea, Darlington, West Brom, Millwall, Norwich, Huddersfield, Blackburn, Ipswich, Stoke, Nottingham, Sheffield Utd., Plymouth, Sheffield W., Crystal Palace, Burnley, Preston North End, Notts County, Fulham, Bradford, Barnsley, Port Vale, Tranmere, Oxford, Watford, Swindon, QPR.

What means: After Summer, there will be 51 English grounds which have - in my personal view - a certain quality, compared to 30 in Germany.

What means in total: Germany may be more or less equal now,

but from the moment Wembley and Emirates are ready, Germany is
- behind in Top 1, Top 3
- almost equal in Top 5
- ahead in Top 10, Top 15 and Top 20
- behind in Top 25,
- far behind in Top 30, ... Top 50, Top 100.

Blimey! you've certainly done your work. Can't really disagree with anything there, seems quite objective, which is a somewhat refreshing change to this thread.

.....though I will take some non-objective, partisan issue with the Schalke stadium. A 'great technical feature' it might have but its one ugly dump! Maybe I just don't like roofs that cover the whole stadium - watch the oxygen slowly dissappearing - and maybe I just don't understand why we think we need them (same goes for the millenium stadium, whats wrong with rain!) also once the roof slides across, the acoustics suddenly turn it into a sports hall, it might be louder but feels more artificial. Anyway, the Emirates has its flaws, but having a grotesque scaffold site covering its pitch it doesn't!

Also, is it me or does anyone else have a problem with these huge tv boxes that hover above the centre spot. A bit intrusive no? Is this so fans won't miss out on the latest David Hasselhoff tv drama while watching the game???

kingdomca

March 24th, 2006, 01:20 PM

BUBOMB yes it would be unfair comparing, using winter sports as scotland have no snow, but it would also be unfair to rule them out as Sweden is frozen-over half year.

Anyway, Sweden isnt so reliant on winter sports to do well, as some seem to believe. Amazingly They seem to rank higher in the summer olympics.

Sweden in sports:

OLYMPICS
Yes Sweden have long traditions for winter sports and is ranked 8 in the all- time winter table having won 108 medals before this year. I dont know what the UK, let alone scotland, have won but probably a lot less.

But Sweden are actually even higher in the summer olympics, having won 469 medals all time, a number only beaten by 5 nations. Thats frankly amazing. Its still behind Britain as a whole but not by much.

TENNIS
Sweden have won 7 Wimbledons in the last 30 years with Borg and Edberg. Thats 1 in 4 and only second to the US.
Sweden have also won other grand slams with various different players on all surfaces and several davis cups in the same time.
Sweden are too good for any meaningful comparsion with scotland

GOLF
This is scotland´s big sport but Sweden is doing well. Sweden have fielded several Ryder cup players, probably more than any continental nation except perhaps Spain. I dont know much about the sport, but surely scotland have done way better over the years and host a major championship.

FOOTBALL
Sweden have hosted both the world cup (1958) and EURO (1992)
They have participated in the world cup more often than scotland and they have done better reaching the world cup final at home in 1958, losing to Brazil, and reaching the semi´s in 1994
They reached the semi´s in euro92.
This is better than scotland on all fronts, even though football has never been anywhere near as big or pro a sport as in scotland.

In club football, scotland must have done better generally, though with 2 UEFA cup wins in the 80´s IFK Gothenburg (coached by a swede now employed somewhere in Britain...) has more euro honours than Rangers. Celtic have won the big one, while Swedish Malmo FF has only reached a final.

SKIING
A major sport in Sweden and a swede has been named the all-time best alpine-skiier.
Cross country is also very big A charming but perhaps boring sport, though its certainly popular as seen when a racer comes out of the woods to be met by roars of crowds than can be 100,000 strong.

ICE HOCKEY
A big sport in the world and Swedens national winter sport.
They have a very strong domestic league but also send many of their top players to the NHL
This creates a national team at the very top, as when they won the recent olympics where all the top players were included.

HANDBALL
Again a very big sport in continental europe, including big countries like Germany. Its not huge in Sweden because there are so many other sports but still they have won several world cups, probably as many as anyone else and they have hosted the big events.

BANDY (cross between football and ice hockey)
A very small sport in the world but significant in Sweden, where matches are watched by crowds of a few thousand, I think, and much more for the big final games.
Even indoor Bandy is a big thing with the finals filling 15,000 Globen.

To me this is just way better than scotland considering how many different sports are taken serious in Sweden and how big these sports are in the world and how well Sweden have done.

Scotland could add rugby, a big sport, but still only in a few countries and scotland are usually at the bottom of the pile.

It seems to me Scotland have little beyond football and even there they can only beat Sweden at club level, and even there it isnt exactly a rout despite the huge difference in ressources for pro-football historically.

2005

March 24th, 2006, 02:13 PM

THST/THFC Meeting 6th March - Report

Present for THFC: Daniel Levy (Chairman), Paul Barber (Executive Director), Donna Cullen (Communications Director)

And for THST: Daniel Wynne (Chairman), Lauren Crader, Tracey Mottram, Darren Alexander, Bernie Kingsley (Board Members), Ian Payne and Tim Mold (Trust Members)

1. Capital Projects

Asked about progress on the new training & Academy facility in Enfield, DL said detailed discussions have been ongoing with the GLA (Greater London Authority) and although there is a vocal minority against the project locally, the club is very much committed to it and improvements are being added to the application.

Summer works planned for WHL include a refurbishment of the 72 West Stand boxes, some refurbishment of lounges around the stadium and continuation of the rebranding exercise. Rebranding within sight of the pitch had been deferred as it was logistically easier to do during the close season. Supporters would not see any major changes outside the lounges, though the press box may be moved to the other side of the tunnel and extended further down. The club was asked to consider ‘permanent’ illumination of the cockerels on top of the stands and also the one on the clock on the front of the ‘Red House’ on the High Road; it was agreed to look at the feasibility of this.

We asked about press reports about possible sale of naming rights for WHL. DL and PB said there had been no discussions with or any approaches from any party, though they would never rule out any possibility to provide major injections of income. Trust Board members present (who themselves have differing views about the principle) said it would be a very emotive issue for some supporters.

DL confirmed that the club is not supporting Haringey’s proposed matchday CPZ and has told the council this. It also emerged that Enfield council has lodged an objection to Haringey’s plans (due to likely ‘knock-on’ effect into Enfield) and this is likely to cause further delays. The usual question about progress on stadium development was met by the usual answer: lots of discussions but no change at present. BK asked if the club had considered the site alongside Tottenham Hale station that is currently subject of much speculation locally with residential and retail developments planned: DL said it was too small anyway but generally the cost of THFC building a new ground from scratch was prohibitive.

Haven't heard anything about that site before anyone know what site is being talked about?

2005

March 24th, 2006, 02:16 PM

Like german stradiums Bubomb?

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/lego-arena-p1.php

JimB

March 24th, 2006, 02:29 PM

Err, 2005......shouldn't that post be in the White Hart Lane thread?

I'll answer your question there.

Llanfairpwllgwy-ngyllgogerychwy-rndrobwllllanty-siliogogogoch

March 24th, 2006, 03:11 PM

Who has pics from the stadiums in Dundee, I believe the 2 stadiums are build next to eachother of even touching each other

Lostboy

March 24th, 2006, 03:26 PM

Maybe it would be fair to not include things like skiing, but something like Ice Hockey, really should be in there, its a huge sport worldwide, and hardly reliant on having lots of nice mountains.

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 04:15 PM

Maybe it would be fair to not include things like skiing, but something like Ice Hockey, really should be in there, its a huge sport worldwide, and hardly reliant on having lots of nice mountains.

No, ice hockey is mainly played in countries with lot's of snow and ice as the sport developed and evolved in these countries over hunderds of years. Although modern ice rinks can be built in any country, a country like Brazil would never build lots of them as their culture did not evolve surrounded by snow and ice, and so ice skating is not a normal thing to do in a country like Brazil. This is why most countries that are really good at ice hockey are countries who have a culture where ice is a normal part of their country. Most kids in Sweden will know how to ice-skate at a very young age as it is their culture, whereas I have never ice-skated in my life, nor do I want to or need to, as my country is not a country where over hundereds of years ice-skating has become a normal thing to do.

The culture of skating on ice has developed over hundreds of years, and the countries where ice is present in large quantities for many months will be the countries where skating on ice has become a normal part of their culture and a normal part of children's upbringing.

kingdomca

March 24th, 2006, 04:19 PM

In my view, Germany and England have a head-to-head race - in the moment. The "moment" started in January, when the last German WC venues were finally finished, and it will end in early autumn, when - besides the emirates stadium - wembley will be finished. Maybe the "moment" of head-to-head will end even earlier, in case some English fans destroy one of our stadiums - what would improve (if it was Nuremberg) or ruin (in Frankfurt or Cologne) the German position in this duel.

But as this thread mainly discusses the near future (with wembley and emirates taken as "existing"), I will do the same. But I will not take the capacity as a criterium, but the quality. Anyway, I try to be as objective as possible.

As some of you said before, it all depends on the extend. Do we look at the top venues? Do we look at a "big tournament quantity"? Or do we compare the stadium landscape in general?

TOP Venue:
Allianz vs. Wembley
Although in Wembley the distance between first row and pitch seems to be far too wide, this stadium wins against the Allianz Arena. It's not "light years" ahead, but a bit.

TOP THREE Venues
Munich, Dortmund, Schalke vs. Wembley, Old Trafford, Emirates
Old Trafford will be better than Dortmund, I don't see Schalke behind Emirates. Some may wonder why; they shall have a look at the incredibly flat lowest tier in Emirates, and see the great technical features of Schalke.
But in total a comfortable lead for England

TOP FIVE Venues
Munich, Dortmund, Schalke, Hamburg and Frankfurt vs. Wembley, Old Trafford, Emirates, Man City and Newcastle
Man City and Hamburg draw in any category, Frankfurt beats St. James' Park because of the technical features and the "complete" design.
Still a slight lead for England

TOP TEN Venues
Top 5 plus Berlin, Düsseldorf, Cologne, Kaiserslautern and Hannover vs. Top 5 plus Chelsea, Sunderland, Anfield, Aston Villa and Bolton
Berlin beating Chelsea, Düsseldorf beating Sunderland, Cologne a little bit ahead of Anfield, Kaiserslautern and Hannover clearly beating Villa Park and Reebok.
Germany takes a strong lead

TOP FIFTEEN Venues
Top 10 plus Leipzig, Mönchengladbach, Stuttgart, Wolfsburg and Bremen vs. Middlesbrough, Hull, Leicester, Tottenham and Everton
Clear victories for Leipzig and Mönchengladbach, a slight advantage for Stuttgart, Wolfsburg drawing with Tottenham, Bremen slightly behind Everton.
Germany even increasing its lead

TOP TWENTY Venues
Top 15 plus Duisburg, Nürnberg, Leverkusen, Rostock and Bielefeld vs. Top 15 plus Derby, Southampton, Coventry, Leeds and Wigan
Duisburg drawing with Derby, Southampton closely ahead of Nürnberg, Coventry a little bit better than Leverkusen, Leeds a bit better than Rostock and Bielefeld (to be completed in summer) equal with Wigan.
Germany still in front, but decreasing again

TOP 25 Venues
Top 20 plus Bochum, Magdeburg, Mannheim, Freiburg and Mainz vs. Top 20 plus Birmingham City, Reading, Wolverhampton, West Ham and Charlton
Three close German defeats: Bochum against Birmingham, Magdeburg (to be completed in summer) to Reading, Mannheim vs. Molineux. Freiburg and Mainz have no chance against their english counterparts.

From now on, it becomes extremely hard to find further German venues of a certain quality. The next five might be Karlsruhe, Cottbus, Essen, Aachen, and Paderborn (to be completed in summer), what answers the question of kingdomca with: "beyond 25, it becomes poor, beyond 30, even very poor".

England still has a some more in reserve:
Swansea, Darlington, West Brom, Millwall, Norwich, Huddersfield, Blackburn, Ipswich, Stoke, Nottingham, Sheffield Utd., Plymouth, Sheffield W., Crystal Palace, Burnley, Preston North End, Notts County, Fulham, Bradford, Barnsley, Port Vale, Tranmere, Oxford, Watford, Swindon, QPR.

What means: After Summer, there will be 51 English grounds which have - in my personal view - a certain quality, compared to 30 in Germany.

What means in total: Germany may be more or less equal now,

but from the moment Wembley and Emirates are ready, Germany is
- behind in Top 1, Top 3
- almost equal in Top 5
- ahead in Top 10, Top 15 and Top 20
- behind in Top 25,
- far behind in Top 30, ... Top 50, Top 100.

quality post, the most thorough by far and the fairest way of comparing.

You have Germany ahead in the top 6-20.

This is also how I see it, though perhaps I think its stretching it that Germany remain ahead in the top 20, but fair enough, as I dont know much about the german venues. didnt you leave out Hillsborough, though? Also England are completing a further 30,000 stadium in Milton Keynes this summer.

Its not surprising that german venues are strongest around a top 12 comparison as they are hosting a world cup.

I would think England will become stronger at that level in the coming years with developments for Chelsea, Liverpool,Everton,Tottenham and perhaps others.
Germany will probably reduce the gap lower down as smaller clubs have seen the effects of stadium developments on crowds in the Bundesliga and will surely go the same way. I would expect many new grounds to be constructed in german lower leagues.

I always wanted Germany to host the World cup 2006 over England for this very reason.
It seems to have really kickstarted developments there, while it wouldnt have made much difference in England

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 04:30 PM

BUBOMB yes it would be unfair comparing, using winter sports as scotland have no snow, but it would also be unfair to rule them out as Sweden is frozen-over half year.

Anyway, Sweden isnt so reliant on winter sports to do well, as some seem to believe. Amazingly They seem to rank higher in the summer olympics.

Sweden in sports:

TENNIS
Sweden have won 7 Wimbledons in the last 30 years with Borg and Edberg. Thats 1 in 4 and only second to the US.
Sweden have also won other grand slams with various different players on all surfaces and several davis cups in the same time.
Sweden are too good for any meaningful comparsion with scotland

Sweden wins this one easily

GOLF
This is scotland´s big sport but Sweden is doing well. Sweden have fielded several Ryder cup players, probably more than any continental nation except perhaps Spain. I dont know much about the sport, but surely scotland have done way better over the years and host a major championship.

Scotland win this one easily

FOOTBALL
Sweden have hosted both the world cup (1958) and EURO (1992)
They have participated in the world cup more often than scotland and they have done better reaching the world cup final at home in 1958, losing to Brazil, and reaching the semi´s in 1994
They reached the semi´s in euro92.
This is better than scotland on all fronts, even though football has never been anywhere near as big or pro a sport as in scotland.

Draw. Sweden wins with internationals, Scotland are miles ahead in the club scene. Scotland has a far higher rated league and far better club record in Europe, with 4 European trophies including the European Cup. Also loads of finals and semis.

SKIING
A major sport in Sweden and a swede has been named the all-time best alpine-skiier.
Cross country is also very big A charming but perhaps boring sport, though its certainly popular as seen when a racer comes out of the woods to be met by roars of crowds than can be 100,000 strong.

Can't be counted as the sport is dependent on geographical location.

ICE HOCKEY
A big sport in the world and Swedens national winter sport.
They have a very strong domestic league but also send many of their top players to the NHL
This creates a national team at the very top, as when they won the recent olympics where all the top players were included.

Can't be counted as the sport is dependent on geographical location.

HANDBALL
Again a very big sport in continental europe, including big countries like Germany. Its not huge in Sweden because there are so many other sports but still they have won several world cups, probably as many as anyone else and they have hosted the big events.

Gay, weird European made-up sport that is played by zero people in Scotland

BANDY (cross between football and ice hockey)
A very small sport in the world but significant in Sweden, where matches are watched by crowds of a few thousand, I think, and much more for the big final games.
Even indoor Bandy is a big thing with the finals filling 15,000 Globen.

What the fuck is that? Seriously, that's like me including the playground sport 'British Bulldogs'!!!

Motorsport -

Scotland wins by miles with many famous drivers. These include Louise Aitken-Walker, Jim Clark, Jimmie Guthrie, Bob McIntyre, Sir Jackie Stewart, Colin McRae MBE. Too many to list!

Boxing -

Scotland punches Sweden in the face with boxing. Many many famous Scottish boxers. These include Ken Buchanan, Benny Lynch, Walter McGowan, Richard McTaggart, Jackie Paterson, Jim Watt, Scott Harrison. Too many to list!

Rugby -

Yup, you guessed it, Scotland thrashes Sweden.

I won't include snooker and darts as I don't really class these as sports, but Scotland wins again anyway. Scotland has an amazing record in snooker.

Overall I would say both Scotland and Sweden have both punched well above their weights when it comes to international sports.

WeasteDevil

March 24th, 2006, 04:33 PM

Spain!
:nocrook:

Daft as a brush!

Lostboy

March 24th, 2006, 04:51 PM

kingdomca

March 24th, 2006, 05:12 PM

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 05:16 PM

No, ice hockey is mainly played in countries with lot's of snow and ice as the sport developed and evolved in these countries over hunderds of years.

To a certain extent perhaps but Ice Hockey, like most games is not that old a sport (I'm sure people have been mucking about pelting something on ice for years), and your arguements didn't prevent Great Britain from winning the Gold in 1936.

The exact rules to ice hockey might not be that old, but the basic ingredient to being good at ice hockey - skating on ice fastly and skillfully - has been around in Nordic countries for thousands of years.

As for GB winning in 1936, well Greece won the European Championships in 2004!! You will always get the odd surprise in any sport.

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 05:31 PM

BUBOMB

I named it "sweden in sports" precisely because you cant make a straight comparison.
But to say that all winter sports just dont count because of geography is ridiculous. Sweden have historically only had grass 5 months a year, thats also quite a limitation.

You have to make an overall comparison which can never be quite fair

I can agree with football, the biggest sport, being a tie, and the 2 biggest individual sports, golf and tennis yield one win each,

But beyond those 3 sports Scotland have only rugby as a major sport compared to all sweden´s many major sports and achievments
whether its all kinds of skiing,ice hockey or handball, not to mention much greater number of olympic medals including if you look at summer games only.

You may not like handball,neither do I, but its easily on par with rugby in the world as is ice hockey, and Sweden is right at the top of both.
We are talking about sports that are very big in countries like the USA, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and many others but Sweden downs them all regularly.

No tiresome whining about small population there.

In contrast Scotland have done nothing in rugby.

Overall, Sweden wins this easily

I have explained why you cannot compare Sweden's winter sports performance to Scotland's!! You can compare Sweden's winter sport performance to other countries who have the geographical conditions to play these sports in a serious manner, but a comparison to countries who don't have these conditions is illogical.

What about Motorsports and Boxing? Why have you missed these out? Do they not have roads/cars or fists in Sweden?

I would say overall, comparing sports that both countries can physically take part in and do so, Scotland is slightly ahead of Sweden. You think differently, but that's life!! Accept it!!

Scotland have done nothing in rugby??? We finished the highest this year for British teams in the 6 nations, and won the Calcutta cup! We are also miles better than Sweden at rugby.

Handball is a ridiculous stupid made-up game, that people in Britain laugh at. Nobody plays it in Scotland - NOBODY. If you include handball, then I can include snooker, and Scotland absolutely thrashes Sweden at snooker. Snooker is played by many countries and Scotland have an amazing record in snooker. If you include 'handball', then I can also include shinty, Highland sports, Horse Racing and many other specific sports that are only played in specific regions around the world.

Köbtke

March 24th, 2006, 05:39 PM

Haha.

When talking football grounds and club football, Scotland (amazingly enough) trashes the Scandinavian countries combined.

Although, some of the bigger clubs in Scandinavia are getting closer to the top Scottish clubs.

When we're talking national football, the Scandinavian countries one by one trashes Scotland. Some of the best national sides in the World are found in those small countries, particularly Sweden and Denmark.

End of? Yes. ;)

Lostboy

March 24th, 2006, 05:46 PM

Köbtke

March 24th, 2006, 05:48 PM

In my view, Germany and England have a head-to-head race - in the moment. The "moment" started in January, when the last German WC venues were finally finished, and it will end in early autumn, when - besides the emirates stadium - wembley will be finished. Maybe the "moment" of head-to-head will end even earlier, in case some English fans destroy one of our stadiums - what would improve (if it was Nuremberg) or ruin (in Frankfurt or Cologne) the German position in this duel.

But as this thread mainly discusses the near future (with wembley and emirates taken as "existing"), I will do the same. But I will not take the capacity as a criterium, but the quality. Anyway, I try to be as objective as possible.

As some of you said before, it all depends on the extend. Do we look at the top venues? Do we look at a "big tournament quantity"? Or do we compare the stadium landscape in general?

TOP Venue:
Allianz vs. Wembley
Although in Wembley the distance between first row and pitch seems to be far too wide, this stadium wins against the Allianz Arena. It's not "light years" ahead, but a bit.

TOP THREE Venues
Munich, Dortmund, Schalke vs. Wembley, Old Trafford, Emirates
Old Trafford will be better than Dortmund, I don't see Schalke behind Emirates. Some may wonder why; they shall have a look at the incredibly flat lowest tier in Emirates, and see the great technical features of Schalke.
But in total a comfortable lead for England

TOP FIVE Venues
Munich, Dortmund, Schalke, Hamburg and Frankfurt vs. Wembley, Old Trafford, Emirates, Man City and Newcastle
Man City and Hamburg draw in any category, Frankfurt beats St. James' Park because of the technical features and the "complete" design.
Still a slight lead for England

TOP TEN Venues
Top 5 plus Berlin, Düsseldorf, Cologne, Kaiserslautern and Hannover vs. Top 5 plus Chelsea, Sunderland, Anfield, Aston Villa and Bolton
Berlin beating Chelsea, Düsseldorf beating Sunderland, Cologne a little bit ahead of Anfield, Kaiserslautern and Hannover clearly beating Villa Park and Reebok.
Germany takes a strong lead

TOP FIFTEEN Venues
Top 10 plus Leipzig, Mönchengladbach, Stuttgart, Wolfsburg and Bremen vs. Middlesbrough, Hull, Leicester, Tottenham and Everton
Clear victories for Leipzig and Mönchengladbach, a slight advantage for Stuttgart, Wolfsburg drawing with Tottenham, Bremen slightly behind Everton.
Germany even increasing its lead

TOP TWENTY Venues
Top 15 plus Duisburg, Nürnberg, Leverkusen, Rostock and Bielefeld vs. Top 15 plus Derby, Southampton, Coventry, Leeds and Wigan
Duisburg drawing with Derby, Southampton closely ahead of Nürnberg, Coventry a little bit better than Leverkusen, Leeds a bit better than Rostock and Bielefeld (to be completed in summer) equal with Wigan.
Germany still in front, but decreasing again

TOP 25 Venues
Top 20 plus Bochum, Magdeburg, Mannheim, Freiburg and Mainz vs. Top 20 plus Birmingham City, Reading, Wolverhampton, West Ham and Charlton
Three close German defeats: Bochum against Birmingham, Magdeburg (to be completed in summer) to Reading, Mannheim vs. Molineux. Freiburg and Mainz have no chance against their english counterparts.

From now on, it becomes extremely hard to find further German venues of a certain quality. The next five might be Karlsruhe, Cottbus, Essen, Aachen, and Paderborn (to be completed in summer), what answers the question of kingdomca with: "beyond 25, it becomes poor, beyond 30, even very poor".

England still has a some more in reserve:
Swansea, Darlington, West Brom, Millwall, Norwich, Huddersfield, Blackburn, Ipswich, Stoke, Nottingham, Sheffield Utd., Plymouth, Sheffield W., Crystal Palace, Burnley, Preston North End, Notts County, Fulham, Bradford, Barnsley, Port Vale, Tranmere, Oxford, Watford, Swindon, QPR.

What means: After Summer, there will be 51 English grounds which have - in my personal view - a certain quality, compared to 30 in Germany.

What means in total: Germany may be more or less equal now,

but from the moment Wembley and Emirates are ready, Germany is
- behind in Top 1, Top 3
- almost equal in Top 5
- ahead in Top 10, Top 15 and Top 20
- behind in Top 25,
- far behind in Top 30, ... Top 50, Top 100.

Hve to join the choir here. Very well done, fair and blanced I'd say. And not only because I agree ;)

If we boil it down to your post (provided we agree that Germany and England has the best stadiums), then I guess which country ha the best stadiums comes down to whether you put more focus in depth-, or top quality.

By the way, off topic here, isn't Hull the largest city in Europe never to have had a team in top flight football?

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 05:54 PM

In my view, Germany and England have a head-to-head race - in the moment. The "moment" started in January, when the last German WC venues were finally finished, and it will end in early autumn, when - besides the emirates stadium - wembley will be finished. Maybe the "moment" of head-to-head will end even earlier, in case some English fans destroy one of our stadiums - what would improve (if it was Nuremberg) or ruin (in Frankfurt or Cologne) the German position in this duel.

But as this thread mainly discusses the near future (with wembley and emirates taken as "existing"), I will do the same. But I will not take the capacity as a criterium, but the quality. Anyway, I try to be as objective as possible.

As some of you said before, it all depends on the extend. Do we look at the top venues? Do we look at a "big tournament quantity"? Or do we compare the stadium landscape in general?

TOP Venue:
Allianz vs. Wembley
Although in Wembley the distance between first row and pitch seems to be far too wide, this stadium wins against the Allianz Arena. It's not "light years" ahead, but a bit.

TOP THREE Venues
Munich, Dortmund, Schalke vs. Wembley, Old Trafford, Emirates
Old Trafford will be better than Dortmund, I don't see Schalke behind Emirates. Some may wonder why; they shall have a look at the incredibly flat lowest tier in Emirates, and see the great technical features of Schalke.
But in total a comfortable lead for England

TOP FIVE Venues
Munich, Dortmund, Schalke, Hamburg and Frankfurt vs. Wembley, Old Trafford, Emirates, Man City and Newcastle
Man City and Hamburg draw in any category, Frankfurt beats St. James' Park because of the technical features and the "complete" design.
Still a slight lead for England

TOP TEN Venues
Top 5 plus Berlin, Düsseldorf, Cologne, Kaiserslautern and Hannover vs. Top 5 plus Chelsea, Sunderland, Anfield, Aston Villa and Bolton
Berlin beating Chelsea, Düsseldorf beating Sunderland, Cologne a little bit ahead of Anfield, Kaiserslautern and Hannover clearly beating Villa Park and Reebok.
Germany takes a strong lead

TOP FIFTEEN Venues
Top 10 plus Leipzig, Mönchengladbach, Stuttgart, Wolfsburg and Bremen vs. Middlesbrough, Hull, Leicester, Tottenham and Everton
Clear victories for Leipzig and Mönchengladbach, a slight advantage for Stuttgart, Wolfsburg drawing with Tottenham, Bremen slightly behind Everton.
Germany even increasing its lead

TOP TWENTY Venues
Top 15 plus Duisburg, Nürnberg, Leverkusen, Rostock and Bielefeld vs. Top 15 plus Derby, Southampton, Coventry, Leeds and Wigan
Duisburg drawing with Derby, Southampton closely ahead of Nürnberg, Coventry a little bit better than Leverkusen, Leeds a bit better than Rostock and Bielefeld (to be completed in summer) equal with Wigan.
Germany still in front, but decreasing again

TOP 25 Venues
Top 20 plus Bochum, Magdeburg, Mannheim, Freiburg and Mainz vs. Top 20 plus Birmingham City, Reading, Wolverhampton, West Ham and Charlton
Three close German defeats: Bochum against Birmingham, Magdeburg (to be completed in summer) to Reading, Mannheim vs. Molineux. Freiburg and Mainz have no chance against their english counterparts.

From now on, it becomes extremely hard to find further German venues of a certain quality. The next five might be Karlsruhe, Cottbus, Essen, Aachen, and Paderborn (to be completed in summer), what answers the question of kingdomca with: "beyond 25, it becomes poor, beyond 30, even very poor".

England still has a some more in reserve:
Swansea, Darlington, West Brom, Millwall, Norwich, Huddersfield, Blackburn, Ipswich, Stoke, Nottingham, Sheffield Utd., Plymouth, Sheffield W., Crystal Palace, Burnley, Preston North End, Notts County, Fulham, Bradford, Barnsley, Port Vale, Tranmere, Oxford, Watford, Swindon, QPR.

What means: After Summer, there will be 51 English grounds which have - in my personal view - a certain quality, compared to 30 in Germany.

What means in total: Germany may be more or less equal now,

but from the moment Wembley and Emirates are ready, Germany is
- behind in Top 1, Top 3
- almost equal in Top 5
- ahead in Top 10, Top 15 and Top 20
- behind in Top 25,
- far behind in Top 30, ... Top 50, Top 100.

This is nonsense!!!

City of Manchester equal to AOL??? Total nonsense!!

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/hamburger_sv/images/kompakt_01.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/city_of_manchester_stadium/350.jpg

Old Trafford will be better than Dortmund???? Rubbish

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_fans/templates/fanfotos_fussball/deutschland/borussia_dortmund/saison20052006/liga_8/140.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/old_trafford/140.jpg

Duisburg drawing with Derby, Southampton??? You must be having a laugh!!

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/msv_duisburg/images/blick_100.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/st_marys_stadium/150.jpg

Cologne a little bit ahead of Anfield??? Cologne is miles ahead!!

http://www.uefa-archiv.de/Stadien/koeln.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/anfield/100.jpg

Leeds a bit better than Rostock??? Elland Rd is rubbish!!

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/fc_hansa_rostock/images/aussen_14.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/fc_hansa_rostock/images/aussen_11.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/elland_road/250.jpg

As for the top 3? I would much rather have Dortmund, Berlin and Munich than Wembley, Old Trafford and Emirates. Old Trafford is way overrated! Completely unbalanced due to having their main stand less than half the height of the other 3 stands, and no legroom making seating very uncomfortable. I've been to it twice, and I wasn't impressed. The first row of seats is actually below pitch level!! It's big, but that's all it is!

eddyk

March 24th, 2006, 06:13 PM

Couldn't you find a worse pic for Old Trafford the City of Manchester stadium and Anfield?

Welly

March 24th, 2006, 06:15 PM

If you think Dortmund's a better stadium than Old Trafford then you've either been on the Bostik or you've never been to either ground. My money's on a combination of the two.

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 06:35 PM

Couldn't you find a worse pic for Old Trafford the City of Manchester stadium and Anfield?

The pic highlights the problem with Old Trafford and that is that it has one crap stand that totally brings the whole ground down. Dortmund, on the other hand, is an 81000 temple of football that looks finished and complete.

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 06:42 PM

If you think Dortmund's a better stadium than Old Trafford then you've either been on the Bostik or you've never been to either ground. My money's on a combination of the two.

Unlike you, i've been to both. Two Man United games and Germany v Scotland in 2003.

Welly

March 24th, 2006, 06:47 PM

Unlike you, i've been to both. Two Man United games and Germany v Scotland in 2003.

Season ticket holder at Old Trafford and actually played at Dortmund's ground 6 times plus watched countless matches there. You, my friend, don't have a clue. I'm on another level.

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 06:47 PM

And why the hell did you include Shawfield and not both the excellent Edinburgh grounds of Hibs and Hearts

Actually guys if you look at the premier league you will see for a country of five million people we do pretty well for footie grounds

Look at the stadia for

Rangers
Celtic
Aberdeen
Hearts
Hibs
Kilmarnock
Dundee United

Livvi have a nice tidy wee ground aswell

http://www.scottishgroundguide.co.uk/

St.Mirren start work on a new 10000 stadium in July. There is also -

Kilmarnock (18128) -

http://www.apwj49.dsl.pipex.com/kilmar10.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schottland/rugby_park/230.jpg

Hearts (18008, 1 more stand to rebuild, work starts in July) -

http://www.homesoffootball.co.uk/2249_HEARTS.jpg

Hibernain (17500, 1 more stand to rebuild) -

http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/SCO/Easter_Road2.jpg

Partick Thistle (13079, 1 more stand to build) -

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schottland/firhill_stadium/120.jpg

Dunfermline (12558) -

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schottland/east_end_park/140.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schottland/east_end_park/150.jpg

St. Johnstone (10673) -

http://www.stjohnstonefc.co.uk/newspics/aerial5.jpg

Airdrie (10170) -

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/park/yfh45/airdrie40.jpg

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/park/yfh45/airdrie40.jpg

Livingstone (10006) -

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schottland/almondvale_stadium/130.jpg

Clyde (8029, 1 more stand to build) -

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/park/yfh45/clyde40.jpg

Inverness Caledonian Thistle (7512) -

http://www.heartsfc.premiumtv.co.uk/javaImages/45/e1/0,,10289~581957,00.jpg

Falkirk (6200, 2 more stands to be built) -

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schottland/community_stadium/120.jpg

Hamilton (5300, 2 more stands to be built) -

http://www.apwj49.dsl.pipex.com/hamilton21.jpg

Stirling Albion (3808) -

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schottland/forth_bank_stadium/140.jpg

Dunbarton (2050) -

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schottland/strathclyde_homes_stadium/100.jpg

East Fife (2000) -

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schottland/bayview_stadium/110.jpg

andysimo123

March 24th, 2006, 07:18 PM

Unlike you, i've been to both. Two Man United games and Germany v Scotland in 2003.
You've only been to Two United games and you think you can comment on Old Trafford. You cant comment on whats good and bad about it.

eddyk

March 24th, 2006, 07:30 PM

Welly...noboddy belives a word you say.

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 07:31 PM

When we're talking national football, the Scandinavian countries one by one trashes Scotland. Some of the best national sides in the World are found in those small countries, particularly Sweden and Denmark.

Simply not true!! Sweden have a far better record, whereas with Denmark, Scotland have a better record in the World Cup, whereas Denmark have a better record in the European Championships (I have not included years where Denmark or Scotland did not enter tournaments, as this would be unfair) -

1958 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland qualify
1966 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1970 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1974 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland qualify
1978 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland qualify
1982 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland qualify
1986 World Cup, Denmark 2nd round - Scotland qualify
1990 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland qualify
1994 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1998 World Cup, Denmark Quarterfinals - Scotland qualify
2002 World Cup, Denmark 2nd round - Scotland fail to qualify
2006 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify

In the last 8 years Denmark have done better in the World Cup, but over the last 50 years, Scotland clearly have done better.

European Championships -

1968 Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1972 Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1976 Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1980 Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1984 Denmark semis - Scotland fail to qualify
1988 Denmark qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1992 Denamrk champions - Scotland qualify
1996 Denmark qualify - Scotland qualify
2000 Denmark qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
2004 Denmark quarterfinals - Scotland fail to qualify

Clearly Denmark do much better in this one.

For Finland and Norway, Scotland have a far far better record in both the World Cup and European Championships. Here is Norway's record (poor) -

World Cup record -
1930 - Did not enter
1934 - Did not enter
1938 - Round 1
1950 - Did not enter
1954 to 1990 - Did not qualify
1994 - Round 1
1998 - Round 2
2002 - Did not qualify
2006 - Did not qualify

European Championship record -
1960 to 1996 - Did not qualify
2000 - Round 1
2004 - Did not qualify

and here is Finlands -

World Cup record
1930 to 1934 - Did not enter
1938 - Did not qualify
1950 - Withdrew during qualifying
1954 to 2006 - Did not qualify

European Championship record
1960 to 1964 - Did not enter
1968 to 2004 - Did not qualify

So I make it in order of success at international level -

Sweden
Denmark/Scotland, then a massive gap to -
Norway
Finland

At club level, Scotland is miles ahead of all of them, so if you add up club and country, Scotland is the clear winner.

fman80939

March 24th, 2006, 07:33 PM

Legroom at OT is quite horrible and somewhat substandard, the infrastructure obviously is somewhat insufficient, although people seem to cope with that.
These technical aspects notwithstanding, i consider OT vastly superior to the SIP, even without the new quadrants.

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 07:41 PM

the Scandinavian countries one by one trashes Scotland.

erm.....please explain how Norway and Finland 'thrash' Scotland at international level??? I think you had better buy some books on football!!

Scotland -

Qualified for 9 World Cups
Qualified for 2 European Championships

Norway -

Qualified for 3 World Cups
Qualified for 1 European Championships

Finland -

Qualified for 0 World Cups
Qualified for 0 European Championships

Welly

March 24th, 2006, 07:49 PM

You're all going round in circles to show who's best. One side can use past performances in major championships to prove a point and the other side can use Sweden's, Norway's and Finland's vastly superior world ranking to prove their point.

Why don't you all just put your hands up and admit that all countries are pretty crap both internationaly and at club level when it comes to football?

Lostboy

March 24th, 2006, 07:55 PM

Ah bless better than Finland, a country which is hardly Scandinavian in any traditional sense, and where Ice Hockey is a far bigger sport than football.

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 07:55 PM

You've only been to Two United games and you think you can comment on Old Trafford. You cant comment on whats good and bad about it.

erm...no, I think I can actually.

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 07:56 PM

Season ticket holder at Old Trafford and actually played at Dortmund's ground 6 times plus watched countless matches there. You, my friend, don't have a clue. I'm on another level.

C'mon, you can do better than that!! At least try and make it sound reasonable!!

Lostboy

March 24th, 2006, 07:57 PM

Welly, grow up already, with your stupid comments which add nothing to this discussion. Care to explain how Sweden is pretty crap at football? They have a better record against England in recent years than the reverse and have one of the greatest records in the World Cup outside those who have actually won it.

Welly

March 24th, 2006, 08:01 PM

and have one of the greatest records in the World Cup outside those who have actually won it.

In clearer English, what you're actually attempting to say (poorly if I may add) is that of all the losers, Sweden are one of the better ones. Bravo for Sweden.

Welly

March 24th, 2006, 08:03 PM

C'mon, you can do better than that!! At least try and make it sound reasonable!!

I only deal in facts I can prove, my friend.

Facts and medals.

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 08:03 PM

Ah bless better than Finland, a country which is hardly Scandinavian in any traditional sense, and where Ice Hockey is a far bigger sport than football.

I'm not saying it's an achievement, i'm merely pointing out that the posters original claim of Norway and Finland "thrashing" Scotland at international football is completely ludicrous!

That's the problem with these Scandinavians on the board, they totally exaggerate all the time!! It might be a language thing and they don't realise they are doing it, or they might simply be a bit thick!

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 08:05 PM

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 08:11 PM

I don't think there's any suggestion that Sweden is doing better than Scotland at sport. Individual Sport as well, look at athletics the Swedes are very leapy people, doing great in the high jump and triple jump. They got at least 3 or 4 Golds last championship, whilst the Disunited Kingdom could only manage a single one.

The stereotype of the Swede is the tall, blonde, strong guy, the type who got all the girls at university, and I think of Sweden as a particularly athletic nation.

Due to what I hear about the Scottish Diet, Heart Disease, Battered Mars Bars, and Caledonians that I have met, the same is very far from the truth with the average Scot.

The 'average' Scot is fit and healthy and takes part in sports. It's the fatties, smokers, junkies and alcoholics that bring our health rating down. Our fatties, alcoholics and junkies are world class losers, and so this brings the nations health average down to below most other European countries. Nobody can compete with a Scottish alcoholic! They excel in their chosen field!

Before WW1, Scotland had the tallest people in Europe, but unfortunately a huge percentage of them were killed in the War, as per head of population, Scotland and Serbia lost the most people in the War by far!!

Köbtke

March 24th, 2006, 08:16 PM

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 08:36 PM

@ bubomb

I see no point in talking about 50 years ago.

Right now, and for a good while back, FIFA rankings or not (as they're always a bit dodgy), the Scandinavian - yes, even Finland - have stronger sides than Scotland, in my eyes.

Sweden and Denmark are always strong sides, Norway is in a bit of a deep right now, but they're also pretty striong, and Finland (if we insist on including them) is at a high right now.

Scotland doesn't compare in my book, well, maybe to Finland and maybe, at a longer shot, Norway. I don't think how many times a country has qualified is a good measure of how strong a country is football wise.

The qualifying game is always more prone to streaks of bad luck, not being taken seriously enough etc. than finals.

I think a good point is, that Denmark and Sweden in particular, have both won and gotten to finals in big tournaments, Scotland never gets anywhere.

And honestly, I know this is going to sound a bit patriotic, but saying Scotland is along side Denmark when it comes to national football is ridiculous.

I also think it's annoying how people seem to percieve Sweden as a stronger side than Denmark, I think it's pretty close.

I'm not talking about 50 years ago, I'm talking about 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 years ago!!

Scotland absolutely thrash Norway and Finland. Right now Scotland are poor, but that happens to all teams. You can't base a countries overall performance on the present team only, as all teams go through bad patches. Going by your logic, Scotland are far better at rugby than England as we finished above them in the 6 Nations!!! Of course we are not, as for every one good year Scotland has had, England have had 8.

According to your logic, Australia have a far better record at football than England as last time they met Australia easily won!! This is of course nonsense.

How can Finland have a better record than Scotland at football??? They have never ever qualified for a tournament!! Don't be so stupid!!

Right now, today, loads of countries are better than Scotland at international football, because we have the worst team in our history!! You are comparing us to Finland who you claim are at their highest point!! This is totally unfair. If you are going to make comparisons, then you compare teams over their good and bad spells.

I think you are having difficulty with the English language (i'm not trying to put you down). What you are trying to say is that right now, today, Norway have a better team than Scotland. This is true, as they finished 5 points above us in the 2006 qualifying group. However, they don't have a better "record". "Record" means all performances, past and present -

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=84207&dict=CALD

I should also add, for the "record" -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/4214976.stm

Köbtke

March 24th, 2006, 08:48 PM

Well, when answering a question about Scottish vs. Scandinavian football, spun out of a "who's to host the European Cup"-thread, I'm assuming we're talking about recent time.

And in recent time, The Scandinavian countries have performed well better than Scotland.

And if we must talk about record, I'll give you Scotland is, seen historically, better than Norway and Finland.

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 09:05 PM

And if we must talk about record, I'll give you Scotland is, seen historically, better than Norway and Finland.

and about the same as Denmark.

Recently (last 10 years), Scotland have done about the same as Norway and miles better than Finland. The last 6 years have been the worst spell in our international history (although we did reach 2 play-offs), compared to some of the best in Norway's and Finland's history. We can only get much better!

add in clubs, and Scotland rules the football waves!! Scotland have won twice as many European trophies as the whole of Scandinavia combined!!!

It should also be pointed out that Sweden alone has twice the population of Scotland, although Sweden do have a superb international record for a country of their size. In total, Scandinavia is about 5 times the size of Scotland!

Your Finland comparison is just stupid!! How the hell can Finland have a better record ('thrash' was the word you used) than Scotland?? Even in the last 6 years (the worst 6 years in Scotland's history), we still have a far better record than Finland. For every tournament, Finland have never finished in a higher position in a qualifying group compared to Scotland.....ever!! In the last 6 years Scotland also managed 2 play-offs, Finland managed nothing!! Finland have never even qualified for a tournament, Scotland have qualified for 11!! Scotland finished 3rd in their 2006 group (same as Denmark), Finland finished 4th!

Maybe I would take you more seriously if you stopped grossly exaggerating all the time. It seems to be a feature of the Scandinavians on this forum!!

andysimo123

March 24th, 2006, 10:11 PM

erm...no, I think I can actually.
erm... no I think you cant. I've been to Old Trafford 10 times this season. Twice in Stretford end, once at the top of the North Stand, once in the 2nd Tier of the North stand and the others in the Upper East stand.

Now all the facilities in those parts of the ground seemed good to me actually for just fans the are more than just good. If your in the lower stands you can get a hot dog from the people walking round the pitch. They also have Flat Screen TV's everwhere and their own private channel where we can watch what ever live game they have choosen to show, with all the info you could ever need by the side. The Bars have been improved although it can be hard to get anything at half time. In the South Stand they lock the gates at half time and you can go out and buy a drink. Also befour the match you can book fanszone and chill out befour the game. The amount of stuff United offer fans is silly. I havent even got started on the fans and the team playing the football.

bubomb

March 24th, 2006, 10:22 PM

erm... no I think you cant. I've been to Old Trafford 10 times this season. Twice in Stretford end, once at the top of the North Stand, once in the 2nd Tier of the North stand and the others in the Upper East stand.

Now all the facilities in those parts of the ground seemed good to me actually for just fans the are more than just good. If your in the lower stands you can get a hot dog from the people walking round the pitch. They also have Flat Screen TV's everwhere and their own private channel where we can watch what ever live game they have choosen to show, with all the info you could ever need by the side. The Bars have been improved although it can be hard to get anything at half time. In the South Stand they lock the gates at half time and you can go out and buy a drink. Also befour the match you can book fanszone and chill out befour the game. The amount of stuff United offer fans is silly. I havent even got started on the fans and the team playing the football.

The facilities were great......for dwarfs!! Anybody over 5'10" is going to have a very uncomfortable 90 minutes!

and you must admit, the South Stand looks shit and totally out of place now.

Good stadium, but i've been in far better!

andysimo123

March 24th, 2006, 10:56 PM

I will go with that, thankfully am not 7 foot tall. Some of the seats could do with replacing. They replaced afew sections last season but if you just listen every now and then your'll here someone complaining about them. I hope the new stand has more abit more space but really when you think about, you have a seat in the old days they ethier stood up or they sat on the ground. I remember one game where the whole of the lower east tier where stood up for the whole game giving shit to the away fans. It was like being at a United away game but at home, with Stretford End backing you up. That was the Liverpool game when we won 1:0 possible one of the greatest games I have been to, I didnt use my seat once and when United scored I had never seen anything like it, the whole ground was going mad for the rest of the game, even the Stewards where jumping up and down.

EADGBE

March 24th, 2006, 11:22 PM

Old Trafford is way overrated! Completely unbalanced due to having their main stand less than half the height of the other 3 stands, and no legroom making seating very uncomfortable. I've been to it twice, and I wasn't impressed. The first row of seats is actually below pitch level!! It's big, but that's all it is!

I will concede that legroom is variable at OT, but you can't presume that the two seats you had represent the whole ground. I've sat in following areas:

South Lower, South Upper, East T1 Lower, East T1 Upper, East T2, North T1 Lower, North T1 Upper, North T2, North T3, West T1 Lower and West T2.

Some are more roomy than others, and I don't just mean the corporate seats I been in. For example, the increased rake of T3 means that the row in front is much lower than in other areas, increasing the amount of space for your knees. In the T1 Lower seats, this factor is precluded.

I've been to Anfield three times, once in the Main Stand, twice in the Kop. In both cases, I'd say I've never been more cramped, but it would be wildly inaccurate of me to profess that the same is true of the Centenary Stand or the Anfield Road stand.

As for the Westfalenstadion, I don't expect to change anyone's mind but I would say that in my opinion, it's a 'cut and shunt' of a stadium. The terracing is an anachronism, the bench seating is cheap and uncomfortable and if you think the new quadrants at OT are unnecessarily ugly, then look at these!
http://www.hillen-hasbergen.de/Bilder/BVB_gegen_WOB/DSC00729.jpg

Is Dortmund a 5* stadium? I'm not sure. I can tell you that OT very definitely is.

Kampflamm

March 24th, 2006, 11:41 PM

EADGBE

March 25th, 2006, 01:18 AM

This is a question I've often pondered and seeing a picture of the Maracana on another thread made me think about it again:

If money was no object, what is the upper limit of the number of spactators it is practically possible to surround a football field? I read a quote from someone from Wembley saying the in this day and age, with levels of comfort, legroom amongst other considerations, 90,000 is the absolute maximum - but then they would say that, wouldn't they?

Looking at the Maracana (or Jornalista Mário Filho as it is now known), I know it's not ideal in lots of ways: poor sightlines for the hardly-inclined lower tier, vast expanses between the crowd and the pitch that are wider than a running track or the distance at Old Wembley. But, it has a capacity of 103,000 with almost 80,000 seats. The relatively shallow rake of the second tier means that it's quite possible that a third tier could be added. Even if it was all-seater, what would that bring the capacity to? 160,000? More?
http://www.renabranstengallery.com/Images/JPEGs/Hall_Maracana.jpg

The record is currently held by the May Day Stadium in Pyong Yang, North Korea. While it looks big enough (150,000), the fact it is in one of the world's most secretive countries makes both the true capacity and the level of its facilities open to question.
http://www.fussballtempel.net/afc/PRK/Mayday.jpg

Since I sat in it years ago, I have always been quite in awe of the DKR stadium at UT, Austin, TX. A capacity of over 80,000 with three sides on the lower tier and two sides with an upper tier (one large, one small). As it happens, there are plans to extend the smaller of the upper tiers around both completed ends, bringing capacity to around 115,000 (based on planning conditions barring a higher second tier than the smaller, newer 2nd tiered stand). I have always wondered what capacity a fully developed version (identical over tier ends and large upper tier carried on around all four sides) would have. My best guess would be around 180,000
http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/wp/Football/Stadium/Stadium_800x600.jpg

Imagine a large second tier sweeping around somewhere like the Rose Bowl, Pasadena, or Ann Arbor, home of Michigan State, both of them over 100,000 in essentially one deep tier:
http://www.fussballtempel.net/concacaf/USA/Rose_Bowl.jpg
http://www.collegegridirons.com/bigten/images/michigan100.jpg

Working on the premise that like a pair of concentric rings, an equally deep second tier must carry a greater capacity, you're looking at grounds with a bona fide capacity of over 200,000 - and I don't think it's an engineeering impossibility...

Anyway, you get the idea. What do you think?

Carter

March 25th, 2006, 01:29 AM

I think if the Rose Bowl, Pasadena would add a second and even a third tier it would be possible to host some 250.000 to 300.000 people. Considering that every tier rests on its own foundation that is. I don't know if it's economically viable however to build a stadium for 300.000 people.
The biggest football clubs in Europe can't attract a crowd of 300.000 on a bi-weekly basis. Think of the migration of people every home match. 300.000 People nearly equals a city like The Hague. There should be some great infrastructure surrounding the stadium.

Disraeli

March 25th, 2006, 01:32 AM

I think Stadia with capacities between 120,000 and 200,000 belong in the pre 50's. As you stated if you take a decent view facilites and legroom into the equation then I think 100,000 is about as much as you can comfortably get (Unless they provide you with glasses and binoculars when you go to watch a game).

EADGBE

March 25th, 2006, 01:32 AM

Yes, I agree with that but I'm asking what's possible only from a technical viewpoint, while ignoring all issues of cost/practicality/planning/demand or aethetics.

I should have made that point in my original post...

Carter

March 25th, 2006, 01:43 AM

gorgu

March 25th, 2006, 01:50 AM

he he this thread is amusing

2zanzibar

March 25th, 2006, 01:54 AM

I'm sure the Azteca (114 000) could probably fit another tier, maybe by lowering the pitch as they did in Camp Nou

http://www.stadiumguide.com/azteca3.jpg
http://www.stadiumguide.com/azteca1.jpg

KiwiBrit

March 25th, 2006, 01:56 AM

Dortmund, on the other hand, is an 81000 temple of football that looks finished and complete.

As for the Westfalenstadion, I don't expect to change anyone's mind but I would say that in my opinion, it's a 'cut and shunt' of a stadium. The terracing is an anachronism, the bench seating is cheap and uncomfortable and if you think the new quadrants at OT are unnecessarily ugly...!

Your reply Bubomb?

BobDaBuilder

March 25th, 2006, 02:00 AM

What about that soccer stadium up in North Korea? It holds 150,000. They got that during World Cup qualifiers last year when the crowd tried to tar and feather the Japanese soccer team.

Isaac Newell

March 25th, 2006, 02:03 AM

Depends if you want the fans to stand or sit, remember Celtic pulled in a crowd of over 130,000 against Leeds in the 1970 European Cup Semi at Hampden.

Santiago Bernabeu held over 120,000 because it was mostly standing. I've ben in a 100,000 crowd there in 1996 against Tenerife before they seated the north and south ends and the old "amfiteatro"

bubomb

March 25th, 2006, 02:13 AM

I would like to compare Scotland to the Netherlands, we both live in the same climate but we dominate the speed skating on ice. Our footlball is better and we leave the scots way behind us at any modern olympics (winter or summer). We are better at darts (which I believe is a sport because it requires skill and training).

Oh, and we are the tallest people in the world on average. The average Dutch man is 1.85 m tall and the average dutch women is 1.78 m tall.

Not that this all matters a great deal, but bubomb chooses his rivals well. He only wants to compare if he knows that Scotland is going to win.

Hell, even a provence of the Netherlands would have ranked 12th medalwise at the 2000 summer olympics in Sydney.

and we are miles better at Rugby, Golf, Motorsport, Snooker, Boxing etc!! Your country is also over 3 times the size of Scotland!!

I'm sure you are very good at speed skating, but we don't do that here. How good are you at Shinty? We would thrash the Netherlands at Shinty. You can't compare sports that are not played in either country!

As for being the tallest people in Europe?? What the fuck has that got to do with anything? You also sell animal and under-age porn in many shops in Amsterdam, and are Europe's central importing country for drugs, but what has that got to do with sports?

At no point did I claim the Scotland was better at sports than the Netherlands, as it is impossible to compare the two. Both have vastly different sizes of populations and both have their strengths in totally different sports. It's like comparing the Netherlands to England!!

Some of these Europeans really are a bit thick to be honest!! (Germans excluded). We even had a Portuguese Benfica fan claiming Benfica's new ground was 75000, and at no point was he man enough to admit he was wrong! Out of all the clueless Europeans on this forum, only the Germans constantly talk logically and sensibly.

This thread is beyond boring, and I have explained my points. I will just have to agree to disagree with the porn loving Scandinavians and the porn loving Dutch poster. I have made my thoughts clear on the subject so I will say no more!

XCRunner

March 25th, 2006, 02:18 AM

Germany - Abundance of safe, modern, and architectually pleasing stadia with very large capacities

Engalnd - Lots of new/rennovated stadia with increasing capacities and new designs

Italy - Lots of capacity and asthetics, although older

Spain - Bernebeu and Nou Camp amazing, but not many other stadia that can match Engalnd and Germany

bubomb

March 25th, 2006, 02:42 AM

Your reply Bubomb?

That's his opinion, and he is entitled to it. I think it looks great and the atmosphere with 27000 behind one goal is simply the best in Europe. People will always have different opinions. Having been to both, I was far more impressed with Dortmund. The only weak point was the bucket seats, and they have been replaced.

I just love standing terraces, so for me the German stadiums are amazing. Modern, large, safe and standing terraces!! The Holy Grail of stadiums!!

Real footie fans love terracing. I hate having to sit in stadiums with shite atmosphere. I loved the old days of singing and shouting for 90 minutes in a packed terrace with all your friends around you. These days I have to sit on my arse surrounded by people I don't know who just sit on their arses for 90 minutes fiddling with their mobile phones!! I actually got thrown out a ground for swearing!!! These all seater stadiums have ruined the atmosphere at UK grounds!

I kind of feel sorry for the younger generation, as a lot of them will have grown up with all seater stadiums, and so they won't have a clue what i'm talking about, and will never have experienced how much better terracing is for atmosphere.

The Germans have got it spot on. Seats for the nancy boys, and standing for the lads!! Best of both worlds.

gorgu

March 25th, 2006, 02:46 AM

Hampden's official highest capacity was 144000 for a Scotland-England international!

Welly

March 25th, 2006, 02:47 AM

Hampden's official highest capacity was 144000 for a Scotland-England international!

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

Carter

March 25th, 2006, 03:19 AM

dunwyn

March 25th, 2006, 03:33 AM

bubomb

March 25th, 2006, 03:34 AM

That's one way to end a discussion. By the way, you do not kick our arse in boxing, especially not when you count K1 boxing.
You were the first to say that in the past the Scots were the talles people on average before the war.

I did in no way offend you. You on the other hand, call us pornloving drug abusers. Well if that's the way it is, so be it.

I now have to go back to my porn, right after I sniff another line of coke.

P.s. I did not mean to offend you, pity you felt the need to offend me though.

You didn't offend me, I was just making some points. And I love Amsterdam and travel there twice a year with my friends as it is a great city.

and I love porn, i'm downloading 2 gigs worth right now!!

I'm leaving his thread now......over and out!!

kingdomca

March 25th, 2006, 03:41 AM

Stadiums

It is very impressing that a small country like Scotland have 4 such big and modern stadiums like Ibrox, Hamden, Parkhead and Murreyfied.

Randers are as mentioned a by Kingdomca a holde in the ground, but it currently under total renovation.

http://www.student.dtu.dk/~s011574/randers2.JPG

http://www.randersfc.dk/galleri/ombygning/rfcluft5728.jpg

Gentofte stadium are also a hole in the ground, and havn't been used for topfootball since 1992, B1903(My childhood club) played there before they merged with KB and became FC Copenhagen and moved to Parken.

Small good and modern stadiums like Viking Stadion(Stavanger, Norway), SAS Arena (Herning, Denmark), Farum Park (Farum, Denmark), Viborg Stadion (Viborg, Denmark), Aalborg Stadion (Aalborg, Denmark), Fionia Park (Odense, Denmark), Color Line Stadion (Aalesund, Norway), Åråsen (Lillestrøm, Norway), Molde Stadion (Molde, Norway) and Borås Arena (Borås, Sweden) are all a much better examples how Scandinavian stadiums look like.

And their are also a lot of stadium currently under construction:

Parken will be modernised and the "Coca Cola" Stand will be demolished in November. And a new stand like the 3 others and the 4th office tower will be build.

A new "Gamla Ullevi" for football only will be build in in Gothenburg

A new Råsunda is planned in Stockholm

A new 25.000 Söderstadion in Stockholm is planned

New stadium Kristiansand (Norway) is under construction

http://www.nrk.no/img/525782.jpeg

And especially this new one in Frederikstad Norway is very good. They use som old factory buildings as a model for the new stadium. It would be boring if all stadium looked like SAS Arena and Viking Stadion

http://www.student.dtu.dk/~s011574/Frederikstad1.JPG

A very interesting one in Frederikstad.

I think scandinavian stadiums should reflect that football is primarily a summer sport there and should try to let in the sun, perhaps by having an open terrace in one end.
Denmark will probably soon change its season (yet again) back to run with the calender year

The new stand in Esbjerg is really great. must be excellent views. I just wish the small lower tier was terracing.
I dont think there is a great future for large scale standing areas. Terracing should be all round the stadium at the very front.
Its safer and far more managable and avoids the situation where small all-seated stadiums have most of their seats too low for a good view.
Esbjerg could be like that in the future.

KiwiBrit

March 25th, 2006, 04:10 AM

bubomb

March 25th, 2006, 04:37 AM

Looking at that picture of the Westfalenstadion posted by EADGBE, do you still stand by your comment of the stadium looking finished and complete. That corner looks very disjointed IMO, with 3 different seating arrangements and that wall which seems to get bigger the further back the stand goes. Topped off with an ugly concrete support structure and that eye-sore entrance way. Are all the corners similar?

I'm not having a go, just interested in your thoughts as you've been to the stadium. Do you think it's a small fault in an otherwise great stadium, or do you actually think those corner areas look visually pleasing?

I am a fan of having different stands at a ground, rather than a bowl look, but they have to look balanced and these don't look it to me.

Just as a footnote, I still think Old Trafford looks the better stadium, but agree you can't beat standing at a game. Something German stadiums hold over the rest!

The corners could be better and I would class their looks as a small fault, but overall it still looks ok.

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/borussia_dortmund/images/blick_02.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/borussia_dortmund/images/blick_04.jpg

Nothing at Dortmund is even close to looking as out of place as the South Stand at Old Trafford.....it's less than half the height of the other 3 stands!!

Looks are just one thing, the most important is which one is better to watch a football game in, and Dortmund is way more fun than Old Trafford (standing areas). Even the seated areas are better as they have much more legroom. I'm just giving my honest opinion.

NavyBlue

March 25th, 2006, 04:39 AM

Couldn't you find a worse pic for Old Trafford the City of Manchester stadium and Anfield?
I agree with the first two but imo apart from the kop end, Anfield doesn't get much better.

I have great respect for it's history and the team that plays there but the stadium is fugly, especially from above.

MoreOrLess

March 25th, 2006, 08:28 AM

As has been mentioned it depends greatly on how the spectators watch the game, the general concencus seems to be that standing room will fit roughly double the number of fans in compaired to seating where as benchs will fit half again as much as normal seating. Its not even that simple though as seating itself varies greatly from stadium to stadium, the likes of the Wembley or the Stade De France for example having much more room per seat than the Azteca or the San Siro due to smaller seats being closer together and most likely smaller isles between them.

The shape of the field of play will also have a large effect, the larger it is the larger the stand surrounding it will be so your'll be able to fit in more fans without with stands of the same height/depth.

dunwyn

March 25th, 2006, 08:58 AM

I agree, Many factors need to be defined before any answer can be given. Though if you define the factors it's just mathematics.

fman80939

March 25th, 2006, 09:35 AM

As for the Westfalenstadion, I don't expect to change anyone's mind but I would say that in my opinion, it's a 'cut and shunt' of a stadium. The terracing is an anachronism, the bench seating is cheap and uncomfortable and if you think the new quadrants at OT are unnecessarily ugly, then look at these!
.

WTF terracing an anchronism ? Just like motorcycles are compared to cars ?
There is no bench seating at Dortmund, until recently there has been separate "tractor style" seating in the lower tiers, which was phased out and replaced by seats with backrests.
However i'd stilll prefer those butt ugly "tractor style" seats with reasonable legroom to that designed-for-pygmies nuisance at OT..

EADGBE

March 25th, 2006, 10:11 AM

The greatest capacity for a football stadium depends on a number of factors especially how far are people prepared to sit to watch a game.
Assume the below factors and one tier here are the results.

1. Use standard field size (110m x 75m max dimensions for internationals) and assume gap (3m) between field line and first row of seats.
2. Assume seating and leg room (width 45cm, height 55cm (seat to ground), depth 23cm, legspace 77cm)
3. No scoreboard (simplifies calculations).
4. Assume min viewing 25cm (difference between rows on bottom tier).
5. Assume same profile around whole field (including corners).
6. Assume 5% space aisles and other spaces.

40 rows, capacity of 43182. Last row is 43 metres from field line.
50 rows, capacity of 57294. Last row is 53 metres from field line.
60 rows, capacity of 72732. Last row is 63 metres from field line.
70 rows, capacity of 89497. Last row is 73 metres from field line.
80 rows, capacity of 107588. Last row is 83 metres from field line.
90 rows, capacity of 127006. Last row is 93 metres from field line.
100 rows, capacity of 147750. Last row is 103 metres from field line.

I have done the calculations for multiple tiers but its too complicated and lengthy to discuss. Other assumptions need to be added. Basicially a two tier stadium has the greatest capacity while keeping people as close to the play as possible.

Interesting stuff. It's not entirely clear how you calculated the corners. Have you added the four quadrants to make a circle? You can use Pi to get a circumference for each row.

Multiple tiers include overhangs which greatly increase the max angle. Overall its a matter of taste. Some people like sitting in the top tiers. I personally hate it. I have watched AFL footy in the top tier of the MCG. I hated it. I liked to be more closer to the play.

Yes, I accept that but the thread is about what's technically possible, unashamedly ignoring factors of preference and market dynamics. To keep it pure, I'm also only thinking in terms of all-seater possibility. As you have shown, it does make the process more calculable. Standing capacity is limited by terrace area but then filtered by safety regulations, not inherently by the area of the terracing.

The highest number I've seen so far is 300,000. Are we saying that this is technically possible, albeit highly improbable in the 'real' world?

EADGBE

March 25th, 2006, 10:21 AM

WTF terracing an anchronism ? Just like motorcycles are compared to cars ?

WTF? right back at you...

There is no bench seating at Dortmund, until recently there has been separate "tractor style" seating in the lower tiers, which was phased out and replaced by seats with backrests.
However i'd stilll prefer those butt ugly "tractor style" seats with reasonable legroom to that designed-for-pygmies nuisance at OT..

I apologise if my information and pictures are out of date. I still think the nature of its construction leaves it looking like a 'cut and shunt'. The Quadrants are appaling.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind

Remember this? Just like I'm not going to agree with you on the legroom issue. Tell you what, I'll measure the legroom on my seat tomorrow and get back to you. If you're going to SIP, I invite you to do the same...

Köbtke

March 25th, 2006, 10:49 AM

and we are miles better at Rugby, Golf, Motorsport, Snooker, Boxing etc!! Your country is also over 3 times the size of Scotland!!

I'm sure you are very good at speed skating, but we don't do that here. How good are you at Shinty? We would thrash the Netherlands at Shinty. You can't compare sports that are not played in either country!

As for being the tallest people in Europe?? What the fuck has that got to do with anything? You also sell animal and under-age porn in many shops in Amsterdam, and are Europe's central importing country for drugs, but what has that got to do with sports?

At no point did I claim the Scotland was better at sports than the Netherlands, as it is impossible to compare the two. Both have vastly different sizes of populations and both have their strengths in totally different sports. It's like comparing the Netherlands to England!!

Some of these Europeans really are a bit thick to be honest!! (Germans excluded). We even had a Portuguese Benfica fan claiming Benfica's new ground was 75000, and at no point was he man enough to admit he was wrong! Out of all the clueless Europeans on this forum, only the Germans constantly talk logically and sensibly.

This thread is beyond boring, and I have explained my points. I will just have to agree to disagree with the porn loving Scandinavians and the porn loving Dutch poster. I have made my thoughts clear on the subject so I will say no more!

You'd think a person claiming that someone else isn't man enough to admit when he's wrong, would see the irony that is in him resorting to petty name calling in which he accuses Europeans in general to be "a bit thick" and then claiming to leave the discussion, but oh well.

and about the same as Denmark.

Bar the trophies and otherwise getting far in important competitions - and actually being an international footballing nation to be reckoned with.

As I said, I personally don't give much for qualifiers, although they're of course nice to do good in. Kind of a necessity to have a chance to do good in finals ;)

As of now, which is the question, I still say Scandinavian national football as a whole is better than Scottish, with Swedish and Danish leading the way. I'll also say that Norway's got a stronger side than Scotland. Plus I'd say that Finland' right now got an edge on Scotland. But that's all speculation.

Köbtke

March 25th, 2006, 10:52 AM

Denmark will probably soon change its season (yet again) back to run with the calender year

I dont think there is a great future for large scale standing areas. Terracing should be all round the stadium at the very front.
Its safer and far more managable and avoids the situation where small all-seated stadiums have most of their seats too low for a good view.
Esbjerg could be like that in the future.

Where'd you hear the change the season thing?

Hmm, I disagree on the standing issue, although your pooint about safety and so forth are very valid. I just think it'd look crap with standing places all the way around at the front - I'd prefer to have standing collected in specific areas, such as in Brøndby Stadion or SAS Arena.

dunwyn

March 25th, 2006, 12:09 PM

Interesting stuff. It's not entirely clear how you calculated the corners. Have you added the four quadrants to make a circle? You can use Pi to get a circumference for each row.

Yes, the corners are calculated by averaging the circumference of the mim and max rows (4 quadrants) / by the width of each seat * number of rows.

In theory you could have a stadium of 1 million, 10 million etc. But who would wants to see action using binoculars?

Another way is to work out the area people sit (or stand) then divide by the average space one person uses. Also adjust for aisle and other spaces.

Boards

March 25th, 2006, 02:50 PM

Wow Hull's stadiums a little beauty good on them.

GNU

March 25th, 2006, 03:17 PM

ManchesterISwonderful

March 25th, 2006, 03:48 PM

Dortmund's looked a lot better before they built the corners. Old Trafford's a better ground, though. Germans that have been to both will tell you that. That said, the Westfalen is a terrific football stadium.

kebabmonster

March 25th, 2006, 04:16 PM

By the way, off topic here, isn't Hull the largest city in Europe never to have had a team in top flight football?

Bristol, Wakefield (though no team plays here) are larger than Hull and haven't played in the top flight (Premier League)

Iain1974

March 25th, 2006, 04:18 PM

Bristol, Wakefield (though no team plays here) are larger than Hull and haven't played in the top flight (Premier League)

Bristol City were in Division One in the latw 1970's or early 1980's.

Boards

March 25th, 2006, 04:27 PM

Hull is considerably larger than Wakefield.

kingdomca

March 25th, 2006, 04:34 PM

Where'd you hear the change the season thing?

Hmm, I disagree on the standing issue, although your pooint about safety and so forth are very valid. I just think it'd look crap with standing places all the way around at the front - I'd prefer to have standing collected in specific areas, such as in Brøndby Stadion or SAS Arena.

Well I am thinking about "extra" terracing, where seats are poor anyway.
It would be good as it would be possible to safely get lots of fans very close as there isnt any danger when its not very deep and clubs only lose crap seats.
I would hope there is still room for one bigger section of terracing, just not bigger than anything existing now in denmark.

The danish season is ridiculous in world cup years particularly. play 5 straight months from july, take a 3 month break and play a few weeks more to finish the season.

But I just meant that the season will have to change when the Scandinavian League is introduced

MetroStar

March 25th, 2006, 04:35 PM

Which Euro Nation Has Best Football Stadia?

Saudi Albania definately!

kebabmonster

March 25th, 2006, 04:41 PM

Hull is considerably larger than Wakefield.

Without wishing to be drawn into a "what is a city" debate, Wakefield's population is larger than Kingston upon Hull.

Anyway, what about Walsall?

Boards

March 25th, 2006, 04:49 PM

But Hull is a free standing town of 248'000 people - City of Wakefield is a unitary authority encompassing other towns like Featherstone, Pontefract and Castleford and dozens of other smaller towns and villages ala Wigan - Castleford and Pontefract are miles from Wakefield as are many of the outlying villages. Wakefield's actual town population is given as just under 80'000. But I know what youre saying but and you can see it both ways.

Boards

March 25th, 2006, 04:51 PM

Walsall unitary authority 254000 lol but we could argue about that one too!

kebabmonster

March 25th, 2006, 05:03 PM

True!

By the way, Hull F.C. got nilled AT HOME by Saint Helens. 46-0. Ho Ho Ho. Still, at least the Hullites had a nice stadium to sit in and watch it.

Boards

March 25th, 2006, 05:10 PM

Yeah its a little cracker!

Morten M

March 25th, 2006, 05:13 PM

But I just meant that the season will have to change when the Scandinavian League is introduced

A Scandinavian League won't be introduced the next at least 10 years...

Martuh

March 25th, 2006, 06:07 PM

and we are miles better at Rugby, Golf, Motorsport, Snooker, Boxing etc!!

We have an international TT (Assen), and used to have an F1 race (Zandvoort) anually and one 125CC Moto GP rider. We also have two F1-pilots. Not much, but more then you.

Dutch athletes dominate the K1-tournament in Japan.

Ray Joval is ranked fifth in the Middleweight boxing in the IBF. Scotland has no-one ranked in the top ten.

I'm sure you are very good at speed skating, but we don't do that here.

We don't play rugby over here.

How good are you at Shinty? We would thrash the Netherlands at Shinty.

Bad comparison. Speed skating is being done all over the world. Shinty? Never heard of it. We would thrash you at korfball.

And yeah, we love porn. We're just honest to admit, in contrast to you. Dutch and Swedish girls are being referred to as blond godesses, Scottish girls are being referred to as ugly, fat, miniskirts and always willing to get laid. Maybe good for you, but I don't like to 'shag' a fat and ugly girl. I'd prefer a blond goddess.

Holland kicks Scotlands ass on almost everything. Except Shinty ;)

Bubomb 2 - The Dawn!

March 25th, 2006, 07:21 PM

We have an international TT (Assen), and used to have an F1 race (Zandvoort) anually and one 125CC Moto GP rider. Not much, but more then you.

Dutch athletes dominate the K1-tournament in Japan.

Ray Joval is ranked fifth in the Middleweight boxing in the IBF. Scotland has no-one ranked in the top ten.

We don't play rugby over here.

Bad comparison. Speed skating is being done all over the world. Shinty? Never heard of it. We would thrash you at korfball.

And yeah, we love porn. We're just honest to admit, in contrast to you. Dutch and Swedish girls are being referred to as blond godesses, Scottish girls are being referred to as ugly, fat, miniskirts and always willing to get laid. Maybe good for you, but I don't like to 'shag' a fat and ugly girl. I'd prefer a blond goddess.

Holland kicks Scotlands ass on almost everything. Except Shinty ;)

I shouldn't reply to this guy, but I must.

You do play rugby, and we thrash you.

We don't play K1. korfball? Is that a food? If you are reduced to quoting regional sports, then how about Highland Games? They are played in many countries and we would thrash you at them.

Graeme Randall MBE was twice World Champion in Judo in 1996 & 2000.

Speed skating is not done all over the world, and we don't do that here either. Nobody in the UK knows anything about speed skating! I've never heard of a one single speed skater in my life!

Motorsport.....you must be having a laugh!! Never heard of Colin McRae? World famous and many times World Champion rally driver. Ever heard of Sir Jackie Stewart, one of the most famous and best drivers ever in the world? We also have Louise Aitken-Walker, Jim Clark, Jimmie Guthrie, Bob McIntyre, etc. What about Steve Hislop - 2002 British Superbike Champion and many many more titles. We have many many top drivers from rally to motorbike. I've never heard of a dutch driver!!

Golf and snooker, Scotland wins easily.

Boxing!!!! you don't know much about boxing do you?

Scott "The Real" Harrison, WBO Featherweight World Champion. Present WORLD CHAMPION....not 5th....WORLD CHAMPION!! RANKED 1st IN THE WORLD.

Amazin' Alex Arthur, Present British and Commonwealth And European Super Featherweight CHAMPION.....not 5th......European CHAMPION.

Kevin Anderson , Commonwealth Welterweight CHAMPION.

I won't even mention our previous great boxers and World Champions, the list is too long!!

As for insulting Scottish women!! Just remember, if it wasn't for those Scottish women and Scottish men, your grandparents would of starved to death under German occupation. There would be no lovely Dutch women, you would be dead!! Scottish women worked their hands to the bone making weapons so that our men could save you from Germany.

You weren't strong enough to defend yourselves (It took Germany 4 days to defeat and occupy the entire Netherlands!!!), so we answered your calls for saviour and we were the ones who liberated your country. You owe your life to Scottish, British, American and Canadian men, just remember that!!

Thankfully the older generation of Dutch show a bit more respect to our brave soldiers who died in their hundreds of thousands so that you can have the freedom to insult our people on an internet forum!!

You are simply an ungrateful coward (Thankfully the vast majority of Dutch people are not like you)!!

Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders in Amsterdam square after liberation -

http://houseoflabhran.net/argyllandsutherlandhighlandersphotos/WWIIPipeband2.jpg

Waves of paratroops land in Holland during Operation Market Garden in September 1944

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Waves_of_paratroops_land_in_Holland.jpg/764px-Waves_of_paratroops_land_in_Holland.jpg

A young Dutch man talks to a Scottish War Veteran -

http://users.interstroom.nl/~heijink/marketgarden/images/grave_flag%20signing.jpg

Scottish women man an anti-aircraft gun -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/images/women_war_ats.jpg

War weary Cameron Highlanders (that's my clan) on march through Europe -

http://www.eldonspecialties.com/df/camerons/pics/march.jpg

Bubomb 2 - The Dawn!

March 25th, 2006, 08:26 PM

I'm definitely leaving this thread now. Too many Europeans who cannot understand my logical way of thinking, or simply do not know much about or understand countries outside of their own. We will have to agree to disagree.

The_Hoops

March 25th, 2006, 09:41 PM

Holland kicks Scotlands ass on almost everything. Except Shinty ;)

You didn't "kick Scotlands ass" when it came to fighting Germans though, did you?

In fact, you surrendered after 4 days!!! FOUR DAYS....Fucking pathetic, you're worse than the French!!

You may be good at kicking a ball into a net, but you shit your pants when a German points a gun at you!

Just another bunch of European cowards!! Frankly, we should have let the Germans remove you from the face of the earth. I have far more respect for Germans, as they weren't scared of a fight.....The Dutch - gutless cowards!

Photo from Amsterdam on the eve of German invasion -

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

Quintana

March 25th, 2006, 09:46 PM

The_Hoops

March 25th, 2006, 09:50 PM

Quintana

March 25th, 2006, 09:57 PM

Aren't you Scottish lot still celebrating Dutch William's victory at the Battle of the Boyne?

murdomac

March 25th, 2006, 11:09 PM

We Scots are a bit touchy about football these days as we have such a bad national side and we invented football in the first place.

The modern game was inspired by some wierd very physical ball games played at "top" schools in England in the 19th century for example the Eton Wall Game.

Then young men sent to these schools by their mill owning factory owning mine owning foundry owning shipyard owning fathers brought the game by then called football back to the industrial towns of Manchester Birmingham Leeds Newcastle and Glasgow where they encouraged the workers to play on their Saturday afternoons (Sundays were for worship and they worked the rest of the week).

Obviously this worked very well and professional teams were formed in these type of towns.

Football was still basically kick and chase but the modern passing game developed in Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland in the 1870's.

Scotland was so advanced that every founding team of the Football Association was full of Scots. Indeed the original teams of Everton and Aston Villa were predominately Scottish.

The first ever international in the world was between Scotland and England.

This conveyor belt of Scottish football talent continued decade after decade and although the national team never quite lived up to this talent every top English side was dominated by Scots.

In the 60's the Tottenham Hotspur team that won the old European Cup Winners Cup was captained by Dave Mackay while the famous Manchester United side that won the European Cup had the legendary Denis Law and Pat Crerand.

In the early seventies the top English team was Leeds United captained by Billy Bremner and containing Eddie Gray Peter Lorimer and Joe Jordan.

Their rivals over at Manchester were now captained by Martin Buchan and had Willie Morgan and Lou Macari (I know, hardly a Scottish name but as Glasgow as Irn Bru).

Liverpool then emeged as all conquering winning three European Cups with the likes of the great Kenny Dalglish playing with Graham Souness and Alan Hansen.

Nottingham Forest won the European Cup twice (once it was against Malmo) containing John Robertson and Kenny Robertson.

In the eighties we still produced quality player after quality player.

Aberdeen won the European Cup Winners Cup in 1985 beating Real Madrid in Gothenburg. That team was managed by Alex Ferguson before he went off to Manchester.

The next year little Dundee United beat Barcelona at the Nou Camp and reached the final of the Eufa Cup.

Back in 1972 Rangers won the European Cup Winners Cup in Barcelona.

But pride of place goes to two great teams:

In 1967 Scotland outplayed the world champions England in Wembley Stadium with the majestic Jim Baxter just sublime.

The same year Glasgow Celtic ouplayed Inter Milan to become the first British team to win the European Cup. And these Lisbon Lions were all born in and around Glasgow.

Now we are reduced in footballing terms to play second fiddle to the likes of Norway and it really really hurts.

Give us some sympathy.

By the way here is a little known fact: the best football player the world has ever seen (equal to Pele) was George Best. His grandfather came from Glasgow and migrated to Belfast.

Henrik Larsen was quite good too and is now a legend at Celtic while Brian Laudrupp was fantastic when he was at Rangers so I do recognise that times move on.

Köbtke

March 26th, 2006, 12:21 AM

I'm fed up with hearing Britons and Americans (and that includes - or included - my granddad who served in the Royal Army and later the RAF as a paratrooper) go on about how they saved Europe's ass in the war. They did, no question about that, and we'll be grateful until the day another threat defeats us - whether we like it or not and whether we show it or not. But it's annoying - well, down right hurtful - to hear about how it was the superior courage and fortitude of the British soldiers that saved us. Yes, they were brave and we're grateful to them and forever in their debt, but maybe it was more of different circumstances, that allowed the Britons and Americans and the other allies to show their valour, rather than superior courage.

My claim is that if Hitler had had the same immediate access to Britain, it would have fallen too – with not much more of a fight than France for instance. The terrain on the British isles might not be as ideally suited for blitzkrieg as the landscape in Holland etc., but remember, the RAF only just beat the Germans in the battle of Britain. And the Germans only had a limited amount of their forces fighting in the pinnacle of the Battle of Britain. Had Hitler not opened another front, my bet is that Britain would have fallen, including Scotland. And then the situation would have been much more "interesting".

So please, Britons, can you stop with the belittling of the “courage” of your fellow Europeans?

That said, what is this talk about the Great War doing in a thread about Scottish vs. Scandinavian football?

Paulo2004

March 26th, 2006, 02:01 AM

1. Portugal.
2. Germany
3. England
4. Spain

Boards

March 26th, 2006, 03:21 AM

Lol ok mate. So where you from? Oh wait!

Jack Rabbit Slim

March 26th, 2006, 03:28 AM

Ok, Just for the hell of it, and cus I can't think of a better thread to start at the moment, I decided to look at World Cup final stadiums from the past 40 years, up untill and including the world cup in Germany this summer. Some of the pictures may not be exactly from those years, but I hope most of them are, so please feel free to correct me if that wasn't how a stadium was in that year (I'm pretty sure that wasn't the World Cup cup picture of the Rose Bowl).

England 1966: Wembley
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/fifa/en/pf/20011221/i/2886369280.jpg

Mexico 1970: Estadio Azteca
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5446/aztec9bz.jpg

Gaermany 1974: Olympiastadion
http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/7449/stad6yc.jpg

Argentina 1978: Estadio River Plate (edited post, thanx to Hoops for the pic)
http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/ARG/AV_Liberti_A.jpg

Spain 1982: Santiago Bernabéu
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/537/bernabeuold55wo.jpg

Mexico 1986: Estadio Azteca (an image of the inside this time)
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/fifa/en/pf/20011221/i/2416492589.jpg

Italy 1990: Stadio Olimpico
http://www.asromaultras.it/hhsd.jpg

America 1994: Rose Bowl
http://www.fussballtempel.net/concacaf/USA/Rose_Bowl_A2.jpg

France 1998: Stade De France
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/5907/sdf1tg.jpg

South Korea/Japan 2002: Yokohama Stadium
http://www.sportsvenue-technology.com/projects/yokohama/images/yokohama_04.jpg

Germany 2006: Olympiastadion
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/fifa/gen/fifa/20050126/i/4212083124.jpg

I'd love to see a World Cup final played at the new Wembley, that would be something special...soon maybe :D

And I know this is in the stadiums and sports areans section, but you can also discuss the upcoming World Cup tournament itself if you wish :)

:cheers:

The_Hoops

March 26th, 2006, 03:42 AM

To be honest, the Nazi's expected to conquer The Netherlands in far less than 4 days given the fact that the tiny Dutch army still used 19th century weaponry. After bombing Rotterdam to the ground the Dutch government eventually surrendered to save other cities. Scotland was never really attacked. Hitler was after London and England, Scotland wasn't important. Can't blaim him cause it's useless ;)

It is nice Bubomb mentioned a Scottish Judo guy who won 2 world championships. We actually have several Olympic Judo champions and won 3 golds during the last world championships. :wave:

Comparing is useless, you care about boxing and rugby, we don't give a fuck about it. We care about speedskating and cycling, you couldn't give a toss. You wear skirts, we like woodenshoes. Big deal!

Scotland supplied over 20% of British soldiers, pilots and sailors. Have you never heard of Clyde shipping or Clyde heavy industry? Scotland was absolutely crucial to the Allied war effort and the British Army/Navy/RAF. Glasgow/Clyde shipping was the backbone of the British Navy and Glasgow was the greatest shipbuilding city in the world!! Clydebank in Glasgow was totally flattened as Hitler and his generals realised how crucial Glasgow shipping was to Britain's war effort. Glasgow and large surrounding area's were attacked relentlessly by the Luftwaffe from March 1941 onwards. It wasn't just shipbuilding, Scotland supplied massive amounts of supplies, munitions, artillery and heavy weapons to the British army and much much more!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A1062091

Edinburgh Castle was to be the headquarters of a Nazi occupied Scotland, and an administrative seat for Nazi bureaucrats/S.S/Gestapo etc, as Hitler was well aware how important Scotland was to World War 2. So much so that Rudolf Hess flew to Scotland to try and broker a peace deal for Germany and Great Britain!! We arrested him immediately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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