USA - Stadium and Arena Development News [Archive] - Page 8

rantanamo

April 28th, 2006, 05:39 PM

I've been trying to follow this thread, and have had a lot of laughing moments, so I had to bring some reality to the situation. Here are some points from sports to soccer specifically:

a.) The under-estimation of money in the United States on Skyscrapercity in general is quite incredible. You're talking about a nation of people with huge disposable incomes, huge credit limits and comparatively low taxes. This is not China or India as far as numbers of people, but the incomes make-up for that. If and when the World Cup comes back to the USA, it would not be hard to find enough people to have such attendances again.

b.) Soccer is the most popular sport in the US for youth in organized leagues. That is incredible considering the amount of youth baseball, basketball and football. Yet, it has been this way for some 15-20 years. This has made a fan of many a parent as well. Do not underestimate that.

c.) The MLS is NOT an indicator of soccer support in the US. Many know that MLS is not the greatest soccer in the world.

d.) Do not underestimate the overall sport fandom in the U.S. We pack in 100,000 or 200,000 people into NASCAR tracks for 38 weekends. Over 60,000 per week for the NFL, 17,000 per week for the NBA, and 80, 90, 100,000 for college football each week. People love sports in the U.S. and spend big bucks on related merchandise and tickets. The World Cup is the biggest of big. Do you think anything would be different for the World Cup?

e.) Which brings me to this point: Even if you think Americans can't possibly be big enough soccer fans, remember what an American is. You can't really define us. We are a big diverse country in lifestyle, culture and nationality. tens of millions of first generation immigrants from all over the world. Not to mention 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation immigrants. We are talking tens of millions. Look at Mexican matches in Houston or Dallas or Polish matches in Chicago. Those are just fans local to that area.

f.) Stadium are/will be there without worrying about white elephant projects or spending huge amounts on stadiums that aren't up to standard.

I can read a lot of resentment towards the USA here, and that is fine. It doesn't mean that World Cup '94 was some failure. It was very successful, and likely would enjoy more success today. The conditions have only improved for a great World Cup in the USofA.

GNU

April 28th, 2006, 05:39 PM

May I remind you that it is time for sausage!

You may. But to be honest Im not really interested that youre off to meet your boyfriend. :lol:

Ze Englander Swine!!

April 28th, 2006, 05:41 PM

Homophobe!! You fancy him as much as I do!!

GNU

April 28th, 2006, 05:49 PM

e.) Which brings me to this point: Even if you think Americans can't possibly be big enough soccer fans, remember what an American is. You can't really define us. We are a big diverse country in lifestyle, culture and nationality. tens of millions of first generation immigrants from all over the world. Not to mention 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation immigrants. We are talking tens of millions. Look at Mexican matches in Houston or Dallas or Polish matches in Chicago. Those are just fans local to that area.

And so is the EU. The EU has a higher population and higher immigrational figures I could guess.It is a mixture of many nations and cultures.
That said you cant really define Europe or for that matter Germany.

I can read a lot of resentment towards the USA here, and that is fine. It doesn't mean that World Cup '94 was some failure. It was very successful, and likely would enjoy more success today. The conditions have only improved for a great World Cup in the USofA.

nobody has ever argued that the wc94 was a failure.
In fact it was "Ze englander" who has to prove something here by bringing down a lot of resentment towards Germany ;).
But to be honest I dont care about the wc94 that much because it was played 12 years ago in a country where football (soccer) doesnt have big financial backing and where it isnt very popular.

gutooo

April 28th, 2006, 05:59 PM

Sorry diego, the average for 1950 was 47432, with some games as low as 7500. Pathetic to be honest. It looks like the glory hunters were out in force in 1950.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/archive/avewc.htm

yeah, ure right

the games with big attendance were in rio, in the world biggest soccer stadium!

the rest of them were pathetic, i agree with you

btw my name is not diego ok?

kraftwerk

April 28th, 2006, 06:00 PM

Germany - 1974 World Cup

BULGARIA v SWEDEN - 22500
SWEDEN v URUGUAY - 22700
AUSTRALIA v CHILE - 14861 - shocking!!
YUGOSLAVIA v ZAÏRE - 20000
HAITI v ARGENTINA - 24000
POLAND v HAITI - 23400

I guess those 100000 Swedes must have got lost on the way to the stadium!! You really are a delusionary fool!! It is quite worrying that you actually believe your own obviously insane rants!!

Yes, that's right Jerry Helmet, an average of 200000 per match and soon you will rule ZE WORLD!!

Just stick to eating sausages and listening to bad techno music young Uberspermbumfuehrer!

Olala :shocked:

Uberspermbumfuehrer, seems to be a new word creation: sperm, bum :tongue4:

anyway, what can I expect when I seem to affront you...

As checker mentioned, 1974 is a long time ago, and the football attendancies were low around the world. I think nowerdays there is a new - how can I say - football enthuisams broken out. It depends on football marketing and management (tv, adversising etc.) and also on new build football stadiums. It`s a kind of new feeling when you are watching a soccer game. It´s gonna be more an event, as it is in the NFL in USA.
E. g. 1974 most of the stadiums have had an athletic track, that`not really good for the atmosphere..

Other reasons, why the some games weren`t sold out:
The stadiums have had no roofs, and the 1974 summer was a real rainy one..
In 1974 lots of people couldn`t visit West-Germany because of the Iron Courtain (WEST-EAST)
As you know, the touristic figures in general increases in the last decade becuase of the massive declining of airfares...

Besides of these statements, I read alot of articles about the national football associations, and the figures e. g. of 100,000 Swedens who are expected to visit Germany are not bullshit.. There were also expected hundreds of thousands Dutch, English and Polish football fans..

Let me explain my situation: I could not exept the lottery to get a ticket - that includes to reveal all personal data via Internet. Nevertheless there were some 10 million ticket requests.

So believe me, the stadiums will be sold out, there will be 3,5 million people watching the games, that´s an average of nearly 55,000. Sounds good, isn`t it?

PS: i´m a vegetarian, like classical music and GOOD techno in real good uberspermbumfuehrer berlin clubs, e. g. Berghain and KitKat sometimes: da geht die Post ab! :dance:

Another PS: Like to see the next wc`s in the real football nations South Africa 2010, Brasil 2014 and England 2018.

GNU

April 28th, 2006, 06:13 PM

Homophobe!! You fancy him as much as I do!!

Dont forget to put on your fancy Wehrmacht uniform, the leather underwear and that rubber equipment you are talking about.
And put on that Stahlhelm too. Safety's first.

gutooo

April 28th, 2006, 06:21 PM

Another PS: Like to see the next wc`s in the real football nations South Africa 2010, Brasil 2014 and England 2018.

I would like to see the WC here in 2014, but im not sure if we could build modern stadiums like the europeans!

For sure the attendance here will be much higher than it was in 1950, since soccer is more popular than ever nowadays.

And lets see if Brazil wins another one until then!

Mo Rush

April 28th, 2006, 06:21 PM

Olala :shocked:

Uberspermbumfuehrer, seems to be a new word creation: sperm, bum :tongue4:

anyway, what can I expect when I seem to affront you...

As checker mentioned, 1974 is a long time ago, and the football attendancies were low around the world. I think nowerdays there is a new - how can I say - football enthuisams broken out. It depends on football marketing and management (tv, adversising etc.) and also on new build football stadiums. It`s a kind of new feeling when you are watching a soccer game. It´s gonna be more an event, as it is in the NFL in USA.
E. g. 1974 most of the stadiums have had an athletic track, that`not really good for the atmosphere..

Other reasons, why the some games weren`t sold out:
The stadiums have had no roofs, and the 1974 summer was a real rainy one..
In 1974 lots of people couldn`t visit West-Germany because of the Iron Courtain (WEST-EAST)
As you know, the touristic figures in general increases in the last decade becuase of the massive declining of airfares...

Besides of these statements, I read alot of articles about the national football associations, and the figures e. g. of 100,000 Swedens who are expected to visit Germany are not bullshit.. There were also expected hundreds of thousands Dutch, English and Polish football fans..

Let me explain my situation: I could not exept the lottery to get a ticket - that includes to reveal all personal data via Internet. Nevertheless there were some 10 million ticket requests.

So believe me, the stadiums will be sold out, there will be 3,5 million people watching the games, that´s an average of nearly 55,000. Sounds good, isn`t it?

PS: i´m a vegetarian, like classical music and GOOD techno in real good uberspermbumfuehrer berlin clubs, e. g. Berghain and KitKat sometimes: da geht die Post ab! :dance:

Another PS: Like to see the next wc`s in the real football nations South Africa 2010, Brasil 2014 and England 2018.

on july 9 u two will know how many attended which match and then compare...germany will fill stadiums..it has the entire european market who can freely travel to germany...

secondly in 2010 south africa is closer to brazil..argentina etc..but not close to the european market...but we will have to see..

GASpedal

April 28th, 2006, 06:26 PM

If German stadiums were the same capacity as the USA ones, the average would still be far lower. There is not a hope in hell that Cameroon v Sweden would get a crowd of 93194 in Germany.
Oh my...
...I normally really accept other's opinions but that's complete bullshit.

In Germany almost all tickets were sold BEFORE anybody knew which teams would be going to play there.
Personally I didn't care about the teams either. I'd just like to watch one game - no matter which. Everybody I come to know thinks the same.

Even when it was clear that there will be matches like Trinidad vs. Paraguay people kept on claiming tickets.
Cameroon vs. Sweden would actually be more interesting.

You have no idea... not even the slightest.
I guess it was even easier to get tickets for the WC94 than for WC06.

mauritius gunner

April 28th, 2006, 06:32 PM

Thats because of the European invasion.
You are bound to get higher attendances at world cups in Europe for this reason.
Especially from Holland, England and Polland who are virtually neighbours

Goofy

April 28th, 2006, 06:45 PM

I went to watch the Yankees last night and took pics. I'll post them up here later when I can be bothered.

Ze Englander Swine!!

April 28th, 2006, 06:47 PM

Other reasons, why the some games weren`t sold out:
The stadiums have had no roofs, and the 1974 summer was a real rainy one..
(WEST-EAST)

possibly the most pathetic excuse I have heard for a low attendance!! 2 billion Swedes travelled to Germany in 1974, but only 5000 went to the match because it was slightly raining!!!! :lol:

Are you a Spurs fan by any chance?

Ze Englander Swine!!

April 28th, 2006, 06:52 PM

I am going to Germany with no tickets, as I know it will be very easy to get tickets from re-sellers/touts outside the stadiums for the less glamourous games. I will have the photos to prove it. Cameroon v Sweden get 94000 in Germany??? - Grow Up!!

rantanamo

April 28th, 2006, 06:59 PM

And so is the EU. The EU has a higher population and higher immigrational figures I could guess.It is a mixture of many nations and cultures.
That said you cant really define Europe or for that matter Germany.

nobody has ever argued that the wc94 was a failure.
In fact it was "Ze englander" who has to prove something here by bringing down a lot of resentment towards Germany ;).
But to be honest I dont care about the wc94 that much because it was played 12 years ago in a country where football (soccer) doesnt have big financial backing and where it isnt very popular.

The EU is not a nation no matter how you want to spin it. I'm talking about one nation hosting the World Cup. I don't think the EU is an eligible WC host. You can talk about the lack of financial backing all you want, but the fact remains, WC '94 was successful, and would be successful again. I know that chaps a lot of people, because they hate to hear that sort of thing because we aren't real football backers.

Ze Englander Swine!!

April 28th, 2006, 07:03 PM

The EU is NOT a nation, and no sausage munching mullet wearing German poofter is going to turn it into one!! I will fight them on the beaches if I have to!

GNU

April 28th, 2006, 07:06 PM

The EU is not a nation no matter how you want to spin it. I'm talking about one nation hosting the World Cup. I don't think the EU is an eligible WC host. You can talk about the lack of financial backing all you want, but the fact remains, WC '94 was successful, and would be successful again. I know that chaps a lot of people, because they hate to hear that sort of thing because we aren't real football backers.

1.The EU is a union of states. Amongst many other things we happen to share the same currency and as you might know everybody who holds a EU passport is allowed to live and work anywhere in the EU without any limitations.
That means that it doesnt really matter that Im german for example.
I just might aswell take the next local train over the border to France and live and work there as long as I want.

2.I never argued that the 94 wc was unsuccessful. Read my post.

GNU

April 28th, 2006, 07:10 PM

The EU is NOT a nation, and no sausage munching mullet wearing German poofter is going to turn it into one!! I will fight them on the beaches if I have to!

Wow hes back. that was quite fast wasnt it?

So you want to fight on the beaches? So what exactly are you going to do?
Throw wadding pieces at me until I start bleeding? :lol:

Ze Englander Swine!!

April 28th, 2006, 07:17 PM

We don't all share the same currency young sausage, and it will be a cold day in hell the day the fine citizens of Old Blighty class themselves on the same terms as the evil Krauts!!

You may be bum chums with France, but that comes as no surprise to me.

http://haeck.kaywa.ch/files/images/2005/11/mob242_1131040789.jpg

GNU

April 28th, 2006, 07:25 PM

We don't all share the same currency young sausage, and it will be a cold day in hell the day the fine citizens of Old Blighty class themselves on the same terms as the evil Krauts!!

"We"? how mysterious. who are you talking about? You and your boyfriend?
If so then Im sorry. Its not my fault that you chose to spend all of your hardly earned poundies (?) on uniforms,leather goods and rubbery items.

You may be bum chums with France, but that comes as no surprise to me.

Always this sexual undertone :nono:

Ze Englander Swine!!

April 28th, 2006, 07:27 PM

Why is that Wiggey field rated so highly?? Is it because of its history? because as an actual stadium construction taken on its own, it doesn't look at all special!!

Ze Englander Swine!!

April 28th, 2006, 07:28 PM

http://haeck.kaywa.ch/files/images/2005/11/mob242_1131040789.jpg

GNU

April 28th, 2006, 07:29 PM

^^ Churchill ordering two beers?

rantanamo

April 28th, 2006, 08:24 PM

We all know its not the newest and most hi-tech.

History, context in its neighborhood, atmosphere and unique features are part of why people love it.

Madman

April 28th, 2006, 09:11 PM

I'd like to point out to any forumers new to these threads that Ze Englander Swine is actually a Scot, and a bitter one at that.

Ze Englander Swine!!

April 28th, 2006, 09:14 PM

Why would my nationality be relevant?? If i am Scottish, English, Welsh, Dutch etc, what has that got to do with anything???

Sounds to me like you are racist against Scots.

nomarandlee

April 28th, 2006, 10:13 PM

Why is that Wiggey field rated so highly?? Is it because of its history? because as an actual stadium construction taken on its own, it doesn't look at all special!!

Six (or more) good reason why Wrigley is held in high esteem. And if you are a Cards/Chi-Sox fan no retort need apply!!!!!! :)

1. it is the essence of a neighborhood ballpark. It ties into the surrounding character and neighborhood (one of the better Chicago has in terms of fun, nightlife, and atmosphere) seamlessly. Not to mention during broadcast you can at many times get views of the neighborhood and surroundings while just watching the game.

You take the neighborhood and Wrigley away from one or vice versa both are irrevocably changed. Both are so intertwined and grew in coordination and mutually that they are inseparable.

2. It was by FAR the last to install lights (1988 I believe). For many they grew up watching Cubs baseball games after school in the summertime even outside of Chicago (since WGN is broadcast in many areas of the U.S. outside of Chicago unlike other teams). Still most of their games are played during the day unlike most teams.

3. The bricks and ivy on the outfield walls is very unique even for baseball stadiums. The ivy and the "Green monster" in Fenway are probably the two most unique and iconic features of any baseball park in the country.

4. It is not overrun by skyboxes, huge jumbo TV screens, minimal advertising, or loud PA audio systems. It is all about the baseball at Wrigley (and the beer and hot girls too, which doesn't hurt its cause).

5. Great Elevated train station right by. Bars galore. Very few ugly parking lots. Hot girls. Baseball in the sun. The marquee in the front of the stadium. Traditions like throwing back opponents home runs. The quirky and confined parameters of the field and the stadium. The intimacy and closeness of the seats to the field.

6. 1914....The year that a high power gave Chicago and fans the great gift which is Wrigley to come stay in its Friendly Confines for a multitudes of generations to come.

It is hard to to point a finger on what is "American" but more then most others Wrigley is 100% Norman Rockwell Americana. It is as "American" as the Grand Canyon, ESB, Chevy, or Times Square.

al74

April 28th, 2006, 10:17 PM

usa 94 was the worst world cup I ever seen, ....

Goofy

April 28th, 2006, 10:18 PM

usa 94 was the worst world cup I ever seen, ....

Correct. It was apalling.

nomarandlee

April 28th, 2006, 10:22 PM

I think we could use another round of pictures. Anywhere from concourses, surrounding neighborhoods/stadium enviroments. etc...

Its AlL gUUd

April 28th, 2006, 10:23 PM

Its AlL gUUd

April 28th, 2006, 10:24 PM

Correct. It was apalling.

I agree totally

nomarandlee

April 28th, 2006, 10:33 PM

sorry but USA's ranking of 4th makes me very suspicious of FiFA's intentions

me too, and I'm American!!! Still, I think if FIFA really wants to shove the sport down the throat of Americans given them a totally undeserved ranking would be a lame and inefficant way to do it. 98% of Americans would have no idea if the U.S. was rated 4th or 50th in the FIFA world rankings.

Goofy

April 28th, 2006, 10:34 PM

I think we could use another round of pictures. Anywhere from concourses, surrounding neighborhoods/stadium enviroments. etc...

Here you go, some superb pics taken by me last night.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7439/img10495zu.jpg

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/5279/img10502kx.jpg

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/4004/img10539lx.jpg

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/4529/img10564vi.jpg

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/8757/img10583bv.jpg

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/3955/img10593kl.jpg

They're a bit big but I can't be arsed resizing them.

Goofy

April 28th, 2006, 10:36 PM

me too, and I'm American!!! Still, I think if FIFA really wants to shove the sport down the throat of Americans given them a totally undeserved ranking would be a lame and inefficant way to do it. 98% of Americans would have no idea if the U.S. was rated 4th or 50th in the FIFA world rankings.

To be fair, 98% of Americans would have no idea about pretty much anything.

Goofy

April 28th, 2006, 10:44 PM

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/9950/red15lx.jpg

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/131/red29rc.jpg

Couple more

nomarandlee

April 28th, 2006, 10:47 PM

To be fair, 98% of Americans would have no idea about pretty much anything.

hahahaha, good one bigot. Trite American bashing, how original. :weirdo:

Ze Englander Swine!!

April 28th, 2006, 11:26 PM

Can i Just point out 'Ze Englander Swine' previously (infamously) known as Bubomb is a Scot who hates anything English (and now Germany for some reason) and has been banned several times for trolling and causing alot of trouble on these forums. I can't remember how many different names you have had, bubomb.

Funny thing is Bubomb u don't realise that if you don't want to get banned over and over again, act like a decent human being, that is if you are one in the first place.

Why do you keep on constantly pointing out that Bubomb was Scottish??? What have you got against Scots??? Do you think Bubomb represents 5 million Scots???

Are you trying to say that there are no English idiots in England??? Are you seriously saying all 50 million people in England are great guys? I've met plenty of English people who hate Scotland/Scots (hundreds of them attacked Scottish women and children at a Scotland v England game in Glasgow a few years ago). If Bubomb was English, you wouldn't point out his nationality, you wouldn't call him an 'English' idiot, you would simply call him an idiot, so why do you constantly call him a 'Scottish' idiot??

You wouldn't call a black guy a 'black idiot', you wouldn't call a Chinese guy a 'Chinese idiot' and you wouldn't call an English guy an 'English idiot', so stop call somebody from a Scotland a 'Scottish idiot'!!

I think you are an idiot, but it doesn't matter that you are English, all that matters is that you are an idiot.

Ze Englander Swine!!

April 28th, 2006, 11:35 PM

Times Square didn't seem very American to me!! It wasn't even square. Just some busy streets, shops and a big Toys R Us, nothing special! New York is superb, but Times Square is no big deal.

Socrates

April 28th, 2006, 11:45 PM

USA94 is the World Cup I have the fondest memories of.

rantanamo

April 29th, 2006, 12:00 AM

^LOL

Its AlL gUUd

April 29th, 2006, 01:08 AM

Why do you keep on constantly pointing out that Bubomb was Scottish??? What have you got against Scots??? Do you think Bubomb represents 5 million Scots???

Are you trying to say that there are no English idiots in England??? Are you seriously saying all 50 million people in England are great guys? I've met plenty of English people who hate Scotland/Scots (hundreds of them attacked Scottish women and children at a Scotland v England game in Glasgow a few years ago). If Bubomb was English, you wouldn't point out his nationality, you wouldn't call him an 'English' idiot, you would simply call him an idiot, so why do you constantly call him a 'Scottish' idiot??

You wouldn't call a black guy a 'black idiot', you wouldn't call a Chinese guy a 'Chinese idiot' and you wouldn't call an English guy an 'English idiot', so stop call somebody from a Scotland a 'Scottish idiot'!!

I think you are an idiot, but it doesn't matter that you are English, all that matters is that you are an idiot.

U should really read the post first, i didn't even call u an idiot let alone a scottish one, wot are u talking about? i was just pointing out to people who u really are, thats all. i apologise if i hurt your feelings bubomb, truly.

ReddAlert

April 29th, 2006, 01:37 AM

do you guys realize how many soccer fans there are in LA? milloins of hard core fans of teams in Europe, South America, Middle East, USA, Africa, etc. Dont generalize based on Kansas or some other sterotype you have of the USA.

amen.

People on this board piss on the Americans for not being in love for soccer. Yet when a guy goes out of his way to show that our World Cup was actually a huge success---you swarm him like the locusts you guys are. :cheers:

Its AlL gUUd

April 29th, 2006, 01:52 AM

^^ hey red, The US wc was finacially a succes obviously but i just don't like the way the Americans view it as a franchise.

Ze Englander Swine!!

April 29th, 2006, 02:01 AM

The USA World Cup was a huge success full stop. Record attendances and an amazing country to travel around. What is the problem that these European fools have with the USA?? They knock the USA for not loving soccer, then they knock the USA for loving soccer!! Total arseholes!!

Its AlL gUUd

April 29th, 2006, 02:04 AM

^^ yeah Ok, whatever you say

Ze Englander Swine!!

April 29th, 2006, 02:05 AM

Glad you agree.

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

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

http://files1.turbosquid.com/Preview/Content_on_5_26_2004_15_19_18/Preview%20USA%20Soccer%20ball.jpgb6ea1edd-6219-433b-bf1c-e820a2ae6ea1Large.jpg

http://www.blueridgewoodcrafts.com/usa%20soccer%20mylar.jpg

Good luck to the USA in 2006, let's show these losers some good old fashioned ASS KICKIN!!

Its AlL gUUd

April 29th, 2006, 02:07 AM

^^ Glad your happy

nomarandlee

April 29th, 2006, 02:29 AM

^^ hey red, The US wc was finacially a succes obviously but i just don't like the way the Americans view it as a franchise.

I guess some people just want soccer where it has conquered all other sports ruthlessly and been declared the national sport of the nation to be able to host a world cup. Did the lack of people singing nationalistic soccer songs in Detroit or Dallas really bother people that much? Obviously enough people are "mad" or at least have a mild liking of soccer in the U.S. is 60k-90k are buying not so cheap tickets for games between Saudi Arabia and Cameroon!!!!

I understand that is seems "phony" or something because U.S. sport doesn't revolve around soccer and hold its collective breath around the sport and one would rather have it in places where it did but it is also somewhat insular, insecure, and petty also to want it in nations where it is "undisputed" and the king of all sport and if it is not then a nation doesn't "deserve" to have the games. Listen, if people in a city/counry can get 80k to dish out $60 to go see a game to see two countries of little importance to them then I say there is some merit to them showing enough GENUINE interest that they do in fact "deserve" the games.

That said if the U.S. doesn't get the games until 2034 that is fine with me and I wouldn't care either way. There are many good places it can go in the meantime.

Socrates

April 29th, 2006, 02:32 AM

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

The RoseBowl reminds me of the old Hampden.

http://i3.tinypic.com/wmo7lh.jpg

Ze Englander Swine!!

April 29th, 2006, 02:43 AM

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3497/untitled333332sq.jpg

Ze Englander Swine!!

April 29th, 2006, 02:52 AM

This clip shows the some of the old Hampden.

http://media.putfile.com/glasgow--rangers-----davie--cooper--v--tic-----dryborough--cup--1

The Game Is Up

April 29th, 2006, 04:45 AM

Face it. A lot has changed since 1994. Geopolitically. Socially. Football-wise. If anything, WC94 was the spark FIFA wanted to get these other federations to think more about aggressive marketing and using the new media to promote the sport more. WC94 was the turning point of that trend.

With the rise of the BRIC nations and the increasing importance of Asia, FIFA's focus will drift further away from the traditional Europe/S.America axis towards the more non-traditional markets. You already have the World Clubs Championship in Japan. Youth tournaments in many Asian nations. These things work slowly but, eventually, you're going to see the World Cup in China, Malaysia/Singapore, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Iran and maybe even India before this century's end.

Kampflamm

April 29th, 2006, 01:38 PM

yure323

April 29th, 2006, 02:31 PM

There's a lot of SSS ( Soccer Specific Stadiums ) being constucted in the US ( and Canada ), and not just for MLS teams but also smaller ones for USL ( second division ) teams.
Already built :
Home Depot Center in Carson,CA ( home of LA Galaxy and Chivas USA - capacity 27.000, opened in 2003 ) :
http://www.meyersound.com/news/2003/home_depot/main.jpg
Columbus Crew stadium , capacity 22.555, opened in 1999 :
http://www.clarkcompanies.com/Site%20Revision/images/Large%20Project%20Photos/Columbus%20Crew%20Stadium.jpg
Blackbaud stadium in Charleston,SC ( capacity 5.113, opened in 1999 ) :
http://www.elsalvador.com/noticias/2002/11/13/deportes/est1.JPG
Pizza Hut Park in Frisco,TX ( home of FC Dallas, capacity 21.193, opened in 2005 ) :
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/usa/pizza_hut_park/110.jpg
In constuction or proposed :
Bridgeview stadium ( future home of Chicago Fire, capacity 20.000, going to open on the 23rd of June 2006 ) :
http://www.aegworldwide.com/img/04_future/future_bridgeview.jpg
PAETEC Park in Rochester,NY ( Rochester Rhinos, capacity 17.500, going to open in June 2006 ) :
http://www.rhinossoccer.com/photos/data/2/medium/2902_lr.jpg
Colorado Rapids stadium in Denver,CO ( capacity 18.000, going to open in April 2007 ) :
http://real.saltlake.mlsnet.com/images/2005/09/28/JaSDPDZi.jpg
Toronto MLS stadium, capacity 20.000, going to open in June 2007 :
http://www.worldstadia.com/data/images/p/p/ppex051210202732.jpg
Red Bull Park in Harrison,NJ ( home of NY Red Bulls , capacity was going to be 20.000 but now RB purchased the club and they may change the plans, there is a chance that the stadium will have a retractable roof, it's going to open in April 2008 ), rendering from September 2005 :
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/past_future/pictures/future_stadiums/harrison_metrostars.jpg
Sandy stadium in Salt Lake City , capacity 25.000, going to open in 2008 :
http://saltlake.matchnight.com/sitegfx/new_rsl_stadium.jpg
Whitecaps stadium in Vancouver, capacity 15.000, going to open in 2009/10:
http://photos2.whitecapsfc.com/photos/2005/events/stadium%20launch/stadium%20145.jpg

NFLeuropefan

April 29th, 2006, 02:33 PM

Its AlL gUUd

April 29th, 2006, 02:40 PM

Its AlL gUUd

April 29th, 2006, 02:42 PM

I think FIFA have experimented and gave the tournament to hosts with little interest in football, but it is about time to get the passion, tradition and culture back into the tournament. The World Cup shouldn't just be used as an advertisement for football it should be seen as the pinnacle of football.

Its AlL gUUd

April 29th, 2006, 02:44 PM

NFLeuropefan

April 29th, 2006, 02:52 PM

Problem is, the capacity of these stadiums are so small, what do you do for big games????

yure323

April 29th, 2006, 03:11 PM

This what i like to see, if the North Americans are serious about football, they should be building these stadia, instead of playing them in NFL stadia which is like a kick in the teeth for the sport of football. :okay:
and I didn't post all of the stadiums, there's also a stadium opening in Atlanta this year : http://www.atlantasilverbacks.com/pro/stadium.php
A stadium is going to be built in Montreal, but they haven't decided where to build it yet, it looks like Washington,DC and Kansas City will soon get a soccer stadium, Houston Dynamo from MLS doesn't have plans to build a stadium but I'm certain they'll build one in the near future, the only team in MLS that isn't going to build a soccer specific stadium is the New England Revolution, but that's because their owner Kraft owns Gillette stadium ( 67.000 ) and already keeps all the revenue and doesn't pay rent.
Also any expansion city must have a SSS if it wants a team in MLS, next year MLS will expand to Toronto, and in 2008 probably to Cleveland ( maybe St.Louis or Millwaukee ).

Martuh

April 29th, 2006, 03:14 PM

Problem is, the capacity of these stadiums are so small, what do you do for big games????

There's probably a big football stadium in the States somewhere around.

yure323

April 29th, 2006, 03:17 PM

Problem is, the capacity of these stadiums are so small, what do you do for big games????
They're building small for better atmosphere,stadiums this size are perfect for concerts and it creates demand. As for the big games, they can be played in Football stadiums like last year's LA Galaxy - Chivas USA game at the LA Coliseum ( it was a America - Chivas doubleheader, attendance 88.000 )

Scba

April 29th, 2006, 03:59 PM

Problem is, the capacity of these stadiums are so small, what do you do for big games????
For truly big events, they can just go to one of our football stadiums.

20,000 is a nice size for an MLS team, you aren't going to draw too much more than that any time soon.

Zaqattaq

April 29th, 2006, 04:23 PM

Problem is, the capacity of these stadiums are so small, what do you do for big games????

The MLS has no big games

The only one you could fill a large stadium for is the Los Angeles Derby between Galaxy and Chivas USA.

What the MLS needs to do to become a real football league:

1. Abandon the Final, however it may not appeal to Americans the league title should be awarded to the highest point total like any other league.

2. An MLS CUP (FA Cup style including the USL teams)

3. Relegation and promotion between MLS and USL (like the point system this probably wouldn't work for Americans)

4. Get rid of the draft

5. Allow transfers for money instead of trades

6. No salary cap

7. Market better to Latinos

8. Include Canada

9. Gain 50 years of club heritage

10. US win the World Cup (will happen in the next 100 years)

11. Get proper football club names

12. Proper football kits

13. Freddy Adu actually gets good

yure323

April 29th, 2006, 04:28 PM

For truly big events, they can just go to one of our football stadiums.

20,000 is a nice size for an MLS team, you aren't going to draw too much more than that any time soon.
Yeah, and they're all going to be expandable to around 30,000 ( i know HDC from LA can be expandable to 35.000 quite easily ).

utrecht

April 29th, 2006, 04:36 PM

Netherlands:

51.000 - ArenA - Built in 1996:
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/niederlande/amsterdam_arena/120.jpg

26.000 - Abe Lenstra Stadion - Rebuilt 2004-2006
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/niederlande/abe_lenstra_stadion/100.jpg

26.000 - Gelredome - Built in 1998
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/niederlande/gelredome/110.jpg

25.000 - Galgenwaard - Rebuilt 2003-2005
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/niederlande/nieuw_galgenwaard/100.jpg

22.000 - Euroborg - Built in 2006
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/niederlande/stadion_euroborg/130.jpg

20.000 - Parkstad - Built in 2000
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/niederlande/parkstad_limburg_stadion/100.jpg

But there's more:
MyCom Stadion - 17.000 (capacity)- 1996
Willem II Stadion - 15.000 - 1996
Arke Stadion - 15.000 - 1998

Future:
ADO Den Haag - 20.000 (year 2008?)
AZ - 15.000 (2006)

It's unbelievable, but in the last ten years in the Netherlanders are built at least 15 new stadiums in the highest football league!!!

Breakwood

April 29th, 2006, 05:16 PM

Netherlands:

It's unbelievable, but in the last ten years in the Netherlanders are built at least 15 new stadiums in the highest football league!!!

And this has to do with North America how?

Its AlL gUUd

April 29th, 2006, 05:17 PM

I know why put those Dutch stadiums on here?

teunster

April 29th, 2006, 06:19 PM

... *snap* ...
You're either extremely dumb, or very chauvinistic..
Or perhaps even both.

:sleepy:

Iggybumtastic

April 29th, 2006, 07:18 PM

What is this Dutch mincer playing at??? Piss off horse-porn lover, shouldn't you be running away from a German?

This thread is for the best country in the World - The United States Of America!!

great prairie

April 29th, 2006, 07:21 PM

Whilst the game is still regarded as a carrier of liberalism, homosexuality and potentially a threat to their Republic and Constitution by many of the older Americans

rofl, if David Beckham wasn't so light in his loafers this wouldn't a be a problem :)

edit: oh god I just realized you claimed it would hurt our CONSTITUTION.....LAY DOWN THE CRACK PIPE

Quintana

April 29th, 2006, 07:29 PM

Spotting Bubomb isn't even remotely funny anymore...

Iggybumtastic

April 29th, 2006, 07:33 PM

David Beckham - total SHIT STABBER!!

yure323

April 29th, 2006, 07:54 PM

The MLS has no big games

The only one you could fill a large stadium for is the Los Angeles Derby between Galaxy and Chivas USA.

What the MLS needs to do to become a real football league:

1. Abandon the Final, however it may not appeal to Americans the league title should be awarded to the highest point total like any other league.

2. An MLS CUP (FA Cup style including the USL teams)

3. Relegation and promotion between MLS and USL (like the point system this probably wouldn't work for Americans)

4. Get rid of the draft

5. Allow transfers for money instead of trades

6. No salary cap

7. Market better to Latinos

8. Include Canada

9. Gain 50 years of club heritage

10. US win the World Cup (will happen in the next 100 years)

11. Get proper football club names

12. Proper football kits

13. Freddy Adu actually gets good
1. wouldn't work, because everything besides first place would be meaningless in Europe they fight against relegation and for spots in european competitions.
2. Ever heard of the US Open Cup ? http://www.usopencup.com/History/index_E.html
3. MLS is a single entity , USL's teams are individualy owned , pro/rel is not gonna happen in the near future if ever ( unless when MLS reaches its goal of 18 teams, and then create a MLS-2 )
4. The commisioner of MLS said that they will always keep the draft, although teams will be encouraged to build their own youth acadamies and they will get to keep the players that come out of their youth acadamies.
5. MLS is a single entity, players have a contract with MLS, they just allocated to a team. Single entity has kept this league afloat for 10 years.
6. There's no real salary cap, it's more of a "salary suggestion", because only 5 teams are under the "salary cap", and the highest salary for a MLS player is 300.000, but Palencia,Donovan,Adu and a few others are payed much more.
7. Chivas USA is basicly a mexican team in LA , 40% of MLS' fanbase is hispanic, starting next year MLS will be televised on Univision again ( it was on Univision 1996-2000 ).
8. Toronto will be in MLS next year.
9. gonna take time...
10. it doesn't really matter IMO
11. MLS does have some crappy names like ( Real Salt Lake ) but there are also some good ones
12. Does a "proper" football jersey got to have a sponsor on the front ?

NEWWORLD

April 29th, 2006, 07:59 PM

nice looking stadiums

You are to blame

April 29th, 2006, 08:24 PM

Here is a more recent render of toronto's stadium which is well under construction and opens in 2007 for Canada's first MLS team and the U-23 World Championships.

http://www.insidesoccer.ca/leagues/5349/graphics/toronto%20stadium%20picture.jpg

and here is Atlanta's stadium, 1st phase opens in june

http://www.atlantasilverbacks.com/siteadmin/news_images/stadiuminfo.jpg

ASupertall4SD

April 29th, 2006, 08:32 PM

DrJoe

April 29th, 2006, 09:16 PM

Here is a more recent render of toronto's stadium which is well under construction and opens in 2007 for Canada's first MLS team and the U-23 World Championships.

http://www.insidesoccer.ca/leagues/5349/graphics/toronto%20stadium%20picture.jpg

This thing is going to be such a piece of junk. It's basically 2 grandstands and nothing else.

yure323

April 29th, 2006, 09:39 PM

This thing is going to be such a piece of junk. It's basically 2 grandstands and nothing else.
That's because the U-23 World Championship starts in June 2007 and it has to be finished by then, and the owners Maple Leafs Sports & Entertainment aren't spending a lot of money for the stadium.

Lostboy

April 29th, 2006, 11:15 PM

Very encouraging. And the size of the stadia are just about right. Impressive that the stadia are comparable to many top divisions in Europe (yeah I know about the size and the wealth etc, but still for a league that competes against four far bigger and better funded leagues, its not bad at all).

Lostboy

April 29th, 2006, 11:42 PM

I never made such a claim. I stated that certain rather ill-informed people hold this view, one that I believe to be erroneous and unfounded.

Bigmac1212

April 30th, 2006, 12:56 AM

Wichita, Kansas is getting ready for a new hockey arena. Now, residents are asked to pick which exeterior design will be used. There's three to pick from.
Design 1:
http://www.sedgwickcounty.org/arena/arena_designs/A.Arial.jpg
http://www.sedgwickcounty.org/arena/arena_designs/A.Front.jpg
Design 2:
http://www.sedgwickcounty.org/arena/arena_designs/B.Arial.jpg
http://www.sedgwickcounty.org/arena/arena_designs/B.Front.jpg
Design 3:
http://www.sedgwickcounty.org/arena/arena_designs/C.Arial.jpg
http://www.sedgwickcounty.org/arena/arena_designs/C.Front.jpg

My order, based on tastes:
2
1
3

LosAngelesSportsFan

April 30th, 2006, 01:33 AM

Funny.
Germany would surely get those attendancies. Just for a start: Do you have any idea how many romanians or russians there are in Germany? Its a lot trust me.
France had low attendancies because they didnt have enough big stadiums.
France isnt a traditional "big" football nation.

Btw. The average attendancy for a Bundesliga game in Germany is around 41.000.
The average attendancy for a NFL game is lower as far as I know.

the average NFL attendance is almost twice that.

LosAngelesSportsFan

April 30th, 2006, 01:36 AM

Sure if they like to sit on benches in a concrete bowl with no roof its their problem really.

Most of the stadium is seats, only about 25000 seats are bleachers and why the hell would they build a roof in a stadium in Los Angeles?

Goofy

April 30th, 2006, 01:38 AM

Most of the stadium is seats, only about 25000 seats are bleachers and why the hell would they build a roof in a stadium in Los Angeles?

To keep you dry if it rains.

LosAngelesSportsFan

April 30th, 2006, 01:44 AM

To keep you dry if it rains.

it doesnt rain in summer in LA.

Its AlL gUUd

April 30th, 2006, 01:45 AM

^^ Makes for a better atmosphere aswell

Goofy

April 30th, 2006, 01:47 AM

it doesnt rain in summer in LA.

Yes it does.

pompeyfan

April 30th, 2006, 01:52 AM

Yes it does.

You would know?

Goofy

April 30th, 2006, 01:54 AM

You would know?

Well said.

Its AlL gUUd

April 30th, 2006, 01:55 AM

You would know?

i'll answer for him, Yes

Iggybumtastic

April 30th, 2006, 02:03 AM

You've got laugh at these European arseholes!! A roof in a Los Angeles stadium - grow up YOU PALE SKINNED MUPPETS!! It's Los Angeles, not some shitty miserable Manchester canal!

Goofy

April 30th, 2006, 02:04 AM

You've got laugh at these European arseholes!! A roof in a Los Angeles stadium - grow up YOU PALE SKINNED MUPPETS!! It's Los Angeles, not some shitty miserable Manchester canal!

Racist

Its AlL gUUd

April 30th, 2006, 02:05 AM

You've got laugh at these European arseholes!! A roof in a Los Angeles stadium - grow up YOU PALE SKINNED MUPPETS!! It's Los Angeles, not some shitty miserable Manchester canal!

now you've done it, you've woken up the MANCS!!

I didn't realise how much americans hate Europeans. is this true or just you?

NFLeuropefan

April 30th, 2006, 02:12 AM

the average NFL attendance is almost twice that.

Yep, about 68,000 a game..... That figure looks like it will be topped again this year.....

NavyBlue

April 30th, 2006, 02:36 AM

What a worthless, pathetic thread. :ohno: So the US had big venues. Awesome. If Germany had 12 90,000 seaters, we'd probably break the record, as a matter of fact, any European country would probably break the US record.
I beg to differ . . . It's time some of you Europeans gave credit to a country where soccer is a distant competitor in their domestic market yet held a remarkably successful tournament on and off the pitch, instead of bringing up futile arguments such as passion, soulless etc. The fact is no other country can even come close to what the USA '94 achieved for a variety of reasons and I think that burns deep for some.

Goofy

April 30th, 2006, 02:38 AM

I beg to differ . . . It's time some of you Europeans gave credit to a country where soccer is a distant competitor in their domestic market yet held a remarkably successful tournament on and off the pitch, instead of bringing up futile arguments such as passion, soulless etc. The fact is no other country can even come close to what the USA '94 achieved for a variety of reasons and I think that burns deep for some.

It was pure bilge on the pic.

Iggybumtastic

April 30th, 2006, 02:44 AM

Iggybumtastic

April 30th, 2006, 02:45 AM

Racist

Racilist

Its AlL gUUd

April 30th, 2006, 02:47 AM

Racilist

Racialist

Its AlL gUUd

April 30th, 2006, 02:49 AM

NFLeuropefan

April 30th, 2006, 03:24 AM

How???

Goofy

April 30th, 2006, 03:30 AM

How???

Thick as pig shit

hngcm

April 30th, 2006, 03:43 AM

hngcm

April 30th, 2006, 03:46 AM

2
1
3

as well

3tmk

April 30th, 2006, 03:48 AM

#3 looks like that drive-thru from the Flinstones intro :D
I say:
3
2
1

Marcanadian

April 30th, 2006, 03:56 AM

3 looks like the Bowlerama from the Simpsons.
1's roof is pretty bad.
Number 2 is very nice.

steveowevo

April 30th, 2006, 04:08 AM

I like 2, 3, 1

LosAngelesSportsFan

April 30th, 2006, 04:10 AM

Yes it does.

no shit? thanks. i guess ive been living in a different Los Angeles all my life. Seriously though, a place with arguable the best weather on earth and you want to put a roof on the stadium?

great prairie

April 30th, 2006, 04:18 AM

I didn't realise how much americans hate Europeans. is this true or just you?

IT IS THE WHOLE COUNTRY

MUST KILL THE QUEEN!
MUST KILL THE QUEEN!
MUST KILL THE QUEEN!
MUST KILL THE QUEEN!
MUST KILL THE QUEEN!
MUST KILL THE QUEEN!
MUST KILL THE QUEEN!
MUST KILL THE QUEEN!
MUST KILL THE QUEEN!
MUST KILL THE QUEEN!
MUST KILL THE QUEEN!
MUST KILL THE QUEEN!
MUST KILL THE QUEEN!
MUST KILL THE QUEEN!
MUST KILL THE QUEEN!
MUST KILL THE QUEEN!

great prairie

April 30th, 2006, 04:30 AM

sorry all, but a salary cap is the best idea sports has ever thought of. Parity is importnat. Having Serie dominant clubs like Jue and Inter and AC Milan is fine and dandy, but not fair for everyone else. It is the same teams each and every year, and that is boring.

Serie B has decided to use a salary cap next year for the first time ever, and smaller clubs and italians all over are rejoicing. IT NEEDS to happen. My friend in Naples is excited because it means teams are judged on the ability to form a team rather than spend the money.

I agree the NFL has a hard cap and parity is one of the things makes the league so popular. Out of 32 teams it is very to pick out who will be the worst or best next year..... The only downside is once a veteran player has his contract run out sometimes a team can't find room for him. A good example is Willie McGinest with the Patriots who is a 12 year veteran(all with patriots) and has been an all-star several times, he was also a fan favorite. He was a key player on 3 super bowl teams. They couldn't even offer him a contract because they needed to make room for younger players and with his age he was no longer in his "prime".

Those 1-11 suggestions where very eurocentric, it is an American League and needs to appeal to what americans know....

You are to blame

April 30th, 2006, 04:35 AM

I did not know that the MLS was expanding to Toronto, interesting.

I would love to have an MLS team here in San Diego, but we don't have a soccer specific staidum (well we have Torero stadium, but that's about 4k).

Toronto joins the league in 2007 as the 13th team

St louis and/or Cleveland will join in 2008, a philidelphia area team in 2009.

Some recent U/C pics
Chicago FireBridgeview Stadium
http://www.kenn.com/soccer/bridgeview/bridgeview_panorama08.jpg
http://www.kenn.com/soccer/bridgeview/bridgeview_panorama01.jpg
http://chicago.fire.mlsnet.com/chf/imgs/stadium/bridgeview/construction_photos/2006/03_21_06/2.jpg
http://chicago.fire.mlsnet.com/chf/imgs/stadium/bridgeview/construction_photos/2006/03_20_06/4.jpg
http://www.fifthofficial.com/images/bview.gif

Colorado Rapids stadium
http://www.coloradorapids.com/images/community/gallery67.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~torymatt/New_Stadium_west_side.JPG

Also montreal will soon start construction of a soccer stadium for the montreal impact of the USL

dewback

April 30th, 2006, 04:39 AM

I like #2 the best

asohn

April 30th, 2006, 04:50 AM

1, 2, 3

XCRunner

April 30th, 2006, 05:49 AM

Cool pics. Bridgeview looks great, I like that brick (although I would have preferred the red seats from the renderings to the actual dark blue).

Zorba

April 30th, 2006, 06:35 AM

2-1-3

NeilF

April 30th, 2006, 06:42 AM

2-3-1

Giorgio

April 30th, 2006, 06:44 AM

2
1
3

3 looks like an airport.

victory

April 30th, 2006, 06:48 AM

1. = #1
2. = #2
3. = #3

Brent H.

April 30th, 2006, 09:13 AM

I agree the NFL has a hard cap and parity is one of the things makes the league so popular. Out of 32 teams it is very to pick out who will be the worst or best next year..... The only downside is once a veteran player has his contract run out sometimes a team can't find room for him. A good example is Willie McGinest with the Patriots who is a 12 year veteran(all with patriots) and has been an all-star several times, he was also a fan favorite. He was a key player on 3 super bowl teams. They couldn't even offer him a contract because they needed to make room for younger players and with his age he was no longer in his "prime".

Under the American system of franchises and no relegation, caps are a must, not only to keep teams from over spending and dominating, but more importantly to keep teams from underspending. I know there have been complaints from the Buffalo Bills owner about the salary cap, largely due to the fact that having a cap means theres a floor as well. He wants to spend less money than the current floor.

They either have to have a cap like the NFL or relegation like club soccer, if theres something in between (like MLB) it wont work.

Basically the franchise system insures that the teams make money, they all split the TV money, they have revenue sharing and other such things. In MLB certain owners can make a profit using the tv revenues, sponsorships, and corporate suites, even if no one shows up to the games or buys their stuff, they dont care. Heck if the reported figures are accurate the Pirates and Devil Rays make more profit than the Yankees and Red Sox. MLB's system almost discourages winning. If they had the relegation system, the Devil Rays and the Royals and teams like that would actually have some sense of urgency and some desire to finish better than last place! A cap would make them feel like they could be competitive and once again discourage losing.

The Yankees do make me sick with their overspending, but teams like the Pirates make me equally as sick. The owners built PNC Park with taxpayer money and yet they refuse to pay for some decent players.

Quintana

April 30th, 2006, 11:51 AM

1-3-2

chester84

April 30th, 2006, 12:13 PM

definately #2

Lostboy

April 30th, 2006, 01:04 PM

I didn't realise how much americans hate Europeans. is this true or just you?

Anyone using the term muppets, I'm guessing is a European. Furthermore they are an English Speaking European. I'm willing to stick my neck out that they are not from Cyprus, Malta, Gibraltar, Jersey, Guernsey or Mann, from numbers alone. Irish People tend not to be that stupid. And if I had to hazard a guess from a country within Britain then I'll really stick my neck out and say Scotland.

teunster

April 30th, 2006, 03:11 PM

What is this Dutch mincer playing at??? Piss off horse-porn lover, shouldn't you be running away from a German?

This thread is for the best country in the World - The United States Of America!! :cheers:

Zaqattaq

April 30th, 2006, 03:27 PM

Under the American system of franchises and no relegation, caps are a must, not only to keep teams from over spending and dominating, but more importantly to keep teams from underspending. I know there have been complaints from the Buffalo Bills owner about the salary cap, largely due to the fact that having a cap means theres a floor as well. He wants to spend less money than the current floor.

They either have to have a cap like the NFL or relegation like club soccer, if theres something in between (like MLB) it wont work.

Basically the franchise system insures that the teams make money, they all split the TV money, they have revenue sharing and other such things. In MLB certain owners can make a profit using the tv revenues, sponsorships, and corporate suites, even if no one shows up to the games or buys their stuff, they dont care. Heck if the reported figures are accurate the Pirates and Devil Rays make more profit than the Yankees and Red Sox. MLB's system almost discourages winning. If they had the relegation system, the Devil Rays and the Royals and teams like that would actually have some sense of urgency and some desire to finish better than last place! A cap would make them feel like they could be competitive and once again discourage losing.

The Yankees do make me sick with their overspending, but teams like the Pirates make me equally as sick. The owners built PNC Park with taxpayer money and yet they refuse to pay for some decent players.

Amen

2zanzibar

April 30th, 2006, 05:02 PM

Iain1974

April 30th, 2006, 05:25 PM

Well done Serie B!!

I'm not a fan of salary caps but in the US sports where relegation doesn't happen they make sense.

Scba

April 30th, 2006, 05:36 PM

I really like how 'open' all of them are. Some Euro stadiums just seem cavernous, even if they have smaller capacities.

jmancuso

May 1st, 2006, 01:00 AM

this thread is shit. :sleepy:

hngcm

May 1st, 2006, 05:37 AM

Toronto joins the league in 2007 as the 13th team

St louis and/or Cleveland will join in 2008, a philidelphia area team in 2009.

Is that a done deal?

alesmarv

May 1st, 2006, 08:29 AM

Vancouvers proposed soccer specific stadium to be built by 2009. This stadium would be built next to the end stations of two metro lines, a pasenger train station and a sea bus terminal, aperently it would be one of the worlds most public transit friendly stadiums. It would initialy have a capacity of 15,000 which would be expadabel to 30,000. :)

http://www.whitecapsnewstadium.com/data/upload/renderings_soccer.jpg

http://www.whitecapsnewstadium.com/data/upload/renderings_conert.jpg
http://www.whitecapsnewstadium.com/data/upload/renderings_city.jpg
http://www.whitecapsnewstadium.com/data/upload/renderings_aerial_map.jpg
http://www.whitecapsnewstadium.com/data/upload/renderings_birds_eye_map.jpg

Lostboy

May 1st, 2006, 01:30 PM

Do you think a more spectacular backdrop is possible for a stadium?

Reptilikus

May 1st, 2006, 02:34 PM

I allways wonder why there doesn't seem to be a tradition to put roofs over the spectators on Football stadiums i America.
More new stadiums i now build with retractable roofs, while other still is build with very little or no roof at all!

Doesn't the Americans care if it rains or is it just to expensive?

Gillette Stadium 2002
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/massachusetts/foxboro_gillette1.jpg

INVESCO Field at Mile High 2001
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/colorado/denver_invesco1.jpg

Lincoln Financial Field 2003
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/pennsylvania/philadelphia_lincoln1.jpg

European stadiums with roof over the spectators

Stade de France 1998
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/france/ile_de_france/saint_denis1.jpg

Olympiastadion Berlin 2005
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/germany/berlin/berlin_olympiastadion1.jpg

Estádio da Luz (Lisbon) 2003
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/portugal/lisbon_luz1.jpg

Lostboy

May 1st, 2006, 03:10 PM

It just comes from a different sporting tradition in a different climate. Also it seems that its more common for American Football Games to be played in daylight rather than as is common across Europe to have many games played in the evening. Additionally there are some teams in Europe with a similar climate to Southern America like Spain and Italy which don't play under full roofs.

Americans are rather sensitive about any topic which appears to be criticising them, and while far from being an Americophile or an Atlanticist, I can quite understand, Europeans often tend to be both rather unkind and ignorant of American Sports, in a way that Americans just aren't of European Based Sports.

eddyk

May 1st, 2006, 03:27 PM

Rantanamo is going to love this thread for sure.

Noostairz

May 1st, 2006, 03:50 PM

the design of those nfl stadiums certainly does expose the crowd to the elements, but isn't that what outdoor winter sports are all about - getting wrapped up warm and braving the elements to watch two teams battle it out come rain or shine.

over here we seem to call games off even if there's the slightest bit of snow, although it never used to be like that. in new england even where there's no roof and it's a blizzard outside the show must go on! admirable stuff!

http://orangeride.com/archives/2002/nfl_playoffs/snowyfield.jpg

http://orangeride.com/archives/2002/nfl_playoffs/crowd.jpg

http://orangeride.com/archives/2002/nfl_playoffs/snowy_beer.jpg

rantanamo

May 1st, 2006, 04:13 PM

All I will say is that we have better weather than European countries that have lots of roof(notice Spain doesn't have a lot of roof). At the same time, I'd say our weather is a bit more extreme as well as the uses of our stadiums being different. You can also use the nature of baseball as well. If it rains enough that a roof is needed, a baseball game is cancelled. Therefore, the question is why would it be needed?

questions for the original poster:

1.) Why are roofs considered to be so expensive by the original poster? If you look at the cost of the stadiums, the American stadiums are very comparable or more expensive in many cases? This might suggest that many luxuries and/or design cues are left out of their roofed counterparts just for the roof. So why do that if you're playing in Florida(the sunshine state) Also, look at Forbes list of the most valuable franchises. The NFL franchises are pretty damned valuable on average compared to any other sport. Affordability isn't the question.

2.) If roofs are that important to non American Football, then why not go the extra step that many NFL(and MLB) franchises are going and create full retractable roofs, that can close to the amount the team desires for a given match? Why does the U.S. have a number of retractables that is comparable to all of those in the rest of the world? Or even just have indoor stadiums like in the U.S.(which also has a comparable number to the rest of the world combined. This is generally how places with inclement weather on a regular basis are dealt with(the acception being Texas Stadium, which was engineered to be retractable in 1971 and Qwest, which is roofed and probably the most similar in climate to England)

3.) Why is there never a criticism of the Japanese tendency of playing indoors? I know why they do, but do you?

4.) If Americans are sensitive, its because of the repeated waves of European(mainly British as the roof is not necessarily European) posters asking the same questions, making criticisms based on how their stadiums have to be built based on their sports and climates, and the continuous criticism from those same posters trying to discredit our sports. We've heard it all before. I've been reading this board for maybe 2 years now. The same posts come up maybe 3 times a year by a new poster. At least there hasn't been an EU vs USA stadium post lately. Probably because the moderators don't tolerate them anymore.

5.) Does a roof stop the cold? For Soldier Field, Philly, New England or Invesco to add a European style roof, it would have to stop the cold. Otherwise you just dome it like Detroit or Minnesota.

rantanamo

May 1st, 2006, 04:23 PM

yes, lol

Reptilikus

May 1st, 2006, 05:57 PM

CharlieP

May 1st, 2006, 06:44 PM

If you look at the cost of the stadiums, the American stadiums are very comparable or more expensive in many cases? This might suggest that many luxuries and/or design cues are left out of their roofed counterparts just for the roof.

If you look at Gilette and Lincoln Financial, they seem to have run out of money before they could finish the ends.

:jk:

DrJoe

May 1st, 2006, 06:49 PM

Hey, I'm just trying to learn her!
So the weather in Philly and New England is better than the weather in Europe, and a football game is cancelled in bad weather?

It is only cancelled if there is a thunderstorm. No amount of rain, snow, heat, cold will cancel an NFL game.

Socrates

May 1st, 2006, 06:52 PM

It is only cancelled if there is a thunderstorm. No amount of rain, snow, heat, cold will cancel an NFL game.
What if its so hot the goalposts melt?

Martuh

May 1st, 2006, 07:18 PM

This is a rather good development. Nice and good expandable stadia. Well done, US and Canada.

BostonSkyGuy

May 1st, 2006, 07:51 PM

Being from Boston and a fan of the New England Patriots (who play in Gillette stadium) I'll explain a few reasons we don't have a dome.

1- The weather makes for great games. See the pics of the blizzard which was at our old stadium. It was actually our last game there against the Raiders in the playoffs. It was one of the better games in NFL history and the weather had a lot to do with it. Our kicker made some impossible kicks to tie and win the game, in blizzard conditions.

2- Notice the crowd? People here don't care what the weather is. If it's raining you get wet, if it's snowing you get snowed on, if it's hot you sweat. We don't need a dome to protect us from the weather, you're not going to die from being rained or snowed on. Football was meant to be played out doors and I think many Americans particularly from cold-weather cities frown upon stadiums with domes or roofs.

3- Home Field Advantage. When you're a cold weather city like Boston, Chicago, Philly, Green Bay you have a built in advantage over other cities that either come from domes or from warm weather places. There was a stat around that the Tampa Bay Bucaneers who play outdoors in Florida were something like 0-36 when they played in weather below 32 degrees (Fahrenheit) so for them to come to play in a city where it's going to snow or be cold, that's a disadvantage.

Soccer cannot really be played in some of the conditions of American Football. For example if the snow got as bad as the football game in the pics shown here, the game would be cancelled. Maybe the crowds don't want to sit and watch soccer in snow or rain? You tell me. Here in most places it's not a big deal to watch a game under inclimate weather, it's almost more fun. It doesn't really take away from the game all that much, you have to play differently in the snow, but it makes for a fun game.

BostonSkyGuy

May 1st, 2006, 07:58 PM

Hey, I'm just trying to learn her!
So the weather in Philly and New England is better than the weather in Europe, and a football game is cancelled in bad weather?

No, the weather isn't necessarily better. It's just Football is played when it's scheduled. Not many things except excessive lightning or earthquakes or hurricanes (both of which are very rare) cancel games.

And no, a roof doesn't stop the cold, but it helps! Does it have to be one way of the other?

Here most of the stadiums with roofs have climate control settings so that they play the game at say 60 degrees (Fahrenheit). Personally I like the weather, I think a football game indoors is like playing soccer in the water, it's pointless.

Like you say the NFL is one of the richest leagues in the world, and like you indicate it another tradition and other priorities. I just think it would look great if some of these great stadiums was roofed like in Europe.
I have no interest in trying to discredit your sport and I doesn't want a discussion of Europe stadiums v.s US stadiums. The stadiums are different like the sports are. Both great in their own way!

See, this is what you have to understand. Just because a team doesn't have a roof doesn't mean it cannot afford one. Having a roof doesn't mean a team is richer than another, it's the owner's choice. A lot of teams now are putting roofs or domes on their stadiums because they want to host the Super Bowl. They're not going to have a Super Bowl in a cold weather city with an outdoor stadium because they don't want snow to change the game or make the people watching uncomfortable.

Lostboy

May 1st, 2006, 08:01 PM

I think the question of cost is a stupid one. Building some mediocore Dutch Stadia with a 30,000 capacity and a roof is a lot cheaper than building an 80,000 top of the range Gridiron stadium.

Maybe Americans just don't feel any need for roofs, and as they are the ones with massive gridiron stadiums, they're probably the best authority on that.

Lostboy

May 1st, 2006, 08:04 PM

Well short of putting it between two canals and a Renaissance Cathedral in Venice. I think you'd be hard pressed between the centre of the city by the coast with beautiful mountains in the background. I should visit Vancouver sometime.

BostonSkyGuy

May 1st, 2006, 08:06 PM

Lostboy

May 1st, 2006, 08:18 PM

Is there more interest in soccer in the North-East of America than in other regions then?

archifreese

May 1st, 2006, 08:19 PM

^i agree with your above statements, but the cost of the roof is definitely a consideration. NFL stadiums are only used for 8 regular season games and some pre and post season matches. It is not cost effective to spend say 5-15% of the stadiums budget on a roofing system when its so infrequently used. It is more cost effective to spend it on more seats, luxury boxes or some other feature that turns a profit every time the stadium is open. I hate to say this, but as an architect i am very aware of the role that budget plays in features like roofs, facades, etc. during stadium or other building designs, and the truth is about maximizing profit on the product to the developers.

yure323

May 1st, 2006, 08:43 PM

I really hope they build a soccer specific stadium here in Boston/New England. The Revolution are a good team (by MLS standards anyways) and hopefully the following around here will grow to where Bob Kraft (owner of the Revolution and Patriots) will build a stadium adjacent to Gillette. It would really help the MLS IMO--to have one of their better teams have a soccer specific stadium.

I really like Vancouver's stadium, not only for the stadium itself but for the backdrop. Toronto's looks very...half-assed. Doesn't seem like they put much effort into designing it. Hopefully it changes, but I won't hold my breath.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but i doubt the Revs will ever build a SSS whilst they're owned by Bob Kraft, because Kraft ownes Gillette stadium and the Revs actually made money last year.
NE Revolution will probably be the only franchise without it's own SSS in a few years :(

Iggybumtastic

May 1st, 2006, 09:01 PM

Yes, it was agreed by most Americans on the board a few months ago that most American stadiums don't have roofs simply because the clubs/cities can't afford the extra expense.

yure323

May 1st, 2006, 09:01 PM

Is there more interest in soccer in the North-East of America than in other regions then?
No, it's just as popular in other regions,IMO.
For example the LA Galaxy has the highest average attendance in MLS ( 24.000 last year ), and St.Louis is regarded as "Soccer City USA" and has a rich soccer history. The North-West also has a rich soccer history with three successful former NASL teams Portland Timbers,Seattle Sounders and Vancouver Whitecaps.

Iggybumtastic

May 1st, 2006, 09:03 PM

The stadium location in Vancouver is superb. Great city and it would be a great stadium.

Iggybumtastic

May 1st, 2006, 09:05 PM

Socrates

May 1st, 2006, 09:10 PM

MLS goal of the year......................HOLY SMOKES (drills it through the upper 90????)

mms://a1503.v115042.c11504.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1503/11504/v0001/mlbmls.download.akamai.com/11504/2005/open/partner/110505_smgoty_winner_derosario_384.wmv
Did the crowd even appreciate how good that was?
Because it doesn't sound like it.

'Not a lot you can say - he just runs up and bangs it, nothing fancy!'

WTF?

yure323

May 1st, 2006, 09:29 PM

Holy smokes it was a lightening bolt right enough! Did the crowd even appreciate how good that was?
Because it doesn't sound like it.

'Not a lot you can say - he just runs up and bangs, it nothing fancy!'

WTF?
They did, but the game was played in LA and they played against San Jose ( their biggest rivals at the time, they were moved to Houston this year because they couldn't get a SSS built ), so there weren't a lot of San Jose fans in the crowd, probably 98% of the crowd were LA Galaxy fans.
BTW, "LA Super Clasico" ( Galaxy@Chivas USA ) has the best atmosphere in MLS, here you can look at the highlights from this years game :
http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/sights/index.jsp?club=mls&week=0416

nomarandlee

May 1st, 2006, 09:45 PM

Yes, it was agreed by most Americans on the board a few months ago that most American stadiums don't have roofs simply because the clubs/cities can't afford the extra expense.

Huh?? When did that happen? Roofs or domes are not that expensive these days. A retractable dome over an 80k might really increase the budget but just a roof (not even a dome)? No.

canarywondergod

May 1st, 2006, 09:48 PM

Soccer cannot really be played in some of the conditions of American Football. For example if the snow got as bad as the football game in the pics shown here, the game would be cancelled.

Thats not completely true as the majority of premiership and championship football team clubs have under soil heating, meaning if it does snow the snow merely melts away. Of course if it was a blizzard then the match would be called off, as what happened in Sunderland recently. However i could not sit through 20 odd home games a season in the wet a roof, for me personally, is a necessity when watching football in england.

I didnt realise however how few games in the NFL are acutally played. It does make more economic sense to forget the roof and concentrate on seats, especially as the weathers better in the USA compared to England. However why do most NFL grounds have one side missing e.g. INVESCO Field?!the stadiums would be awesome if they were complete bowls!
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/colorado/denver_invesco1.jpg

nomarandlee

May 1st, 2006, 10:01 PM

canarywondergod]
I didnt realise however how few games in the NFL are acutally played. It does make more economic sense to forget the roof and concentrate on seats, especially as the weathers better in the USA compared to England.

In football stadiums the elements are also seen as natural and part of the game (as stated already). Also, in the winter it is sunny (yet very cold) more then raining or snowing and most people in winter wouldn't care to be under shade on a sunny (or already overcast) winter afternoon (90% of NFL games are during the day).

If fans are to be more comfortable (they are more likely to be concerned with the cold) then just a roof a roof would be seen as lamely inadequate to giving them real comfort (where temperature rather then elements are more an issue). Many would think "you want to block out the sun while doing nothing about the cold?). Only a dome or retractable roof is likely to really make NFL fans feel more comfortable and appreciative of an overhanging structure.

However why do most NFL grounds have one side missing e.g. INVESCO Field?!the stadiums would be awesome if they were complete bowls!

Because if they did all have bowls they would like very much alike to each other and stadiums in Europe. Gives a sense of more open space, landscape views beyond the stadium, more uniqueness to formation of the stands, and maybe most important midfield seats are are at a premium at NFL games (they cost the most) and so as many seats are possible are located in the middle sections as opposed to the end zones (which are not as desirable.)

BostonSkyGuy

May 1st, 2006, 10:03 PM

Yes, it was agreed by most Americans on the board a few months ago that most American stadiums don't have roofs simply because the clubs/cities can't afford the extra expense.

Well that information is wrong. Here's a 2004 Forbes list of teams by Revenue. I've bolded the teams with domed or rooved stadiums. The Ranks (seen before the team name) is the rank of the value of the actual team.

Rank Team Current Value1 ($mil) 1-Yr Value Change (%) Debt/Value3 (%) Revenues ($mil) Operating Income4($mil)

1 Washington Redskins 1,104 16 20 245 69.6

2 Dallas Cowboys 923 8 14 205 37.5

3 Houston Texans 905 14 36 201 55.5

5 Philadelphia Eagles 833 35 40 198 44.3

4 New England Patriots 861 14 54 191 30.5

6 Denver Broncos 815 19 25 183 42.8

7 Cleveland Browns 798 15 13 183 59.0

8 Chicago Bears 785 26 25 175 33.1

9 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 779 16 18 175 25.0

10 Baltimore Ravens 776 20 35 172 34.8

11 Miami Dolphins 765 20 26 170 32.1

12 Carolina Panthers 760 18 16 169 17.3

13 Green Bay Packers 756 24 4 168 23.4

14 Detroit Lions 747 18 29 168 25.1

15 Tennessee Titans 736 19 17 164 22.2

16 Pittsburgh Steelers 717 18 14 159 35.3

18 Kansas City Chiefs 709 18 18 159 24.0

17 Seattle Seahawks 712 17 16 158 6.0

19 St Louis Rams 708 18 14 157 21.8

26 New Orleans Saints 627 7 0 157 7.8

20 New York Giants 692 21 9 154 20.2

21 Jacksonville Jaguars 688 21 18 153 16.6

22 New York Jets 685 21 15 152 26.5

24 Buffalo Bills 637 13 11 152 28.5

25 San Francisco 49ers 636 12 16 151 29.4

23 Cincinnati Bengals 675 20 1 150 14.2

27 Oakland Raiders 624 8 8 149 26.1

28 San Diego Chargers 622 11 16 148 22.5

29 Indianapolis Colts 609 11 21 145 13.6

30 Minnesota Vikings 604 12 21 144 4.1

31 Atlanta Falcons 603 13 45 144 6.4

32 Arizona Cardinals 552 9 14 131 -4.9

I put the Kansas City Chiefs in Italics because they are currently going to put a retractable roof over their stadium so that they will be eligible to host the Super Bowl. The Cardinals currently play outdoors but are moving into a new stadium with a roof.

Notice that the bottom four teams generating the LEAST amount of revenue have enclosed stadiums? Granted the Vikings are moving to a new stadium which will be outdoors, but that's mainly because they want the advantage of playing outdoors in one of the coldest places.

The Cardinals are DEAD LAST in revenue and are currently building a state of the art stadium with retractable roof/endzones. If building a roof was so expensive, how could they do this?

This list isn't really 100% proof that only teams with high money can build domes or roofs but what it does show is that places with domes happen to be hotter cities. Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Arizona, New Orleans are all some of the warmer climate cities when the league starts up in September. I think that has something to do with it as with a dome/roof you can control the climate indoors and set it to what you feel necessary.

Is it more expensive to build a roof? Sure, but that's not the main reasons most teams don't build them.

BostonSkyGuy

May 1st, 2006, 10:07 PM

Thats not completely true as the majority of premiership and championship football team clubs have under soil heating, meaning if it does snow the snow merely melts away. Of course if it was a blizzard then the match would be called off, as what happened in Sunderland recently. However i could not sit through 20 odd home games a season in the wet a roof, for me personally, is a necessity when watching football in england.

Sorry, I guess I didn't convey my point well. I was stating that soccer could never be played in the blizzard conditions seen in the pics in this thread. I wasn't saying they don't play in snow, I just watched a game the US played where it was coming down hard, but wasn't sticking--I assume the stadium had soil heating.

Here in New England there's soil heating as well, but they don't use it for the Patriots because the snow is an advantage especially against warmer weather teams.

Reptilikus

May 1st, 2006, 10:24 PM

Huh?? When did that happen? Roofs or domes are not that expensive these days. A retractable dome over an 80k might really increase the budget but just a roof (not even a dome)? No.

Now I'm begining to understand.
- The stadiums rarely has a roof because it is used just to a few games a year, and therefore a big expense compared with the chance of rain.
- People pays the samme no mather if there is a roof or not, and still comes to the games in rain.

A retractable roof is then primarily build to attract the superbowl and to increase the income on other events.

But who pays for the construction of the stadiums. The team or the city?

Iggybumtastic

May 1st, 2006, 10:34 PM

Well that information is wrong. Here's a 2004 Forbes list of teams by Revenue. I've bolded the teams with domed or rooved stadiums. The Ranks (seen before the team name) is the rank of the value of the actual team.

Rank Team Current Value1 ($mil) 1-Yr Value Change (%) Debt/Value3 (%) Revenues ($mil) Operating Income4($mil)

1 Washington Redskins 1,104 16 20 245 69.6

2 Dallas Cowboys 923 8 14 205 37.5

3 Houston Texans 905 14 36 201 55.5

5 Philadelphia Eagles 833 35 40 198 44.3

4 New England Patriots 861 14 54 191 30.5

6 Denver Broncos 815 19 25 183 42.8

7 Cleveland Browns 798 15 13 183 59.0

8 Chicago Bears 785 26 25 175 33.1

9 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 779 16 18 175 25.0

10 Baltimore Ravens 776 20 35 172 34.8

11 Miami Dolphins 765 20 26 170 32.1

12 Carolina Panthers 760 18 16 169 17.3

13 Green Bay Packers 756 24 4 168 23.4

14 Detroit Lions 747 18 29 168 25.1

15 Tennessee Titans 736 19 17 164 22.2

16 Pittsburgh Steelers 717 18 14 159 35.3

18 Kansas City Chiefs 709 18 18 159 24.0

17 Seattle Seahawks 712 17 16 158 6.0

19 St Louis Rams 708 18 14 157 21.8

26 New Orleans Saints 627 7 0 157 7.8

20 New York Giants 692 21 9 154 20.2

21 Jacksonville Jaguars 688 21 18 153 16.6

22 New York Jets 685 21 15 152 26.5

24 Buffalo Bills 637 13 11 152 28.5

25 San Francisco 49ers 636 12 16 151 29.4

23 Cincinnati Bengals 675 20 1 150 14.2

27 Oakland Raiders 624 8 8 149 26.1

28 San Diego Chargers 622 11 16 148 22.5

29 Indianapolis Colts 609 11 21 145 13.6

30 Minnesota Vikings 604 12 21 144 4.1

31 Atlanta Falcons 603 13 45 144 6.4

32 Arizona Cardinals 552 9 14 131 -4.9

I put the Kansas City Chiefs in Italics because they are currently going to put a retractable roof over their stadium so that they will be eligible to host the Super Bowl. The Cardinals currently play outdoors but are moving into a new stadium with a roof.

Notice that the bottom four teams generating the LEAST amount of revenue have enclosed stadiums? Granted the Vikings are moving to a new stadium which will be outdoors, but that's mainly because they want the advantage of playing outdoors in one of the coldest places.

The Cardinals are DEAD LAST in revenue and are currently building a state of the art stadium with retractable roof/endzones. If building a roof was so expensive, how could they do this?

This list isn't really 100% proof that only teams with high money can build domes or roofs but what it does show is that places with domes happen to be hotter cities. Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Arizona, New Orleans are all some of the warmer climate cities when the league starts up in September. I think that has something to do with it as with a dome/roof you can control the climate indoors and set it to what you feel necessary.

Is it more expensive to build a roof? Sure, but that's not the main reasons most teams don't build them.

They can't build roofs because they are on the dole and spent their last crisis loan on mad Jellies!!

NFLeuropefan

May 1st, 2006, 10:59 PM

Granted the Vikings are moving to a new stadium

Well, not exactly, they have a LONG way to go before they get the stadium that they want.....

Doc Halladay

May 1st, 2006, 11:02 PM

Now I'm begining to understand.

But who pays for the construction of the stadiums. The team or the city?

Usually it's a combination of the team, the city, and the taxpayers. However, a lot of these stadiums are getting a good chunk of money from naming rights. Hence your Lincoln Financial Field, Gillette Stadium, and Heinz Field among others. Lincoln Financial Group paid $139.6 million alone to have their name on the Eagles new stadium in 2003.

As for the no roof thing, ask anyone who has been to a game in a dome and a game outside and they will right away tell you that the game played outdoors in the elements is better. I've been to Ford Field in Detroit (roof) and Ralph Wilson Stadium in Buffalo (no roof) and there's really no competition... the game in Buffalo was a much better experience even if it was freezing cold out.

Iggybumtastic

May 1st, 2006, 11:04 PM

A roof doesn't have to be a dome. You can have a normal fixed roof that just covers the stands.

Doc Halladay

May 1st, 2006, 11:08 PM

Kind of like what Dallas has... their stadium is fugly x 10 though.

http://mall.ballparks.com/images/AV65.jpg

http://www.photofile.com/Photos/Albums/Stadiums/NFL/Images/Texas_Stadium.jpg

Iggybumtastic

May 1st, 2006, 11:39 PM

Yeah, that's uglier than my girlfriend!! A nice clean modern roof like these ones -

http://stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/hamburger_sv/images/kompakt_02.jpg

http://stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/1_fc_koeln/images/west_01.jpg

rantanamo

May 1st, 2006, 11:39 PM

This thread is doing exactly what I'm talking about. Why are we explaining the uselessness of a roof in freezing weather again? Why are we explaining horseshoes again? Why are we explaining the dynamics of why a horseshoe is pretty cool in our football? Why is the English set once again not looking at how their own stadiums are built, yet trying to apply some standard of only a few of their own stadiums? Why is European style 'canopy' still trying to be seen as some super expensive thing when there are many U.S. stadiums with NO ROOF that COST MORE as if NFL franchises are poor?

For new posters, just please read posts on American stadiums. You'll find that many questions that you have are asked over and over in many posts. All the way to the point that now you get questions like why does ___________ need a retractable roof.

For those not familiar with the NFL, I will say this................................If the NFL is doing it in their stadiums, then it must be a wise decision as far as being modern and revenue generating. You can hate those owners as much as you want, but they are the supreme league when it comes to making money, and the stadiums have evolved as such. Why do NFL stadiums have so many suites and club seats? Well, the NFL figured out in the 70's that the wealthy love to entertain at sporting events in their own luxury environs. It seems that Europe has begun to follow this as well. Why are there so many seats on the side, and fewer behind the ends? The NFL owners figured out that you can charge more for a better view, even when it is further away. Lo and behold, you're starting to see the 'saddle roofs' in Europe and Austrailia. Even the mighty Wembley is following NFL type design cues. So don't dismiss the NFL as some weirdo dierdos. They are setting the standard and those guys know how to make money.

Iggybumtastic

May 1st, 2006, 11:47 PM

rantanamo

May 2nd, 2006, 12:00 AM

When I think of the great roofs in the world, I don't think of those Iggy, no offense. Qwest Field, Reliant, Athens Olympic, Miller Park, Safeco and Da Luz come to mind. I see no need for small canopies. I will at least give England credit for their roofs. If it rains a lot where you are, and you're truly building the roof to keep people out of that rain, you build it like Old Trafford or Emirates. Not just because its pretty or FIFA or the UEFA say to do it.

eddyk

May 2nd, 2006, 12:02 AM

Iggy is not english.

I thought I might let you know that.

rantanamo

May 2nd, 2006, 12:04 AM

I'm still waiting for my questions about European stadiums to be answered. No surprise, they never are.

And if you're gonna make fun, Iggy, please stop your owners from building in the NFL style.

Goofy

May 2nd, 2006, 12:06 AM

How the fuck did Freddie Ljungberg's kitbag end up on this thread?

Iggybumtastic

May 2nd, 2006, 12:11 AM

I'm still waiting for my questions about European stadiums to be answered. No surprise, they never are.

And if you're gonna make fun, Iggy, please stop your owners from building in the NFL style.

I didn't know my 'owner' was building NFL style stadiums!!! The last thing the NHS should be doing is building a bloody stadium!! No wonder my knee's are fucked!!

Isaac Newell

May 2nd, 2006, 12:14 AM

I've always liked Texas Stadium, since the opening credits of Dallas.

Socrates

May 2nd, 2006, 12:16 AM

I'm still waiting for my questions about European stadiums to be answered. No surprise, they never are.

You dumb rednecks probably wouldn't understand the answers anyway, so whats the point?

Reptilikus

May 2nd, 2006, 12:39 AM

Why is the English set once again not looking at how their own stadiums are built, yet trying to apply some standard of only a few of their own stadiums? Why is European style 'canopy' still trying to be seen as some super expensive thing when there are many U.S. stadiums with NO ROOF that COST MORE as if NFL franchises are poor?

Like I said before: People prioritize diffently. In Northern Europe every stadium build has a roof for the spectators. End of story!
Is it wise financially? Roofs in Europe doesn't come cheap neither, so of course there is a reason why it's being build.

I simply doesn't think people would come to the games if it rained and the stadium didn't have roof. People are different!

Iggybumtastic

May 2nd, 2006, 12:51 AM

I simply doesn't think people would come to the games if it rained and the stadium didn't have roof. People are different!

I would, but that's because I'm pure mad mental man!!

rantanamo

May 2nd, 2006, 01:06 AM

Like I said before: People prioritize diffently. In Northern Europe every stadium build has a roof for the spectators. End of story!
Is it wise financially? Roofs in Europe doesn't come cheap neither, so of course there is a reason why it's being build.

I simply doesn't think people would come to the games if it rained and the stadium didn't have roof. People are different!

OK, you answered your own questions by basically saying what I said, different sports, different weather, different philosophies, different people. I know I'm very longwinded, but I could have typed, "because we are different"

My point about cost was that you asked if it was a financial issue for NFL teams. My answer was no, since the NFL is the world's richest sports league and their stadiums are very comparable in price to the best in Europe even without roofs most of the time.

Sidenote: Imagine for a minute how valuable the Cowboys will be when JerryWorld opens what will likely be the world's most expensive stadium.

Reptilikus

May 2nd, 2006, 01:15 AM

OK, you answered your own questions by basically saying what I said, different sports, different weather, different philosophies, different people. I know I'm very longwinded, but I could have typed, "because we are different"

My point about cost was that you asked if it was a financial issue for NFL teams. My answer was no, since the NFL is the world's richest sports league and their stadiums are very comparable in price to the best in Europe even without roofs most of the time.

Sidenote: Imagine for a minute how valuable the Cowboys will be when JerryWorld opens what will likely be the world's most expensive stadium.

Then we got to an agreement after all. In a way. Thanks for the discussion. :)

Bigmac1212

May 2nd, 2006, 01:18 AM

The Cardinals are DEAD LAST in revenue and are currently building a state of the art stadium with retractable roof/endzones. If building a roof was so expensive, how could they do this?

Arizona gets hot in the early part of the season, making it unbearable for fans to watch without a roof.

pompeyfan

May 2nd, 2006, 02:15 AM

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/cardsmain.jpg

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/cardsmain2.jpg

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/cardsstad900.jpg

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/cardsstad903.jpg

http://www.mnartists.org/uploads/users/user_7751/fac2e97572a44471234e9ad5f3c43c77/fac2e97572a44471234e9ad5f3c43c77.jpg

Excellent Stadium.

jmancuso

May 2nd, 2006, 03:55 AM

duplicate thread.

ReddAlert

May 2nd, 2006, 06:31 AM

whats the fascination with domes? Playing outdoors is much better...especially for football. Rain, cold, and snow make games much more interesting and are an advantage for cold weather teams like the Packers, Patriots, Bears, and Bills. In my opinion, Minnesota and Detroit should join the Pack and Bears by being outdoor venues. The NFC North would again be hated for its shitty playing conditions to teams from Tampa, Arizona, New Orleans, Dallas, Miami, etc.

TexasBoi

May 2nd, 2006, 06:49 AM

Joey313

May 2nd, 2006, 06:54 AM

ya lakers are going to win

nomarandlee

May 2nd, 2006, 06:58 AM

The last thing you want at a football game on a clear blue sky sunny winter day in December is to have a roof block out the two good elemants(blue sky and sunshine) left to be nullified.

I agree with ReddAlert on the NFC North. I was excited when I was first under the impression that Ford Field was going to be a retractable dome (for some reason I thought). Is the new Minny stadium planning to be a retracktable?

Iggybumtastic

May 2nd, 2006, 07:50 AM

Fuck a football game with a roof. A football game is great to attend to when it's raining, or snowing. I know I've had fun all the times everytime it rained whenever I went to a game. one needs to be over Arizona though but make it retractable lol.

Yeah, it must be great fun sitting in the pouring cold rain for 3 hours. When I go on holiday, I often go to places where I can sit in the cold rain for 3 hours as it so much fun! Some of the best times of my life have involved sitting in the pouring cold rain for 3 hours!!

http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/gallery/screenshots/s3/7f24_019.jpg

Doc Halladay

May 2nd, 2006, 07:58 AM

You just don't get it... and probably never will until you experience it.

pompeyfan

May 2nd, 2006, 08:01 AM

well who is going to travel possibly hundreds of km, spend hundreds of dollars, to see a match that is pouring down rain, snow and minus 15 degrees???

Doc Halladay

May 2nd, 2006, 08:08 AM

Hundreds of thousands of people do it weekly for 4 months straight. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about it. Football is a game to be played in the elements, not only to be played in the elements but watched and experienced in the same elements that it is played in. You would understand it if you lived and breathed NFL football and went to the games to experience it first hand.

I personally don't understand how people can enjoy sporting events in climate controlled domes that look more fake than Micheal Jackson. Well, I can understand it, but I just think it's boring. Like I've said earlier in the thread... I've watched games at Ford Field in Detroit. Beautiful stadium but soooooo boring with the roof and being indoors.

tmac14wr

May 2nd, 2006, 08:36 AM

Yeah, it must be great fun sitting in the pouring cold rain for 3 hours. When I go on holiday, I often go to places where I can sit in the cold rain for 3 hours as it so much fun! Some of the best times of my life have involved sitting in the pouring cold rain for 3 hours!!

http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/gallery/screenshots/s3/7f24_019.jpg

You just don't understand what the sport is like I guess. Just like many Americans don't understand many things about Europeans and soccer due to the fact that we didn't really grow up with it as a mainstream sport, there are many aspects to Americans and football that I'm sure you don't understand because football was most likely a sport you didn't grow up with. Most people here don't care about about the weather and having to bear the elements. You may not understand, but there's no point in criticizing us for it because in no way are you going to make us second guess ourselves for doing it.

I'd like to clarify one last thing before I leave in the most simple way as possible: The fact that we don't have roofs covering our stadiums/fans doesn't mean we cannot afford it. :)

Neda Say

May 2nd, 2006, 05:04 PM

It's good that they are building sss... I think it will help the sport and the league... it's terrible to have a vastly empty stadium for tv broadcaster... It's good new to have Toronto in the league, although the Lynx are the weakest of the three top canadian teams; Vancouver Whitecaps and Montreal Impact are always in the play off of the usl and impact has been in the final two years in a row.
I'm looking forward to see these two teams playing in MLS... I think MLS and USL should merge... That would make a big three division league system in North america and it would give team the kinda space they need need to grow.

**** ***

May 2nd, 2006, 05:11 PM

They did, but the game was played in LA and they played against San Jose ( their biggest rivals at the time, they were moved to Houston this year because they couldn't get a SSS built ), so there weren't a lot of San Jose fans in the crowd, probably 98% of the crowd were LA Galaxy fans.
BTW, "LA Super Clasico" ( Galaxy@Chivas USA ) has the best atmosphere in MLS, here you can look at the highlights from this years game :
http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/sights/index.jsp?club=mls&week=0416

i like the umbrellas

Fear of Heights

May 2nd, 2006, 10:34 PM

I use to be rather ho hum about the NFL but I've grown to appreciate it a lot more the last few years. I've always been a college football fan by heart though. One thing the majority of NFL and college stadiums have is the preference NOT to have roofs on the stadiums. Northern teams like the idea of an advantage in the cold and Southern teams like to have the intense heat and humidity of September and even the first half of October to be advantages or at least factors in a game. This isn't as big of a factor in college as the season ends to early for the Northern homefields to become really cold and inter conference games between northern and southern teams are few and far between. The U.S. attitude is that outside of a few exceptions football is made to be played outdoors.

"The NFC North would again be hated for its shitty playing conditions to teams from Tampa, Arizona, New Orleans, Dallas, Miami, etc."

I always find it humorous that northern cities harp on and on about how southern teams have no chance in the cold against northern teams (especially in the NFL where the season goes well into December and January). The same can be said of Miami, Arizona, Houston, Tampa, Jacksonville as well as Atlanta (if they didn't play in the dome) when playing game in September and early October. It gets ridiculously hot at many of those games.

I remember my parents telling me a story about when the Washington Huskies traveled south to play Alabama at Alabama in college football in the 70s. Washington cheerleaders were dropping like flies on the sideline in the intense heat. You always hear about the cold in the North, but rarely hear about the heat in the South being a factor.

BostonSkyGuy

May 2nd, 2006, 11:24 PM

I always thought Europeans were crazy about soccer. However, I'm beginning to question just how correct that is concidering most of them wouldn't sit in some rain to see their teams play.

rantanamo

May 2nd, 2006, 11:31 PM

ReddAlert

May 3rd, 2006, 01:32 AM

ya lakers are going to win

look at everyone in Cali coming out of the woodwork now!

ReddAlert

May 3rd, 2006, 01:36 AM

[QUOTE=Fear of Heights]

"The NFC North would again be hated for its shitty playing conditions to teams from Tampa, Arizona, New Orleans, Dallas, Miami, etc."

I always find it humorous that northern cities harp on and on about how southern teams have no chance in the cold against northern teams (especially in the NFL where the season goes well into December and January). The same can be said of Miami, Arizona, Houston, Tampa, Jacksonville as well as Atlanta (if they didn't play in the dome) when playing game in September and early October. It gets ridiculously hot at many of those games.
QUOTE]

the heat is a factor, as is playing in a dome. However, playing in cold, rainy, and snowy weather is more difficult. Remember that many NFL players grew up in the South and can handle the heat.

ReddAlert

May 3rd, 2006, 01:37 AM

Brent H.

May 3rd, 2006, 03:49 AM

Yeah, it must be great fun sitting in the pouring cold rain for 3 hours. When I go on holiday, I often go to places where I can sit in the cold rain for 3 hours as it so much fun! Some of the best times of my life have involved sitting in the pouring cold rain for 3 hours!!

Ehh, I dont really like them all that much but games in foul weather arent so bad, Ive been to a few. I am usually prepared, for winter games Im bundled up, for rain games I have my jacket. The players have to play in this crappy weather, I guess it makes the fans feel a little more connected to the players when theyre out in the rain with them. Rain games do suck, but where Im from they dont happen often enough to make me want to sit under an ugly dark roof on sunny days. Snow games are kinda cool, granted I have only been to one because I live in a warmer climate. But it was fun celebrating the Carolina Panthers first playoff win in Jan. 1997 in the snow.

Unless you live in a place where it rains alot a roof is pointless unless its retractable.

Doc Halladay

May 3rd, 2006, 04:11 AM

One of the best NFL games I've ever seen...

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~dsandov1/TuckRule.jpg

Probably one of the most controversial as well.

moochie

May 3rd, 2006, 04:45 AM

One of the best NFL games I've ever seen...

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~dsandov1/TuckRule.jpg

Probably one of the most controversial as well.
<shifles the urge to sream obscenities>

ReddAlert

May 3rd, 2006, 05:03 AM

<shifles the urge to sream obscenities>

dont worry. That game wasnt as bad as the Packers-Eagles game. I was ready to hang myself after that shit.

Jules

May 3rd, 2006, 05:06 AM

I hate how they'll only hold the super bowl in northern stadiums with a roof. super bowls are much better in snowy, cold, shitty weather. People are such pussies

TexasBoi

May 3rd, 2006, 05:10 AM

ChiLooper

May 3rd, 2006, 05:14 AM

^^^^ Same here. :speech:

moochie

May 3rd, 2006, 05:37 AM

dont worry. That game wasnt as bad as the Packers-Eagles game. I was ready to hang myself after that shit.
Yeah... but you don't know the agony of watching Manning choke year after year... for no reason...

Iggybumtastic

May 3rd, 2006, 08:30 AM

I always thought Europeans were crazy about soccer. However, I'm beginning to question just how correct that is concidering most of them wouldn't sit in some rain to see their teams play.

We would sit in the rain and watch every football match, but given the choice we would rather have a roof and not get soaked, than not have a roof and get soaked!!

European stadiums have 2 choices - Build a football stadium without a roof and let your fans get soaked, or build the same stadium with a roof and keep your fans dry. It's a no brainer - you build the roof, as it has an advantage over not having a roof. When I say roof, I mean a roof that just covers the stands, not a 'dome', as football should still be played in the open elements(wind, rain, sun etc)

If you have two almost identical stadiums in the same location, and one has a roof and one doesn't, then the one with the roof has an advantage. There is no advantage with not having a roof. Looking at a blue sky for 2 hours might seem fascinating and wondrous to Americans, but to a European it is the same blue sky they see every single day of their lives!! It takes more than looking at a blue sky for 90 minutes to make Europeans drop to their knees in amazement!! (and you don't look at the sky at all if you are watching a football game, you watch the football, not the sky). If you said to a European kid 'hey, look at the blue sky', he would not faint in astonishment, as it is the same blue sky he/she see's everyday!!

Iggybumtastic

May 3rd, 2006, 08:44 AM

ya damn skippy it's great. Brings the best out of the players and the game. We all adapted to the weather of the day of that game and enjoyed every minute of it. If it's cold, dress up for it. If it rains, get a pancho and/or a raincoat. Nevertheless, enjoy the game, eat some hotdogs, drink a beer(which i dont lol) and have fun watching the Dallas Cowboys win the superbowl.

or build a roof over the stands (not a dome, so that the players still play in the open elements) so you don't get soaked? Do Americans actually think sitting in the rain makes them like the players on the pitch?? That's just stupid!! No wonder you are all so fat if you think sitting in the rain is the same as running about a pitch for 3 hours!!

I guess Americans are more easily entertained than Europeans. Europeans moved on from using sitting in the rain for 3 hours as a means of culture/entertainment about 3000 years ago, as we learnt how to build roofs!

One May night in Paris .......... 'What would you like to do tonight dear - Opera? Theatre? a walk along the Seine? or that new restaurant that has open on the Champs-Elysées? ...... No dear, I was hoping we could sit in the rain for 3 hours, eat hot dogs and drink Budweiser!!'

BostonSkyGuy

May 3rd, 2006, 08:49 AM

Looking at a blue sky for 2 hours might seem fascinating and wondrous to Americans, but to a European it is the same blue sky they see every single day of their lives!! It takes more than looking at a blue sky for 90 minutes to make Europeans drop to their knees in amazement!! (and you don't look at the sky at all if you are watching a football game, you watch the football, not the sky). If you said to a European kid 'hey, look at the blue sky', he would not faint in astonishment, as it is the same blue sky he/she see's everyday!!

Yes because in America we don't see the sky everyday.How did you get the whole "blue sky" argument from me posting that you wouldn't sit in some poor weather to see your teams play?

I was merely stating that it seems Europeans would rather stay home and watch the game on television as opposed to watching the game while it happens to be raining.

Americans don't go to football games to see the blue sky, I don't know where any of us has said that. We've stated OVER AND OVER that football was a game meant to be played in whatever the weather happens to be. Snow, Rain, Sunshine, whatever--football will be played. If you don't understand the game, you'll never get it simple as that.

Reading Comprehension...get it.

Iggybumtastic

May 3rd, 2006, 08:52 AM

Americans (we ) are crazy m'fers

http://images.art.com/images/products/large/10118000/10118100.jpg
http://www.bishopjeff.com/images/Bull%20pen/pats_snow.jpg
http://www.newyorkjets.com/images/2004.1/manual_upload/fans/wallpapers/martin-snow_1024.jpg
http://www.bengals.com/images/fanfun/fanfun041230-7.jpg

http://www.wingazette.com/images/WillieInTheRainPasses.jpg

A black guy in the snow and a snowball fight in the stands!! Yeah, you really are MENTAL!! I'm just shocked at how CRAZY you guys are!! Your CRAZYNESS is just beyond belief.

An actual snowball fight and a black guy in the snow.....CAN YOU BELIEVE IT!!

40Acres

May 3rd, 2006, 08:56 AM

A black guy in the snow and a snowball fight in the stands!! Yeah, you really are MENTAL!! I'm just shocked at how CRAZY you guys are!! Your CRAZYNESS is just beyond belief.

An actual snowball fight and a black guy in the snow.....CAN YOU BELIEVE IT!!

I'm pretty sure this is exhibit 18905830932 of sect. 4444294 of why the world over thinks brits are pussies

Iggybumtastic

May 3rd, 2006, 08:56 AM

Yes because in America we don't see the sky everyday.How did you get the whole "blue sky" argument from me posting that you wouldn't sit in some poor weather to see your teams play?

I was merely stating that it seems Europeans would rather stay home and watch the game on television as opposed to watching the game while it happens to be raining.

Americans don't go to football games to see the blue sky, I don't know where any of us has said that. We've stated OVER AND OVER that football was a game meant to be played in whatever the weather happens to be. Snow, Rain, Sunshine, whatever--football will be played. If you don't understand the game, you'll never get it simple as that.

Reading Comprehension...get it.

Read this very slowly -

"We would sit in the rain and watch every football match, but given the choice we would rather have a roof and not get soaked, than not have a roof and get soaked!!

European stadiums have 2 choices - Build a football stadium without a roof and let your fans get soaked, or build the same stadium with a roof and keep your fans dry. It's a no brainer - you build the roof, as it has an advantage over not having a roof. When I say roof, I mean a roof that just covers the stands, not a 'dome', as football should still be played in the open elements(wind, rain, sun etc)"

Iggybumtastic

May 3rd, 2006, 08:58 AM

I'm pretty sure this is exhibit 18905830932 of sect. 4444294 of why the world over thinks brits are pussies

Seriously........a Black guy in the snow...........TOTALLY MENTAL!!!!

You are SOOOOO CRAZY!!!!

Iggybumtastic

May 3rd, 2006, 09:03 AM

Sorry guys, i'm going to have to lie down for a bit, as the sheer absolute MADNESS of a snowball fight and a black guy in the snow has just been too much for me!!!

40Acres

May 3rd, 2006, 09:09 AM

yes and when rangers get their pretty white jersies dirty from the dry glasgow soil everyone wets themselves. its a sight! mercy!!!

rantanamo

May 3rd, 2006, 09:10 AM

what is annoying about these threads to this American:

- Notion that we as Americans are stupid because we enjoy the sunshine, or don't mind wearing panchos in the rain to see our teams.

- Notion that the NFL is somehow too poor(or cheap) to have roofs when the NFL is the wealthiest league in the world, with expensive new stadiums. Many that are complete domes, some that retractable, and some that have no roof.

- Notion that somehow NFL stadiums without roofs are inferior just because of that, when you're talking about stadiums like Invesco, Paul Brown or M&T that would be in the top 5 stadiums in any nation I can think of.

- Notion that anything that doesn't follow the European way is strange or idiotic.

- Notion that somehow a roof is going to keep you warm in the cold

- Just the mere idea that no one seems to understand that fans in a place like Green Bay or Boston love to be a part of the elements of snow and cold and relish it as part of the game atmosphere. At the same time, if I build a stadium in Tampa, Florida or San Diego and its rare to see any precipitation during football season that a roof is kind of useless. In fact in some places, its rare to see anything but great temps and blue skies. Do you really need a roof in such a place?

- No one seems to understand that the United States is a big, big place with varying climates. It must also be understood that the stadium just might be built according to said season. Because of that you see lots of different kinds of stadiums. In many parts of the U.S. , for example, the rainy season is during the spring. Many only see summer and early fall rains if there is a tropical system. Some cities, like Dallas, Houston and Phoenix, see their hottest driest times during the first half of the football season. Even snow is not super common during a game.

TexasBoi

May 3rd, 2006, 09:15 AM

so you don't get soaked? Do Americans actually think sitting in the rain makes them like the players on the pitch?? That's just stupid!! No wonder you are all so fat if you think sitting in the rain is the same as running about a pitch for 3 hours!!

I guess Americans are more easily entertained than Europeans. Europeans moved on from using sitting in the rain for 3 hours as a means of culture/entertainment about 3000 years ago, as we learnt how to build roofs!

'
Understand this, we're watching the game while it's raining. We don't give a shit if we are getting soaked. We make the best out of it. We play in it, start splashing it but at the same time, enjoying the game. We get soaked, we get soaked. Not the ned of the world. What the FUCK does sitting in the rain have any relation to getting fat???? We dont care about a roof. Fuck a roof. if we get soaked in the rain, or if we are as cold as shit, but watching America's best sport, nobody would bitch about it.

40Acres

May 3rd, 2006, 09:17 AM

or build a roof over the stands (not a dome, so that the players still play in the open elements) so you don't get soaked? Do Americans actually think sitting in the rain makes them like the players on the pitch?? That's just stupid!! No wonder you are all so fat if you think sitting in the rain is the same as running about a pitch for 3 hours!!

pride of scotland
http://www.hccsucks.com/images/articles/20040419193551302_1.jpg

Martuh

May 3rd, 2006, 09:21 AM

(edit) leave it. I don't want to get banned.

:lock: please

40Acres

May 3rd, 2006, 09:28 AM

M&T Bank Stadium
Ralph Wilson Stadium
Paul Brown Stadium
Cleveland Browns Stadium
INVESCO Field
Gillette Stadium
Reliant Stadium
RCA Dome
ALLTEL Stadium
Arrowhead Stadium
Pro Player Stadium
The Tennessee Coliseum
Giants Stadium
Network Associates Coliseum
Heinz Field
Qualcomm Stadium
Georgia Dome
Bank of America Stadium
Soldier Field
Texas Stadium
Ford Field
Lambeau Field
Metrodome
Louisiana Superdome
Cardinals Stadium
Lincoln Financial Field
3Com Park
Qwest Field
Edward Jones Dome
Raymond James Stadium
FedEx Field

Durbsboi

May 3rd, 2006, 09:34 AM

u shouldnt have done this man!

hngcm

May 3rd, 2006, 10:51 AM

CL fit?

th0m

May 3rd, 2006, 11:12 AM

Champions League

Brent H.

May 3rd, 2006, 11:42 AM

European stadiums have 2 choices - Build a football stadium without a roof and let your fans get soaked, or build the same stadium with a roof and keep your fans dry. It's a no brainer - you build the roof, as it has an advantage over not having a roof. When I say roof, I mean a roof that just covers the stands, not a 'dome', as football should still be played in the open elements(wind, rain, sun etc)"

And in most of the places where they need a roof, they have one. Places that are excessively rainy (like Seattle) or excessively hot (Houston, Phoenix). Detroit and Minnesota are also very cold and they have domes.

While it does rain where I live, usually only an average of 1 game in a 10 game football season gets enough rain to be uncomfortable. I consider a roof to be dark and ugly, and I would rather sit in the rain an average of 1 game a year than sit under an ugly and dark roof for all 10, just my preference. I like sunlight, I like the sky, and while the game is the main focus, these things all add to the atmosphere of a game. Also, thanks to an invention called weather radar, I now have somewhat of an idea what the weather will be like, so if rain is predicted, I bring a coat and I am fairly comfortable even when it rains. The climate in europe is probably different, most people on this side of the pond are led to believe it rains a lot in the UK, therefore, the need for a roof. It is personal preference whether you want a roof or not, most americans just dont seem to need one.

nomarandlee

May 3rd, 2006, 12:33 PM

If I am going to really bitch and moan about "the elements" like some northern Europeans here do I am going to insist on a full retractable dome or nothing. What in the fark good does it do to have an ugly roof (most of them are not good looking structures in their own right) if it is not going to keep me warm during the most cold of games when the conditions really WOULD bother me.

Not much good to me (in my opinion) to have a roof that blocks out the sun and blue sky on the nice days and then doesn't do shite in terms of warming me up in the real bad ones. Give me a new stadium either give me a retractable roof or let me be under the sun and sky and enjoy the elements not some half azze compromise.

It almost looks as if some of the roof stadiums in north Europe are just compromised retractable roofs (without the bonus if keep you significantly warmer or cooler which is 90% of the point).

mauritius gunner

May 3rd, 2006, 01:08 PM

Thought I would create a new thread for the fun of it. I must say this is not an area of expertese, but hopefully is sure to prompt enthusiasm and some answers!

It has always been a mystery to me why US college football grounds are so big and plush, for largely a 'student' population whose enrollment numbers are actually a fraction of their grounds capacities.

I must admit some of these grounds are magnificent, was it not Foxboro stadium in Boston and Stanford stadium in San Francisco that hosted USA 94 are college football stadiums?

Are these magnificent structures necessary or simply a frivolous waste of money?

Feel free to pepper the thread with pictures of your favourite college grounds as well as some enlightening answers!

CharlieP

May 3rd, 2006, 01:13 PM

Its AlL gUUd

May 3rd, 2006, 01:28 PM

I think they are JUST big

rantanamo

May 3rd, 2006, 02:33 PM

reasons:

as said, ticket demand. What must be said though. The luxury and entertaining areas for college stadiums are as nice as you'll see around the world. These are usually reserved by the fattest of fatcat alumni.

mauritius gunner

May 3rd, 2006, 02:39 PM

1. US college football stadia are so big because the demand for tickets (from students, locals and alumni) is so high.

2. US college football stadia aren't really that plush or expensively-built - most wouldn't pass the conditions set by Taylor Report.

Noted, would the level of luxury also have to do with the amount of funds allocated by a state dept or the wealth of a college?

e.g. Foxboro = Harvard Massachusets
Stanford = Berkley University etc?

Because these two stadia are exceptionally plush, I am sure these do not reflect all college stadia. Also noted point about demand for tickets, however how often are these matches played and are they all a sell-out?

p.s. this is not an attack or criticism