Benelux FIFA World Cup 2018 / 2022 bid [Archive]

mavn

November 17th, 2007, 06:03 PM

I also think that Holland should make a solo bid. Not because I don't like Belgians (in contrary, I do) but because 1: We can. 2: Looking at the Belgian euro 2000 stadiums I'm a bit fearful for the quality of stadiums that they'll deliver this time. Because they can't fill them, thus don't really need them, I fear that the building budgets will be low...

And to those who think we shouldn't get the WC because we can't fill the stadiums: Let's just say we won't get the world cup shall we? What would be left of all those new stadium plans?

Belgium:

Antwerp, won't be built (or at least a significantly smaller one) Who needs it?? Their biggest team (not 40000 big) plays in the second league, and their second team can't even fill their 13000 (to Belgian standards relatively modern) stadium
Bruges, will be built. Will be pretty much full .
Brussels, will be built. Anderlecht is big but 60000 big? Perhaps.
Liege, probably a renovation on their current stadium? Or a cheap-ass new one? They can fill 40000, but not on a weekly basis i think.
Charleroi, dream on... They can't even fill that sad excuse for a stadium halfway as it is...
Gent, just the proposed 20000 seater. No need for anything else. they currently attract only 9000 people on average...
Genk, nobody talked about expansion until the bid. They don't really need it but they could perhaps fill it.

A suggestion for any other city would be hilarious. So Belgium could never pull this of by themselves.

Netherlands:

Amsterdam, there already. expansion without WC will depend on cost.
Rotterdam, New 60000 ~ 80000 stadium will be there regardless of WC
Eindhoven, Still no plans or even rumours. But they fill their 36000 stadium for every match so either an expansion or new 50+k stadium within 10 years is very probable and needed if they want to build on their recent European success.
Alkmaar, The expansion to 40000 will be done. The architect sketches are finished (they look very nice and original). No definitive date has been set tough. Will it be full? Doubt it. We'll have to wait and see. The club's owner is a small, dutch Roman Abrhamovitsj though and he wants it...
Enschede, The expansion on the stadium from 13000 to 25000 has already started and will be finished at the start of next season (a second tier on half of the stadium). All those new seats have already been sold based on the waiting list for season tickets. A further expansion would take them to 43000 (according to club officials) Studies have shown that the club and it's region could sustain a stadium of that size. So it's their intension to go to 43000. Not because of a WC, but because they want to turn the Dutch top 4 into a top 5.
Heerenveen, They never stop expanding. They went from a 8000 "stadium" to a proper new 13000 one during the mid nineties then they increased to 18000, 21000, 26600 and currently expanding to just under 30000. They have pretty much reached the end of possibilities. A new 40~45K stadium will eventually come. A World Cup would definitely speed up that process.
Groningen, currently 19500 (sold out for every match) will be expanded to 22500 (lowering the pitch) during the next summer.They want to expand with another tier to somewhere between 35 and 40K. They have put in a request with the architect. It will happen. The WC could be speeding up that process.

So for Holland that makes 7 sustainable WC capacity stadiums for Belgium more or less 3. To my calculations that makes 10.... 10 stadiums that will be build regardless of a WC. Unfortunatly, it will be 5 + 5. So there will be at least 2 white elephants in Belgium, and 2 fine dutch stadiums unused. For a solo Dutch bid, you've got several outsiders to fill the gap of 2 to 3:

Utrecht, They attract an average of 21000 in their recently completely renovated and expanded 25000 stadium. I don't think they would need a 40000 stadium. But the company that's sponsoring them has said they want to buy the club and build a new 40000 seater along the A2. Time will tell...
Rotterdam, "De Kuip" won't be demolished because it's an official monument. I see 2 problems though... 1. It will literally be right next door to the new stadium (about 50 meters) 2. Feyenoord is leaving it for a reason... Will it be structurally safe to use. Will it get through the safety tests?
The Hague, A bit like Antwerp, huge potential on paper but thats it... A 40000 seater in the Hague sound like a white elephant to me... But the local government might not want to miss out on being a host city...
Kerkrade, This could be the saving angel. Roda can't fill their 20000 stadium as it is, but I've read on several places that the local government have answered positively on the Dutch FA's request to be a host city. The plan would be to build a temporary second tier to make the capacity 40000. Apparently this was taken into consideration for these kind of circumstances when the stadium was build. It would be a relatively easy process and wouldn't be to costly. Besides that, a solo Dutch bid would desperately need a stadium in the province of Limburg to keep the event spread over the whole country
Amsterdam/Almere, Last week, the Dutch government has officially announced an investigation into a bid for the Olympic games in 2028. A new national 80K athletics stadium could be build by 2018. It would be the only stadium with a running track. But with a "stade de france" kind of movable 1st tier that wouldn't be much of a problem.
Arnhem, They have a 30000 seater stadium and don't need anything bigger. And, with the roof and all, I think an expansion would be way too costly for only 3 or 4 WC matches.
Nijmegen, Wont happen. They just presented their (nice!)plans for the expansion of their stadium from 12500 to 20000. They'll have a hard time to fill just that...
Breda, NAC doesn't need it, but I heard suggestions that the local government wants it. They seem to be desperate to place themselves on the world map. They already paid a ridiculous amount of money to be attached to the high speed rail network.

So yes, It can be done. Add to that:

1. We are a world renowned footballing nation. Were still regarded as "the best nation never to have won the world cup". Our players and coaches are known all over the world. Belgium's most famous footballer wouldhave a hard time maken the top 20 if you would combine Holland and Belgium... Let's not start about the Belgian national team. If they will keep going downhill like they are now, by 2018 it would be a toss-up who gets the second host spot. Belgium or Luxembourg. In a solo bid, this could be played in our advantage: Don't we as a footballing nation deserve it then to host it?
2. Orange! Everybody loves our (national team) supporters. They behave well and bring liveliness everywhere they go. Wouldn't it be nice to host it in their country for once? Fun guaranteed.

These are two very important factors for informal lobbying that could be an important way to persuade people to vote for us. With the Belgians the power of those arguments declines...

Unfortunately, a solo bid wont happen. Maybe it would be best for us to lose out to England and try our own luck in 202x or 203x.

Quintana

November 17th, 2007, 06:14 PM

^^ Good post, I saw an interview with an executive on PSV.tv. PSV are looking into the possibilities to expand the capacity of the Philips Stadion to 42,000 regardless of the World Cup. He didn't rule out the possibility of a new stadium entirely either although he has a preference to stay at the Philips Stadion.

taboe

November 17th, 2007, 06:14 PM

2. Orange! Everybody loves our (national team) supporters.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

mavn

November 17th, 2007, 06:24 PM

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Ok, Shall we ask all the non (frustrated) belgian people? Cause unfortunately it seems that you can't put your hatred towards dutch people aside. At Olympic games, WC, and EC's we are applauded for our behavior in the stadiums and the cities (never any incidents) + the thick orange mass that we form in a stadium. This argument could count for a several other countries, but Belgium sure as hell aint one of them...

Quintana

November 17th, 2007, 06:27 PM

They have a lot of Flemish nationalists waving flags at cycling races though :cheers:

Chimaera

November 17th, 2007, 06:35 PM

Chimaera

November 17th, 2007, 06:38 PM

They have a lot of Flemish nationalists waving flags at cycling races though :cheers:Pretty ridicilous in my opinion, but hey, if they just stick to that, no problem. And as long as they don't accidentily stick it in a fellowman's wheels in all their enthousiasm (remember Paris-Roubaix).

But they definitely show a lot more enthousiasm when it comes to expressing their nationalist feelings than the supporters of the Belgian squad, that's for sure.

ottooo

November 17th, 2007, 06:42 PM

Why this discussion? There will be a Belgian/Dutch bid, nothing more, nothing less.

PS: I don't see Belgium falling apart. They will stay one country.

mavn

November 17th, 2007, 06:52 PM

Come on, let's continue the way we have always been behaving towards and looking each other: not with hatred (don't be silly) but with the jokes and prejudices, which we don't take too serious, and which are no constraint for good neighbourship.

And seriously, I can't figure out where you get the idea that we envy of hate Dutch people, mavn.

By no means did I try to say that all belgians hate the dutch. But he's obviously frustrated with us or something. On contrary to what you're impliyng, I think Belgians are generally a lot friendlier than the dutch.

There is always a bit of healthy rivalry between our two nations. We are a bit bigger and (no offense) considerably better in sports which fuels that feeling especially in Belgium. A bit like we have with the Germans. Bigger and better. Thats why we like beating Germany so much and you like beating us.

Like I said, I would've liked us to have bid for the WC on our own. But now that we've teamed-up I am supporting it all the way.

taboe

November 17th, 2007, 07:02 PM

Ok, Shall we ask all the non (frustrated) belgian people? Cause unfortunately it seems that you can't put your hatred towards dutch people aside.

jezus christ, it's a joke, man! Furthermore I don't know anyone in Belgium who is jealous of the Netherlands in any way. If anyone is acting hatefull, it's you. This thread is about the Belgium/Netherlands bid, but you keep bringing down the Belgian stadiums, teams and future projects...
It's a joint bid, so don't come whining about Holland organizing it on their own. Euro2000 was a big success, I don't see any reason a WC couldn't be one as well...

taboe

November 17th, 2007, 07:04 PM

Like I said, I would've liked us to have bid for the WC on our own. But now that we've teamed-up I am supporting it all the way.

alrightie then :cheers:

Chimaera

November 17th, 2007, 07:04 PM

By no means did I try to say that all belgians hate the dutch. But he's obviously frustrated with us or something. On contrary to what you're impliyng, I think Belgians are generally a lot friendlier than the dutch.

There is always a bit of healthy rivalry between our two nations. We are a bit bigger and (no offense) considerably better in sports which fuels that feeling especially in Belgium. A bit like we have with the Germans. Bigger and better. Thats why we like beating Germany so much and you like beating us.

Like I said, I would've liked us to have bid for the WC on our own. But now that we've teamed-up I am supporting it all the way.I can't deny that Holland is generally better in sports, but I think that is mainly a matter of mentality, and not of means or pure talent. The Dutch always had a bigger mouth than us, to put it simple, and a bigger urge to show off (although a bit moderated by protestantism). Belgians tend to be more modest and humble, and maybe more realistic (a bit to an unnecessary degree). Plus we always have to find compromises between this and that party when we want to realise something, and to many parties are involved, where as in Holland it seems more easy "to get all noses pointing in the same direction".
The same goes for architecture. It would be great if we could perform as well or better than you guys, but simply to do better, much better than we are doing now, to set an example of what a small country can be capable of. And not (at least not from my personal point of view) "to beat the Dutch". Infact I respect a lot of Dutch sportsmen, as long as they don't get (too) arrogant. And even the humpa-humpa orange madness is quite funny if you look at it from a distance and don't let yourself be irritated by it.

michał_

November 17th, 2007, 07:11 PM

I think you're underestimating the popularity of football in the Netherlands and Belgium there. The average attendence in the Dutch eredivisie is 18,000 (almost the same as the average attendence in the Italian Serie A), compared to an average of just 13,000 10 years ago.

I'm pretty sure teams like AZ, Twente, FC Utrecht, Heerenveen and FC Groningen can draw a larger crowd as they currently do. PSV, Ajax and Feyenoord could also draw more people in a larger stadium I think.

Oh yeah, I see that you're from Poland. Do you think Polish teams can fill those new stadiums that'll be built for Euro 2012??

I'm sorry if you felt like I was underestimating the potential on purpose. I just don't see the overall tendency here so I might have been wrong, no intention though. You know it better.

Still- 5 000 increase over a decade is not too much really. To compare and try to answer your question about Poland- we've had 3 000 increase within 1,5 year and surely with new investments it will get better. Noticeable especially when you add that it was 5,5k and is 8,5k per game :) . That of course may mean everything and nothing... I think with a bit of luck and a lot of hard work we would be able to make use of the stadiums after E2012. But I have to say we also might not be able to cope with the new reality...

By the way- if Groningen already wants to expand their stadium wouldn't that mean they haven't really examined the possibilities in the first place? After all Euroborg was just opened... Same for AZ and Utrecht...

mavn

November 17th, 2007, 07:15 PM

I can't deny that Holland is generally better in sports, but I think that is mainly a matter of mentality, and not of means or pure talent. The Dutch always had a bigger mouth than us, to put it simple, and a bigger urge to show off (although a bit moderated by protestantism). Belgians tend to be more modest and humble, and maybe more realistic (a bit to an unnecessary degree). Plus we always have to find compromises between this and that party when we want to realise something, and to many parties are involved, where as in Holland it seems more easy "to get all noses pointing in the same direction".
The same goes for architecture. It would be great if we could perform as well or better than you guys, but simply to do better, much better than we are doing now, to set an example of what a small country can be capable of. And not (at least not from my personal point of view) "to beat the Dutch". Infact I respect a lot of Dutch sportsmen, as long as they don't get (too) arrogant. And even the humpa-humpa orange madness is quite funny if you look at it from a distance and don't let yourself be irritated by it.

I wouldn't want to be seen alive in that orange mass of either. But I like what it does to the look of a filled stadium and our image worldwide.

mavn

November 17th, 2007, 07:23 PM

By the way- if Groningen already wants to expand their stadium wouldn't that mean they haven't really examined the possibilities in the first place? After all Euroborg was just opened... Same for AZ and Utrecht...

Yep. And for Heerenveen, Twente, etc.

When it comes to building stadiums we have a tendency to go for the absolute lowest expected average. A positive note however, is that pretty much all our stadiums are completely full. 20000 in a 20000 stadium looks a lot nicer than 26000 in a 40000 stadium.

Thermo

November 17th, 2007, 07:27 PM

Chimaera

November 17th, 2007, 07:31 PM

It's almost a 100% certain that Belgium will get in the next few years lots of new stadiums (finally!). With or without the 2018 WC.

- Brussels (new national stadium)
- Antwerp
- Ghent
- Brugge (pic: http://img161.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stadionux9.jpg)
- Genk
- Charleroi
- LiègeA new stadium in Charleroi even without WC2018? Did I miss out on something Thermo?

May I add that the stadium in Genk will not be new, but expanded. And you forgot the smaller new, expanded or renovated stadiums in Waregem, Sint-Truiden, Mons and maybe Mechelen and Lier. But they won't be in World Cup category.

michał_

November 17th, 2007, 07:42 PM

- Brussels (new national stadium)
- Antwerp
- Ghent
- Brugge (pic: http://img161.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stadionux9.jpg)
- Genk
- Charleroi
- Liège

About Brussels- what will happen to Koenig Boudewijn Stadium? And what about the expansion of Constan Vanden Stock? Presented here: http://www.stadiumguide.com/anderlecht.htm

Plus- the design for Brugge was presented quite some time ago and it still seems initial- has anything gone forward?

Joop20

November 17th, 2007, 07:48 PM

So for Holland that makes 7 sustainable WC capacity stadiums for Belgium more or less 3. To my calculations that makes 10.... 10 stadiums that will be build regardless of a WC. Unfortunatly, it will be 5 + 5.

Do you have info that we don't? I havent heard anything yet about the distribution of stadiums between Belgium and the Netherlands, imo its more likely that the distribution will be 4/6 that 5/5.

And we can go on for ages whether the Netherlands should bid alone or not, but it's not gonna happen... So lets have a positive discussion here about the Benelux bid :cheers:.

genkie456

November 17th, 2007, 07:59 PM

Brussels is going to buil a stadium (60000) of 250 000 000 euro's in a complex of 1 000 000 000 euro's. Estadio da luz (lissabon; 64000) costs 118 mio euro. That's more than half the cost + 4000 seats more. I think this will be a 'quality stadium'.

genkie456

November 17th, 2007, 08:17 PM

stadium genk that can be expanded:

http://www.tvl.be/nl/nieuws/2007-11-15/stadion-genk-op-wk-2018/

Is this so bad?

Chimaera

November 17th, 2007, 08:20 PM

Plus- the design for Brugge was presented quite some time ago and it still seems initial- has anything gone forward?Club Bruges wouldn't want anything more than to move on, and they have the plans and the money, but there is a lot of opposition, from politicians in Bruges and Loppem (new stadium location), from nimby's...

The mayor of Bruges wants to keep FC Bruges in the city in Bruges, in the existing stadium, and wants to refurbish and expand it. Problem is: where do they get the money; and secondly: +15000 seats means even more traffic in this densily populated neighbourhood, where there are no big roads and parking lots, no tram lines or metro or light rail, no train station... Plus: Bruges finally wants its own stadium, instead of sharing a city owned stadium with Cercle, but paying more than 90% of the rent...
And it would take a lot of work and money to transform Jan Breydelstadium in something modern and comfortable...

Arjuch

November 17th, 2007, 08:56 PM

Arjuch

November 17th, 2007, 08:59 PM

I don't see why people think the Belgian stadiums will be white elephants.

National stadium: full, in tournament and if they play good i think too.
Bruges: full
Standard: full
Genk: full
Anderlecht: maybe, 60000 is a bit too much i think but they haven't said yes already to cooperate with the national stadium, so maybe they build a 50000 on their own.

skaP187

November 17th, 2007, 09:44 PM

The stadiums you´re naming are allright I gues. Don´t see why they would be white elephants either.

Lostboy

November 17th, 2007, 10:00 PM

In 'small' sports but in the end the sports that internationally count are these:

Cycling matters more than Basketball, Baseball, Cricket, Ice Hockey, Rugby Union and Handball?

Arjuch

November 17th, 2007, 10:10 PM

Cycling matters more than Basketball, Baseball, Cricket, Ice Hockey, Rugby Union and Handball?

yes ... of course it does, maybe not in America but the sports you name doesn't matter B or N aren't good at that.

Lostboy

November 17th, 2007, 10:28 PM

Sorry but internationally all of those sports could rival cycling. I understand the cycling is big in the Lowlands, but elsewhere it isn't - of course a lot of people cycle, but few of them do so competitively - whereas Basketball for instance is huge, as is cricket, these are major world sports.

Arjuch

November 17th, 2007, 10:32 PM

Baseball and Rugby is mostly in the angelsaxon countries,cricket is a very unknown sport in Europe i think and basketball or handball are popular sports but not in the way like cycling does ...

Cycling is likely everywhere besides SE Asia.

Lostboy

November 17th, 2007, 10:39 PM

Cricket is big around the world, of course I realise you are a Wallonian and you believe that non-white people are inferior witness the disgusting treatment of the Congo under Leopold and Tintin - but there are cities in India bigger than the entire population of Belguim, son. People cycle everywhere, just the same as people walk everywhere, doesn't mean they do so competitively fool. Baseball big in Anglo-Saxon countries, like Venezuela and Japan and the Philippines? And even if that was true, look at the population of the English Speaking World its around 400 million, not small within itself. Rugby is certainly one of the fastest growing sports and France and Italy (where it is experiencing substantial growth) can hardly be termed Anglo-Saxon, nor Argentina. Basketball is huge, played in every continent and the national sport of several European Countries. Ice Hockey is the same. Sorry but competitive cycling is biggest in Belguim, it does not rival those other sports, Wallonian.

Arjuch

November 17th, 2007, 10:43 PM

^^

Why do you think I'm wallonian, and why would it care ?

Aren't here mods ?

Quintana

November 17th, 2007, 10:56 PM

We Dutchies lost the semi-final of the Baseball World Cup against the Yanks today. That sport does matter here, although it hasn't got a huge following. We couldn't give a shit about athletics though. Cycling is mostly just the Tour de France. It is not like anyone here remembers who won this years Paris-Roubaix or de Ronde van Vlaanderen.

Arjuch

November 17th, 2007, 10:59 PM

That's why it meant 'internationally', I didn't know that of the dutch baseball team!! Nice!

mavn

November 17th, 2007, 11:35 PM

In 'small' sports but in the end the sports that internationally count are these:

Football
Cycling
Tennis
Athletics

In football you are better, but Tennis: Henin, Cycling: Boonen, Athletics : Gevaert,Hellebaut.

And they are a lot of other sports we are better in or even world leaders but that counts for The Netherlands too.

I by no means wanted to start a belguim vs holland thread. All I wanted to do is:

- Show that we can sustain 10 WC stadiums in the Benelux. With or without WC. Allot of people questioned that
- Show that Holland could even do it by themselves if they wanted.

that's it. A shame that you take it to this level...

But to answer your claims:

In football we are way better. agreed
In cycling you are definitely better. agreed
In Tennis you are better. But Henin and Clijsters came out of nothing, and when Henin would quit, as a tennis nation your nothing again. Just like we are right now. I wouldn't call Belgium a big tennis nation would you?
In Athletics we're comparable, but we've got more depth. Look up the results. We have won medals at world, European (indoor and outdoor) and Olympic games as well in the last 8 years... Smit, Blom, Ruckstuhl, Som, Sedoc, V/D Westen. They all won medals at one of these events. Check your facts before you claim something....

But most inportantly:

Medal Tables:

Sydney 2000
8th. Netherlands 12 9 4 - 25
56th. Belgium 0 2 3 - 5

Salt Lake City 2002
9th. Netherlands 3 5 0 - 8
--. Belgium

Athens 2004
17th Netherlands 4 9 9 - 22
51st Belgium 1 0 2 - 3

Turin 2006
10th Netherlands 3 2 4 - 9
--. Belgium

Shall we close this argument now? When somebody claims to be good at sports, the Olympic medal table is pretty much the only objective factor. I think the facts speak for themselves...

But please, lets start talking about a Benelux world cup in 2018 and all the great stadiums and other pieces of infrastructure that will be build to make the bid as strong as possible. If we want to organize it together, we'd better be friendly to each other...

skaP187

November 17th, 2007, 11:59 PM

But most inportantly:

Medal Tables:

Sydney 2000
8th. Netherlands 12 9 4 - 25
56th. Belgium 0 2 3 - 5

Salt Lake City 2002
9th. Netherlands 3 5 0 - 8
--. Belgium

Athens 2004
17th Netherlands 4 9 9 - 22
51st Belgium 1 0 2 - 3

Turin 2006
10th Netherlands 3 2 4 - 9
--. Belgium

:nocrook::nocrook::nocrook:
:poke::poke::poke:

We don´t need Belgium, just some of their stadiums...

Quintana

November 18th, 2007, 12:00 AM

Chimaera

November 18th, 2007, 12:08 AM

Brrr... I've read some arrogance and ignorance in the last couple of posts, pretty disgusting. Quit it and get back on topic, please.

Arjuch

November 18th, 2007, 12:53 AM

I by no means wanted to start a belguim vs holland thread. All I wanted to do is:

- Show that we can sustain 10 WC stadiums in the Benelux. With or without WC. Allot of people questioned that
- Show that Holland could even do it by themselves if they wanted.

that's it. A shame that you take it to this level...

But to answer your claims:

In football we are way better. agreed
In cycling you are definitely better. agreed
In Tennis you are better. But Henin and Clijsters came out of nothing, and when Henin would quit, as a tennis nation your nothing again. Just like we are right now. I wouldn't call Belgium a big tennis nation would you?
In Athletics we're comparable, but we've got more depth. Look up the results. We have won medals at world, European (indoor and outdoor) and Olympic games as well in the last 8 years... Smit, Blom, Ruckstuhl, Som, Sedoc, V/D Westen. They all won medals at one of these events. Check your facts before you claim something....

But most inportantly:

Medal Tables:

Sydney 2000
8th. Netherlands 12 9 4 - 25
56th. Belgium 0 2 3 - 5

Salt Lake City 2002
9th. Netherlands 3 5 0 - 8
--. Belgium

Athens 2004
17th Netherlands 4 9 9 - 22
51st Belgium 1 0 2 - 3

Turin 2006
10th Netherlands 3 2 4 - 9
--. Belgium

Shall we close this argument now? When somebody claims to be good at sports, the Olympic medal table is pretty much the only objective factor. I think the facts speak for themselves...

But please, lets start talking about a Benelux world cup in 2018 and all the great stadiums and other pieces of infrastructure that will be build to make the bid as strong as possible. If we want to organize it together, we'd better be friendly to each other...

I apologise if it felt like arrogance towards you ...
My post was just to discuss something not to attack :)

But pls let me answer, I knew this figures before I said the sports thing and like I said before The Netherlands get the most medals in less popular sports; Thats still much better than no medals :( I just wanted to point out that in the (In my opinion) greatest sports Beglium has an advantage ... except football.

Now back on topic, is the stadium for Standard going to be new or renovated ?

Chimaera

November 18th, 2007, 01:15 AM

Now back on topic, is the stadium for Standard going to be new or renovated ?Unless they change their minds, it will be a new stadium on a new location (Ans?). It's difficult to expand further at Sclessin, although they had plans before to do so.

mavn

November 18th, 2007, 03:06 AM

I apologise if it felt like arrogance towards you ...
My post was just to discuss something not to attack :)

But pls let me answer, I knew this figures before I said the sports thing and like I said before The Netherlands get the most medals in less popular sports; Thats still much better than no medals :( I just wanted to point out that in the (In my opinion) greatest sports Beglium has an advantage ... except football.

Now back on topic, is the stadium for Standard going to be new or renovated ?

http://www.google.nl/search?q=most+popular+sport+worldwide&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enNL241NL241

It's an endless discussion, but it's fair to say that on a worldwide scale those "little sports" aren't as little as you seem to think. Field hockey, volleyball, baseball, basketball, rugby and cricket for instance could be considered just as big if not bigger than the ones you mentioned.

In 4 of those we attend their respective WC on a regular basis (all except Basketball and rugby), and in 3 we're world class (in cricket were pretty much cannon fodder for the big teams. But hey, we're there every four years)

Chimaera

November 18th, 2007, 03:34 AM

http://www.google.nl/search?q=most+popular+sport+worldwide&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enNL241NL241

It's an endless discussion, but it's fair to say that on a worldwide scale those "little sports" aren't as little as you seem to think. Field hockey, volleyball, baseball, basketball, rugby and cricket for instance could be considered just as big if not bigger than the ones you mentioned.

In 4 of those we attend their respective WC on a regular basis (all except Basketball and rugby), and in 3 we're world class (in cricket were pretty much cannon fodder for the big teams. But hey, we're there every four years)we've been doing pretty well in basketball and volleyball (both women as men) ourselves recently, and our young football players are quite promising too. When it comes to tennis: let me express it in Dutch: één zwaluw maakt de lente niet. It's great what Henin, Clijsters and to a smaller extent Rochus, Malisse and further back in time Appelmans, Norman, De Wulf and Monami have done, but it should inspire and motivate players, trainers and everyone involved to continue working hard to insure follow-up.
There are some other sports we are well at, though not always on a regular basis.

And medals aren't everything: you can be subtop in many sports and not get any medal at all, or excel in two or three sports and collect 10 of them.

But yes, of course we still have lots of work, and are well aware of it.

Okay, tomorrow we'll go back on topic (2.40am here) :goodnight

mavn

November 18th, 2007, 04:22 AM

we've been doing pretty well in basketball and volleyball (both women as men) ourselves recently, and our young football players are quite promising too. When it comes to tennis: let me express it in Dutch: één zwaluw maakt de lente niet. It's great what Henin, Clijsters and to a smaller extent Rochus, Malisse and further back in time Appelmans, Norman, De Wulf and Monami have done, but it should inspire and motivate players, trainers and everyone involved to continue working hard to insure follow-up.
There are some other sports we are well at, though not always on a regular basis.

And medals aren't everything: you can be subtop in many sports and not get any medal at all, or excel in two or three sports and collect 10 of them.

But yes, of course we still have lots of work, and are well aware of it.

Okay, tomorrow we'll go back on topic (2.40am here) :goodnight

We had a very good generation in tennis during the nineties and the beginning of this decade. Krajicek, Haarhuis(/)Eltingh, Siemerink, Schultz, Schalken, Verkerk. Currently all our hopes are aimed at Krajiceks younger sister. And we have a few youngster who've won youth grand slam events. Time will tell if they can form a new good generation.

And about medal tables, I would disagree. Either a country is small so it can sustain a high level in only a few sports, or it's big and therefor can do it in many sports. I couldn't name a country that is good in a lot of sports but never wins anything.

Also the amount of participants at the Olympics are a good measurement of depth. Athens: NL 210 in 20 sports. B 38 in 11 sports. This is partly because we tend to have a lot of teams at the olympic games tough: Hockey (m/f), Volleyball (m) and Baseball in Athens. And that number will only be bigger in Beijing cause both our hockey teams, Baseball, Softball, waterpolo (f) and football team are already qualified. And our volleyball teams + a few others could still be added to that.

I agree that the figures from the winter olympics fall under your second category though. All medals are won with speed skating. And speed skating is way bigger in holland than it is anywhere around the world. A worldwide top 20 on (virtually) any distance would probably hold 10 dutch skaters. But because we are only allowed 3 or 4 places per distance on the Olympics, the official Olympic trails are almost as exiting as the Olympic event itself. It's probably the only national event for an individual sport in which the competition is at world class level.

Jack Rabbit Slim

November 18th, 2007, 04:26 AM

mavn

November 18th, 2007, 04:46 AM

One of the things I think this bid is lacking is the inclusion of an 80,000+ stadium, for the final mostly...or even a 70,000+ stadium. Probably the only weak point of the 2006 WC for me was the Final stadium in Berlin, only 70,000 capacity, but they had plenty of big stadiums to compensate for that.

But with a bid like this, when a lot of the stadiums are going to be in the minimum capacity range I really think such a WC at least needs to have a BIG stadium for the final...in the mould of Wembley, Nou Camp, Estádio do Maracanã etc etc. My thoughts anyway, I maybe wrong.

I believe the official Fifa guidelines only require a minimum capacity 40000 and 2 minimum 60000 seaters for the semis and final. The new Rotterdam stadium will probably be 70000 at least. The new general manager at Feyenoord that is also in charge of the new stadium project has said that everything between 65000 and 100000(!?!?!, yes, he seriously said that...) is possible. And it could also unleash a new Amsterdam vs Rotterdam stadium war.

When "the kuip" was build, the Olympic stadium in Amsterdam was expanded a few years later because Amsterdam couldn't stand the fact that the stadium in Rotterdam was bigger. Also the fact that the final was played in Rotterdam during Euro 2000 left some scars in Amsterdam... I think the people responsible for the expansion project for the arena will have close eye on the developments in Rotterdam. It wouldn't surprise me that much if we would have 2 70000+ or even 80000+ stadiums come 2018. It's not very likely but certainly possible.

Arjuch

November 18th, 2007, 11:48 AM

http://www.google.nl/search?q=most+popular+sport+worldwide&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enNL241NL241

It's an endless discussion, but it's fair to say that on a worldwide scale those "little sports" aren't as little as you seem to think. Field hockey, volleyball, baseball, basketball, rugby and cricket for instance could be considered just as big if not bigger than the ones you mentioned.

In 4 of those we attend their respective WC on a regular basis (all except Basketball and rugby), and in 3 we're world class (in cricket were pretty much cannon fodder for the big teams. But hey, we're there every four years)

All those lists are quite pro american sports, maybe i'm wrong and they are also worldwide ... but an example: Lance Armstrong was an American, he won 7 of them, he was very known in Europe; Kobe bryant, not so like Armstrong ... it counts for every basketplayer. Basket is popular in America with a few nations in Europe but nothing like Cycling.

Baseball has to get more popular in Europe, I like it :) Maybe the next world cup rugby is for Belgium, we have the fastest growing nationbal team of Europe :cheers:

Quintana

November 18th, 2007, 12:02 PM

Cycling is pretty much popular in only six countries with areal history in the sport: Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland and The Netherlands. It was popular in Germany as well but it went down as fast as it went up a couple of years ago because of all the dope.

I do think Basketball overall is a way more popular sport than cycling. Seeing it is big in the US and China you already have more basketball fans than cycling fans.

mavn

November 18th, 2007, 03:24 PM

All those lists are quite pro american sports, maybe i'm wrong and they are also worldwide ... but an example: Lance Armstrong was an American, he won 7 of them, he was very known in Europe; Kobe bryant, not so like Armstrong ... it counts for every basketplayer. Basket is popular in America with a few nations in Europe but nothing like Cycling.

Baseball has to get more popular in Europe, I like it :) Maybe the next world cup rugby is for Belgium, we have the fastest growing nationbal team of Europe :cheers:

When Pakistan and India play each other in field hockey or Cricket, There are more people watching it worldwide then the Tour of Flanders, Paris-Roubaix and Liege-Bastogne-Liege combined. Are those sports "anti-amarican" enough for you?

Yes, The whole world knows who Lance Armstrong is, but that has more to do with the hero story of beating cancer and then winning the Tour de France 7 times in a row and his "yellow wristband" charity organization then it has to do with cycling. Do you really think America (or any of the other non west European continents) watches the Tour de France? Even when he still competed? Nobody watched it. Virtually nobody recognizes him on the streets... They just now his name and like is myth. And do you think the whole of Australia can be counted as a Cycling nation because of Robby McEwen? Dream one. Why do you think he lives here and speaks dutch better than most native Belgians and Dutchmen do... Cycling is the biggest sport in Belgium (flanders) but in Spain for instance, in wich cycling is pretty big, basketball is probably bigger.

And do you really think anyone outside the six nations quintana mentioned has ever heard of Tom Boonen??? You say cycling is big all over the word except SE Asia. I dare you to find 1 person from those continents on this forum who knows who Tom Boonen is.

Cycling is a big sport in large parts of western Europe which attracts several good riders from other nations and continents (USA, Australia and Colombia are the only regular ones). But on a worldwide scale it's nothing. Basketball, Cricket, Baseball, Vollyball, field hockey, rugby, etc attract considerably more worldwide tv viewers.

The same with Athletics. Yes, it's (wide spread tv viewers wise) one of the Big 3 at the Olympics (together with gymnastics and Swimming (in which we excel)) And the World championship every 2 years is pretty big as well, but apart from that it never attracts big audiences. And, like I said before, Belgium is not better in athletics then we are. You have two athletes that win medals at international events. Of the top of my head, I can name 7 dutch athletes that won medals at international main events in the last 8 years. We're by no means an athletics nation, but we're better at it then Belgium is.

TC03

November 18th, 2007, 03:41 PM

One of the things I think this bid is lacking is the inclusion of an 80,000+ stadium, for the final mostly...or even a 70,000+ stadium. Probably the only weak point of the 2006 WC for me was the Final stadium in Berlin, only 70,000 capacity, but they had plenty of big stadiums to compensate for that.

But with a bid like this, when a lot of the stadiums are going to be in the minimum capacity range I really think such a WC at least needs to have a BIG stadium for the final...in the mould of Wembley, Nou Camp, Estádio do Maracanã etc etc. My thoughts anyway, I maybe wrong.The new Feyenoord stadiums aims at (give or take) 75,000 seats, this should be enough for hosting a WC-final in my opinion. I don't agree that an 80,000+ seater is required. Does it really matter that much when 20,000 extra people can be let in? Merely. It does take it's weight in the votings, but other things such as infrastructure are very important as well. Remember that people from all over the world will visit the WC, and those who are lucky enough to visit the final are just a fraction of the total ammount of fans that will visit. And the FIFA agrees, because they don't require it. :D

Arjuch

November 18th, 2007, 03:44 PM

^^

I don't know what the 'national' sport of China is but if they have it it would be also the greatest sport in the way you count ...

If you can show me that cricket, basketball or rugby is bigger in N than cycling I like to see it. your national sport is football then you have other sports like ice-skating,hockey,korfbal,swimming etc ...

^^
All those sports are (not swimming) less popular (it does'nt mean it are bad sports or something) than tennis or cycling In W- Europe.

We can do a test, are there for the moment dutch sporters who are more famous than Henin or Tom Boonen besides football ?

I don't mean N is worse in sports but to say N is much better than B isn't true in my opinion ...

Quintana

November 18th, 2007, 03:49 PM

Cricket is the number one sport in India which has a population three times that of the EU.

TC03

November 18th, 2007, 04:05 PM

^^ Two times, really.

Quintana

November 18th, 2007, 04:13 PM

^^ Two times, really.

As my old teacher used to say: overdrijven maakt de zaak duidelijk :cheers:

mavn

November 18th, 2007, 04:24 PM

I don't mean N is worse in sports but to say N is much better than B isn't true in my opinion ...

Better known sportsmen worldwide?

Tom Boonen and Henin are pretty much all you have to offer. But still: "Andrew Jones Baseball" (MLB Atlanta Braves (and played for the dutch national team) ) gets more google hits than "Tom Boonen" and only slightly less than "justine Henin"

-If we look at all objective facts of all sports (big and/or small), we are way better.
-If we only look at the sports that you want to look at, were slighty better.

Let's end it there shall we?

Anyone got any new renders or something?

Arjuch

November 18th, 2007, 04:35 PM

-If we look at all objective facts of all sports (big and/or small), we are way better.
-If we only look at the sports that you want to look at, were slighty better.

Let's end it there shall we?

Anyone got any new renders or something?

Your 2nd sentence is not true lol.

There are rumours they want to build a stadium for Anderlecht and the Memorial, so it would be an athletic stadium :(

Joop20

November 18th, 2007, 09:44 PM

Your 2nd sentence is not true lol.

There are rumours they want to build a stadium for Anderlecht and the Memorial, so it would be an athletic stadium :(

I don't think Anderlecht would ever agree with a new stadium with an athletics track though? Some people have been saying here that Brussels will get a new national stadium, but I don't see why Belgium would need a national stadium?? If Anderlecht decide to build a new 60k stadium, surely that's big enough for the Belgian national team? They can use different stadiums in Belgium anyways, depending on the opponent they're playing, just like the Dutch national team does.

The King Boudewijn stadium can still be used for athletics and other events, the current Anderlecht stadium can be demolished. Brussels will then have one 60k football only stadium, and one 50k athletics stadium, sounds pretty good!

And maybe the King Boudewijn stadium could even be used for the 2018 world cup. I know it has an athletics track, but it's a 50k stadium nonetheless. And 1 city is allowed to have 2 stadiums in a world cup bid, so why not do it instead of building a potential white elephant?

http://www.greisch.com/projet/2422.jpg

Arjuch

November 18th, 2007, 11:10 PM

Tom Boonen and Henin are pretty much all you have to offer.

Sugar jackson or Stefan Everts, oké he stopped a year ago; another Belgian has replaced him I think.

^^

Those are big sports, also in the USA. Then you have Nys too and go on ...

mavn

November 19th, 2007, 12:28 AM

Sugar jackson or Stefan Everts, oké he stopped a year ago; another Belgian has replaced him I think.

^^

Those are big sports, also in the USA. Then you have Nys too and go on ...

Nys... :lol:

Sure, "modderfietsen" is indeed a big worldwide sport... Come on thats hilarious. Cyclocross (isn't that the official name?) Is HUGE in Flanders, and at best the 50th most popular sport an any other country in the world.

Holland is a bigger sporting nation. Grow up and get over it. If you're going to use these kind of names, you're probably doing more harm to your statement then good...

Chimaera

November 19th, 2007, 11:25 AM

I don't think Anderlecht would ever agree with a new stadium with an athletics track though? Some people have been saying here that Brussels will get a new national stadium, but I don't see why Belgium would need a national stadium?? If Anderlecht decide to build a new 60k stadium, surely that's big enough for the Belgian national team? They can use different stadiums in Belgium anyways, depending on the opponent they're playing, just like the Dutch national team does.

The King Boudewijn stadium can still be used for athletics and other events, the current Anderlecht stadium can be demolished. Brussels will then have one 60k football only stadium, and one 50k athletics stadium, sounds pretty good!

And maybe the King Boudewijn stadium could even be used for the 2018 world cup. I know it has an athletics track, but it's a 50k stadium nonetheless. And 1 city is allowed to have 2 stadiums in a world cup bid, so why not do it instead of building a potential white elephant?

http://www.greisch.com/projet/2422.jpgIf the Koning Boudewijn Stadium would be used in 2018, it needs some investments. In the first place: better VIP facilities (I think the stadium has neither skyboxes nor business seats).

Quintana

November 19th, 2007, 11:29 AM

Sugar jackson or Stefan Everts, oké he stopped a year ago; another Belgian has replaced him I think.

^^

Those are big sports, also in the USA. Then you have Nys too and go on ...

Who the hell is Sugar Jackson? Michael's nickname at an irc channel for paedophiles?

Chimaera

November 19th, 2007, 11:47 AM

Who the hell is Sugar Jackson? Michael's nickname at an irc channel for paedophiles?The defending European champion boxing in the welter category.

patroeski

November 19th, 2007, 05:15 PM

Arjuch

November 19th, 2007, 06:10 PM

Nys... :lol:

Sure, "modderfietsen" is indeed a big worldwide sport... Come on thats hilarious. Cyclocross (isn't that the official name?) Is HUGE in Flanders, and at best the 50th most popular sport an any other country in the world.

Holland is a bigger sporting nation. Grow up and get over it. If you're going to use these kind of names, you're probably doing more harm to your statement then good...

Pff this is becoming a useless discussion ...

If you had read my post properly you've should had seen that I haven't said that Cyclo crossing was big, just an exemple of a Belgian world leader in that sport. You can't convince me and I can't do it too ... so let's stop.

th0m

November 19th, 2007, 06:50 PM

I think The Hague should get a 40,000 seater without further ado.

:lol:

mavn

November 19th, 2007, 07:15 PM

Belgian sport got much more to offer in than Henin and Boonen:

Soccer: Kompany, Van Buyten, Simons, Mudingay
Athletics: Gevaerts, Hellebaut
Rally: Duval, Loix
Cycling: Gilbert, De Volder, Hoste, Van Petegem
Motocross: Ramon, Strijbos
Basket: Mbenga(nba), Hervelle, Van den Spiegel, Ann Wauters
Horse Jumping: Lansink, Philippaerts, Demeersman
Mountainbike: Meirhaeghe, Pauwels, Nys
Ice Skating: Van der Perren
Sailing: Godfroid, Van Acker
Billiards: Cuelemans
and a good national Hockey Team

I am not gonna tell that Belgium is better in sport than the Netherands because they aren't. But its arrogant and stupid to say that Belgium only got two good sporters.

I never said Belgium has only two good athletes. Some on that list are indeed very good athletes. I only said Belgium has far less world renowned athletes. I can make a list of Dutch athletes in those (and many other) sports wich will feature a lot more worldwide known athletes who have achieved more.

Soccer: Where do I start... I can name at least 20 that are waaay bigger than those 4...
Athletics: Rutger Smith, Bram Som, Rens Blom, Karin Ruckstuhl, Lornah Kiplagat, Gregory Sedoc, ... (all recent medal winners at european and/or world championships and/or Olympics)
Car Racing: Christian Albers (recent F1), Robert Doornbos (Champ Car)
Cycling: you definately win... Thomas Dekker could become big... At female cycling though, Marianne Vos is pretty much the women's equivalent to Bettini and Boonen combined
Motorcross: Tiny sport over here. we don't care...
Basketball: Dan Gadzuric (NBA) and Francisco Elson (reigning NBA Champion)
Equestrian: Anky van Grunsven is bigger than any of those (multiple olympic and word champion). Our jumping team is reigning world champion and Jos Lansink won his biggest prize (olympic gold '92) when he still competed for Holland...
Mountainbike: Bart Brentjes (multiple world champion and olympic gold '96)
Skating: We suck at figure skating and short track, but are far and away the best nation in speed skating worldwide....
Sailing: Berkhout/de koning (multiple world champions) I wouldn't know any other names, but we always win some medals at the Olympics so I guess we're pretty decent at it. Wouldn't no really...
Billiards: !?!? Well, we've got Van Barneveld (and many others) at Darts for wha it's worth...

Do I need to continue.......???

Swimming... (van den Hoogenband, Veldhuis, Dekker)
Judo (van der Geest, Huizinga, Bosch, Elmont, and many more frequent medal winners at world, european and Olympic championships)
Gymnastics: Yuri van Gelder (former world champion)
Track-cycling: Theo Bos (multiple world champion) (several others have won medals aswell; Mulder, Veldt, Hijgenaar, Kanis).
And we're (way) better at pretty much all team sports besides basketball:

Unlike your list, pretty much all of these athletes have actually won big events in their respective sports. You're just naming a few decent athletes of wich a lot compete for a top 8 spot at best and only a few are really worldclass. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't see how you can look at these lists and say you're just as good of a sporting nation as we are. Can you please explain that to me???

Apart from Tennis (it's just Henin, when she quits nothing is left), Cycling (your national sport), Basketball (you suck a little less then we do) and perhaps Motocross (you're better at it than any other country in the world) I can't think of any sport that you're beter at than we are. At pretty much all of them your'e worse...

Don't get me wrong, I wish all Belgian athletes the best of luck in their respective sport, but that doesn't take anything away from the fact that you're a pretty average sporting nation and we are a better one.

Lostboy

November 19th, 2007, 08:47 PM

I forgot how good the Dutch were at darts, don't dismiss that, if it is a sport it is played by a lot of people and is larger than a fair few others.

Arjuch

November 19th, 2007, 09:23 PM

^^

Belgians are good in Billiart ... this is endless.

mavn

November 19th, 2007, 09:47 PM

^^

Belgians are good in Billiart ... this is endless.

Ok, But don't you agree that our list is a bit more impressive than yours???

You claim that you are just as good at sports, but the only big names that are hard to beat from a dutch perspective are Henin and Boonen. (excluding football that is, van Nistelrooy and Seedorf for instance are way bigger than at least Boonen and perhaps even bigger then Henin)

If you look at the rest of the athletes, on average, you don't even come close to us... And lets not start about winning things on european, world or olympic events... You're not even close.

Give me one good argument besides some random names that I can't counter with bigger dutch names, with better achievements in similar or more popular sports. If you can give me at least some of those names or achievements I could understand your position. Or maybe some non-biased people (unlike me and you) could judge our sporting achievements to decide who's better than who. Because I agree that this discussion is becoming a bit tiresome...

Chimaera

November 19th, 2007, 10:40 PM

What are you guys trying to prove again? And what's the importance of it in this topic, that it has been going on for 4 or 5 pages now?

Kampflamm

November 19th, 2007, 10:46 PM

Belgium has some good youth teams. I think in 2018 they're gonna have a decent team...if the country is still around. Seriously, what would happen if the country were to break up before then?

Kampflamm

November 19th, 2007, 10:55 PM

Why am I getting a gay community ad? I guess all this talk about cycling has triggered something here.

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CMKiyuHNm5-2vAEQ2AUYWjIIrbzzPkYiRsM

Arjuch

November 19th, 2007, 11:33 PM

Belgium has some good youth teams. I think in 2018 they're gonna have a decent team...if the country is still around. Seriously, what would happen if the country were to break up before then?

That's a difficult question, probably each part will win a World Cup, the problem is who gets the first one. There are rumours Flanders would give the first one to wallonia in return Fl. would get the European Cup.

Chimaera

November 20th, 2007, 12:07 AM

That's a difficult question, probably each part will win a World Cup, the problem is who gets the first one. There are rumours Flanders would give the first one to wallonia in return Fl. would get the European Cup.huh?

dennol

November 20th, 2007, 01:58 AM

One of my favourite former football players, Luc Nilis, is Belgian. That's enough for me. :)

Seriously isn't it stupid that a thread about the 2018 Benelux bid turns into a fight between Dutch and Belgians as if the Flemings and Walloon are not busy enough fighting each other. Luckily we are not so keen on violence or else this bid would be just as succesful as 1992 Yugoslavia trying to get the Olympics.

goschio

November 20th, 2007, 02:08 AM

I am not a big fan of these double country bids. Russia should host the WC2018.

Lostboy

November 20th, 2007, 02:11 AM

The only cue game that counts, Wallonian, is Snooker, a noble Northern Warrior Game and I don't know a single Belguim player at that. More importantly this Germanic Game is spreading fast in China as another one of our sports takes over the world with so little effort. Never mind, I am sure Wallonian Nose Scratching or whatever games you have, will soon be an Olympic Sport...

LMCA1990

November 20th, 2007, 02:12 AM

Why Is this thread title Benelux 2018 World Cup bid when Luxembourg isn't even going to be a part of it? :crazy: Anywas, this bid is 2nd to me. I'd rather Australia get it.

mavn

November 20th, 2007, 03:04 AM

Why Is this thread title Benelux 2018 World Cup bid when Luxembourg isn't even going to be a part of it? :crazy: Anywas, this bid is 2nd to me. I'd rather Australia get it.

Luxembourg will host some official WC meetings and probably the draw. Obviously, Luxembourg won't get an automatic entry. The Benelux was the first economical "union" within europe and the three countries work together very closely on a lot of issues. If done properly, nobody would ever notice that they are crossing country borders during the event. We have the same currency, no visible borders, Language won't really be a problem (all stadiums but 1 or 2 will be in Dutch speaking cities.

The reason that the bid is brought forward as a Benelux bid is because then it can be presented as a sort "one nation" bid. Japan and Korea had two different organizing committees which FIFA doesn't except anymore. The Benelux bid will have only one combined organizing committee. FIFA has already said that they don't see a problem with a joint bid if that is the case.

And about Australia, I see many problems:
-It would mean at least 16 years of no WC football in Europe.
-The time zone. It's horrible for the major TV-markets.
-The 1 stadium per city rule could be a problem. They currently heavily depend on a lot of non-football specific stadiums (ovals). So a lot of new stadiums/extension would have to be build.
-AFL will have to "give away" some stadiums for 1 or 2 months and I've gotten the impression that's easier said then done...
-It will be winter in Australia (in all honesty I don't now what that means for the average tempratures. Last time I checked, you weren't a great winter sports country so I guess there won't be a Skiing WC next door to any venue...)
-It still hasn't got a football culture. They only reached the WC last time for the first time in many, many years. I would like them to show that they are not a one hit wonder, and can actually sustain that level. For all we know, they miss the WC in 2010 and 2014, and football in Australia will die as quickly as it has risen in the last few years.

But If these problems are solved (apart from the timezone and climate obviously), Australia could make a bid that would challenge the best. Among others, the Sydney Olympics showed they are one of the best countries in the world when it comes to hosting sports events. And the general population is probably more sports crazy then any other country in the world...

Kappa21

November 20th, 2007, 03:28 AM

Why after 18 years, does BeNeLux get to host another world cup again?

mavn

November 20th, 2007, 03:52 AM

Why after 18 years, does BeNeLux get to host another world cup again?

Belgium and Netherlands hosted Euro 2000. Not the WC.

France hosted Euro 84 an WC 98 (14 years)
Germany hosted Euro 88 and WC 2006 (18 years)
Benelux hosted Euro 2000 and WC 2018 would mean 18 years
England hosted Euro 96 and WC 2018 would mean 22 years

I don't really see a problem... England has a small advantage here, But England has hosted a world cup before. Benelux has never. So, If anything, the scale would tip slightly in our advantage I think...

Kappa21

November 20th, 2007, 04:26 AM

mavn

November 20th, 2007, 05:50 AM

^^ Im all for it, but what are you guys going to do?
You guys are heavily densed and dont have much space for new stadiums.

So whats the next solution? upgrading stadiums? From Euro 2000?
But with a small population and so forth, what is the point of making a 50,000 stadium in a city or a county with no more than 50-75,000 people? :?

but anyways, i wish you guys luck.
How about giving the Israel-Palestinians a shot at the World Cup?
www.goal2018.org/
Click here

I think an Israel-Palestine WC would be a fantastic thing. But (without wanting to go into politics) it seems like a unrealistic dream for atleast several decades. It would already be great if they ever made a bid. Let alone get it and embrace it together in peace...

I made a big post about stadiums on page 3. Even if we don't get the world cup, by 2018 we'll have at least 10 stadiums (holland and belgium combined) with world cup capacities and facilities. It might surprise you, but the Dutch league has the same average attendance as Italy's Serie A and only slightly less than France's Ligue 1. And all stadiums are pretty much sold out for every match. So expansions are needed.

As it looks right now, from the 8 Euro 2000 stadiums, only the Amsterdam Arena and perhaps the Philips Stadium (eindhoven) will be used (maybe they'll buil a new one). Both will be expanded. All other stadiums will be either new or complete renovations (+expansions) in the euro 2000 cities and others.

Chimaera

November 20th, 2007, 11:16 AM

Josh

November 20th, 2007, 11:19 AM

The only stadiums that might be upgraded of the possible host cities are Genk en Ghent. But in the case of Ghent that would be an expansion of a 20,000-seater that is yet to be built (2009), and Genk's Cristal Arena is the most modern and comfortable of the +20,000 stadiums in Belgium today. All the other stadiums will be new.
For now there are 7 possible host cities:
Brussels: 1,031,000 inhabitants
Antwerp: 466,000
Ghent: 202,000
Charleroi: 201,000
Liège: 189,000
Bruges: 117,000
Genk: 64,000
So your argument concerning the size of the cities doesn't really make sense. Plus: the bigger clubs attract people far beyond the city limits. And finally, Belgium has one of the highest average attendances in relation to its population and size.

^^Ghent has a population of 250,000. :cheers:

Chimaera

November 20th, 2007, 11:21 AM

^^Ghent has a population of 250,000. :cheers:I made a typing mistake, according to Wikipedia (if it can be trusted) the right number is 235,000.

skaP187

November 20th, 2007, 08:34 PM

So are we still on or what?!

mavn

November 21st, 2007, 03:59 AM

Arnhem has also started an investigation to expand it's stadium.

http://www.gelderlander.nl/arnhem/2183980/Onderzoek-naar-WKwaardig-Gelredome.ece

http://www.geocities.com/martwout/gelred.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/martwout/grotefotohoekgelre.jpg
Because of the retractable roof, it would be focused on getting the extra 13000 seats in the now obviously unused corners. It's an investigation on whether it can be done or not. Vitesse doesn't need the expansion. But for all the concerts and other non-football events that the stadium hosts it could be very welcome. And I think it would be pretty easy to come up with a construction in which you can blind the corners back to it's current state and only remove them when needed. It would be ideal. Vitesse won't play in a half filled stadium. But they would have 13000 seats of growth waiting to be used if needed and more revenues can be made off of concerts and other events.

But hey, that's Holland for you. We only see problems, obstacles and expenses. Never opportunities and revenues... :ohno:

We needed Belgium to be reminded that we might be able to host a combined World cup, and within two weeks of announcing our bid, we have cities jumping over one and other to become a host city. I wouldn't be surprised that come 2018 we'll have enough stadiums to have hosted it ourselves... No offence to Belgium, but we might have missed a golden opportunity as a nation... We just would have needed Eindhoven to build that extra 55 to 60k seater that Brussels will deliver. A capacity that i'm pretty sure they could fill.

As one of the biggest nations in International football, we could have successfully claimed a world cup. Now we have to overcome the problems of a joint bid. In all areas, a solo bid would be either similar or better... Again, no offence to our Belgian friends and future co-hosts.

Ok, I'll try to quit whining over a solo bid once and for al, but when I look at all these recent events... The KNVB and our government need to be :bash: over this...

TC03

November 21st, 2007, 07:48 PM

skaP187

November 21st, 2007, 10:01 PM

Third, it's not that we are just building stadiums for the WC, most stadiums will be used by their clubs too, without being half-empty.

I think the stadiums which would be extended would atleast be 75/80 % full after a WC. Also when their won´t be doing that well for a season or what.
The big question is will after or before this tournemant be a combined competition. You know what I am talking about. The Beneliga!

Thermo

November 21st, 2007, 10:22 PM

When I read all this, I really want Holland to go for it alone. Jeez.

eusebius

November 21st, 2007, 10:26 PM

The dutch are not well

I feel very well, thank you! My GP told me I'm healthy!

skaP187

November 21st, 2007, 11:33 PM

When I read all this, I really want Holland to go for it alone. Jeez.

Don´t worry, be happy!

Just to of them having a fight over billjarts and darts or something and me pushing them a little bit.

We still got ten years the time.
and otherwise we´ll go for it alone or with Flanders.

Arjuch

November 21st, 2007, 11:56 PM

^^

?? I never said something against the Benelux bid!

skaP187

November 22nd, 2007, 01:37 AM

^^

?? I never said something against the Benelux bid!

Well I did I guess...
Don´t know to be hounest, but if the Belgiums start saying they are better at playing billjarts, shit man that hurts.
If the belgiums get smart...(:lol:), we´ll do it on our own, so it comes down on doing it together...

(If about 60% if Belgium get´s smart, there won´t be a Belgium anymore)

Quintana

November 22nd, 2007, 11:08 AM

It was announced yesterday that Feyenoord will get a new stadium with a capacity of at least 75,000 (100,000 max.). It will have a sliding roof and it should be ready in time for the 2016/2017 season. It will costs 300 to 400 million euro's and be located near their present home De Kuip. De Kuip itself will not be demolished and will get another function.

gonzo

November 22nd, 2007, 12:32 PM

If guess this would be the stadium if Luxembourg City becomes a venue.

http://www.racing-fc.lu/images/stade_josy_barthel1.jpg
Looks inadequate for WC purposes.

Quintana

November 22nd, 2007, 12:46 PM

^^ Luxembourg won't be used for any venues. They might organize the drawing or be left out completely.

Vermeer

November 22nd, 2007, 02:26 PM

After having read this tread I am so proud of being Dutch. We have the best stadiums in the World and if we don’t have them we will build them. Belgium will of course never manage to build any stadiums good enough for a WC. We will also manage to fill all these big stadiums after the WC. No problems for Feyenoord to fill a 75.000 + stadium every week. The fact that only an average of 40.912 came to their matches last season is a detail we just forget. No problems for AZ Alkmaar to fill a 40.000 + stadium every week. The fact that only an average of 15.980 came to their matches last season is another detail we just forget.
The Netherlands is also one of the greatest sporting nations in the world. The fact that most Dutch people are to young to remember when we were a world power in football and most of our Olympic gold medals comes from speed skating, a sport that no other country in the world take serious shouldn’t be talked about, because we are anyway superior to the Belgians.
Another thing that makes us Dutch superior to the Belgians is the fact that the foreigners like us. I live in The Hague, a city with thousands of expats, because of all the international organisations. They tell me that the Dutch are the cheapest, rudest and less service minded people in Europe. These are all qualifications we need when dealing with crazy hooligans. Friendly big spenders and service minded Belgians will be too nice to the hooligans and it all may end with a disaster.

To be serious:
I am sceptical to a Dutch/Belgian WC. The Netherlands only have 3 teams that really need 40.000 + stadiums and I don’t think any of them need bigger than 55.000. Belgium only has two teams that need 40.000+ stadiums. Too many empty stadiums after the WC may destroy the football, because not much is as sad as a half empty stadium. A WC will cost between 3 and 4 billion euro, only for stadiums and I think it would be naive to think that the two Governments and the sponsors will cover the bill. A lot of the bill has to be covered by Dutch and Belgian football, money that could be used to develop football in the two countries, instead of developing stadiums that we don’t need.
Maybe I can accept a Dutch/Belgian bid, because two countries are sharing the bill, but for you screaming about a Dutch bid: Grow up. No Dutch politician can be stupid enough to spend that much money on a big party.

TC03

November 22nd, 2007, 02:47 PM

I think the stadiums which would be extended would atleast be 75/80 % full after a WC. Also when their won´t be doing that well for a season or what.
The big question is will after or before this tournemant be a combined competition. You know what I am talking about. The Beneliga!Perhaps, probably not in my opinion.

My guess would also be around 75%, but it might come near to 100% as well. We have the advantage that most WC-stadiums will be expanded anyhow, even if we don't get the WC. Also, when the clubs fear they won't be able to fill their stadiums, they could just decrease the capacity after the WC. Not too much of a problem.

Chimaera

November 22nd, 2007, 02:52 PM

If guess this would be the stadium if Luxembourg City becomes a venue.

http://www.racing-fc.lu/images/stade_josy_barthel1.jpg
Looks inadequate for WC purposes.Could be used as training facility.

Joop20

November 22nd, 2007, 03:24 PM

LMCA1990

November 23rd, 2007, 06:27 AM

http://www.geocities.com/martwout/grotefotohoekgelre.jpg
IMO, It looks like a big room :lol:

djwizard84

November 23rd, 2007, 06:31 AM

If guess this would be the stadium if Luxembourg City becomes a venue.

http://www.racing-fc.lu/images/stade_josy_barthel1.jpg
Looks inadequate for WC purposes.

luxembourg will be only the city host for all the international committes... not for games....

mavn

November 23rd, 2007, 02:53 PM

IMO, It looks like a big room :lol:

You like it better when it looks like this?

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/netherlands/arnhem_gelredome2.jpg

And the roof is just very handy for things like this for instance:

http://pix3.telenet.be/S5nYkAdoSbhvmdL0fmbnNJ5CD5pAZGRphX4KR!287Gza2i5PNjBbd0juvi8uBMlzFN5NIzkRF86bvZLaRZg6U0MXkhjz5fyWJOl9Csk4USADk_/Tiksto_318.jpg

skaP187

November 23rd, 2007, 05:36 PM

Gelredome is so nice when the roof is open, much better!

ZeTaCy

November 24th, 2007, 07:30 PM

Quintana

November 24th, 2007, 07:33 PM

:rofl:

skaP187

November 24th, 2007, 07:40 PM

Only thing ill add is the simple fact that Rotterdam will have 2 Stadiums with 50.000+ seats ready to be filled up with roaring fans!

It will be a perfect ticket for Rotterdam to present itself as the only city in the Netherlands that is truely a Worldcity!

:rofl:

You can say what you want, but Rotterdam is the footballcapital of the Netherlands, with three teams in the higest division.

Quintana

November 24th, 2007, 07:42 PM

That doesn't make it a world city though. The football capital is Eindhoven by the way, all the titles have been going to that provincial town in Brabant for years now.

skaP187

November 24th, 2007, 07:48 PM

That doesn't make it a world city though. The football capital is Eindhoven by the way, all the titles have been going to that provincial town in Brabant for years now.

If you have got three teams playing at the highest division, for my it is very clear that you are the capital of football.

One thing you are right, saying Rotterdam is a worldcity, does make me laugh a little bit too...

Quintana

November 24th, 2007, 07:51 PM

If one of those teams can only average 2500 people per game it shouldn't even exist though.

skaP187

November 24th, 2007, 07:58 PM

If one of those teams can only average 2500 people per game it shouldn't even exist though.

Why not? they are there, fair and square.
I am not going to discuss the fact that PSV is the best team of the last 10-15 years of the Netherlands, simply because their can´t be a discussion about it.
But as a city Rotterdam has been capital for football from the past untill now.

mavn

November 25th, 2007, 12:57 AM

Why not? they are there, fair and square.
I am not going to discuss the fact that PSV is the best team of the last 10-15 years of the Netherlands, simply because their can´t be a discussion about it.
But as a city Rotterdam has been capital for football from the past untill now.

Excuse me..., 10 to 15 years ago Ajax was ruling the world. let alone the Netherlands...

Before that period and since the millennium change PSV clearly has been the most successful team tough.

We don't have a football capitol. Rotterdam has 3 teams but one of those is only staying alive due to TV money brought in by others and their biggest team has lost (on average) a lot of ground on both Ajax and PSV in the last decades. Amsterdam has only one team, but that team has historically by far been the most successful both nationally and internationally. Eindhoven is big since PSV is, togheter with Ajax, the most successful in the last 20 to 30 years.

If we would have a football capitol I think it would be Zeist... Home of the KNVB. (our national FA)

skaP187

November 25th, 2007, 11:52 AM

Excuse me..., 10 to 15 years ago Ajax was ruling the world. let alone the Netherlands...

Before that period and since the millennium change PSV clearly has been the most successful team tough.

We don't have a football capitol. Rotterdam has 3 teams but one of those is only staying alive due to TV money brought in by others and their biggest team has lost (on average) a lot of ground on both Ajax and PSV in the last decades. Amsterdam has only one team, but that team has historically by far been the most successful both nationally and internationally. Eindhoven is big since PSV is, togheter with Ajax, the most successful in the last 20 to 30 years.

If we would have a football capitol I think it would be Zeist... Home of the KNVB. (our national FA)

Okay, Zeist it is... Perfect place for a 100 K national stadium in the centre of the country.:banana:

eusebius

November 25th, 2007, 05:04 PM

That will never happen, the Football Association chose for Zeist because of the calm and quiet of Zeist. Zeist is of strategic importance as well; the Lockerbie Trial took place at Zeist.

mavn

November 25th, 2007, 07:16 PM

That will never happen, the Football Association chose for Zeist because of the calm and quiet of Zeist. Zeist is of strategic importance as well; the Lockerbie Trial took place at Zeist.

It would kill all the Amsterdam vs Rotterdam discussions which would almost make it worth it...

Chimaera

November 27th, 2007, 11:41 AM

An interesting article appeared on the Belgian football news website voetbalkrant.com. I'll try to make a quick translation.

Courtois: "France and Spain support World Cup in Benelux"

France and Spain will support the Belgian-Dutch plans to organize the World Cup in 2018, project leader Alain Courtois said to the newspaper "Het Laatste Nieuws". Courtois was in South Africa last weekend to attend the World Cup draw and to make connections with 2018 in mind.

source: voetbalkrant.com

"And we succeeded in that, we made good contacts", says Courtois. "Countries like Spain and France have agreed to support our candidature. It looks like it will be a competition between England and us. In any case it is clear that we are considered a worthy candidate by everyone over here. On December 20th we'll launch the Dutch-Belgian candidature at the Egmont Palace (reception building of the ministry of foreign affairs) in the presence of Guy Verhofstadt (the resigning prime minister).

eomer

November 27th, 2007, 11:59 AM

France and Spain will support the Belgian-Dutch plans to organize the World Cup in 2018, project leader Alain Courtois said to the newspaper "Het Laatste Nieuws". Courtois was in South Africa last weekend to attend the World Cup draw and to make connections with 2018 in mind.

I don't agree with this point of view:
- Spain won't support any bid because Spain want to host WC2018
- France will probabilly support England, like the other European countries will do. Europe can't let the WC2018 going to Oceania, North America or Asia: Europe should be united behind the best European bid....and it's England even Bekenbauer, Zoff and Platini, who are not English fans, admited that).
Courtois is using the Couë method but it will not works.

A Benelux bid would be unfair because:
- Europe got only 13 qualified teams for 53 countries (when South America got 4 or even 5 for only 10 countries...),
- Belgium, Netherland and Luxemburg (lol) will be qualified without playing,
--> Europe's ratio would be 10 / 50: it's almost the same than Asia or Africa.

So, let's support WORLD CUP: ENGLAND 2018

Mr D

November 27th, 2007, 12:03 PM

Luxemburg is not automatically qualified in case Benelux get to host the WC, only Belgium and the Netherlands.

Joop20

November 27th, 2007, 02:15 PM

I don't agree with this point of view:
- Spain won't support any bid because Spain want to host WC2018
- France will probabilly support England, like the other European countries will do. Europe can't let the WC2018 going to Oceania, North America or Asia: Europe should be united behind the best European bid....and it's England even Bekenbauer, Zoff and Platini, who are not English fans, admited that).
Courtois is using the Couë method but it will not works.

A Benelux bid would be unfair because:
- Europe got only 13 qualified teams for 53 countries (when South America got 4 or even 5 for only 10 countries...),
- Belgium, Netherland and Luxemburg (lol) will be qualified without playing,
--> Europe's ratio would be 10 / 50: it's almost the same than Asia or Africa.

So, let's support WORLD CUP: ENGLAND 2018

Make sure your facts are right next time. Luxemburg won't qualify automatically in case of a Benelux 2018 world cup, they obviously dont have any business playing there! Netherlands are likely to be one of the 13 qualifying countries anyways, and who knows Belgium might be back at a decent level by 2018. So stating that a Benelux bid would be unfair is rubbish. As far as I remember, England didn't even qualify for euro 2008, and the Netherlands did.

Moreover, how can you be so sure that the England bid will be the best??? As far as I know, nothing more than rumours and speculations are known regarding the European bids. I say let's wait and see what the different bids have to offer, and then we'll see who has the best bid.

djwizard84

November 28th, 2007, 09:07 PM

RobH

November 28th, 2007, 09:29 PM

Every third world cup in Europe is the best compromise at the moment.

Joop20

November 29th, 2007, 10:54 AM

i don't support a WC in europe because it's not healthy for the system...

by the way, since always europe has a WC each 8 years, now thanks to South Africa & Brasil we will not flight there maybe till 2018, but personally i don't want to...

i prefere China, Australia or Canada.
new countries, fresh places to visit, to support & to encourage!!!

Canada won't be able to host the world cup for ages, they haven't got enough stadiums by far. I agree that giving every third WC to Europe is a good compromise.

djwizard84

November 29th, 2007, 08:02 PM

Every third world cup in Europe is the best compromise at the moment.

you're right... but it should be a new country, why?

because that's the main goal of FIFA, isn't it???
to promote & to encourage new economies around the world.

my bid goes for BENELUX :cheers:
... if it stay in europe, ok.

eusebius

November 29th, 2007, 10:14 PM

Joop20

November 29th, 2007, 10:55 PM

BeNe and not Lux put up this bid. No use in mentioning Lux.

As for the stadiums; bear in mind that the ArenA and Gelredôme are similar. The solution to expand either one will apply to both rather easily I'd reckon.

To my eyes those two stadiums look rather different, the only thing they have in common is a roof that can be closed. I haven't heard of any plans of expanding the Gelredome, and I think it's quite unnecessary, Vitesse won't fill more seats than it does at the moment.

mavn

November 29th, 2007, 11:32 PM

To my eyes those two stadiums look rather different, the only thing they have in common is a roof that can be closed. I haven't heard of any plans of expanding the Gelredome, and I think it's quite unnecessary, Vitesse won't fill more seats than it does at the moment.

Vitesse doesn't want to expand. They're glad if the can get the rent paid in time.

Arnhem and Gelredome do want to expand. The majority of revenue for the stadium isn't coming from Vitesse. It's coming from Beyonce, Justin Timberlake, Marco Borsato and Tiesto. More seats will mean more revenue.

Arnhem wants to be hostcity for 2018 (dutch) (http://www.gelderlander.nl/arnhem/article2183980.ece)

eusebius

November 30th, 2007, 10:55 AM

To my eyes those two stadiums look rather different, the only thing they have in common is a roof that can be closed.And that was my point.

Lostboy

November 30th, 2007, 12:33 PM

to promote & to encourage new economies around the world.

There was I thinking FIFA's main goal was football based.

I'd hardly call the Dutch, the oldest capitalist country in the world, a new economy. I wouldn't call Belguim, the second oldest industrialised nation, particularly new either.

Rotterdam A

November 30th, 2007, 12:41 PM

LandOfGreenGinger

November 30th, 2007, 02:16 PM

Rotterdam is going to build a stadium with a capacity of 100.000 seats. The cost will be at €800 million.

It's going to be build next to the present Feyenoord stadium(capacity 51.177).

Still curious where on earth the money is going to come from. Do the Rotterdam city council really have 800 millions euros to spend on a new ground for feyenoord? I guess some will come from private funding but still .... what about the rest? I'd honestly like to see it but I remain cautious about this project.

lpioe

November 30th, 2007, 03:40 PM

mavn

November 30th, 2007, 03:58 PM

Is this definite??

No, just rumors. Club representatives have apparently said 80000 to 100000. The only "official" number that has leaked out in press releases was 75000.

Time will tell. But this statement (even it will be true eventually) is, for now, nothing more than a somewhat informed rumor.

Lostboy

November 30th, 2007, 06:51 PM

It's probably a planning trick: "You can't be serious 100,000 seater stadium, it is too much pollution, too much hate-mongering, too many authoritarians, it will ruin the place, it is not sustainable you stadium loving bastards", "Damn I guess we'll have to settle for a measly 75,000, curse you all too hell".

(*Most planning applications have that much passion in them).

Rotterdam A

December 2nd, 2007, 12:42 PM

No, just rumors. Club representatives have apparently said 80000 to 100000. The only "official" number that has leaked out in press releases was 75000.

Time will tell. But this statement (even it will be true eventually) is, for now, nothing more than a somewhat informed rumor.

That 100.000 literly came out of the mouths from Feyenoord commercieel managers several times. I saw it on TV on TV-Rijnmond(Local Rotterdam TV-station) on 21 November. A minimum of 75.000 seats to a maximum of 100.000 seats. The larger one is preferred by Feyenoord.

"De Telegraaf" newspaper also mentions that.
---------------
Here you have the link.
http://www.rijnmond.nl/Homepage/Nieuws?view=/News%2FDefault%2F2007%2Fnovember%2FRotterdam%20wil%20twee%20stadions%20bij%20WK

skaP187

December 2nd, 2007, 05:59 PM

It is to firm to say that Feyenoord is going to build a 100 000 seater stadium, but...
Sure thing is that the minimum is 75 000 and the maximum is 100 000, if they land up in the middle it would get a cap of 87 500 which would be a fantastic big stadium! Even 75 000 is equal to the new Anfield stadium, ´full extanded fursion´.
I think this should be the least position that Feyenoord should aim fore because history/ stadiumwise that´s where it atleast belongs.

Even 87 500 sounds very high in my ears and 100 000 almoust ridiculess, but.... If the Netherlands ever would want to have something like Olympics in their country, this stadium might be the almoust the only chance we would ever get. Maybe not directly to be carried out, but an option to extend ´easely´ to 87 500 or maybe even 100 000, should be kept in mind when designing the stadium.

Do not forget that the original Kuip had a cap of 63 000 back in 1936. (and it costed 100 000 guilders, which is 45 000 euros!!!, :nuts::nuts::nuts: you can´t even get the ground to build a house nowadays.)

Martuh

December 4th, 2007, 07:27 PM

^^ Im all for it, but what are you guys going to do?
You guys are heavily densed and dont have much space for new stadiums.

So whats the next solution? upgrading stadiums? From Euro 2000?
But with a small population and so forth, what is the point of making a 50,000 stadium in a city or a county with no more than 50-75,000 people? :?

but anyways, i wish you guys luck.
How about giving the Israel-Palestinians a shot at the World Cup?
www.goal2018.org/
Click here

Yeah, it's densed. Yeah, we have a lot of space for new stadiums.

Cities with 50-75000 people? Holland has 25 and Belgium has 8 municipalities with more then 100,000 people:

Holland
Name - Province - Population:
1 Amsterdam Noord-Holland 744.740
2 Rotterdam Zuid-Holland 581.615
3 Den Haag (The Hague) Zuid-Holland 474.245
4 Utrecht Utrecht 290.529
5 Eindhoven Noord-Brabant 209.601
6 Tilburg Noord-Brabant 200.975
7 Almere Flevoland 181.990
8 Groningen Groningen 180.824
9 Breda Noord-Brabant 170.451
10 Nijmegen Gelderland 160.732
11 Apeldoorn Gelderland 155.328
12 Enschede Overijssel 154.311
13 Haarlem Noord-Holland 147.179
14 Arnhem Gelderland 142.638
15 Zaanstad Noord-Holland 141.829
16 Amersfoort Utrecht 139.914
17 Haarlemmermeer (hoofdplaats: Hoofddorp) Noord-Holland 139.396
18 's-Hertogenbosch Noord-Brabant 135.787
19 Zoetermeer Zuid-Holland 118.534
20 Dordrecht Zuid-Holland 118.443
21 Maastricht Limburg 118.378
22 Leiden Zuid-Holland 117.363
23 Zwolle Overijssel 115.144
24 Emmen Drenthe 108.929
25 Ede Gelderland 107.528

Belgium:
1. Antwerpen 466.203
2. Gent 235.143
3. Charleroi 201.550
4. Luik 188.907
5. Brussel 145.917
6. Brugge 116.982
7. Schaarbeek 113.493
8. Namen 107.653

And the suburbs and stuff are NOT counted in this list...

The market for big footballclubs and thus big stadiums should be available.

Belgium has six actively used airports, Holland has five, but soon six as well. Also Belgium is connected to the high-speed European network of trains and Holland will be next year. Both countries have extensive national train networks to travel easily thoughout the countries.

Lostboy

December 7th, 2007, 06:51 PM

Remember how the Belgians were criticising England over hooligans. What about this you bunch of murdering hate monkeys, anything to say about it or is attacking Black People still acceptable in the land that brought us Rwanda's genocide.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/7131955.stm

Uefa to take action on Anderlecht

Uefa have opened disciplinary proceedings against Anderlecht following an incident during Thursday's match against Tottenham.

Spurs' Didier Zokora appeared to be hit by objects thrown from the crowd during the 1-1 Uefa Cup draw at the Constant Vanden Stock Stadium in Brussels.

Goalkeeper Paul Robinson also picked up a metal rod which he handed to the fourth official after the match.

Spurs boss Juande Ramos later expressed his concern for his players' safety.

The Belgian side have already been fined for crowd disturbances during a Champions League qualifier earlier in the season against Fenerbahce and Uefa officials will take previous cases into consideration when they meet.

The punishments range from a fine to expulsion from the tournament.

"The control and disciplinary body will meet on 13 December to make a decision on this case," a Uefa spokesman said.

skaP187

December 8th, 2007, 06:16 PM

Yeah, it's densed. Yeah, we have a lot of space for new stadiums.

Cities with 50-75000 people? Holland has 25 and Belgium has 8 municipalities with more then 100,000 people:

Holland
Name - Province - Population:
1 Amsterdam Noord-Holland 744.740
2 Rotterdam Zuid-Holland 581.615
3 Den Haag (The Hague) Zuid-Holland 474.245
4 Utrecht Utrecht 290.529
5 Eindhoven Noord-Brabant 209.601
6 Tilburg Noord-Brabant 200.975
7 Almere Flevoland 181.990
8 Groningen Groningen 180.824
9 Breda Noord-Brabant 170.451
10 Nijmegen Gelderland 160.732
11 Apeldoorn Gelderland 155.328
12 Enschede Overijssel 154.311
13 Haarlem Noord-Holland 147.179
14 Arnhem Gelderland 142.638
15 Zaanstad Noord-Holland 141.829
16 Amersfoort Utrecht 139.914
17 Haarlemmermeer (hoofdplaats: Hoofddorp) Noord-Holland 139.396
18 's-Hertogenbosch Noord-Brabant 135.787
19 Zoetermeer Zuid-Holland 118.534
20 Dordrecht Zuid-Holland 118.443
21 Maastricht Limburg 118.378
22 Leiden Zuid-Holland 117.363
23 Zwolle Overijssel 115.144
24 Emmen Drenthe 108.929
25 Ede Gelderland 107.528

Belgium:
1. Antwerpen 466.203
2. Gent 235.143
3. Charleroi 201.550
4. Luik 188.907
5. Brussel 145.917
6. Brugge 116.982
7. Schaarbeek 113.493
8. Namen 107.653

And the suburbs and stuff are NOT counted in this list...

The market for big footballclubs and thus big stadiums should be available.

Belgium has six actively used airports, Holland has five, but soon six as well. Also Belgium is connected to the high-speed European network of trains and Holland will be next year. Both countries have extensive national train networks to travel easily thoughout the countries.

bull...

Quintana

December 8th, 2007, 06:57 PM

It's not bull, the numbers for thos three municipalities are correct. However, their core cities/towns are much smaller. Just like your beloved city of Apeldoorn (pop. 136k) has about 20,000 inhabitants less than the municipality (155k).

skaP187

December 9th, 2007, 05:55 AM

Why he says the suburbs are not incluided then?

Quintana

December 9th, 2007, 02:22 PM

He has listed the municipalities because there are hardly any lists available that only list the core cities. Most municipalities include a core city and some annexed suburbs (often grown together but not always). Out of the list above only the likes of The Hague, Eindhoven, Haarlem and Leiden do not include annexed suburbs.

There is some list on Wikipedia that only shows the core cities, I'll see if I can find it.

Edit: here it is (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_grote_Nederlandse_steden)

Rang Naam Provincie Inwoners 2006 Exclusief
1 Amsterdam Noord-Holland 739.510 Driemond en Landelijk Noord
2 Rotterdam Zuid-Holland 539.960 Hoek van Holland, Hoogvliet en Pernis
3 Den Haag Zuid-Holland 475.630
4 Utrecht Utrecht 251.130 Vleuten, De Meern en Haarzuilens
5 Eindhoven Noord-Brabant 209.170
6 Tilburg Noord-Brabant 181.210 Berkel-Enschot en Udenhout
7 Groningen Groningen 165.610 Engelbert, Hoogkerk, Middelbert en Noorderhoogebrug
8 Nijmegen Gelderland 151.230 Lent en Oosterhout
9 Haarlem Noord-Holland 147.020
10 Arnhem Gelderland 140.430 Schaarsbergen
11 Breda Noord-Brabant 138.650 Bavel, Effen, Prinsenbeek, Teteringen en Ulvenhout
12 Apeldoorn Gelderland 136.920 Beekbergen, Hoenderloo, Hoog Soeren, Klarenbeek, Lieren, Loenen, Uddel en Ugchelen
13 Enschede Overijssel 130.960 Boekelo, Glanerbrug, Lonneker en Usselo
14 Amersfoort Utrecht 124.550 Hoogland en Hooglanderveen
15 Dordrecht Zuid-Holland 118.820
16 Leiden Zuid-Holland 118.070
17 Maastricht Limburg 117.340 Borgharen en Itteren
18 Zoetermeer Zuid-Holland 116.980
19 Zwolle Overijssel 110.660 Brinkhoek, Haerst, Herfte, Langenholte, Wijthmen en Windesheim
20 Almere Stad Flevoland 104.860 de stadsdelen Buiten, Haven, Poort en Hout
21 's-Hertogenbosch Noord-Brabant 101.510 Bokhoven, Empel, Engelen, Kruisstraat, Maliskamp en Rosmalen

Joop20

December 9th, 2007, 06:09 PM

Why he says the suburbs are not incluided then?

Because he gave the population figures of the municipalities obviously, not the urban areas or something.

skaP187

December 11th, 2007, 12:17 AM

Because he gave the population figures of the municipalities obviously, not the urban areas or something.

...

skaP187

December 11th, 2007, 12:21 AM

Gherkin

December 11th, 2007, 07:08 PM

That was my favourite childhood zoo! I'd love to go back some time :)

I'm gathering stadia info to put on my 2018 WC thread, are there solid plans or renders of 10+ stadia over 40,000 seats already that I can pinch? I can only think of 3.

genkie456

December 21st, 2007, 09:30 PM

http://www.beltomundial.org/

genkie456

December 21st, 2007, 11:52 PM

stadium of Genk (that will be expanded to 40000-45000):

http://www.osv.be/Fotos%20wedstrijden/04-05/Genk%20-%20Brugge%2013-03-05%20019.jpg

genkie456

December 21st, 2007, 11:58 PM

picture after business renovation:

http://www.goalmine.be/images/foto_prijzen.jpg

genkie456

December 22nd, 2007, 12:03 AM

picture before renovation of the business-area:

http://www.torpedo92.be/krcgenk/Fenixstadion.jpg

Joop20

December 22nd, 2007, 01:40 PM

[QUOTE=genkie456;17260679]stadium of Genk (that will be expanded to 40000-45000)

As far as I know, nothing is certain on this expansion yet, or am I wrong?

patroeski

December 22nd, 2007, 04:58 PM

The stadium in Genk will be expaned if Belgium and the Netherlands manage to get the world cup

genkie456

December 24th, 2007, 08:06 PM

The stadium (now 25 000) will certainly be expanded to 35000. If benelux will organise the WC, it will be expanded to 45000

genkie456

December 31st, 2007, 03:19 PM

A movie of the current stadium:

http://www.bluewhitezone.be/CristalArena.wmv

skaP187

January 2nd, 2008, 12:49 PM

Nice stadium, looks a little bit like the Anderlecht stadium, which I like to by the way.

carfentanyl

January 2nd, 2008, 05:29 PM

Why he says the suburbs are not incluided then?

Because on most international lists they give figures for the metropolitan area or at least the urban area. That's why you always see Paris listed with about 10-12 million while in actuality it only has two million. L.A. is often listed as 12 million while the city itsself has 3.8 million. London is listed as approx. 12 million while the city itsself has only 9200 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London)! :D

Rotterdam is about 585000, but the urban area is about 1.2 million. The metropolitan area could be about 3 million because The Hague could be added, just like with Dallas-Fort Worth, Minneapolis-St. Paul or Seattle-Tacoma.

genkie456

January 3rd, 2008, 03:35 PM

The flemmish government is going to invest in flemmish stadiums:

for a minority participation in the stadium:

brugge will get 13 mio euro's
Gent will get 10 mio euro's
Anderlecht or National stadium in schaerbeek (if anderlecht is going to play there) will get 13 mio euro's (brussels)
Antwerp will get 10 mio euro's
Genk will get 4 mio euro's

The government will also support other stadium development plans (6 stadiums: molenbeek (brussels), leuven , lokeren, lier, waregem, mechelen).

The money may not exceed 25% of total amount of the cost of buiding or rebuilding the stadium. The stadiums must also be muntifuncional. These plans are apart from a WC organisation and will always be executed.

Quintana

January 3rd, 2008, 05:27 PM

Why does the Flemish government invest in Brussels? I know it is their capital but it is also a different region. Belgian politics is way too complicated :nuts:

genkie456

January 3rd, 2008, 07:19 PM

There is a minority in brussel who is flemish. The flemish government is responsable for person related policy concerning that minority. The region of Brussels Capital is responsable for ground+ buildings related policy concerning that minority. The flemish government wants 'flemish' friendly stadiums in brussels I think. But you are right, investing in stadiums in brussels is not the responsability of the flemish government.

But the flemish government has too much money:

-flanders is whole debtfree in 2008
-they have two funds : carefund (800 mio) + futurefund (500 mio)
-They promise a reduction of taxes of 250 euro/flemish working person
-Take over debts of municipalities (-610 mio) if the municipalities don't raise their taxes and debts, causing more space for policy for municipalities.
-Take over all provincial roads
-1.8 milliard more space for policy in 2008 than in 2007
...

And the federal government has too less. That's why flemish people want reforms (more policy for flanders with appropriate distribution of money). But the french don't want it.

Quintana

January 4th, 2008, 08:50 PM

Flemish friendly means visitors have to proof to speak Dutch?

mavn

January 7th, 2008, 04:38 AM

The Amsterdam city counsel wants to built a new stadium with an 80000 to 90000 capacity. It should be finished before 2018 and be build in between Amsterdam and Almere. They want to drain (hey, we're Dutch) a small part of the IJmeer that's in between both cities. They obviously want it to be part of the WC 2018 bid (It will be a fierce battle with the new Feyenoord stadium on who would get the final) and the centerpiece for a (likely) 2028 Olympics bid.

http://www.ad.nl/sport/voetbal/article1945665.ece

Unfortunately it's in Dutch (it's a well respected paper by the way. Not some sort of shabby tabloid)

I guess expanding the Arena was to expensive (and it still wouldn't be a possible olympics venue).

skaP187

January 7th, 2008, 12:35 PM

Alway funny to see the race between Rotterdam and Amsterdam!:lol:

lpioe

January 7th, 2008, 04:15 PM

Will it have permanent athletic tracks or like Stade de France, Nou Mestalla etc?

mavn

January 7th, 2008, 04:31 PM

Will it have permanent athletic tracks or like Stade de France, Nou Mestalla etc?

No idea. There are no renders or official plans. Several newspapers have quoted however that Amsterdam wants Ajax to move there. Ajax and the council will start talks about that this week. When the Arena was built, it needed Ajax to make it profitable. Given all the non-football events that it hosts nowadays it could be profitable without Ajax as a multi-purpose events complex.

Ajax would never move there if it would have a permanent athletics track.

genkie456

January 8th, 2008, 06:19 PM

60 tot 80 million , that is much too less.

mavn

January 8th, 2008, 07:25 PM

60 tot 80 million , that is much too less.

Definitely. I have no idea why she came up with that number. It could be correct if it would be the amount that the city wants to invest. The other 300m could come from private market. That would be pretty realistic. The Arena had a similar financial construction. although it was much cheaper at ~120m euro's (265m guilders)

The plans for the IJmeer construction have already been dropped by the way. Ajax, the Arena and the Amsterdam city council will talk in the coming weeks about roughly 5 options:

- Leave everything as is. (highly unlikely)
- Amsterdam Arena expansion (given the structure quite expansive and if there would be a 2028 OG bid there would still be a need for a new stadium)
- New Stadium on land in-between Amsterdam and Almere
- New Stadium to the north of Amsterdam. It could then be connected to the newly build north-south metro line.
- A floating (seriously!!) stadium near the coast in the northsea or the IJsselmeer.

Option 1 won't happen. Option 5 would disqualify it as the new Ajax stadium (which the city wants it to be) and it would be be grotesquely expensive: Won't happen.

My personal preference would be a new stadium with a way to cover the athletics track with stands. A sort of improved version over the "stade de France" one. It still isn't ideal for football. It wouldn't need a retractable roof. The Arena could then be the second WC 2018 stadium in Amsterdam. After that, it could be made into a great events complex. The problem with the Arena in it's current form is that it's to much of an events center to be a good football stadium, but to much of a football stadium to make it ideal for events. If you build a new stadium, Amsterdam could have worldclass venues for both.

A decision will be made within 2008.

skaP187

January 9th, 2008, 12:45 AM

The plan for a new stadium in Amsterdam has been shot down for the time beeing by the city councel of Amsterdam by a 7-0 vote...

mavn

January 9th, 2008, 01:33 AM

The plan for a new stadium in Amsterdam has been shot down for the time beeing by the city councel of Amsterdam by a 7-0 vote...

From where did you get that? I can't find anything on that. The IJmeer site has already been rejcted. But that's it.

All cities have to finish their plans before 2009 to be part of the WC bid. One thing is pretty certain, Amsterdam has learned from their humiliation in 2000 by missing the final. Being "Amsterdam" would be enough they thought... This time they won't be that arrogant and in 2008 there will be atleast 1 +70000 stadium in Amsterdam. Wheter it will be an extended Arena or a new stadion is a matter of wait and see.

Quintana

January 9th, 2008, 12:01 PM

According to the Algemeen Dagblad newspaper the Amsterdam Arena wants to expand with one or more extra tiers to a capacity of at least 70,000 while the city council also wants this new stadium (which will most likely be an athletics I presume) to be constructed somewhere in Greater Amsterdam (which runs from IJmuiden in the west to Hilversum in the east).

Joop20

January 9th, 2008, 04:37 PM

mavn

January 9th, 2008, 05:02 PM

I wonder what Ajax plans to do if a new 80k stadium is constructed in Amsterdam? I can hardly imagine they'd fill 80k seats on a regular basis, nor can i imagine that the Amsterdam Arena will be demolished after only 20 or 25 years.

Maybe the best solution would be if Ajax would stay in the Amsterdam Arena, and the new 80k stadium becomes a sort of 'national stadium'. This could be the home of our national stadium, the venue for the Cup final and for athletic events, and Ajax could play in their games against Feyenoord, PSV and AZ in this stadium. Just my thoughts though.

Amsterdam North would be a good location for such a stadium; the accessability will be good with the new subway line completed by then, there is plenty of space to construct a large stadium, and it will help to put the North of Amsterdam on the map.

Why would the Amsterdam Arena be demolished when a new stadium comes? Why shouldn't they coexist? The Arena can survive perfectly on it's own without Ajax as an events stadium. With that function it would also fit perfectly within its surroundings with the new Getz eventscenter (2000) The Heineken Music Hall (5000) and the new "music box" (15000).

And about the 80000 capacity, Altough the stands don't look like it on tv, Ajax sells out pretty much every match. In that sense, more capacity is needed. I think 65 to 70 thousand would be perfect. If it would indeed become 90000 stadium, they could make a structure with a 20000 top tier. They could blind it when the seats aren't needed. If done properly that could really work. You just take the blinders of when the extra capacity is needed.

And don't forget. When the initial plans for the Arena were made, Ajax attracted 14000 people in a 20000 stadium. 50000 was regarded as way to big. Nobody ever thought Ajax would fill that. They had even made plans to blind the second tier. Ajax hoped that they could sell 23000 tickets per match and fill the first tier.

It has been sold out with ~50000 people from day one in 1996...

www.sercan.de

January 9th, 2008, 05:13 PM

^^^
Yes.
1995/1996 is last season at the old stadium
http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/archive/avened90.htm

ottooo

January 9th, 2008, 08:37 PM

It could be used as a national stadium, like Stade de France or Wembley. They could host big tournaments like the Athletics world cup. It could ofcourse also be used in the bid for the Olympics.

Joop20

January 10th, 2008, 12:41 PM

Why would the Amsterdam Arena be demolished when a new stadium comes? Why shouldn't they coexist? The Arena can survive perfectly on it's own without Ajax as an events stadium. With that function it would also fit perfectly within its surroundings with the new Getz eventscenter (2000) The Heineken Music Hall (5000) and the new "music box" (15000).

And about the 80000 capacity, Altough the stands don't look like it on tv, Ajax sells out pretty much every match. In that sense, more capacity is needed. I think 65 to 70 thousand would be perfect. If it would indeed become 90000 stadium, they could make a structure with a 20000 top tier. They could blind it when the seats aren't needed. If done properly that could really work. You just take the blinders of when the extra capacity is needed.

And don't forget. When the initial plans for the Arena were made, Ajax attracted 14000 people in a 20000 stadium. 50000 was regarded as way to big. Nobody ever thought Ajax would fill that. They had even made plans to blind the second tier. Ajax hoped that they could sell 23000 tickets per match and fill the first tier.

It has been sold out with ~50000 people from day one in 1996...

Maybe you should read my post again - i argued exactly the same as you, namely that both stadiums can coexist. I just don't think that having the Amsterdam Arena as just an events stadium (concerts etc.) is viable - it's likely that most large concerts will be moved to the new 80k stadium anyway, because it has a higher capacity.

What I argue is that Ajax stays at the Amsterdam Arena, and uses the new 80k stadium for the games that attract the largest crowds. The 80k stadium can be used for those games, for athletics events, for the national team, for concerts, for the cup final etc.

Rhjh

January 10th, 2008, 02:53 PM

ajax and sold out:rofl:

carfentanyl

January 10th, 2008, 03:16 PM

This time they won't be that arrogant and in 2008 there will be atleast 1 +70000 stadium in Amsterdam. Wheter it will be an extended Arena or a new stadion is a matter of wait and see.

Whoaaa, I know sometimes buildings can erect pretty fast, especially if you hire a thousand underpaid construction workers from India or Bangladesh, but I doubt that an extension or a new stadium can be built within a year!

I assume you mean that by the end of 2008 they will have made the decision whether a +70.000 seater is gonna erect in Amsterdam...

We'll see! :)

skaP187

January 10th, 2008, 03:38 PM

ajax and sold out:rofl:

Groningen and extanding to 40 000...
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
(so stupid to not think of a possebillety to be able to extand your stadium and I don´t mean with a louzy 3 000)
Nothing goes above Groningen...

Rhjh

January 10th, 2008, 03:52 PM

at least Groningen is sold out every game ajax only has 35 max on average

Groningen and extanding to 40 000...
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
(so stupid to not think of a possebillety to be able to extand your stadium and I don´t mean with a louzy 3 000)
Nothing goes above Groningen...

:lol:you clearly don't no what you are talking about

lpioe

January 10th, 2008, 05:50 PM

at least Groningen is sold out every game ajax only has 35 max on average

According to this site (http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/current/avened.htm) they have an average of 48.748 this season.
Do they count tickets sold instead of actual gate entrance?

mavn

January 10th, 2008, 06:23 PM

According to this site (http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/current/avened.htm) they have an average of 48.748 this season.
Do they count tickets sold instead of actual gate entrance?

Yes they do. All availlable season tickets (I believe around 43000) are sold out. For pretty much every match all tickets that are left sell out aswell. You can't get a ticket.

The problem is, that there are several thousend season ticket holders that don't show up every 2 weeks. Either because they don't want to or simply can't. If they would give up there season ticket however, chances of visiting a match are pretty much zero. Especially the big ones. They hold on to their tickets paying 250 to 600 euros a year even though the don't come every match. It's a problem, but what can you do about it? If anything, it shows that there is a high demand for tickets if people are willing to do that.

The 35000 that Rhjh says is nonsense. On average I think its roughly 44 to 45k. Ajax however chooses to publish sold tickets: 48 to 51k.

You have to understand though that Ajax, being by far the most successful club from the Netherlands, is a club that people that don't support it tend to hate. Making fun with false facts apparently releases some of the stress that they feel when the word Ajax is named on a forum, in a paper, a conversation, where ever. I wouldn't give it to much attention.

@carfentanyl

that was supposed to be 2018... My bad.

mavn

January 10th, 2008, 06:28 PM

ajax and sold out:rofl:

What do you call it, when all tickets are sold, and you simply can't get a ticket if you want to??? Does sold out have a different meaning in Groningen???

Red85

January 10th, 2008, 07:37 PM

ajax and sold out:rofl:

the stand which you see on the tele is a stand for business cards. due the freakin' high ticketprices there no ordinary person can afford a season ticket on that stand. Many companies have a few season tickets for their customers or workers for giving them away. Many 'bobo's' have a seat there. And then atractive games, against the subtop or top, are more populair to use them than when a relegation candidate is comming up...

...altough I guess those ARE the atractive ones if you look the last games..... :crazy:

Yes they do. All availlable season tickets (I believe around 43000) are sold out. For pretty much every match all tickets that are left sell out aswell. You can't get a ticket.

The problem is, that there are several thousend season ticket holders that don't show up every 2 weeks. Either because they don't want to or simply can't. If they would give up there season ticket however, chances of visiting a match are pretty much zero. Especially the big ones. They hold on to their tickets paying 250 to 600 euros a year even though the don't come every match. It's a problem, but what can you do about it? If anything, it shows that there is a high demand for tickets if people are willing to do that.

The 35000 that Rhjh says is nonsense. On average I think its roughly 44 to 45k. Ajax however chooses to publish sold tickets: 48 to 51k.

You have to understand though that Ajax, being by far the most successful club from the Netherlands, is a club that people that don't support it tend to hate. Making fun with false facts apparently releases some of the stress that they feel when the word Ajax is named on a forum, in a paper, a conversation, where ever. I wouldn't give it to much attention.

@carfentanyl

that was supposed to be 2018... My bad.

True. I can't say anything else. As an Ajax supporter you have to say only 'I'm an Ajacied' and you've set an atmosphere at the place where you are... exept Amsterdam then.
Ajax is the most loved AND the most hated club in the country. but thats another discussion.

If you want to buy a ticket for one of the top games you have to be quick. 5 weeks before a competition game starts the pre-sell has started. For the only one classic at home (Ajax - feyenoord) you realy need to be at a sell point at 9am. because at half past 9 only 1000 tickets of the high price class (+70 euro) of the roughly 10.000 tickets are available.

Joop20

January 11th, 2008, 05:43 PM

Children, this whole Ajax ticket sales discussion is off topic, lets keep to the stadiums for the 2018 bid in this thread.

Is there any news from Belgium on their new stadiums?

FlyingDutchman

January 11th, 2008, 08:07 PM

skaP187

January 13th, 2008, 05:45 PM

:lol:you clearly don't no what you are talking about

Children, this whole Ajax ticket sales discussion is off topic, lets keep to the stadiums for the 2018 bid in this thread.

Fc Groningen will have to build a new stadium (again? yep again!) if they want to extend big and not a little 3 000. You mark my words, you should listen more to the signals the president of club gives.
Why do they have to do an investigation which costs alot of money, just to see if extension is possible? It´s a brand new stadium and they don´t know?

Red85

January 13th, 2008, 10:54 PM

Fc Groningen will have to build a new stadium (again? yep again!) if they want to extend big and not a little 3 000. You mark my words, you should listen more to the signals the president of club gives.
Why do they have to do an investigation which costs alot of money, just to see if extension is possible? It´s a brand new stadium and they don´t know?

I wonder. The brand new stadium is the new green hell, better than het Oosterpark. Loved by the supporters and everything. why not an extra ring on it?

Chimaera

January 14th, 2008, 11:23 AM

Children, this whole Ajax ticket sales discussion is off topic, lets keep to the stadiums for the 2018 bid in this thread.

Is there any news from Belgium on their new stadiums?If you feel like translating, because I don't have time for that now...: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=17593212&postcount=1390

Mr D

January 14th, 2008, 01:43 PM

...in short: by 2013 Standard (Liège) will be playing in a new UEFA 4-star stadium.
For the moment they are looking for the best location, but politics (both local and regional; city of Liège and the Wallon region) are in favour of the project, as opposed to the project in Bruges.

Quintana

January 14th, 2008, 03:51 PM

Breda gave a positive answer on joining the city list who are interested in the WC.

Theo Mommers of NAC Breda said that it would be a good thing if Breda had a WC stadium.
He also said that NAC only wants it when NAC has beneffits of it, the most important thing for NAC is that the famous 'Avondje NAC' would stay.

NAC have plans to expand their stadium, but it wouldn't be big enough yet for the WC, so they'll have to change the plans or expand another time.

I think I heard or read somewhere that the KNVB asked 12 Dutch cities whether they were interested in becoming a host city. Only Utrecht said they were not, all the others were. The 12 cities were - out of the top of my head - Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, Eindhoven, Groningen, Tilburg, Breda, Enschede, Arnhem, Kerkrade, Alkmaar and Heerenveen.

Chimaera

January 14th, 2008, 04:17 PM

Quintana

January 14th, 2008, 04:51 PM

They still have those plans I think (which includes ownership of FC Utrecht). Problem is that Phanos wants Utrecht's current stadium and the adjacent terrains in return so they can build appartments and offices there.

Phanos basically expects a huge gift from the city of Utrecht (since the city owns the current stadium) in return for taking over FC Utrecht. What makes it even more interesting is that FC Utrecht was nearly bankrupt a few years ago and was saved by the city. The city bought the stadium giving Utrecht the millions they needed to survive, if I remember correctly. So the city had to save the club first and are now asked to give the stadium they bought for millions away for free to a commercial enterprise. Clearly, they are never going to go ahead with this.

mavn

January 15th, 2008, 05:03 AM

I think I heard or read somewhere that the KNVB asked 12 Dutch cities whether they were interested in becoming a host city. Only Utrecht said they were not, all the others were. The 12 cities were - out of the top of my head - Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, Eindhoven, Groningen, Tilburg, Breda, Enschede, Arnhem, Kerkrade, Alkmaar and Heerenveen.

From what I've read, Utrecht did want to be a host city. They turned down the plans from Phanos (building a new 40 to 50000 stadium in return for exploiting the old stadium site with new building projects) before this process was started, but a becoming a possible host city for the Worldcup could chance their minds, and at least reconsider it, or come up with new ones.

OK, were do we stand at the beginning of 2008. Here's a roundup of all Dutch cities that have declared interest in becoming a host city. From what I've read in papers and all other media:

AMSTERDAM:
ArenA extension to 70000+ looks very likely. A new 80000+ stadium for the World cup, 2028 Olympic Games bid, and perhaps the new home for Ajax is a big question mark.
ROTTERDAM:
New 75000+ Feyenoord stadium is certain. "De kuip" will still be there as a possible second venue for Rotterdam (51000)
UTRECHT:
Current stadium can't be extended for transportation reasons. The area is to small as it is. A new stadium looks unlikely for the moment.
EINDHOVEN:
The "Philips stadion" currently holds 36000. PSV is examining an extension to 43000 which is very likely to happen. That looks like the absolute maximum on their current location. A new stadium has informally been dismissed by PSV officials and seems extremely unlikely.
GRONINGEN:
The "Euroborg" currently holds about 20000. Will be extended by 2000 in the coming summer by lowering the pitch and adding three rows of seats. Investigations are underway on a possible extension to 35 to 40000. According to rumors it doesn't look promising. The general manager has already said that leaving (!) the 3 year old stadium for a new one is an option if they can't expand. Sounds very unlikely though.
TILBURG:
The city has apparently reacted positively on the request to become host city. Seems weird. Although it's the 6th largest city in Holland, its team rarely sells out it's 14000 stadium. 40000+ is ridiculous. I can't see this happen.
BREDA:
NAC has a 17000 stadium wich they plan to extend in small steps to about 30000 in the coming decade. They are investigating whether 40000 could be done. The emphasis in the investigation is on the need for those extra seats. Can they fill those seats on a regular basis? Breda will probably try to get the World cup in its city. They paid a ridiculous amount of money to be connected to the European high speed train network. Becoming a world cup venue could be their next target.
ENSCHEDE:
The "Arke stadion" is currently being expanded from 13000 to 25500 by adding a second tier on 1 half of the stadium (2 sides, 1 corner). It will be finished in the second half of 2008. Virtually all the new seats have already sold out from what I've understood. They plan to build a second tier on the other half as well (2 sides, 3 corners). After that, the capacity would be 43000. No time has been set for that extension though.
ARNHEM:
The "Gelredome" has a capacity of little under 30000. Vitesse doesn't need the extension, but the Gelredome has become a major venue for events that could benefit from the extra capacity. The stadium has started an investigation on whether an extension to 40000 can be done. The results should be known in the coming months.
KERKRADE:
Roda can't fill their 20000 stadium on a regular basis. None the less, the city of Kerkrade has expressed interest in the World cup. They wan't to build a temporary second tier which would raise the capacity to 40000 for the tournament. The tier would be taken off after the event. Apparently this was already the idea when the stadium was build. A relatively easy and low cost operation.
ALKMAAR:
AZ has already presented their extension plans for the "DSB stadion". It would increase it's capacity from 17000 to 40000. It's a 150 million euro project which features a 100 million business park and a 50 million extension to the stadium. Due to a long list of formal procedures, the projected finishing date is 2011 to 2012.
HEERENVEEN:
The "Abe Lenstra Stadion" can currently hold 26600. They will extend the stadium in small steps to 40000+ in the coming decade.

Not on the list...:
THE HAGUE:
3rd city in the country. They just have a poor team with the worst and most violent supporters in Holland. They play in the second league and attract an average of 4500 in a brand new 15000 stadium. Unfortunately, a 40000 seater in the the Hague sounds bizarre...

From all those plans, only Kerkrade is (obviously) a world cup only extension. Breda, Arnhem, Tilburg and Utrecht would be questionable to very questionable if we would not get the world cup. For Groningen it all depends on the possibilities. IF it can be done they will probably go to 40000.

Amsterdam (1 or 2), Rotterdam (1 or 2), Eindhoven, Alkmaar, Heerenveen, Enschede and Groningen seem very likely candidates. Add Kerkrade as a certain possibility, and it looks to become a fierce battle. Add 1 or 2 from the "questionable" list and Holland could have made a bid on their own...

Obviously, feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake... ;)

ottooo

February 29th, 2008, 08:50 PM

A Dutch article:

Nederlandse steden gretig voor WK 2018

vrijdag 29 februari 2008 17:00

(Novum) - Ook Alkmaar, Enschede en Heerenveen zien deelname aan het WK voetbal in 2018 wel zitten. De gemeenten hebben bij de KNVB aangegeven dat ze bereid zijn de infrastructuur en de stadions aan te passen aan de normen van de Fifa. Eerder werd al bekend dat Amsterdam, Rotterdam en Eindhoven geïnteresseerd zijn in het WK voetbal.

In Amsterdam en Rotterdam liggen plannen voor stadions met een capaciteit van minimaal zeventigduizend toeschouwers. Arnhem heeft de KNVB laten weten dat een uitbreiding van het Gelredome naar veertigduizend niet haalbaar is. Voor het WK moet een stadion minimaal veertigduizend zitplaatsen hebben. De KNVB gaat nog gesprekken voeren met delegaties uit Breda, Groningen, Kerkrade en Utrecht.

Eerder deze week werd bekend dat Nederland en België in maart gaan praten met Uefa-voorzitter Michel Platini over de organisatie van het WK.

Nederland en België maakten eind 2007 bekend dat ze de mogelijkheden tot het organiseren van het WK in 2018 wilden onderzoeken. Australië, China, Engeland, Mexico en Rusland hebben ook al aangegeven dat ze over tien jaar graag het WK willen organiseren.

English:

After meeting with the Dutch FA the cities of Alkmaar, Enschede and Heerenveen declared that they are interested in hosting games for the WC in the Benelux. Earlier, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Eindhoven declared their interest.

There are plans in Amsterdam and Rotterdam for stadiums with capacities of at least 70.000.
The city of Arnhem told the Dutch FA that an expansion of the Gelredome stadium to 40.000 seats is not possible, which is the minimum capacity for the WC.

The Dutch FA will have meetings with delegations from Breda, Groningen, Kerkrade and Utrecht about the possibility of hosting games.

The Netherlands and Belgium will have a meeting with UEFA-chairman Platini in march about the organisation of the WC.

The Netherlands and Belgium anounced at the end of 2007 that they are looking into the possiblity of hosting the WC in 2018. Australia, China, England, Mexico and Russia have also said to be interested in hosting the tournament.

Kobo

March 1st, 2008, 02:46 AM

Although I applaud Belgium and the Netherlands to be putting together a 2018 bid. I don't think they really stand a chance to be representing Europe when they will go up against England, Spain and Russia. Ok yes they are well positioned in Europe, and yes it would be their first time as hosts for W.C. but it will be a tough competition!

Ok going from whats been said in this thread, this is the list of stadiums and their possible capacities that the Benelux might have:
BENELUX 2018 WORLD CUP BID:
NETHERLANDS:
1.Amsterdam, Amsterdam ArenA, 51,324 possible expansion to 70,000+

2.Rotterdam, New Stadium, 51,000 possible expansion to 75,000+

3.Eindhoven, Philips Stadion, 36,500 expansion to 43,000

4.Groningen, Euroborg, 20,000 expansion to 40,000

5.Arnhem, The Gelredome, 29,600 maybe an expansion to 40,000 (although I don't see how it could be done)

BELGIUM
6.Brussels, New National Stadium, 60,000+

7.Brugge, New Stadium, 45,000+

8.Liege, Stade Maurice Dufrasne, 29,173 expanded to 40,000

9.Antwerp, New Stadium, 40,000

10.Charleroi, Stade du Pays de Charleroi, 25,149 expanded to 40,000

Benelux Reserve Stadiums:
NETHERLANDS:
Amsterdam, New National Stadium ???, 80,000+
Alkmarr, DSB Stadion, 16,000 expanded to 40,000.
Heerenveen, Abe Lenstra Stadion, 27,500 expanded to 40,000
Enschede, Arke Stadion 13,500 expanded to 43,000.
BELGIUM:
Brussels, New Anderlecht Stadium, 40,000-45,000
Gent, Artevelde Stadion, 22,500 expanded to 40,000
Genk, Cristal Arena, 24,604 expanded to 40,000

Now lets compare it with Englands possible bid. This bid is my own ideal list of stadiums and cities which I would like to be used in 2018. Some new stadiums I have made up but would be needed for those cities. But others have a minimum to maximum capacity figure thats been mentioned in the past. Note only 1 city can have 2 stadiums, and also Sepp Blatter has said the minimum capacity for 2018 would be 45,000.

ENGLAND 2018 WORLD CUP BID:
1. London, Wembley Stadium, 90,000.

2. Manchester, Old Trafford, 76,212 - 95,212.

3. Liverpool, New Anfield, 71,000.

4. London, Emirates Stadium, 60,432.

5. Newcastle, St James Park, 60,390.

6. Birmingham, Villa Park, 52,000.

7. Leeds, New Leeds Stadium, 40,00 - 50,000.

8. Nottingham, New Nottingham stadium, 45,000 - 50,000.

9. Sheffield, New Sheffield Stadium, 40,000 - 48,000.

10. Southampton, St Mary's Stadium, 40,000 - 48,000.

11. Bristol, New Bristol Stadium, 40,000 - 45,000.

12. Norwich, New Norwich Stadium, 40,000 - 45,000.

England reserve stadiums:
1. London, New West Ham Stadium, 55,000 - 60,000.
2. London, New Chelsea Stadium, 55,000 - 65,000.
3. London, White Hart Lane, 55,000.
4. Birmingham, City of Birmingham Stadium, 55,000.
5. Liverpool/ kirkby, New Everton Stadium, 50,000 - 60,000.
6. Sunderland, Stadium of Light, 49,000 - 64,000.
7. Manchester, City of Manchester Stadium, 47,726.
8. Portsmouth, New Portsmouth Stadium, 36,000 - 45,000.

Now lets look at Spains possible 2018 bid:

SPAIN 2018 WORLD CUP BID:
1.Madrid, Bernabeu, 80,354.

2.Madrid, Estadio La Peineta, 73,700.

3.Barcelona, Camp Nou, 106,000

4.Valencia, New Valencia Stadium, 75,000

5.Seville, Estadio Olimpico de la Cartuja, 72,000

6.Bilbao, Estadio San Mames, 56,000

7.Zaragoza, Nueva Romareda, 42,500

8.San Sebastian, Gipuzkoarena, 42,400

9.La Coruna, Estadio de Riazor, 40,000

10.Malaga, Estadio La Rosaleda, 40,000

11.Murcia: Nueva Condomina 40,000

12.Elche: Estadio Manuel Martinez Valero 40,000

Spain reserve stadiums:
Madrid: Estadio Vicente Calderon 57,500
Barcelona: Estadi Nou Sarria 41,000
Seville: Estadio de Lopera 55,500
Seville: Estadio R. SÃ¡nchez PizjuÃ¡n 45,000
Palma/Mallorca, Estadio Lluís Sitjar, 18 000 expanded to 40,000.

And here are the only decent Russian stadiums I know about that might be in their bid (let me know if you know of any others).

RUSSIA 2018 WORLD CUP BID:
1.Moscow, Luzhniki Stadion, 84,745.

2.St. Peterburg, Zenit Stadium, 62,167

3.Moscow, Stadion Spartak, 35,000 expanded to 40,000

4.Vladikavkaz, Republikan Spartak, 32,574 expanded to 40,000

5.Voronezh, Tsentralnyi Profsoyuz, 31,743 expanded to 40,000

6.Volgograd, Tsentralnyi Stadion, 32,120 expanded to 40,000

What does everyone think about the comparisons between all these possible bids? Are their cities I have missed out that you want in? What about the stadiums and their capacities did I get those right?

skaP187

March 1st, 2008, 05:47 AM

Allright comments...

Netherlands/Belgium

Gelredome/Arnhem has allready said that expansion is not interesting., trade them in for FC Twente/ Enschede, Heerenveen or AZ Alkmaar. WC or not these clubs have allready intentions to go to 40 000.
Euroborg/ FC Groningen will probably not be possible to expend to 40 000 plus. They are investigating possebilleties, but rumours are not good.
FC Utrecht is still negociating with Phanos and townhall incluiding a new 40 000 + stadium. Maybe you can trade them in for Groningen.
Charleroi? please not that again. From Belgium I have heard little. To be hounest I think the mayority of Belgium stadiums will be white elephants if there is no BeNeliga (Belgium Netherland) in the near future.
I have seen planns from Brugge and rumours for ages from Anderlecht/ Brussels. Also Club Liege have shown ambition. Further nothing.
Rotterdam will not be an expansion, but a new stadium. The current ´Kuip´will take part of the bid to as they cannot demolish it because it is a monument. The new stadium will have a cap between 75 000 and 90 000.

England

from 7 untill 12 I haven´t seen planns, maybe it´s me, maybe it´s just rumours.
same goes for the reserve list with numbers 1,2,3 and 8. Only rumours.

There are a lot of Londons in your list, two Manchesters, two Birminhams and two Liverpools (allthough technicly speaking Everton will be Kirby). Only one city is alouwed to have two stadiums.

Spain

5. Sevilla/ La cartuja... Sercan will bust your ass for saying it has a cap of 72 000... Sevilla CF do have serious planns to extend to about 65 000 though.
8 San Sebastian/ Real Sociedad will not build this stadium. It does not have this cap at current moment, or serious planns.
from 9 to 12 the caps are incorrect neither are there any planns to extend.
Also the Spanish FA does not have said they have any interest in organising the WC.
Also for Spain counts that only one city can have two stadiums, so there goes your reserve list except for Real Mallorca. This stadium might get there in the future, but I doubt it, because they will never fill it.
Zaragoza will have/need a new stadium, I thought there were going for 50 000 now.

Russia.

Don´t now to be hounest.

My conclussion

England is favourite without a doubt, specialy because Spain does not have shown interest yet. Benelux will need some very good lobying and Russia at the current moment don´t stand a chance.

Kobo

March 1st, 2008, 02:34 PM

Allright comments...

[England

from 7 untill 12 I haven´t seen planns, maybe it´s me, maybe it´s just rumours.
As I said some I made up. However Nottingham will build a Stadium this size by 2014, and St Mary's can be expanded to this size.

same goes for the reserve list with numbers 1,2,3 and 8. Only rumours.

Portsmouths stadium is going to happen, and I expect Chelsea & Totenham to have expaneded/ built new stadiums by then,

There are a lot of Londons in your list, two Manchesters, two Birminhams and two Liverpools (allthough technicly speaking Everton will be Kirby). Only one city is alouwed to have two stadiums.

Yep I know this, these "reserve stadiums" would replace the other stadiums on the 1st list but stick to this rule. example: City of Birmingham Stadium would replace Villa Park.
Spain
5. Sevilla/ La cartuja... Sercan will bust your ass for saying it has a cap of 72 000... Sevilla CF do have serious planns to extend to about 65 000 though.
I didn't say that Seville Stadium, I said the Estadio Olimpico de la Cartuja which does have a capacity of 72,000
from 9 to 12 the caps are incorrect neither are there any planns to extend.
I am saying they would have to expand these/ build new ones.

Also for Spain counts that only one city can have two stadiums, so there goes your reserve list except for Real Mallorca.
Yep I know this rule, but these stadiums could replace those stadiums on 1st list if were more modern or larger capacity etc.

Zaragoza will have/need a new stadium, I thought there were going for 50 000 now.
Didn't know that thanks.

Russia.
Don´t now to be hounest.
Yes it was a long shot!!
My conclussion
England is favourite without a doubt, specialy because Spain does not have shown interest yet. Benelux will need some very good lobying and Russia at the current moment don´t stand a chance.
Well England could continue to shoot themselves in the foot, if they come up with more plans similar to having Premier league clubs play league games abroad during season. Benelux also might have more frineds in Uefa than England so might help them get the vote!

rbbn39

March 2nd, 2008, 02:24 AM

Antwerp really wants to build a new stadium and probably it will be more then a 40k seater, they talked about 50k-60/70k. Not just for the football teams (antwerp and GBA could use it together, and GBA has a big crowd down in the region Antwerp because it's the only club in the highest belgian competition), but they would like to use it to host mayor events. They want to compare themselves with the Stade de France stadium, and on teletext 2 months ago I saw they already had sended a delegation to Paris, to gain more information from the stadium and get some ideas. I hope Breda will get a stadium, then I will watching the WC right between Breda and Antwerp, because that's were I live...

Chimaera

March 3rd, 2008, 10:53 PM

Kobo, you're not properly informed. The only expansion of an existing stadium that might happen in Belgium is that of Genk's Cristal Arena. No expansions but new stadia in Charleroi and Liège. And not for Club de Liège but for their rivals Standard de Liège.

Vermeer

March 4th, 2008, 02:56 PM

Kobo

March 4th, 2008, 04:40 PM

Joop20

March 4th, 2008, 04:57 PM

Let’s agree that stadiums will not be an important issue for the selection of the host and discuss other topics, like who has hosted it before, who has the infrastructure, who can handle the security issues and so on.

The Netherlands and England have problems with hooligans. Russia has lack of football interest with an average attendance 13500 in Europe’s biggest country.

Let's not agree that stadiums will not be an important issue for the selection of the host, and let's discuss this topic! First of all, this forum is all about stadia. Secondly, there will be great differences between the stadia of the bidding countries. The largest stadium from the Benelux bid will probably be Feyenoord's new 70,000 stadium, while the next biggest will be the Amsterdam Arena or the new stadium in Brussels.

Compare this to the stadiums in England and Spain; they have multiple stadia with a capacity of around 90,000! If the Benelux will have a bid with only the minimum required capacities, they're gonna have a hard job bidding up against the likes of Spain and England IMO! Ofcourse a bid needs alot more than just some fancy stadia, but it is a very important factor. The advantage of the Benelux may be that the cities are very well connected and located close to eachother, but like you said, England and Spain have excellent infrastructure as well.

And regarding the hooligan problem; that's a thing of the past in England's premiership really, I reckon it's a bigger problem in the Netherlands these days. And I understood there are quite alot of hooligans in Russia as well.