http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a5/AS_Roma.png/150px-AS_Roma.png
AS Roma

3x Champion:
1942, 1983, 2001

9x Cup Winner (record):
1964, 1969, 1980, 1981, 1984,
1986, 1991, 2007, 2008

2x Supercup:
2001, 2007


http://www.corrieredellosport.it/images/03/C_3_Media_896903_immagine.jpg

http://www.corrieredellosport.it/images/94/C_3_Media_896894_immagine.jpg

http://www.corrieredellosport.it/images/96/C_3_Media_896896_immagine.jpg

http://www.corrieredellosport.it/images/87/C_3_Media_896887_immagine.jpg

http://www.ostianews.com/as_roma/stadio_as-roma/009.jpg

If the colours stay the same if/when it's built and the change in tiers is just as subtle then I'm loving it!

The project was showed this morning. The stadium will be realized in 4 years.

I hope they`ll build this but I expected a bit nicer design. This is too ordinary for a club like AS Roma. Even so, this would be far bether than Olimpico!

Can Sensi family afford to build the stadium? They're indebted with over 500 million euros now. I'm very skeptical... Anyway back to topic, it is very gorgeous but the color of the seats sucks indeed.

video (http://video.corriere.it/?vxSiteId=404a0ad6-6216-4e10-abfe-f4f6959487fd&vxChannel=Sport%20Videonews&vxClipId=2524_760950ba-ad1f-11de-a07d-00144f02aabc&vxBitrate=300)

I didn't like it when I first saw it but the more I have a look the more I like has some decent unique touches but I am stikk caught in two minds because the renders are just so poor.

I think 55,000 is too low they should have 60,000 minimum, the exterior is a cross between the Nou Mestalla and the new Juventus stadium and I have to say I am bored of these one material all over exterior but I do like the video technology that is being used it's different, but I would prefer it to be more subtle. The surrounding area is a copy of the New Juventus it looks almost exactly the same.
I like the look of the interior but the renders are so poor I cannot tell how good they are, will have to wait till I see something of a better quality that gives a better visualisation.
I'm going to guess that this will end up being pretty poor, knowing Italian football it will probably be built on the cheap and end up being of a very poor standard.

When are Lazio going to show their stadium plans?

what is this project? when has it been decided?

Just a minute ago

Great project while very classic. I like it.

The screen in between the lower and the upper tier? That's sth new :cheers:

humm...will there really be a giant picture of Franco Sensi wearing a hat on the exterior of the stadium??
That's weird... :-p

I hope not. Anyway, that should be a screen, not a simple picture

video introducing the project...mm im not convinced
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQFhBchYavY

IF the seats were more colourful and there was a one tier end, it would be great. Also 55000 is too small for Roma (oviously that's the point, but still).

Lazio´s one is better.Because more capacity and rectable roof.But the one of AS Rome is the same like Juventus,only higher capacity and a long screenboard integrated on the facade.

Lazio will be 55k

Who made that project???

any news on when the construction will start?

Nothing (except continuation of juventus stadium) will happen in Italy until decision of UEFA 2016, then we could see progress. It does not mean no stadiums will be constucted or redeveloped if Italy do not win bid but simply funding issues and politics mean nothing is completely clear until this decision and so for now it is just nice renders to look at and lots of talk.

Nothing (except continuation of juventus stadium) will happen in Italy until decision of UEFA 2016, then we could see progress. It does not mean no stadiums will be constucted or redeveloped if Italy do not win bid but simply funding issues and politics mean nothing is completely clear until this decision and so for now it is just nice renders to look at and lots of talk.

whats the chances of italy winning the euro 2016 bid? i hope they do.

With Roma getting this new stadium and Lazio getting theirs, what is going to happen to the Stadio Olimpico in Rome?

With Roma getting this new stadium and Lazio getting theirs, what is going to happen to the Stadio Olimpico in Rome?
Probably used for Athletic events, maybe refurbished or demolished D:

I haven't seen the stadium plans for Lazio but two 55k seaters for each club makes sense. Lazio and Roma had trouble selling out the Olimpico during Champions League matches and even their famous derby. No disrespect to the fans or anybody, but they can't do it. Maybe the tickets we're too expensive in the past but 55k is a great number even for the future, just my opinion.:cheers:

Probably used for Athletic events, maybe refurbished or demolished D:

I know it recently got refurbished with new seats for the entire stadium, new LED screens and upgrades to the changing rooms. These were carried out so it could host the 2009 Champions league final, which going from what the British press said at the time (unless you support Man Utd), staging it in the Stadio Olympico was a great success.

Looking at the average attendances for both Roma and Lazio, over the last 5 seasons (not including 2009/10) Roma's has ranged from 35,982 - 49,631. Lazio's average per season has ranged from 21,607 - 37,516. However 10 years ago in the 1999/00 season they averaged Roma: 58,915, Lazio: 51,956. The following season Roma averaged: 63,370. So its obvious that the support is their but a stadium of 72,698 does seem a little too large for both teams.

It would be a shame to lose the Stadio Olympico to not host regular football matches, but its understanable why both teams want smaller grounds. Although I doubt the Italians would demolish the Stadio Olympico, I expect it will play a similar role to Wembely Stadium, hosting International matches and cup finals only.

what is this project? when has it been decided?
What it is?! Why, a new stadium for Roma, of course. Isn't that pretty obvious? :lol:

With Roma getting this new stadium and Lazio getting theirs, what is going to happen to the Stadio Olimpico in Rome?
It will become the national stadium of the Gli Azzuri, the national football team of Italy.

National Team just at Olimpico?
Thats bad :(

have roma said when they expect the construction to start?

I haven't seen the stadium plans for Lazio but two 55k seaters for each club makes sense.

One each would make more sense. :lol:

now that italy didnt get the euro 2016 what is the chanced of this stadium being built?
IMO roma need this stadium

National Team just at Olimpico?
Thats bad :(
Well, not really. The Olimpico is to big for the Rome teams.

ma se non c'avete manco l'occhi pe piagne!
sognate sognate che forse alla playstation ve lo fate lo stadio.

solo 2 parole: SPECULAZIONE EDILIZIA

Are the respective stadiums for Lazio and Roma being built inside the city of Rome? Or are they going to be constructed outside city limits?

I've been to Stadio Olimpico, and that's pretty far from everything already.:lol:

if they will built the new stadium for lazio it will be more fare away than olimpico

but this is just science fiction,lazio have no moneny for a new stadium and roma too.

humm...will there really be a giant picture of Franco Sensi wearing a hat on the exterior of the stadium??
That's weird... :-p

No, the picture of him there was only there (IMO) to justify the naming of the stadium. That 'picture' of him is actually a LED screen and will be used to show match previews for people coming to the stadium.

IF the seats were more colourful and there was a one tier end, it would be great. Also 55000 is too small for Roma (oviously that's the point, but still).

55,000 is definitely not too small for Roma. This season their figures for the season stand at:

Spectators for Serie A games:

Average: 30,000
Minimum: 18,000
Maximum: 45,000

As you can see with an average of 30,000 a stadium of 55,000 is definitely enough. Even their maximum would not fill the stadium. What is the point of spending more money to have an empty stadium 95% of games played in it?

An almost full stadium always looks much better to supporters and players than a half empty stadium.

Now the ownership situation appears to be resolved, what is the likely timetable for this? I assume the new owners want Roma to have its own ground very soon.

edit.

Now the ownership situation appears to be resolved, what is the likely timetable for this? I assume the new owners want Roma to have its own ground very soon.

Ownership is resolved.

Official: Roma takeover deal

Roma and Thomas Di Benedetto have released a formal statement confirming an agreement for the American takeover.

Di Benedetto, who heads a conglomerate ready to buy AS Roma from the Sensi family company Italpetroli and UniCredit Bank, has been in the city for advanced negotiations since Monday.

“Italpetroli S.p.a., UniCredit S.p.a. and Di Benedetto AS Roma LLC announce that negotiations in Rome over the past few days have reached a basic agreement to buy up control of AS Roma S.p.a.” read the statement released late Tuesday night.

“Based on this agreement, the buy-out should be completed by a company made up of 60 per cent Di Benedetto AS Roma LLC and 40 per cent UniCredit S.p.a.

“There is also an option for UniCredit to sell their shares to other strategic Italian investors.

“Over the next few days we will proceed to write out the definitive versions of the agreements reached today, which also include commitments for the reinforcement and future development of AS Roma.

“The signature of this agreement is expected within the next 20 days, allowing Di Benedetto AS Roma LLC to present financial guarantees.

“Until said guarantees and the signatures are finalised, we will not be revealing any further details on the contents of the agreement.”


And the new owners plans:

Di Benedetto reveals plans for Roma

Roma's prospective new owner Thomas Di Benedetto has revealed that he wants to win the Scudetto every year, buy six players this summer and build a new stadium.

The American is expected to complete the purchase of Roma this week after a long process of due diligence, which started before Christmas.

Speaking to La Gazzetta dello Sport, he said: “My dream is exactly that of millons of fans: to make Roma one of the top clubs in the world, a team capable of winning the Scudetto every year and of finally being competitive in the Champions League.

“How do you say it in your parts? All roads lead to Roma…”

“My team is composed of people who know world football very well. We'll speak with the current management who are working very well when it's the right moment and make a judgement.

“I believe that some players will be sold and others will arrive, at least five or six new players.

“I was at Roma-Inter, and we won with a great goal from Mirko Vucinic. That evening the passion of the Romanisti overwhelmed me. There is nothing comparable in the United States, perhaps some games of college football played in front of 100,000 people.

“But it's a shame that all this support for Roma doesn't have an adequate structure: The Olimpico doesn't reward the passion of the Romanisti at all, the stands are too far from the pitch, the noise is lost with the distance.

“Also for this reason, it'll take a new stadium, and a different one: an English-like ground that has positive effects on the players, a modern version of Campo Testaccio.”

The date is still unknown but work is expected to start within the year on a new stadium. The Franco Sensi render seems likely to be used. 60,000 is the rumored capacity. Completion date to be before 2016, most likely 2015.

the design looks very closely like new juvearena! is it the same architect?

the design looks very closely like new juvearena! is it the same architect?

Nah it isn't the same architect but I was also amazed at the similarity. Look at the gardens outside each stadium. The same!

The final papers have been signed in Boston. Now DiBenedetto can begin to put this project into place. He said that it should be completed by 2015.

"should"

economic recession could kille any projects nowadays :D

"should"

economic recession could kille any projects nowadays :D

Too true, but then again, stadiums offer a good return in the long run and can be seen more of an investment than an expense.

i love AS Roma, it broke my heart to say it but i think lazio's new stadium design is better:(

How is the design of lazio stadium and when it begins for the construction?

As soon I read the club would have a new owner, and as soon I read who it was, I expected this project to go ahead. Nice to see my expectations were right!

How is the design of lazio stadium and when it begins for the construction?
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=170345
Lazio stadium therad.
IMO Lazio stadium is also more beautiful

Renders only :| no real financement and date scheduled...
Do they have the money to do it? I don't think with this recession. remember valencia nou mestalla

i love AS Roma, it broke my heart to say it but i think lazio's new stadium design is better:(

Haha :lol: They will never build a new stadium. In Italy when a lot of teams were planning new or upgrading stadiums (Cagliari, Udinese, Bari, Inter, Roma, Juve {basically the whole league}) a lot of teams just made plans to see how they would turn out.

Lazio's was one of those. Never had even close to the financial ability to build a stadium. In Italy there is a saying that translates to something like "building a stadium on paper'. Well that is what Lazio's new stadium plans are; "built on paper".

Roma, well with the new owner and his ideas for the club, they are very likely to get a new stadium and I see a spade in the ground within 1 year.

With Finanacial fair play i don't see where (except turin) an italian club could conciliate good players, good financial results and building a new stadium!

Economic crisis is too important to contract such debts for a club?

Would Roma be willing to ground share with Lazio in the new stadium?

Haha They will never build a new stadium. In Italy when a lot of teams were planning new or upgrading stadiums (Cagliari, Udinese, Bari, Inter, Roma, Juve {basically the whole league}) a lot of teams just made plans to see how they would turn out.

I guess many were banking on Italy getting Euro 2016 as well.

I suspect Inter will get a new ground within the next 5 years and I'm sure Cagliari's plans are quite advanced.

Would Roma be willing to ground share with Lazio in the new stadium?

Let's hope not, it's an outdated concept.

Would Roma be willing to ground share with Lazio in the new stadium?

Hopefully not.

With Finanacial fair play i don't see where (except turin) an italian club could conciliate good players, good financial results and building a new stadium!

Economic crisis is too important to contract such debts for a club?

With "financial fair play" any team would hardly be able to do it,not only italian teams.

With Finanacial fair play i don't see where (except turin) an italian club could conciliate good players, good financial results and building a new stadium!

Economic crisis is too important to contract such debts for a club?

Financial fair play rules will only apply to buying and paying players.

Rich owners will still be allowed to give money to their clubs to build new stadiums.

Haha :lol: They will never build a new stadium. In Italy when a lot of teams were planning new or upgrading stadiums (Cagliari, Udinese, Bari, Inter, Roma, Juve {basically the whole league}) a lot of teams just made plans to see how they would turn out.

Lazio's was one of those. Never had even close to the financial ability to build a stadium. In Italy there is a saying that translates to something like "building a stadium on paper'. Well that is what Lazio's new stadium plans are; "built on paper".

Roma, well with the new owner and his ideas for the club, they are very likely to get a new stadium and I see a spade in the ground within 1 year.

Roma can only afford a new stadium because they have been bought out by a wealthy owner who is willing to invest in a new stadium.

The same can happen to Lazio too, surely?

Financial fair play rules will only apply to buying and paying players.

Rich owners will still be allowed to give money to their clubs to build new stadiums.


you don't understand it influences the whole politic of management! if you have not enough money buy players, why you'll build a stadium? ! :dunno:

If you have less cash for players it doesn't mean you have more money to build a stadium.

Finacial fair play is about the deficit of clubs. no matter where this deficit come from, you'll not allowed to particiapate to champions league

you don't understand it influences the whole politic of management! if you have not enough money buy players, why you'll build a stadium? ! :dunno:

If you have less cash for players it doesn't mean you have more money to build a stadium.

Finacial fair play is about the deficit of clubs. no matter where this deficit come from, you'll not allowed to particiapate to champions league

A new stadium will significantly increase revenues - which will, in turn, enable a club to afford to buy and pay new and better players while still complying with the financial fair play rules.

And UEFA have been quite clear about the debt that clubs can legitimately carry. They have explicitly stated that debt raised to build new stadiums will be allowed. Rightly so.

fashionable design....

you don't understand it influences the whole politic of management! if you have not enough money buy players, why you'll build a stadium? ! :dunno:

If you have less cash for players it doesn't mean you have more money to build a stadium.

Finacial fair play is about the deficit of clubs. no matter where this deficit come from, you'll not allowed to particiapate to champions league

If you actually bothered to read what the Financial Fair Play rules are about, you'd realize that it doesn't apply to stadiums/infrastructure. Owners can go crazy with money on facilities.

The rules are designed to keep transfer/wages down, not to stifle growth in infrastructure. Otherwise how would anyone build or refurbish a stadium without falling foul? They are assets in the truest sense, UEFA has no desire to curb that kind of spending, and why would it?

Exactly. In theory, it means clubs with a large fanbase or the ability to build a large fanbase have an incentive to invest in larger stadiums knowing they won't be usurped by a nouveau riche club incapable or unwilling to do either. It should, if it works, allow well-run clubs with potential to invest in their future and in their infrastructure. It may, in truth, simply have the side effect of keeping the traditionally "big" clubs at the top whilst making it harder for those below to break-through, but the intentions are sound. We'll wait and see on the execution.

Agreed. People need to read Soccernomics though to get rid of some fantasy regarding small market teams; the idea that metropolitan areas of sub-500,000 people will ever be relevant in European football again is nonsense. The "big" clubs would be the "big" clubs irrespective of financial fair play, FFP will just keep them solvent. It's no surprise that these same big clubs all come from metropolitan areas of a +1m.

^^They don't need to read it because some of the claims/theories are bunk (which makes me wonder about the rest) and i personally think Kuper is more concerned with making outlandish notions based on selective facts to push his own work, rather than develop serious analytical pieces which investigate a topic. His early work was much better

Anyway, it isn't as clear-cut as you make it out. Many of the large metro areas have more than 2 clubs (some more than 6), whilst 'small' (or medium size in Europe) locations may just one which adds some balance (there is also the wealth of a city). Milan, London, Madrid, Moscow, Brussels are some examples of the former, whilst Brighton, Norwich, Ipswich and Gelsenkirchen (Schalke) the latter. This isn't the US where teams get to monopolise all but the very largest cities, so the giant urban areas won't necessarily be that dominant.

Metro areas also don't tell you how much support exists in the wider region/province. The most obvious current example is Udinese, but the same can be said of many others, especially where regions are isolated and/or not highly urbanised, or there exists a strong county/province identity as in some European states.

Finally, given that most stadiums have capacities equal to a fraction of their city's metro population it doesn't require them to be based in metro area of millions. Fact is, most stadiums have under 60k and thousands of those attending would be away fans, corporate lot and neutrals anyway. If TV revenue was shared fairly then it would matter even less, as it is match day income and TV rights that bring in 75% plus of a club's total revenues. The only clubs which likely couldn't compete without external help are those from real small towns, 100k or under, especially if they're quite poor.

The middle-sized clubs could compete if the structure was different.

I will just ask you one thing: where are the successful European clubs that come from population centers sub-1 million? And I'm not buying the Schalke argument...Rhine-Ruhr has 10 million inhabitants. Norwich it is not.

The last time a metropolitan area of under 1 million won the European Cup was Forest in 1980. In UEFA Cup, its Parma in 1998. If you think they, or anyone else like them, are ever getting anywhere again, you might be waiting a while.

There is no room for sub-1 million metro areas in European football. In domestic league football, a slightly higher chance, but not by much. Look at every European football league, city size more or less determines league position/division/standing (with some exceptions granted). And its not just because there are more people there for support; it has as much to do with everything that comes with a large metropolitan centre (economic, political, and technical resources, among other reasons).

I will just ask you one thing: where are the successful European clubs that come from population centers sub-1 million? And I'm not buying the Schalke argument...Rhine-Ruhr has 10 million inhabitants. Norwich it is not.


First, I was never denying that the most successful clubs were from the largest cities. My point was that it is a to simplistic position to take and when you look into it, things aren't that clear. How many clubs are in said city, the wealth of that city, etc all have to be considered. If it was all (or even primarily) about size, why is Liverpool, with two clubs, a far more successful city than Leeds, which is significantly larger and has just one major club? Indeed, why doesn't Bristol have a trophy to its name, yet tiny Blackburn does (and indeed has been a major force in English football far more than any of those clubs from the SW city)?. The point being that you have to take the context into consideration, which helps explains Liverpool's success and Leeds lack of.

About Schalke, the Rhine-Ruhr is a metro region, not a metro area of a city. It is made up of multiple cities and towns, some of which are separated by large tracks of rural landscape. It is home to half the Bundesliga FFS. How can Bonn or Cologne - some 50km away - be seen as being the catchment are of Schalke?

It's no different to the Randstad and, under your logic, why aren't (or were) ADO Den Haag major European players yet PSV are when Eindhoven has 750K in its metro area? Indeed, the NW corner of England with Merseyside, Greater Manchester and some Lancashire would likely be a metro region if it was in Germany. Does that give Wigan a greater chance of success than Brighton (without their backer of course)?

The last time a metropolitan area of under 1 million won the European Cup was Forest in 1980. In UEFA Cup, its Parma in 1998. If you think they, or anyone else like them, are ever getting anywhere again, you might be waiting a while.


Actually, it was PSV in 1988 for the EC, whilst Ipswich and IFK Goteborg won 3 UEFA Cups during the 80s. This also ignores finalists, such as Club Brugge, EC and UEFA Cup finalists during the latter 70s (metro area 250k), Alaves in 1999 and Dundee during the 80s.

Anyway, I never claimed they would, and under the current system it is more difficult as the best supported clubs hoover up the TV revenue

There is no room for sub-1 million metro areas in European football. In domestic league football, a slightly higher chance, but not by much. Look at every European football league, city size more or less determines league position/division/standing (with some exceptions granted). And its not just because there are more people there for support; it has as much to do with everything that comes with a large metropolitan centre (economic, political, and technical resources, among other reasons).


There is no room whilst a few mega clubs hog all the cash. There isn't even room for the likes of Aston Villa or Bilbao unless a billionaire bankrolls them (and that applies to anyone really). Even then, PSV, NF and others have won more than some clubs from some bigger urban areas.

You're making the mistake of thinking that dominance of a select few is due purely to the size of their urban areas, and that is because you're coming with an American mindset on how to organise sport clubs. Fact is, clubs from medium (and even small in rare cases) cities have won competitions before.

Shit changed during the 90s when TV revenue become a major source of income and the bigger clubs cooked up systems whereby they would be rewarded a bigger share of the ever expanding pie (e.g. individual rights, income based on TV appearances, etc). If there was equal sharing of TV revenue the likes of Arsenal and AC Milan (ok, minus Silvio's wealth!) wouldn;t have started with such a huge financial advantage, which merely perpetuates future wealth and success. The likes of Kuper want us to be think it is all inevitable based on demographics so he can prove his theory, but it is not so simple.

I take your point.

Few thoughts:

- Despite your reasoning, I contribute Schalke's popularity to the Rhine-Ruhr's catchment area. A city of 250,000 (Gelsenkirchen) will never be enough to consistently sell out a 61,000 seater stadium. I have no data or evidence available pertaining to Schalke's fanbase, but I'll be stunned if Schalke don't have a legion of fans outside of its city borders.

- It is actually like the Randstad yes. And within Randstad, you'll find Amsterdam. PSV on the other hand: you may want to check your figures. Eindhoven, as a metropolitan area, has over 2 million inhabitants.

- Considering I'm European, I'm not coming from an American mindset at all. It's a logical mindset. Of course medium sized cities have won competitions before. My whole argument is that they never will again; and they haven't for over 10 years already which just solidifies my point. Yes, money is a massive contributing factor, but why does that work against my argument? Resources (economic, tactical, political, technological, etc) are concentrated mainly in larger urban areas. So its natural that the largest markets are not only the largest clubs because of support and success, but because of the financial rewards that go with being a large metropolitan area.

- If football ever went the way of revenue sharing, I'd probably give up on it. There is no evidence to suggest that the current European model is any worse than the American model. Football is ubiquitously popular around Europe - and the world - in spite of the incredibly disparity on hand. So why would we change anything now? The only thing I would like to see is the introduction of wage cap based on turnover, to stop the clubs from being their own worst enemy. Otherwise, equalization for all European clubs is insanity.

- Bristol can be explained quite easily by geography. West and south-west of England are not the footballing hotbeds of north worst, north east and Midlands. For a long time it has been removed from the areas where clubs strive most. It is also a reason why south-west has been so bereft of football success. These are areas where rugby union is traditionally is equally embedded as football. Part of the reason why larger towns like Wigan, Bradford, Warrington (which have large rugby league traditions), etc in the football hotbed of the north west, have not been traditionally anywhere near successful as other 'football only' towns in the area like Blackburn or Bolton.

Again, I get where you're coming from, but I think we've already turned a corner and there's no going back.

I don't know if we will ever see a truly European league (which might have as many as 5-6 divisions), but the game will continue to work in the favour of the larger clubs, which for many reasons will be situated in the largest European metropolitan areas.

This may have to be my final thoughts on the matter as the thread as gone way off topic.

- Despite your reasoning, I contribute Schalke's popularity to the Rhine-Ruhr's catchment area. A city of 250,000 (Gelsenkirchen) will never be enough to consistently sell out a 61,000 seater stadium. I have no data or evidence available pertaining to Schalke's fanbase, but I'll be stunned if Schalke don't have a legion of fans outside of its city borders.

- It is actually like the Randstad yes. And within Randstad, you'll find Amsterdam. PSV on the other hand: you may want to check your figures. Eindhoven, as a metropolitan area, has over 2 million inhabitants.

To me, it seems that countries which use the idea of a metro 'region' do so for administrative and statistical reasons, largely so they can rationalise a state (in Germany it allows them to neatly divided the country geographically into a dozen or so metro regions). I've lived in the Randstad (The Hague) and it does not feel like you are part of one core area, certainly the way it does in my home city, London, or in il-de-France. No one in The Hague says they live in the 'Randstad', it's just a political and administrative concept. In other words, it's just terminology.

Eindhoven itself has a metro area of 750k, but belongs to a metro 'region' of 2 million. If you accept that there, you should allow a country like England and its clubs an entire county as being within range and if you do, the whole concept of metro areas become meaningless, as look at those counties with only 1 or 2 clubs (Look at Sunderland). This is partly what I meant when I said look at the context together with the figures. The numbers alone don't tell you enough.

- Considering I'm European, I'm not coming from an American mindset at all. It's a logical mindset. Of course medium sized cities have won competitions before. My whole argument is that they never will again; and they haven't for over 10 years already which just solidifies my point. Yes, money is a massive contributing factor, but why does that work against my argument? Resources (economic, tactical, political, technological, etc) are concentrated mainly in larger urban areas. So its natural that the largest markets are not only the largest clubs because of support and success, but because of the financial rewards that go with being a large metropolitan area.

Well, experience tells me you do not have to be an actual American (or even live there) to have a US mindset in some areas....... (it was the use of the term 'small-market teams' which alerted me)

Anyway, my point is - besides the context which I mentioned - it becomes 'logical' because of system we have and because the big clubs and certain talking heads (Marcotti, Honigstein) claim that it is so. There is a cut off point, but for me that cut off point is lower than for you.

The reason money is a factor is because of the way it is, unfairly, distributed. As for resources, I don't buy it. Tactical or technological elements aren't really dependent upon location, especially now, where the globalisation of football means that ideas, methods and tools are more widely available than ever. To me, the most successful clubs are those that appear to have a global network of outlets and centres, with the training ground a mere hub from which everything is channeled towards. These political or economic factors are being overstated because I think the mistake being made is comparing clubs to other organisations and businesses which benefit from being in a cluster and with access to a large demographic pool (better supply of workers, for example). I don't see the same requirements for football because of the qualitative differences (in comparison, clubs rely on a much smaller pool of individuals for example)


- If football ever went the way of revenue sharing, I'd probably give up on it. There is no evidence to suggest that the current European model is any worse than the American model. Football is ubiquitously popular around Europe - and the world - in spite of the incredibly disparity on hand. So why would we change anything now? The only thing I would like to see is the introduction of wage cap based on turnover, to stop the clubs from being their own worst enemy. Otherwise, equalization for all European clubs is insanity.

Why? Anyway, I wasn't arguing for complete revenue sharing or 'equalization', just TV rights, because a) the smaller the gap between clubs the closer the competition, which makes it more attractive over the long-term which benefits everyone; and b) the valuation of TV rights is dependent upon the collective worth of the clubs in question. As such, what right does any club have to cream off a larger slice? If the CL was Arsenal and 31 clubs from Iran and Central Asia it would be worth a fraction of what is now. It is the collective weight of a competition which determines its value.

A wage cap based on turnover without a reduction in the income gap doesn't solve anything. Clubs in a given league don't all need to have the same level of income (not even half of it I would say), but currently it is too wide when you get some clubs having a turnover worth less than 10% of the highest earner.

Football's popularity is based on 100+ years of being a major socio-cultural element in European life, more so probably than anything else during the past 20th century. Therefore, it is popular despite of the current disparity.


- Bristol can be explained quite easily by geography. West and south-west of England are not the footballing hotbeds of north worst, north east and Midlands. For a long time it has been removed from the areas where clubs strive most. It is also a reason why south-west has been so bereft of football success. These are areas where rugby union is traditionally is equally embedded as football. Part of the reason why larger towns like Wigan, Bradford, Warrington (which have large rugby league traditions), etc in the football hotbed of the north west, have not been traditionally anywhere near successful as other 'football only' towns in the area like Blackburn or Bolton.

Er, but that is the context I am talking about!! Anyway, what you said is not really true at all (apart from the RL towns). Southern clubs have historically been at a disadvantage because the FL was until after 1920 overwhelming a northern and midlands affair. There was a separate Southern League. Even after this many southern clubs (esp. outside london) joined by the FL creating a 3rd division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_League_Third_Division), meaning they started at the bottom. During those days it was much harder to get promoted as only one out 22 (24 from 1950) could go up. Considering that 20s and especially 30s were English football's boom time (crowds grew to stupid levels), many potential big clubs in the South (outside London) were at a huge handicap. it wasn't until 1958 that the two 3rd divisions were merged into one and it was 4-up-4-down.

Admittedly, Bristol City were the only non-London southern club in the FL before WWI, but getting relegated a few years before the War broke out and then being stuck in the bottom tier for much of football's boom time explains a lot. Even then, their historic crowds are decent and better than many northern clubs when they were in the bottom 2 divisions.

Again, I get where you're coming from, but I think we've already turned a corner and there's no going back.

I don't know if we will ever see a truly European league (which might have as many as 5-6 divisions), but the game will continue to work in the favour of the larger clubs, which for many reasons will be situated in the largest European metropolitan areas.

To me that is defeatist and fatalist (no offence meant).

A ESL in the sense of an NBA type competition won't happen anytime soon. I suspect the clubs want more guaranteed games, especially against each other. Expanding it so that winners play, say 20 games a season. Brazil shows that clubs can play 70+ games a season, but the caveat is that they don't have masses of pre-season friendlies and certainly do no travel the globe during them. The close season is like a month long. If the big clubs want to keep 38 domestic league games (which they do, they're major money earners), add another 10 CL games and keep a cup competition they'll have to cut the close season and pre-season friendlies to fit it all in.

yeah, i read the fifa fair play rules just this week. it strictly applies to player transfers and wages. it has nothing to do with infrastructure... it means therefore that moratti should be able to proceed with plans, so too lazio... la viola... all teams. platini wants the leagues to have good stadiums, he's not gonna punish that...

The last time a metropolitan area of under 1 million won the European Cup was Forest in 1980. In UEFA Cup, its Parma in 1998. If you think they, or anyone else like them, are ever getting anywhere again, you might be waiting a while.



Porto is close. It has a population of 220,000 officially, and a metro area population of 1.1m - 1.3m depending on which source you use. Either way, it's far smaller than the mega-centers, and has two European trophies in the last eight years.

http://multimedia.iltempo.it/data/images/gallery/2009/334/stadio2.JPG

http://multimedia.iltempo.it/data/images/gallery/2009/334/stadio2.JPG
Does this come with any new info about the project?

It seems to be located so remote from the downtown.

Hopefully it would be build.
It would be very good for Roma, The Olympico is (I think) to big for them. Also the olympic ring is bad for the vieuw for the fans.
The atmosphere will be a lot better !!!
And the are owners of the stadium

I say : GO ROMA

Hopefully it would be build.
It would be very good for Roma, The Olympico is (I think) to big for them. Also the olympic ring is bad for the vieuw for the fans.
The atmosphere will be a lot better !!!
And the are owners of the stadium

I say : GO ROMA

Absolutely. I've been pleasantly surprised by how realistic the new Italian projects are as far as capacity is concerned. 35k at Palermo; 55k at Roma; 41k at Juve... they are being smart about it. There is a light at the end of the tunnel for Italian football.

http://www.goal.com/en/news/10/italy/2011/09/21/2676189/new-roma-stadium-planned-for-2014

http://www.goal.com/en/news/10/italy/2011/09/21/2676189/new-roma-stadium-planned-for-2014

doesn't lookanything like this stadium would be built. I mean this concept, not any stadium for Roma...

quando lo fano questo stadio

Luckily that awful rendering will never be nothing more than a render. The final slap in the face from the disgraceful president Rosella Sensi, who with millions of dept, tons of lawsuits from former players went and commissioned that render which could never in a million years be build.

"Here's our stadium, we just need someone to pay for it for us"

:ohno:

Luckily there is work being made by the new owner Thomas Di Benedetto. Yesterday he meet with the mayor of Rome to discuss building a stadium. The mayor said the first stone could be laid within a year. It's reported that Di Benedetto went and surveyed the Tor Di Valle area where there is a racing track as a possible location for the new grounds. It's also being reported that Populous is being looked at as the firm to design the grounds. Thomas Di Benedetto is partnered with James Pallotta and he has people from his Raptor Accelerator firm meeting with architects with that firm.

One this is sure, forget the Stadio Franco Sensi, the new Roma stadium will have a new look and different name.

Luckily there is work being made by the new owner Thomas Di Benedetto. Yesterday he meet with the mayor of Rome to discuss building a stadium. The mayor said the first stone could be laid within a year. It's reported that Di Benedetto went and surveyed the Tor Di Valle area where there is a racing track as a possible location for the new grounds. It's also being reported that Populous is being looked at as the firm to design the grounds. Thomas Di Benedetto is partnered with James Pallotta and he has people from his Raptor Accelerator firm meeting with architects with that firm.

One this is sure, forget the Stadio Franco Sensi, the new Roma stadium will have a new look and different name.

Yes, correct on all accounts. It is good to have someone so informed on the matters. Keep us posted.

Looking at this render it really reminds of the new Juve stadium.

http://multimedia.iltempo.it/data/images/gallery/2009/334/stadio2.JPG

http://i34.tinypic.com/fz2ba.jpg

http://www.archiportale.com/immagini/FileProgetto/immaginigrandi/23067_7.jpg

Any info to go with that render?

Any info to go with that render?

The render is outdated, it present Stadio Sensi, as mentioned in the thread, while at this point there's a different concept being worked on. Or at least to my knowledge. Roma's owner claimed in Sept that they need a year for the design works, which suggests this one is not any more. It's been presented 2 years ago by former president who never got to make it happen. If any Italian would like to update this info, please do!