I noticed that this seemed to be coming up in a few of the threads, so I decided to make a dedicated one. Here we can discuss which teams should be using which stadiums in SA.

My idea:

Soccer City: reserved for Soweto derby, cup finals and Bafana games
Moses Mabhida: shared by Golden Arrows and Amazulu (Olympic venue in 2020)
Green Point: Not too sure on this one, WPRU could move in
Nelson Mandlea Bay Stadium: shared by Bay United and Southern Kings
Loftus: Shared by Bulls and Sundowns
Ellis Park: Lions (I know that Pirates basically run the place, but work with me)
Kings Park: Sharks
Mombhela Stadium: Mpumalanga Black Aces
Peter Mokabha: Black Leopards
Free State: Cheetahs and Bloem Celtic
Royal Bafokeng: Platinum Stars
Orlando: Pirates
Amakhozi stadium: Chiefs
Rand stadium: Jomo Cosmos
Doppsenville: Swallows
Athlone: Santos and Ajax

Well that's a start from me, what do other members think.

Well, with the Amakhosi stadium knocking the rocks, expect them to use Soccercity

I don't think Black Leopards at PM would be realistic. Danny Jordaan already hinted at the idea of relocating a current PSL club to Polokwane, which would be kinda tricky if you ask me.

I think Ajax would move into Green Point. For the Stormers to move in there, they'd have to be dragged, kicking and screaming. ;)

Well, Black leapards would come back to the PSL next season. Jomo wouldnt mind goin up north. hes done it before.

I wonder how the new stadiums will affect the ticket prices for games? cuz i know prices for psl games are relatively cheap at the moment.

I think Ajax would move into Green Point. For the Stormers to move in there, they'd have to be dragged, kicking and screaming. ;)

I don't know why people have that perception. The same company that will run Green Point own a stake in WPRU.

I don't know why people have that perception. The same company that will run Green Point own a stake in WPRU.
I think that one of the additional reasons besides the fact that many people LOVE Newlands, its next to SARU, its near the WP offices; WP owns the stadium and much of the surrounding land.
However in terms of the venue, GPS would be the better option, but then again its new, as in R 4.3 Billion new.

* Athlone Stadium

The rugby team in cape town will be stupid to choose newlands over GP...jeez there is no comparison...newlands may have all the history..but how many currie cups or super 14 have they won at newlands....just move into the brand new stadium and enjoy...

I would prefer let sharks use MM stadium.

The rugby team in cape town will be stupid to choose newlands over GP...jeez there is no comparison...newlands may have all the history..but how many currie cups or super 14 have they won at newlands....just move into the brand new stadium and enjoy...

Western province have won the currie cup 32 times (however prior to 1939 there was no final played during which time western province won the cup 15 times and shared it twice). Since then they have won the competition 8 times at newlands, and shared it twice they have won a further 2 times away from home and 1 further time in 1957-59 during which the competion was held over 2 seasons and didnt have a final. (The competion only became a yearly competion from 1968)

ps I didnt know that all off the top of my head but yeah.

^^ still it would be wise to move gp

^^ finacially I agree! and from a crowd experience, but I fear that some of the atmosphere at newlands would be lost and huge dose of history.

Last I heard, Newlands were doing some minor upgrades, so I dont think the stadium will be demolished for +/- the next few years; and now that SA will not be hosting the IRB Rugby World Cup for the next decade, there is no rush to move. I think CT can manage 3 main stadiums, NLS, ALS, and GPS; only thing there will not be as great of a revenue from GPS as initially expected.

^^ they can use 3 major stadiums if the 2 psl teams make a proper go of each managing/using one (though from a capacity point of view I dont know weather one of them shouldnt use newlands and rugby take gps, but from a historical perspective it would be much better to have soccer teams in the SWC stadiums and rugby in the oldest rugby ground in sa) I also think that a current psl team should not be given phillipie as this doesnt push the game and it would be better used by one or two of the NFD teams they could also consider the NFD teams sharing athlone (and even GPS) with a PSL team.

I noticed that this seemed to be coming up in a few of the threads, so I decided to make a dedicated one. Here we can discuss which teams should be using which stadiums in SA.

My idea:


Moses Mabhida: shared by Golden Arrows and Amazulu (Olympic venue in 2020)
Green Point: Not too sure on this one, WPRU could move in



and between 2010 and a possible 2020 olympic games??

Green Point: Whether or not WP Rugby moves it has an operator bringing events to the stadium. As it has been discussed at length, WPRU are only spiting themselves by not moving to the stadium.....whats that word...self defeating..I think

and between 2010 and a possible 2020 olympic games??

Green Point: Whether or not WP Rugby moves it has an operator bringing events to the stadium. As it has been discussed at length, WPRU are only spiting themselves by not moving to the stadium.....whats that word...self defeating..I think

It isn't purely spite. WPRU is very dependent on money generated by selling suite/boxes.

[Warning what follows is based a very dodgy memory] In typical WPRU fashion all these leases expire/are renwed at the same time. These contracts are typically for about 5 years and were renewed about 18 months back if memory serves me. What that means for any possible move to the GPS is that it won't happen before about 2013 at the earliest, but even then suite capacity at GPS will be an issue.

I really think we can use/keep all 3 stadiums.
Teams not moving from ALS or NLS, and GPS will host the "main" games, and they have an operator. So it should be fine.

I really think we can use/keep all 3 stadiums.
Teams not moving from ALS or NLS, and GPS will host the "main" games, and they have an operator. So it should be fine.

I can't speak for other sports as I lack a proper insight into their structures, but there are couple of pretty big problems with having top level rugby at more than one venue in Cape Town.

The first thing is the way "big" games are allocated by SARU. I explained it in another thread, but SARU don't organise games at specific venue. The games are allocated to the different memeber unions that make up SARU who then act as host. For a game hosted by Western Province Rugby Union for example, WPRU pays a set fee of I think R5-7mil to SARU for the right to host the game. The ballance of the match day income are retained by the host union. Now it would seem obvious that it is better to sell 70k seat rather than 50k at R400 a pop, but it is not that simple. Test matches are typically included the price of season ticket and prety mcuh the number one reason anybody buys them. Moving the big games to GPS (without moving the other games) will mean that WPRU will lose the income from season tickets. The same also applies for suite rentals.

Direct marketing (sign boards etc.) revenue is also dependant on getting plenty of TV exposure. Splitting the revenue between two venues doesn't really make sense.

It isn't purely spite. WPRU is very dependent on money generated by selling suite/boxes.

[Warning what follows is based a very dodgy memory] In typical WPRU fashion all these leases expire/are renwed at the same time. These contracts are typically for about 5 years and were renewed about 18 months back if memory serves me. What that means for any possible move to the GPS is that it won't happen before about 2013 at the earliest, but even then suite capacity at GPS will be an issue.

And post 2010 GPS will increase its suite capacity accordingly.
As per the draft terms of the operator agreement, SAIL/Stade de France would fund the post 2010 conversion.

They would also make lots of money by selling NLS and moving to GPS where
1: They would not pay for maintenance
2: They would work with SAIL, who already own 25% of WPRU
3: They would not pay for pitch maintenance
4: They would have a dedicated team marketing the stadium and bringing events to the venue
5: Surely, SAIL would have the commercial interests of WPRU in mind, considering that they ARE the financial/commercial arm of WPRU

In addition SAIL, I assume manage the suite/hospitality setup at NLS, and since they are operators at GPS , I highly doubt they would not be able to produce a plan that makes everybody happy.

This excludes costs of maintenance of NLS, the lack of proper media area, its residential location etc etc

Then there's the value of 2010 exposure. I personally believe that WPRU can capitalize on expsosure gained by being a tenant at GPS.

I've said it before, WPRU should NOT be forced to move BUT they are making a very poor decision based only on the short term. From almost any angle GPS, given the inclusion of SAIL as an operator is the superior option.

^^

I am completely in favour of WP moving accross town to GPS, but I think you have to be realistic here. The agreements WP has with their current suite holders will cost an awful lot of money to cancel. Also rememeber that if WP decides to move to GPS the parties will have to agree on the rent. As things stand WPRU is in a pretty strong negotiating position. They don't need to move from Newlands. Realistically SAIL needs to find a tenant. (I know that there a tenantless stadiums that make it, but that is the exception). By playing hard to get WP is in fact negotiating the price downwards.

1: They would not pay for maintenance
...
3: They would not pay for pitch maintenance
...

For some reason I thought you were a actuary, anyway. The stadium will have to generate funds to maintain the stadium and its pitch. Like any other landlord the operator will have to cover its costs through the rent it charges its tenant. That means that whatever rent is eventually agreed between WP and SAIL/Stade will include these expenses.

^^




For some reason I thought you were a actuary, anyway. The stadium will have to generate funds to maintain the stadium and its pitch. Like any other landlord the operator will have to cover its costs through the rent it charges its tenant. That means that whatever rent is eventually agreed between WP and SAIL/Stade will include these expenses.

Not quite.

As stated below WPRU would not be paying for this. Assuming they are a tenant of the operator.

Under the operator agreement SAIL/Stade de France take over the responsibility and costs for the pitch maintenance. Lets calls this tier one maintenance. The city covered the cost of the protective covering for
concerts.

1. In order to facilitate these activities it will be essential to provide protection for the grassed pitch that is central to the sports function of the stadium. The City of Cape Town will fund the provision of a
of a portable specialist system that can be quickly be assembled, disassembled and stored as a standard part of providing a "clean" stadium to the Operator.

2. Without the initial benefit of having an established home team based at the stadium, the events programme becomes essential. The Operator therefore accepts full responsibility for any future replacement of the pitch during the term of the lease. It was also agreed that the City would not be obligated to accept responsibility for future capital investment for structural adaptations necessary to expand the range of activities in the stadium - it is expected that the Operator and third party sub-tenants would assume responsibility for future capital investment for structural adaptations should the City agree to such improvements.



The second tier of maintenance would be up to a set cap, I think R5/10 million p.a. increasing in line with inflation (but will confirm this week). Again WP Rugby not paying. This would deal with the general operations, cleaning, parking, crowd control etc

1. The operator will maintain the stadium for the first 3 years at a cap of R5 million annually, Thus from years 4 to 10 the maintenance cap of R5 million per annum is to be escalated by compounding the effect of escalation as measured by CPI.

2. In return, the City is to receive a substantially improved rental return than offered in the original proposal by SAIL/Stade de France and now be fixed at 30% of Earnings before Tax (inclusive of municipal rates) on a fixed percentage basis.

The last tier would be the landlord maintenance, where as the landlord, the city of cape town would take responsibility for maintenance of the building structure. In the same way as the landlord of a flat takes responsibility for the walls, and major stadium structures e.g. if the facade "breaks".

The City as landlord is, of course, responsible for structural repairs including the static stadium equipment as against ongoing routine maintenance.

OK so if I understand the quoted parts of the agreement correctly, the agreement is structured a follows. The City will provide a pitch and protection therefore, but SAIL will responsible for maintenance of the pitch. Secondly SAIL will be responsible ware and tear maintenance, but their liability is capped at R5 mil (adjusted to inflation). Finally the City is responsible for structural maintenance. So SAIL has to pay for the pitch and standard maintenance from their own cashflow.

The point I was making was that SAIL's cashflow will is derived from letting the premises to bodies like WP, Santos, Ajax, Big concerts, whatever. What SAIL will do is calculate what their obligations are in terms of the contract and simply pass the cost on their customers in the form of money charged for rental. Say WPRU becomes the anchor tenant of GPS, their rent will include the cost of maintaining the stadium. Just because the money goes WP-SAIL- grasscutter CC, instead of WP - grasscutter CC, make no difference to WP cashflow.

This isn't a problem, maintaining a playing surface is part of running sporting franchise (and far from their biggest expense), but that expense cannot be avoided simply by renting instead of owning your own stadium. The same obvious apply to general maintenance.

If look at it from the city's POV, they are doing exactly the same thing. Capping SAIL's exposure to risk at R5m they are simply trading in the risk of something going wrong that will be more than R5m. In your quoted bit it makes it clear that SAIL is paying premium for having their exposure limited. The city is effectively recouping difference between R5m and real expense from charging a higher rental fee. There is absolutely nothing strange about this sort of agreement.

Nice to the disscussions so far. There is still one stumbling block that i see. Not to start a fight but how are we going to get more people to go and watch psl games?

OK so if I understand the quoted parts of the agreement correctly, the agreement is structured a follows. The City will provide a pitch and protection therefore, but SAIL will responsible for maintenance of the pitch. Secondly SAIL will be responsible ware and tear maintenance, but their liability is capped at R5 mil (adjusted to inflation). Finally the City is responsible for structural maintenance. So SAIL has to pay for the pitch and standard maintenance from their own cashflow.

The point I was making was that SAIL's cashflow will is derived from letting the premises to bodies like WP, Santos, Ajax, Big concerts, whatever. What SAIL will do is calculate what their obligations are in terms of the contract and simply pass the cost on their customers in the form of money charged for rental. Say WPRU becomes the anchor tenant of GPS, their rent will include the cost of maintaining the stadium. Just because the money goes WP-SAIL- grasscutter CC, instead of WP - grasscutter CC, make no difference to WP cashflow.

This isn't a problem, maintaining a playing surface is part of running sporting franchise (and far from their biggest expense), but that expense cannot be avoided simply by renting instead of owning your own stadium. The same obvious apply to general maintenance.

If look at it from the city's POV, they are doing exactly the same thing. Capping SAIL's exposure to risk at R5m they are simply trading in the risk of something going wrong that will be more than R5m. In your quoted bit it makes it clear that SAIL is paying premium for having their exposure limited. The city is effectively recouping difference between R5m and real expense from charging a higher rental fee. There is absolutely nothing strange about this sort of agreement.

Yes, they would pass some of the costs on to WPRU through rental but surely not the entire cost.

There is also no indication that in the first 10 years maintenance costs of GPS would exceed the ageing NLS.

One would also think that if the WPRU -SAIL/Stade de France relationship is pursued as a partnership then WPRU who do NOT have rights to host other events at NLS will benefit from this sort of setup.

Even then, with revenues from the sale of NLS and associated offices (given the space available at GPS) WPRU would finally have some financial stability while they would be "renting" a modern sustainable venue.

By that I mean real financial stability, not the "PR" they feed the press about their financial results.

Some other considerations would be that

1. Sufficient office space would be available for WPRU at GPS, and any duplication in terms of SAIL's current agreements with WPRU would be eliminated
2. There are sufficient training fields surrounding the stadium, so perhaps they could reconsider whether they need to be training all the way out in Bellville

Seating Numbers, ALS is at +/- 30 000, NLS is at +/- 54 000, and GPS is at +/- 70 000/ 69 000.
I still don’t think it’s that much of an issue that GPS has no anchor tenant as of yet. With a proper business plan, (which I’m sure they have) will receive income to cover the costs, except this will just be over a longer period.

WP was experiencing financial difficulty, this was a while ago. Since then, things have changed. If things were so bad financially, they would have moved/ agreed to move ages ago.

NLS has a lot of signage. Although it generates an income, I would hate to see GPS with such an amount of advertising plastered over the beautiful, classic venue.

“Sufficient office space” Are you sure? Space for SARU too? Yes they don’t have to be near the stadium, but it is convenient.
“Training in Bellville” It’s not their main/only training venue. They also train at the various school grounds in the surrounding area. This I believe is good motivation for students, as not only do they get to interact with the players but also get inspired by them.

Seating Numbers, ALS is at +/- 30 000, NLS is at +/- 54 000, and GPS is at +/- 70 000/ 69 000.
I still don’t think it’s that much of an issue that GPS has no anchor tenant as of yet. With a proper business plan, (which I’m sure they have) will receive income to cover the costs, except this will just be over a longer period.

WP was experiencing financial difficulty, this was a while ago. Since then, things have changed. If things were so bad financially, they would have moved/ agreed to move ages ago.

NLS has a lot of signage. Although it generates an income, I would hate to see GPS with such an amount of advertising plastered over the beautiful, classic venue.

“Sufficient office space” Are you sure? Space for SARU too? Yes they don’t have to be near the stadium, but it is convenient.


1. Their financials, while reasonable for now, and on paper don't reflect the real cracks that exist.

2. Yes, there would be sufficient office space. Many of the FIFA required office spaces become available, large parts of the podium were designed to allow for future retail/commercial/office use. Then there's the opportunities of the space made available in legacy mode.

I highly doubt that even if things were worse financially that they would move. Their decision making is poor and their motivation in some cases is vague and pathetic.

They are financially stable; and are in a position to do maintenance and a few upgrades to the stadium.
I think they could move, within the next 10 years, but if Cape Town gets 2020, maybe they won’t till after the Olympics.

As to whether their decisions are poor, I don’t quite believe it. There are MANY people who don’t want to see NLS gone, and I think management is aware of this.
We can have ALN, NLS, and the mother stadium of Cape Town, GPS/CTS

They are financially stable;




That's what they say. I beg to differ.

The "lots of people who don't want NLS gone" could do nothing to prevent the R12 million loss as recently as 2007 after selling off over R50 million in asset before then to "make a profit".

The reality is that Roodman, the same guy who was CEO when cash reserves dropped from R40 million to R2 million is the same guy who is insisting that a GPS move would not be a good move.

So when all the assets are basically gone AND the can't raise revenue from non-rugby activities, because the venue can't host other events besides football...??

That's what they say. I beg to differ.

The "lots of people who don't want NLS gone" could do nothing to prevent the R12 million loss as recently as 2007 after selling off over R50 million in asset before then to "make a profit".

The reality is that Roodman, the same guy who was CEO when cash reserves dropped from R40 million to R2 million is the same guy who is insisting that a GPS move would not be a good move.

So when all the assets are basically gone AND the can't raise revenue from non-rugby activities, because the venue can't host other events besides football...??

But will moving to a new ground and liquidating their (WPRU) biggest asset really give them financial security? As general rule of thumb it is better to own your own business premises than to rent, especially if you don't owe any money in terms of the premises. That is the case currently with NLS. It is true what you say that NLS can't be exploited properly because of its position in a residential area, but any extra revenue generated by GPS through concerts etc. will go to SAIL/PDF, not WPRU.

I probably have to explain this last point. If WPRU moves to GPS they will be in the position of tenant. Their agreement can be structured in many forms, but it will either be in the form revenue share between SAIL and WPRU for income generated by rugby or WPRU will pay SAIL a fixed amount to use the stadium for X number of days a season. WPRU runs a rugby team and are not in the business of managing events, that is what SAIL does.

What this effectively means is that WPRU would have use of the stadium on the days that they have home games between Feb and Oct. On days that WP/Stomers/Springboks don't play at GPS, SAIL will try and find other bodies to use the venue for soccer games, concerts, prayermeeting or koeksuster bizarres. WPRU should not see a cent of the money Sannie from Worcester pays to have her little stall at koeksuster bizarre.

The issue that will have to be sorted between SAIL and WPRU is what happens to the income from hospitality suites and shop rentals. Without Rugby (or any other anchor tenant), GPS is very unlikely to generate any revenue from suites and concessions rentals.

The reason I am in favour of WP moving to GPS is that I think it will generate better income, I know there are many saturdays that I decide not to go to the rugby because it is simply much effort to sit in traffic for two hour. I don't think I am the only one that is discouraged from going to games for this reason. The second reason is related to the first. As brilliant as Newlands is, it would probably had to be re-done/upgraded in the next ten to twenty years. That would probably have meant moving anyway. The world cup has made it possible to build a new stadium anyway, so moving the inevitable move forward seems to make sense.

If think it was AndrewSA that said that Cape Town can afford to have three stadiums at the same time. I disagree. I think there is definite place for Athlone stadium, but really don't see the point of having Newlands and GPS. I certainly don't want a situation where WP uses newlands as their normal ground and rents for GPS for special events such as currie cup finals (if they ever host one again) and test matches. If their is one thing that rugby can learn from the PSL it is that not having a "home" ground is bad idea.

Alternatively, perhaps the 25% ownership that SAIL have of WPRFU could mean that 25%( as per usual) of match/hospitality revenues accrue to SAIL/Stade without an additional tenant fee. Perhaps with a premium to contribute towards maintenance of the field.

The old Green Point stadium would be a nice warm up/training venue and would be a nice 5,000 seater for youngsters to watch the Stormers and WP teams train.

Sale of NLS won't save them but you have to think long term.
It would boost their cash reserves and GPS might even attract more spectators as you say due to the significantly improved access. Its location in a tourist hotspot helps too.

Newlands is too much of a mission even to get a drink or something to eat. The media trek from one end to the other. The roof cover could be better.
location location location!

For now, they have to maintain all 3 stadiums as NLS is not closing for the next few years. My personal view is I don’t believe that because of the new R4.3 Billion stadium, NLS should have to close. "Pressure" is only being put on WP as they know that there was no way in hell they could ever close/move ALS.

Moving Rugby to WC venues seems to be the "bailout" plan. In the long run, NLS will probably close, for now, it won’t.

At the end of the day WP owns NLS and the surrounding land, moving to GPS would mean they own jack. Jack stadium, Jack surrounding land, would have to pay rent, but on the other hand, they would be in a x 100000 better venue.

When planning a project, one thing you consider is the life span/ next phase (expansion etc) NLS is soon reaching its “sell buy date” and when the time comes, they will move. GPS is a new venue, planned for the feature, and at a R4.3 Billion cost, it should have no problems, and should be x 100000 a better venue.

And about Location, ah ALS…

We've been through this before and that's a failed argument based on short term thinking.

In addition nobody is forcing WP Rugby to do anything.

I know it’s been discussed before. It is a controversial issue.

Soccer City 'the best stadium'
2009-10-22 09:05
Print article Email article

Related Links
Soccer City a big achievement
Stadium dents Joburg budget
Stadium dents Joburg budget
Mthethwa: SA safe enough for 2010
Thumbs up for World Cup
Retha Grobbelaar
Johannesburg - Wednesday was a proud day for the 2 500 construction workers who had built Soccer City in Johannesburg.

The workers had a braai as they celebrated the official roof-wetting - helped by the rain - and the start of the final completion inspections for the 2010 FIFA World Cup stadium.

"I am so happy. This country now has a big stadium," said Witness Mgcani, 38.

Nyasha Marumure, 23, another builder, said he was very pleased with the stadium.

Finishing touches

"I am really proud to have been part of the workers who built the stadium," he said.

With 232 days left before the start of the Soccer World Cup, the stadium is basically finished, with only finishing touches still to be done. Floors are being tiled and paving outside the stadium has yet to be completed.

Construction started in February 2007.

Project director Mike Moody said he felt "fantastic".

"It is quite a job. When you come to the end of any job, the last couple of months are frustrating. Actually, I don't want it to be finished," he said.

'Best stadium in the world'

"We are all very proud of what we have achieved. Of course I am biased, but I think it is the best stadium (in the world)," he said.

Another cause for celebration on Wednesday, was that there had been no serious injuries leading to a disability in 1.7 million working hours.

The stadium, which will host the opening match and final, has 89 000 seats.

Despite concerns that some of the 2010 stadiums would not be sustainable after the World Cup, Barry Pollen, director of Stadium Management South Africa - the company which manages the stadium - said he was sure Soccer City would be sustainable.

He said it would also host events such as concerts and Christmas parties.:lol::banana:


http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/be75bd78952640d790737e6fef3c25c8/22-10-2009-09-05/Soccer_City_the_best_stadium


I cant really imagine inviting my closest 90,000 mates for a xmas party, Hmmm.

Yeah, it's a pity they can only held one christmas party a year.:nuts: Christmas, for me is to spend with the family. Maybe he ment to say New Year's Party, for it sure would call more people.

Just saw this on News 24:

Durban - Following an announcement on East Coast Radio on Monday, the Sharks Union have confirmed they will not be playing their Super 14 matches at the Moses Mahbida Stadium in 2010.

The venue for all of their upcoming games will be The Absa Stadium Durban.

Brian van Zyl, Sharks CEO, stated: “I would like to reiterate what I said last year, that we are still in ongoing discussions with the City and at this point, no decision has been made whether or not to move across to the new stadium. For a decision to be made, we would need to have in-depth consultations with all the stakeholders, together with our equity partner SuperSport.

The City has, however, put forward a request to The Sharks to play a friendly early next year at the new stadium in order to try out the field conditions. At this stage, nothing has been confirmed as we would still need to determine where we will be playing our pre-season warm-up games.”

Sharks deny stadium move. (http://www.sport24.co.za/Content/Rugby/264/f57c9869bd634a738caf8109d84b5749/26-10-2009-03-10/Sharks_deny_stadium_move)

Also heard that. - Expected

Also heard that. - Expected
Hopefully this paves the way for Golden Arrows and Amazulu to get the stadium.

A Sharks friendly at the stadium in 2010 would be cool :)

^^

stuff the sharks, bring on the WORLD CHAMPION SPRINGBOKS.:banana:

A sign that the Soweto derby should move to Soccer City:

Soweto - Tickets for the Soweto derby between hosts Kaizer Chiefs and Orlando Pirates at the Orlando Stadium in Soweto on Saturday are sold out.
The tickets are sold out with three days still to go to the big game.

Going into the game Chiefs will be looking to climb up the league table while Pirates would want to get their faltering campaign back on track after suffering an embarrassing 3-0 loss to SuperSport United a week ago.


Soweto derby sold out (http://www.sport24.co.za/Content/Soccer/PSL/380/422e9e1194344df58fb93c1d9a7c15dd/28-10-2009-10-59/Soweto_derby_sold_out)

I think that the next derby is on the 20th of Febraury, hopefully they can play that at Soccer City with 89 000 fans.

^^ I would love to see that happening.

^^ that would be really cool and a real possiblity

Creative uses:

Thought I'd add some more creative uses, that would be a possibility for some of the stadia.

http://www.hamburg.de/image/1249200/schwimm-wm.jpghttp://www.raceofchampions.com/images/press/beijing_track02.jpghttp://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/12/17/wembley_wideweb__470x313,2.jpghttp://www.building.co.uk/Pictures/436xAny/l/n/y/RLB_screen_grab1.jpghttp://www.stadefrance.com/documents/ccss_stade/plage.jpghttp://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/0327/ncb_a_reliant_600.jpg

Creative uses:
http://www.building.co.uk/Pictures/436xAny/l/n/y/RLB_screen_grab1.jpg[

what exactly is happening here?

I'm going to post here to stop the derailing that i was a part of in the Mbombela Stadium thread.

I think that the Pumas will do something similar to what the Leopards did this season. They played Boland and Griquas at Olen Park, but they played the Blue Bulls, Golden Lions, Free State and Western Province at The Royal Bafokeng Sports Palace.

The Pumas will probably play 'small' games at Puma Stadium, and 'big' games at Mbombela Stadium.



The Puma's stadium sucks though, like I said they could use this one for 'big' games. Also, Puma Stadium is being rented to Black Aces at the moment.



This must happen. As long as Black Aces stay in the PSL, they should be rented the stadium for as little as possible. They get a raw deal at Puma Stadium, but the municipality shoudl rent them the stadium for a tiny fee.

They can make money buy charging the Pumas more. It might be unfair, but look at what the Pumas did to Black Aces at the Puma Stadium.

I knew the venue debacle wasnt going to die down anytime soon, so long as rugby fans and unions still think they have a divine will for everything of any high standard. Crazeydude are you saying that the rugby lower division league is equivalent to the PSL league? How entitled rugby is in this country. If anyone should be entitled to the 2010 stadiums its football, needless to say if it wasnt for football these stadiums wouldnt even be dream renders. Its a good thing the municipality isnt selling the stadium to private operators otherwise the people of mbombela would be resenting the stadium to their grave.

Khwezi, I think that you misunderstood me. I am all for the new stadium sbeing used to uplift soccer in SA. I fully understand that for too long PSL teams have been held to ransom by rugby teams, that is why I said that this stadium should be rented to Black Aces at a low price, for as long as they are in the PSL. Truthfully if the go down to the NFD, they will not be able to make teh stadium viable.

As for the Pumas, I am merely suggesting that they become a secondary tenant. They will be in the Premier Division of teh Currie Cup next year, so they get to play the so called 'Big Five'. These games will draw the crowds, so Mombela could be a good choice. They would only play 5 games a year in the stadium.

Black Aces would be the main tenant, but I am sure that they can set up the shedule to allow the Pumas to play 5 games a year at the stadium, at a cost.

^^ I have to agree that Pumas should use their stadium for the smaller games but rent Mombela from Black Aces/Nelspruit(Mombela) for larger games where as Black Aces should with favourable rent conditions use Mombela for there games but possibly consider using Pumas for smaller games (spreading the love if they want) and would be able to get far more favourable rentals now with their "own" stadium. Basically what I think Im saying is that if Pumas and Black Aces were to work together (unlikely given history) they could have the best of both worlds by juggling the bigger games at the better stadium and allowing a larger fan base to see games. Only negative to this is that in some ways its good for teams to have a home ground, it builds Identity particularly if you are the only team in your code using that ground.

On a liter note, although I am a stringent rugby supporter as you can see by my profile picture but one thing I cant understand is the advertisement markings on every rugby game painted on the pitch? I mean as I am in full support of sharing venues between the two codes with first preference to football. I have to ask, besides the marketing benefits of the markings on the pitch, is there any traditional or symbolic sementics to the rugby game?

Cape Town stadium events calendar for 2010 to be announced early 2010

From the PM thread:

besides the historical reasons, soccer is not as well organised as otehr codes and also soccer teams are owned by individuals where as rugby teams are companies.

I have alsways wondered by Chiefs dont have a 60K own stadoium, but when you read about SA soccer history you then see that Chiefs make more money out of prostituting out their games to stadiums than they do if they stayed in one place and built a supported base. they have no base unlike pirates who now have their own stadium.

You also need to check facts

The Chiefs are possibly the club that most annoy me, but alot of the other clubs do it to, rather than building a base of support clubs tend to play games at a range of stadia to try generate maximun revenue but this means they often alienate fans for smaller games and fail to create a hertitage and passion associated with the team. The other thing that gets to me is when teams ground share and dont need to(when teams need to its great but if there are 2 stadia you have access to dont ground share). I guess up until now their was the excuse of there been a lack of quality or large capacity stadiums but if teams like the chiefs continue to do this post 2010 there is no excuse. IMO the PSL should enforce a home stadium concept (except where their is justification for the game to be played away from home). Also I feel that SAFA should limit the use of SoccerCity to Finals games, Knock outs, Bafana and maybe things like the soweto derby but they should develop it as a ground akin to wembly not just another ground in a myriad of rotating venues.

The other thing that irks me about the PSL is that they allow the moving of teams, buying of positions of other teams and renaming teams far to easily.

What shamful arrogance MoRush, I must say I never expected you to be so overbearing. On the undesirable comment you've made comparing the incomparable, how many home and away games are played in the PSL in a season? And now currently with the shortened season games are played week in and week out. If it so unconceivably happened that football teams played a maximum of 5 to 10 games a season as rugby teams do, I gurantee you over flowing spectatorship in every game. And its not like all rugby games are sold out affairs, rather compare local football with the English Premier league and even then they have 20 teams we have 16 in the PSL that evokes its own logistical imbalances.

Comparing the PSL to the EPL doesnt help the case for the PSL to use larger grounds.
I personally feel that each stadium should match to a tenant that provides a reasonable chance of financial viability and at the same time the use of stadia by both codes at the same time should be limited (neither code particuarly gains by the others use) now in some cities I think that this will mean that rugby should move into new ground and in others soccer. (this very much depends on demand and stadia capacity.)

Khwezi not the smartest forumer. Eish. never mind.

On another thread in an off topic manner people are discussing average attendance for matches. I thought it would be quite cool to point out that newlands drew over 550 000 supporters for stormers WP, and springbok rugby games this year and 500000 last year.

Chiefs supporters are scattered because of the history of soccer in SA. It was mostly centrlised of GP. eg, Soweto has got Pirates, Chiefs, Swallows, you may count cosmos as well. now thats 4 teams in 1 township. The support is not based on territory, thus it makes it less important to have that base. Where ever chiefs plays, the support is almost the same and more in some provinces.

^^ yes I know it works for chiefs (but it destroys the development of the PSL over all)

On a liter note, although I am a stringent rugby supporter as you can see by my profile picture but one thing I cant understand is the advertisement markings on every rugby game painted on the pitch? I mean as I am in full support of sharing venues between the two codes with first preference to football. I have to ask, besides the marketing benefits of the markings on the pitch, is there any traditional or symbolic sementics to the rugby game?

I hate those markings Khwezi especially having to play a big soccer games after the rugby one.

I'm gonna continue where we left off in the mbombela stadium thread. TUGZ and khwezi, i am a football fan. I want to see local football grow and improve. i'm totally in favour of anything to do with SA sport. but when it comes to economic sustainability, you can't be sentimental. i do think the new stadiums will benefit SA football and i don't think anyone's been disputing that. but it won't happen overnight. you can move a club like aces or arrows from a 20 k into a 40 k + stadium overnight and expect to sustain the stadium with that income. that's why we need rugby in these stadiums. this discussion should be about facts. the average attendance at rugby games (super 14 and currie cup) is higher than the average soccer game. this is not about the past (i know about apartheid and it was horrible, but there was a professional football league even during that time. how long does it take to establish a professional league? the super tournament is younger and more proffessional.) this isn't about who prefers rugby or soccer. this is just plainly about, what it takes to sustain these very expensive stadiums. platinum stars vs golden arrows won't do it.

Soccer have been using Rugby Stadiums for years and I don't see the reason as to why Rugby shouldn't utalise Soccer Stadiums. After all the revenue generationin Rugby is more than that of soccer. To me the numbers doesn't do any justice because costs associated with Rugby are high and that means they can help in sustaining the stadiums for a very long time. We just have to be open minded and face reality more than wanting to justfify unnecessary and hoolow statements.

Weren't the 2010 Stadiums in the bid book of Rugby 2011?

^^ dunno, but good point.

2009-2010 Nov 9 2009
http://stats.football365.co.za/dom/SAF/PR/attend.html

Team Pld Total Highest Average Capacity

1 Kaizer Chiefs (6) 6 146000 40000 24333
2 Bloemfontein Celtic (7) 7 152000 40000 21714
3 Mpumalanga Black Aces (14) 8 124800 45000 15600
4 Orlando Pirates (4) 8 81000 20000 10125
5 Mamelodi Sundowns (5) 7 51500 28000 7357
6 Ajax Cape Town (2) 8 58000 15000 7250
7 SuperSport Utd (1) 8 53000 12000 6625
8 Maritzburg Utd (12) 7 39000 11000 5571
9 Amazulu (15) 7 38500 15000 5500
10 Moroka Swallows (9) 7 33000 6000 4714
11 Golden Arrows (10) 8 34000 17000 4250
12 Platinum Stars (11) 8 33500 10000 4188
13 Wits (8) 7 22200 5000 3171
14 Free State Stars (13) 8 21450 9500 2681
15 Santos (3) 8 16600 4000 2075
16 Jomo Cosmos (16) 8 12600 5000 1575



2008-2009
http://stats.football365.co.za/dom/SAF/PR/attend.html

Premier Soccer League
2008-2009 Season Domestic Stats to 09-May-09 inclusive
Attendance Table


Average Attendance Rankings

Team Average Capacity
1 Kaizer Chiefs (3) 18933
2 Bloemfontein Celtic (14) 15967
3 Orlando Pirates (2) 15533
4 Bay Utd (16) 7500
5 Mamelodi Sundowns (9) 7247
6 Ajax Cape Town (7) 7227
7 SuperSport Utd (1) 6100
8 Amazulu (8) 5633
9 Free State Stars (4) 5427
10 Santos (10) 5013
11 Maritzburg Utd (12) 4967
12 Golden Arrows (5) 4633
13 Moroka Swallows (11) 4580
14 Thanda Royal Zulu (15) 4100
15 Wits (6) 3013
16 Platinum Stars (13) 2780

Let someone post 2008 & 2009 Currie Cup premier Division (not Super 14) regular season average attendances for comparison.

All this talk about Rugby attendance can then be put in perspective.

Soccer have been using Rugby Stadiums for years and I don't see the reason as to why Rugby shouldn't utalise Soccer Stadiums. After all the revenue generationin Rugby is more than that of soccer. To me the numbers doesn't do any justice because costs associated with Rugby are high and that means they can help in sustaining the stadiums for a very long time. We just have to be open minded and face reality more than wanting to justfify unnecessary and hoolow statements.

Weren't the 2010 Stadiums in the bid book of Rugby 2011?

Yeah either that or the 2015/2019 one they had sc as the finals venue I think.

If (and this is a big if) the two codes can manage to share and not hate each other about the pitch (ie have a proper pitch managment team and schedualing) they can ground share but the problem is in this country we dont seem to be able to share properly. In some ways having two home teams of different codes is nicer than 2 of the same code (it creates a stronger this is our home ground feel). I was thinking last night that both codes (when they arnt able to regularly sell out the ground they are in) should consider doing something like seatle sounders at QWest the tarping off looks so much better on TV than empty stands and adds to the atmosphere also the fact that they rather have sold out lower tiers and no top tier (as aposed to a few people in the top tier) makes a huge difference to the atmosphere and encourages a greater level of attendance imo.

you guys are amazing and keep forgetting its government and ANC councils begging rugby to the anchor tennat in the stadiums. WP, Sharks, Bulls, Chethas and Lions all have stadiums and dont need to move.
Reality check anyone

What are you talking about? When did Govt. say they wanted rugby to occupy the stadiums. Cmon dude. Jordaan said it himself that he would do everything possible to make sure the stadiums would go to soccer teams.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Content/Soccer/WorldCup/383/505f947fc2e345398be5c80635bec34c/20-07-2009-12-01/Will_rugby_find_new_homes


Will rugby find new homes?


Johannesburg - The difficult relationship between football and rugby has been highlighted by Danny Jordaan's suggestion that the World Cup stadiums will replace the old rugby venues.

Five new stadiums have been constructed across the country for the 2010 FIFA showpiece. The Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium in Port Elizabeth is already finished while the venues in Cape Town, Durban, Polokwane and Nelspruit are nearing completion.

The Cape Times reports that Jordaan, the CEO of the World Cup Organising Committee, said at the African Journalism Awards that Newlands, Boet Erasmus, and King's Park have reached the end of their life spans.

When asked whether the newly-built grounds are sustainable, Jordaan answered: "This is an emotional debate that will go on for a long time, but who, once they have experienced the new, modern, sophisticated stadiums will want to go back to the old ones?

"South Africa has made a bid to host the Rugby World Cup in 2015 and if we win that, the games will most certainly be hosted in the new stadiums. If that happened, it would certainly help to move this debate along," he added

Western Province Rugby Union president Tobie Titus and Sharks executive Brian Van Zyl slammed Jordaan, but the daily broad sheet reported that Eastern Province Rugby president, Cheeky Watson, confirmed that they would utilise the Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium in the future.


======================================================================================================

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/mar/05/newsstory.worldcup2010


Satish C Sekar: When you were bidding for the World Cup, you said you wanted it to help promote South Africa. Since winning the bid, has the country benefited as you'd hoped?

Danny Jordaan: Absolutely. In 1990 Mandela walked out of prison and in '94 we had our first democratic elections and one of the things that we had to make sure of is that we wouldn't be forgotten by the international community. We wanted to ensure that South Africa must be discussed at the dinner and lunch tables of the big business companies of the world. We decided to follow a major event strategy. We hosted the Rugby World Cup in 1995, the African Cup of Nations in 1996, the 1998 World Athletics Championship, the 2002 Cricket World Cup, all in order to sustain a developing consciousness of a united nation in our country. We also had the cricket Twenty20 World Cup last year. We made a bid for the 2004 Olympics but lost out to Athens. We made a bid for the 2006 World Cup but lost out to Germany and now we are hosting 2010. That has achieved two things: firstly, South Africa was not forgotten after 1994; secondly and perhaps more importantly, through hosting all of those major events there was infrastructure improvement in our country ...

What's going to happen to the stadiums after the World Cup?
One of the advantages we have in our country is that rugby and cricket are big sports, so between football, rugby and cricket I think that use of the stadiums will ensure that the stadiums are commercially viable. We are looking to see how we can share the facilities. Football itself is not strong enough

Danny Jordaan Urges Ajax Cape Town And Santos To Use Green Point Stadium After 2010

2010 LOC CEO Danny Jordaan has urged either Ajax Cape Town or Santos to make full use of the new Green Point Stadium after the World Cup.

Speaking at a discussion forum on the 2010 legacy projects, Danny Jordaan said it would be “very painful if a Cape Town team does not use Green Point Stadium after the World Cup”.

He added that most of the new and refurbished stadiums will not only be reserved for soccer to prevent the facilities from standing as ‘white elephants’.

“To ensure a lasting legacy and the commercial viability of the stadiums, they will be used for both rugby and soccer; that is very important to note,” he told BuaNews.

Arts and Culture Minister Lulu Xingwana, who was also part of the forum, urged all South Africans to take advantage of the infrastructure and economic legacy that will be left after 2010.

“This is very important for us in terms of making sure that there are spin-offs from the event and people actually take advantage of these.”

The government has pumped more than R28-billion into World Cup-related projects and this led to a creation of nearly 420,000 jobs, according to an independent research by Grant Thornton.

More than R13-billion has been spent on the state's public transport infrastructure system, which include rapid rail network Gautrain, the Bus Rapid Transit system, freeway expansions and road upgrades.

Xingwana said it was important that rural people are not left out and should be part of the 2010 festivities, while they should also benefit post-tournament. “We want to make sure that those people also get to enjoy the World Cup and the benefits it brings,” he stated.

Apart from the stadium legacy, several projects are in the pipeline, including FIFA Centres of Hope that will act as a hub for sports development, not only in South Africa, but across the continent.

@ T.U.G.Z

This season; Ajax Cape Town average attendance is 7,250 while "the people's team" Santos average is 2,075.

The 2008-2009 average for both clubs is Ajax Cape Town 7,227 & Santos 5,013

Even so, with a new stadium perhaps Ajax could boost their numbers.
I don't think its necessary for them to reach 30-40k to use the stadium.

The important thing is for the venue to be used.

Given the option at the stadium to reduce energy needs based on the scale of the event and the possibility of just using the first tier for events, there's no reason why they should not be tenants.


In addition the stadium has 4 dressing rooms and space is not an issue if various teams would like to use the venue

Even so, with a new stadium perhaps Ajax could boost their numbers.
I don't think its necessary for them to reach 30-40k to use the stadium.

The important thing is for the venue to be used.

Given the option at the stadium to reduce energy needs based on the scale of the event and the possibility of just using the first tier for events, there's no reason why they should not be tenants.


In addition the stadium has 4 dressing rooms and space is not an issue if various teams would like to use the venue

Who will use Athlone Stadium?

Who will use Athlone Stadium?
Mens netball team.

How does it work in Australia. A s I understand things all their major venues are due use. Rugby Union, Rugby League, soccer, Cricket and AFL share the major grounds and doesn't seem to be problem.

personally, if ajax played at GP, id go watch them regularly.

@ T.U.G.Z

This season; Ajax Cape Town average attendance is 7,250 while "the people's team" Santos average is 2,075.

The 2008-2009 average for both clubs is Ajax Cape Town 7,227 & Santos 5,013

Yeah but both teams have been forced to play at Newlands which is NOT their home ground so those numbers are pretty much useless to me. Like i said better quality stadiums will bring the fans back to the stadium. SA has a huge Soccer following, much bigger than what we see on TV.

All i'm saying is give the sport a chance and lets see where it goes from there. and if theres no light at the end of the tunnel then start looking at other options.

How does it work in Australia. A s I understand things all their major venues are due use. Rugby Union, Rugby League, soccer, Cricket and AFL share the major grounds and doesn't seem to be problem.

Needless to say in Australia rugby and cricket unions or whatever they call themselves dont subject Football teams to exorbitant leasing rates for the stadiums and of course given that Football is not the most popular sport in that country it is still not perceived as an inferior sport. Which points out the huge elephant in the South African kitchen that the venue debacle was never about attendance density but purely a race issue. Yeah call me a race card player, but the perception of Football as an inferior sport thats roaming this thread is subconsciously informed by superiority of the privileged.

Needless to say in Australia rugby and cricket unions or whatever they call themselves dont subject Football teams to exorbitant leasing rates for the stadiums and of course given that Football is not the most popular sport in that country it is still not perceived as an inferior sport. Which points out the huge elephant in the South African kitchen that the venue debacle was never about attendance density but purely a race issue. Yeah call me a race card player, but the perception of Football as an inferior sport thats roaming this thread is subconsciously informed by superiority of the privileged.

eish.

I dont really support one code using any given ground over another rather every ground should be looked at within the merits of the individual situation so as to ensure healthy revenue for both old and new stadia. With that said:

We are still waiting for the stats for Rugby. Even Blue bulls dont have an average of 18 933 attendance. They only get good attendance when they play Sharks, Western Province and maybe cheetahs. other games are a disgrace to the self proclaimed rich sport.

Last year WP had 19 885 and this year 22 463 average attendence for the currie cup with super 14 having 44 512 and 33 198 (http://www.sport24.co.za/Content/Rugby/CurrieCup/353/23f9618601e14cc9ad6709d463d05f06/07-10-2009%2010-20/More_WP_fans_attending_games) that is only looking at leuge figures for the 2009 currie cup (dont know about 2008 but the article was published before the semi) so add 5900 with the semi as well. Im afraid I havent been able to find figures for other sides.

All this argument is coursed by people who dont want to go to the old Rugby stadium. They want to go to beautiful new stadiums that have been built for them since they are the wealthy people. The fact that they are wealthy garantee them to take over or you may call it smash and grab. The poor must use poor stadiums. It was not a surprise that we had Apartheid, with minds like this anything is possible.

Not many rugby fans are that keen on the new stadiums really. why else would WP and the sharks (the only big temas near a new stadium be saying no thanks). Also you do realise that its a contradiction to call the one league wealthier for your one argument and the other for your other argument.

As to who uses each stadium I personally would want to see GP used by Ajax and Athlone by Santos hopefully with revamped stadia and renewed intrest they can at least have reasonable attendance (GP will probably need tarping for all but the biggest games though) Newlands can then be retained for WP/stormers (they dont want to move anyway)

Soccer City should not be given to any club (the chiefs at a stretch but its too big for any single team at the moment) but SAFA should develop it like wembly (only hold cup finals, Bafana Bafana, Soweto derby -cos its so huge) Boks shouldnt play there stick to ellis park. Bulls wouldnt move from loftus any time soon. Orlando should be used by 1 or 2 of the Joburg clubs as should rand as should JHB.

Um I havent really thought through the rest properly but one thing I feel is that the PSL should force teams that have home grounds to use them except in exceptional cases (to create a stronger home ground spirit and to entrench soccer in the stadia allowing fans to become used to going to the game every 2 weeks) Also away from the major metro areas there is a better argument for ground sharing between the rugby clubs and soccer clubs.

^^ totally agree

@ herb, I share your sentiments on Soccer City.


I really don't mind having Soccer and Rugby sharing facilities but they both have to be disciplined and behave like business people. After all that will be one step closer to realising racial intergration.

What really pisses me off is the notion that just because Ajax and Santos dont have the average attendance as the likes of WP unions, that they are not fit to use the Cape Town stadium, that is like saying you cant move into a 7 bedroom mension because you only have one kid. The logic behind that puzzles me because with the current success enjoyed by the two Cape Town teams in the PSL they are bound to command spectator and financial muscle. So the financial and spectator debate should be out the window, I dont know if you are not paying attention but S.A. Football is hosting the biggest event in the world and that means the biggest profit to SAFA at a modestly estimated R1billion just for hosting the damn event and thats going to ripple down to the Football franchises. Oh and Golden Arrows are R8million richer and thats just for winning a pre-league tourny. Footbal clubs = Multi-millionaires

^^ i don't quite understand. you said santos and ajax don't have the average attendance wp has, then you say they should pull crowds. to me it's just logical, that the team, not matter which sporting code, that pulls the biggest crowds and therefore the best income, will get first priority for a venue. it's not bias, it's just common sense. also if golden arrows are richer, how does that improve their match attendance?

What really pisses me off is the notion that just because Ajax and Santos dont have the average attendance as the likes of WP unions, that they are not fit to use the Cape Town stadium, that is like saying you cant move into a 7 bedroom mension because you only have one kid. The logic behind that puzzles me because with the current success enjoyed by the two Cape Town teams in the PSL they are bound to command spectator and financial muscle. So the financial and spectator debate should be out the window, I dont know if you are not paying attention but S.A. Football is hosting the biggest event in the world and that means the biggest profit to SAFA at a modestly estimated R1billion just for hosting the damn event and thats going to ripple down to the Football franchises. Oh and Golden Arrows are R8million richer and thats just for winning a pre-league tourny. Footbal clubs = Multi-millionaires

Thing you do seem to be missing in your example is that WPRU (in a short sighted manner imo) have said they dont want CTS so if Ajax or Santos are keen they can probably use it (depends on the operator really) of course if Ajax (who seem a better option because they sharing with WPRU atm and have the large fan base) use it at least for the first season they should tarp the upper tier for their league games as they arnt going to reach capacity immediatly (maybe the new stadium will help though, in fact it will also increase intresest in santos so they could get closer to using athlone at capacity (where they should also consider some tarping atm).

I think Santos will use athlone for all their home games.

^^ i don't quite understand. you said santos and ajax don't have the average attendance wp has, then you say they should pull crowds. to me it's just logical, that the team, not matter which sporting code, that pulls the biggest crowds and therefore the best income, will get first priority for a venue. it's not bias, it's just common sense. also if golden arrows are richer, how does that improve their match attendance?

I dont want this to be about my superior intellect but when you misread or lack the capacity to comprehend the simplest sentences one constructs and insinuate that I dont know what I am saying then its a shameful matter I have to highlight. I said I dont agree with people who think Ajax and Santos dont deserve to use Cape Town stadium because of their ill-attanded matchs as compared to WP, which is not proven yet. And continued to give an example of the inconsistance of that notion (notion meaning concept or opinion). I hope you understand now, for our sake.

dude, you contradict yourself and then question my intellect. it wasn't directed at you personally, i just wanted clarify what you were saying. you say you call a spade a spade. ok: you are too arrogant to be open to others' opinions. i won't respond to your posts again.

Oh you will haggie, you will

2009-2010 Nov 9 2009
http://stats.football365.co.za/dom/SAF/PR/attend.html

Team Pld Total Highest Average Capacity
6 Ajax Cape Town (2) 8 58000 15000 7250
15 Santos (3) 8 16600 4000 2075

2008-2009
http://stats.football365.co.za/dom/SAF/PR/attend.html
Team Average Capacity
6 Ajax Cape Town (7) 7227
10 Santos (10) 5013



Last year WP had 19 885 and this year 22 463 average attendence for the currie cup with super 14 having 44 512 and 33 198 (http://www.sport24.co.za/Content/Rugby/CurrieCup/353/23f9618601e14cc9ad6709d463d05f06/07-10-2009%2010-20/More_WP_fans_attending_games) that is only looking at leuge figures for the 2009 currie cup (dont know about 2008 but the article was published before the semi) so add 5900 with the semi as well. Im afraid I havent been able to find figures for other sides.


Proven! (surely your superior comprehension skills could pick that up)

wouldnt you say you agree

.... just because Ajax and Santos dont have the average attendance as the likes of WP unions....

and ffs WPRU doesnt want CTS how hard is this to get, so the argument about this particular venue is bizzare.

I think Santos will use athlone for all their home games.

That would make me happy as would Ajax using CTS and WPRU using Newlands (arguably on pure capacity they should be the other way round but WPRU dont want that and having football at CTS would make some people happy)

as long as neither goes and uses phillipie leave that for FC CT or one of the other NFD teams

^^ i don't quite understand. you said santos and ajax don't have the average attendance wp has, then you say they should pull crowds. to me it's just logical, that the team, not matter which sporting code, that pulls the biggest crowds and therefore the best income, will get first priority for a venue. it's not bias, it's just common sense. also if golden arrows are richer, how does that improve their match attendance?

Yes Soccer does'nt pull cosistently large crowds, i think everybody knows that.
But instead of trying to fix the problem by using the stadiums to attract more fans, you'd rather say f@ck it let soccer die a slow death in their crap stadiums and leave all the beautiful stadiums to Rugby... Thats abit dissapointing coming from you Haggies.

Yes Soccer does'nt pull cosistently large crowds, i think everybody knows that.
But instead of trying to fix the problem by using the stadiums to attract more fans, you'd rather say f@ck it let soccer die a slow death in their crap stadiums and leave all the beautiful stadiums to Rugby... Thats abit dissapointing coming from you Haggies.

ok, i think you're totally missunderstanding what i'm saying. i never said i was against local football, in fact i said i support it. i do think they should use the new stadiums. i think the league will grow as a result. BUT it won't happen overnight and so for the immediate future directly after the world cup rugby games would pull more crowds and therefore have a better chance of sustaining the stadiums financially. that's all. i would love to see a kzn derby in a full moses mabhida stadium. but it's gonna take a while and a lot of work and growth in local football for that to happen.

How hard can it be to work out system where Rugby and Football side shares a stadium? The entire rugby season's fixtures are planned at least 8 months in advance with the only variables being playoff matches (like the CC final at Loftus recently). 80% of rugby games are held on Saturdays with the rest being on Fridays. For most of the season WPRU plays one game at home and one game away (the it is only in the S14 in Feb to early may that they play a couple of consecutive games at home). It cannot be that difficult to work out a structure where GPS is in use every week, one week WP plays there the other Ajax.

What we have here is two groups fighting over a limited resource (days that games can be hosted at GPS), but there is plenty to go around. All that needs to be done is for WPRU and the soccer teams to sit down with their diaries and work something out.

^^ i think what fuels the argument is the recent reports of chiefs and their game, which they had planned to play at loftus because they assumed that the bulls wouldn't get a currie cup home final. then it happened and they suddenly had to reorganise.

How hard can it be to work out system where Rugby and Football side shares a stadium? The entire rugby season's fixtures are planned at least 8 months in advance with the only variables being playoff matches (like the CC final at Loftus recently). 80% of rugby games are held on Saturdays with the rest being on Fridays. For most of the season WPRU plays one game at home and one game away (the it is only in the S14 in Feb to early may that they play a couple of consecutive games at home). It cannot be that difficult to work out a structure where GPS is in use every week, one week WP plays there the other Ajax.

What we have here is two groups fighting over a limited resource (days that games can be hosted at GPS), but there is plenty to go around. All that needs to be done is for WPRU and the soccer teams to sit down with their diaries and work something out.

What about the men's netball team?

On a serious note, there is also over enough space for four teams to use the stadium.

I have this idea to investigate the concept of using suites for accommodation for weird people like me who would want to book a room at the stadium.

^^ :lol: nice concept.

Cape Town Stadium: Stadium usage options

I've always maintained that while profit is important, a stadium simply has to be used by the public. It should not be this fancy structure used for certain events but a community asset performing a similar role to the previous stadium.

Parking

With 1,200 parking bay located inside the podium i.e. covered parking, this could generate revenues outside of events. Park your car at the stadium and hop on a bus at the stadium station to get to the City Centre or use the Granger Bay station to get to the Waterfront.

With the 30 buses serving the City Centre post 2010 it may make more sense to park closer to the CBD and use a bus to get around but with so much parking available, they should really make use of it.

Media Centre

With such a large media centre, it makes sense to offer rates that are competitive and perhaps less than the CTICC e.g. The press conference room could be used by other organizations, including the city

Podium Level

Can you find any other public space/plaza where you can view the ocean, waterfront, urban park, CBD, Signal Hill, Table Mountain??
I can just imagine hundreds of Sunday traders with their stalls around the podium creating a great atmosphere. There are large staircases allowing for easy access and traders and visitors can park their cars inside the podium at a reduced cost or a day pass e.g. R15 for the day.

The stadium Concourse is also so large that it would not be difficult to use the space for Sunday markets when the weather is not that great. Perhaps even rent out the concession stands for use by traders.

Access to the second tier can easily be blocked off.Toilets, and other services would be easily accessible.

There are also lots of other options including outdoor exhibitions, street musicians

Museum

Since the visitor centre is closed a new one will be set up inside the new stadium, but this concept can be extended to become a Museum of sport/ a World Cup museum for FIFA, which could become a must-see for tourists ambling around the area.

Conferences

With so many large spaces, the stadium would be a great venue for conferences/meetings and other events. The large media centre, FIFA offices and other spaces are flexible enough for a variety of uses.



Restaurant

The huge Sepp Blatter suite with its own balcony at the Grand Stand should become a restaurant similar to the one at Allianz. Amazing views on either side i.e. looking onto the pitch and looking towards the urban park.
With existing large kitchens and catering facilities, it only makes sense.

In addition it would make a great reception area for weddings, meetings, conferences, etc.

Retail

While the stadium has a fan shop, and while I am sort of against retail developments given the proximity of Somerset Road and the V&A, the podium facade has been designed to allow for easy conversion into retail stores. I'm just not sure what exactly they would sell or offer that was not available at nearby retail stores.

Viewing area

It will be tough to compete with Table Mountain or Signal Hill but surely the views from the top floor around the third tier will make for an awesome 360 degree, veiled view of the surrounds.

Accommodation

Perhaps a bit far off...or not?
Surely I am not the only one who would not mind a hotel room using one of the suites? In the image below you're just missing a bed.

http://www.nelsonmandelabay.gov.za/FIFAWORLDCUP/Assets/suite%20mock%20up/suite1.jpg

Cycle Tour

The large parking area could be used as the holding area for the bicycles. In addition the hospitality areas which usually use tents etc. could use the stadium, which already has e.g. medical areas, media areas, concessions, toiltes etc.

Gym

Perhaps there is some value in moving the VA gym from the tennis precinct to the stadium.

Offices

With so many rooms inside the stadium perhaps some of them could be rented out to sports federations.

Nice one MoRush but you forgot to mention a sport bar or what others might refer to as a shebeen/spotie, or a pub for the upper class sociolects. That would not only achieve economic activity but also create a sense of community usage without necessarily turning the stadium into a community hall. I can just imagine a stake ranch like R.Jays in a all 2010 stadiums, with fans playing pool or watching highlights on SS and drinking zamalek minutes before and after a huge game. Now thats kiff or nca or grand! lol

I have this idea to investigate the concept of using suites for accommodation for weird people like me who would want to book a room at the stadium.

LMAO:lol::lol::lol:

Mo, I like your ideas regarding parking and conferences. One of the obvious problems faced by stadiums everywhere is that they place big demands on the surrounding infrastructure because they have such high peak demands. The better use one can make of that infrastructure the better. Making the stadium the main point of a park-and-ride venture would mean that the stadium's parking is used everyday and might help with the mess that is Coen Steytler-crossing.

I think a gym would be a great idea and there is probably enough of a market to set up gym in competition to the virgin active down the street. One of the problem though would be managing what hours the gym is open as you can't really operate the gym while a game is being played at the stadium.

Renting space to media companies is a great idea as the stadium must be "wired-up" for broadcasting anyway. Again, use the existing infrastructure.

I would definitely support having a market going on the podium. There is plenty of space, parking, toilets and concessions on the mainconcourse. They used to have market there every sunday before construction started.

Mo, I like your ideas regarding parking and conferences. One of the obvious problems faced by stadiums everywhere is that they place big demands on the surrounding infrastructure because they have such high peak demands. The better use one can make of that infrastructure the better. Making the stadium the main point of a park-and-ride venture would mean that the stadium's parking is used everyday and might help with the mess that is Coen Steytler-crossing.

I think a gym would be a great idea and there is probably enough of a market to set up gym in competition to the virgin active down the street. One of the problem though would be managing what hours the gym is open as you can't really operate the gym while a game is being played at the stadium.

Renting space to media companies is a great idea as the stadium must be "wired-up" for broadcasting anyway. Again, use the existing infrastructure.

I would definitely support having a market going on the podium. There is plenty of space, parking, toilets and concessions on the mainconcourse. They used to have market there every sunday before construction started.

I'll definitely broaden the list of ideas over time.

LMAO:lol::lol::lol:

Its been proposed already.

http://www.paulfletcher.co.uk/assets/img/stadiums/large/stadia6.jpg

^^ Oh shut up. :nuts:

Clearly Cape Town Stadium turning into a white elephant would only be out of laziness and not a lack of variety regarding possible uses.

Clearly Cape Town Stadium turning into a white elephant would only be out of laziness and not a lack of variety regarding possible uses.

Look, GPS (I don't like CTS as a name) is still primarily a sports venue and the best way to keep it sustainable is to use it as a sports venue. Any other uses that stadium can be put to is extras and plays a role of letting all Cape Townians get some utility from venue regardless of whether their sports fans or not. It is tax/rates money being spent afterall.

I wish Virgin Active would move into CTS. It would be great if half of the gym was looking out to the pitch and the other half looking out to the surroundings. Maybe they would use the space of half of the temp seating... Oh well

CTS hosted its first event last night. Apparently Madiba was there.

I wish Virgin Active would move into CTS. It would be great if half of the gym was looking out to the pitch and the other half looking out to the surroundings. Maybe they would use the space of half of the temp seating... Oh well

I still say put a shebeen in all 2010 stadiums, 24/7 morning to morning open service especially on holidays. Now that is nca, my bru!

Its been proposed already.

http://www.paulfletcher.co.uk/assets/img/stadiums/large/stadia6.jpg

that hotel room has a small issue, the cupboard. :lol:

I think that this weekend PE proved that we deserve big sports matches. The Bafana game was sold out and media claim the attendance was 44 000. I could see a Bafana game every second year. This could alternate with a Springbok test match. I would say these games would always sell out. I think that PE should be allowed that.

I always wonder how they make up those attendance figures when the top tier was clearly not close to full.

Something that bothers me mainly for new 2010 venues, is that they don’t give the actual stadium much exposure. Some could argue it’s not about the venue it’s about the game; but they should think why we spent billions on new and upgraded stadiums. A couple of aerial shots would have been nice. They do show the stadium from the corner, but that’s for about 2.5 seconds max which is don’t like thrice.

And it was clear that the game was not sold out. Don’t know where such figures came from. The venue was quite full- I'll give you that, but not to capacity

I always wonder how they make up those attendance figures when the top tier was clearly not close to full.

This is South Africa mate. There were people still coming in as late as the 40th minute.

Something that bothers me mainly for new 2010 venues, is that they don’t give the actual stadium much exposure. Some could argue it’s not about the venue it’s about the game; but they should think why we spent billions on new and upgraded stadiums. A couple of aerial shots would have been nice. They do show the stadium from the corner, but that’s for about 2.5 seconds max which is don’t like thrice.


SABC was covering the game... need i say more?

This is South Africa mate. There were people still coming in as late as the 40th minute.

The top tier was never full.

About the attendence, the game was run under a non-reserved seating policy, which I feel is a reason that the top tier wasn't full. I was sitting at about the halfway line in the 'main bowl' and there were people that were standing at the front of the stands and moving around. The cops had to keep telling them that they had to find seats.

I'm not saying that I approve of unreserved seating, I would prefer if it didn't happen, but I think that's why the top tier looked half empty.

^^ i think reserved seats are a must. and yes, SABC only has a few cameras at sport events so their coverage will never be great.

eish SABC - My reason for allegedly not paying my tv license

^^ and are probably to cheap to higher a heli

etv is living proof that there's no excuse for the SABC to be an epic fail.

Begging bowls

Razina Munshi
Thursday, 15 Sep 2011

When it emerged that the construction processes of both Cape Town’s and Durban’s new stadiums were the subject of a price-fixing investigation conducted by the competition commission, it added to existing troubles.

When it emerged that the construction processes of both Cape Town’s and Durban’s new stadiums were the subject of a price-fixing investigation conducted by the competition commission, it added to existing troubles.

They were built from scratch at a cost of R4,4bn and R3,4bn respectively, despite other options being available . Even their central locations in major cities has not helped and more questions are being asked about their practicality than about any other infrastructure built for the 2010 soccer World Cup.

In October last year, Sail Stadefrance, the management company that won the tender to manage the stadium on behalf of the City of Cape Town, walked out. The company decided against signing a 30-year lease to run the stadium because it believed it would cost too much , at least over the next five years.

Since January, the city’s authorities have been managing the stadium . Grant Pascoe, Cape Town’s mayoral committee member for tourism, events & marketing, says it will continue to do so for now.

Part of the problem is securing an anchor tenant. But Pascoe says football team Ajax Cape Town have signed an agreement with the stadium to make it their home ground for the next three Premier Soccer League seasons.

He adds that the city and Western Province Rugby are negotiating but no decisions have been taken yet.

Meanwhile the city’s World Cup operations team is managing the stadium while an analytical study is undertaken to devise a business and commercial operating model for it. Income generation and plans for self-sufficiency will be more concrete thereafter. It hopes to have a system in place by January . The Cape Town stadium’s projected budget for this year is R57m, which will come straight out of the city’s coffers.

The management of Durban’s Moses Mabhida stadium failed to respond to the FM’s questions .

Concerns have also been raised about the viability of the R1,3bn Peter Mokaba stadium in Polokwane and the R1,2bn Mbombela stadium in Nelspruit.

Both were built from scratch.

But the scepticism is misplaced, says Ndavhe Ramakuela, 2010 director for Polokwane. The city ran an aggressive advertising campaign to present the stadium as a venue for high-profile events, a strategy that appears to have paid off.

“We’ve accepted that we won’t be able to raise funds to cover the costs of the stadium’s construction,” says Ramakuela.

“But we can cover our operational costs and make the stadium a successful operation,” he says.

The stadium hosted 19 big events in the financial year to June 2011. For the current year, Ramakuela says, it has secured 18 league soccer matches.

It has signed an agreement with football team Kaizer Chiefs , making the Peter Mokaba stadium the team’s alternative home ground for three years . A similar agreement with SuperSport United (another Premier League Johannesburg football team) will have the team play four matches there over two years .

Initially, Ramakuela says, the city attracted teams by offering to cover their transport and accommodation costs. Now it pays teams a one-off fee to play at the venue, but keeps all the gate takings.

The result, says Ramakuela, is that within three to four years, the Peter Mokaba stadium will be a self-funding entity. The city has budgeted R36m for stadium maintenance and operations for this financial year, though Ramakuela says it is unlikely to use the full amount. It has managed to slash maintenance costs by 68%.

Nelspruit’s Mbombela stadium has hosted 21 big events since the World Cup and more than 40 smaller events and conferences. Its operating budget is about R14m/year, which, at this stage, is funded by the municipality.

Stadium manager Roelf Kotze says this will be the case until the second phase of the business plan has been implemented. This will happen once the stadium’s marketability is firmly established. Though its future is uncertain, events at the stadium are self-funding .

Stadiums in Johannesburg appear to be functioning well, though there are a number of them close together. Stadium Management SA says it manages the Soccer City complex, as well as the Dobsonville, Rand and Orlando stadiums.

CEO Jacques Grobbelaar says his company was appointed by the City of Johannesburg to manage the stadiums in 2009. As part of the agreement, Stadium Management gets no money from the city. Its profits, however, are shared with the city.

Another newly built stadium, Nelson Mandela Bay stadium in Port Elizabeth, has been able to secure an anchor tenant, the Eastern Province Kings rugby team. This gives it more financial stability than the other new stadiums.


http://www.fm.co.za/Article.aspx?id=153429

I love how the MM stadium is always in the press for "losing millions" etc. We never hear this sensational reporting on the other stadiums, heck the other stadiums do not actually release figures so are not being transparent. BUT MM is clearly ahead in terms of the number of events it hosts as is seen below.

Call to use WC stadiums more often
Posted: 2011-09-15 18:54

Sports Minister Fikile Mbalula says cities and companies responsible for last year's Soccer World Cup stadiums have been able to successfully explore commercial benefits.

In a written Parliamentary reply, Mbalula says some stadiums are leased by municipalities or managed by host cities and other administrators such as the Royal Bafokeng Administration.

He says these entities hosted several events between August last year and June this year. The Moses Mabhida Stadium in Durban has hosted 92 events, the Royal Bafokeng in Rustenburg 29 and Cape Town 25. Other stadiums have hosted between 10 and 19 events.

The Independent Democrats national spokesperson on Sport and Recreation, Joe Mgluwa, has also called on the management and marketing teams of all other nine soccer stadiums in the country to follow in the footsteps of the Moses Mabhida Stadium management and marketing team, in Durban.

Moses Mabhida has hosted almost 60 more events than the Royal Bafokeng in the North West, while Cape Town Stadium has hosted 25 events so far, with Ellis Park and the Free State Stadiums having hosted the fewest events standing at 10 and 12 respectively.

Mgluwa says all the stadiums form part of an important legacy of the country, and therefore they should be supported and utilised to the fullest potential.


http://www.kickoff.com/news/24294/call-to-use-world-cup-stadiums-more-often.php

We never hear this sensational reporting on the other stadiums

You really need to read more news.

Amen

A team of international consultants have been appointed to develop the business model for Cape Town Stadium. Zoning issues around the sale of the Newlands site currently underway.

A team of international consultants have been appointed to develop the business model for Cape Town Stadium. Zoning issues around the sale of the Newlands site currently underway.

Experts to devise plan for stadium

September 28 2011 at 12:57pm

http://www.iol.co.za/polopoly_fs/ca-cape-town-stadium-6179-1.1146393%21/image/4031453414.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_300/4031453414.jpg INLSA
The city has announced it has awarded a multi-million rand tender to International Risk Management to come up with plans to make the Cape Town Stadium more profitable.

BRONWYNNE JOOSTE
Metro Writer
THE CITY of Cape Town has contracted a company to pull together a plan which city authorities hope will make the Cape Town Stadium more profitable in the long-term.
The multimillion-rand nine-week contract with International Risk Management is to end in November.
Although the price tag for the contract was not immediately clear, an online document from the city says the value is just more than R3.8 million.
Grant Pascoe, mayoral committee member for tourism, events and marketing, said the company employed specialists in a variety of fields.
Some of these included expertise in stadium and facility management and financial and risk advisory services.
Consultants also had experience in engineering and environmental management, Pascoe said.
In June, he said the city had begun the open tender process and invited business analysts to bid for the contract to develop a stadium business model.
This was the core duty of International Risk Management, he said.
“The business consultant is expected to develop a variety of stadium management and operating models aimed at achieving financial sustainability and optimum operational efficiency.”
Reassessing zoning at the stadium would be one of the aspects, Pascoe said.
In April, the city said it wanted zoning restrictions at the stadium to be relaxed to improve profitability.
At the time, it said zoning meant parts of the stadium could not be leased for use, for example, by restaurants.
Another aspect that has to be decided in developing a model is property development and how best to use the space at the stadium, along with “rental and hire opportunities”.
The R4.5 billion stadiumhas an operating budget of R57m for this financial year.
Questions have been raised about the sustainability of the stadium, but the city has emphasised that none of the events held there has incurred a loss.
A few big-name concerts have been held there, and they did not run at a loss.
One of the biggest was the Irish rock group U2’s concert.
It netted a profit of just more than R800 000 for the city.
International Risk Management also has to look at attracting more events.
And for this it has to formulate marketing strategies.
The company will also assess financial projections and predict “profit-bearing scenarios”.
“Each model developed by the business analyst is expected to take into account a one- to three-year, as well as a four- to 20-year operating arrangement,” Pascoe said.
“Once this modelling exercise is completed, the city is expected to scrutinise each model and weigh the opportunities and implications of each before deciding on a most appropriate long-term business plan.”
Earlier this year the city said the council was expected to make a decision on a long-term business plan by the end of this year.
In October, the council decided to terminate its contract with Sail Stadefrance because the consortium would not agree to a long-term lease.
Sail Stadefrance would not enter into a 30-year lease because it believed the projected losses of running the stadium were too high.
bronwynne.jooste@inl.co.za

Stadiums legacy boosting South Africa

(FIFA.com) Wednesday 28 September 2011

http://www.fifa.com/mm//Photo/Tournament/Competition/01/25/61/85/1256185_FULL-LND.jpg
© Getty Images

Yesterday’s news that the 2013 CAF Africa Cup of Nations (CAN) has been switched from Libya to South Africa came as no great surprise, and it confirmed the new hosts’ state of permanent readiness to host major tournaments. The experience and infrastructure developed during the staging of last year’s FIFA World Cup™ has left South Africa perfectly positioned to host other major events, with its glittering array of first-rate stadiums a key selling point.

However, when the country first announced, four years before it hosted the first FIFA World Cup on African soil, that it would be constructing a clutch of towering football arenas for the global showpiece, the news was met with widespread scepticism. The question often advanced back then was whether the Rainbow Nation would be able to sustain such infrastructure once the FIFA World Cup had been done and gone.

Fortunately, even before yesterday’s announcement that it would be taking on the responsibility of hosting the 2013 CAN and the following year’s CAF African Nations Championsip, South Africa had been answering its critics in the best possible way, with all the new FIFA World Cup venues continuing not only as iconic landmarks, but as hubs for sporting and entertainment events. Statistics reveal that, far from being the ‘white elephants’ critics predicted, the majority of these stadiums now act as self-sustainable businesses. Further plans are also afoot to ensure these venues not only form a tangible legacy from the FIFA World Cup, but also play their part in South Africa's long-term ambition to host future international events.

Danny Jordaan, CEO of the South Africa 2010 Organising Committee, explained the importance of this development. "This is the first time in our history that there are purpose-built stadiums across the country and world class homes for football,” he said. “Football is by far the most popular sport in South Africa, so certainly there is a demand for stadiums. The challenge for cities is to find creative ways to use the stadiums in conjunction with sports clubs, hosting events and allowing commercial activities. Many of these stadiums are already making use of these options and quite successfully. With the recent announcement of South Africa as the host for the 2013 African Cup of Nations, these stadiums will be central to hosting a great tournament."

The challenge for cities is to find creative ways to use the stadiums in conjunction with sports clubs, hosting events and allowing commercial activities.Danny Jordaan

The majestic Soccer City (now known as FNB Stadium) – an arena often referred to as the cathedral of football in South Africa and the place where Spain won a dramatic FIFA World Cup Final – has been the busiest of all. Within weeks of the FIFA World Cup final, the FNB Stadium hosted a historic rugby match between South Africa and New Zealand, traditional rivals who attracted a record crowd for a rugby fixture. Besides hosting a number of football cup finals, the FNB Stadium has also played host to major music concerts, including a sold-out gig from U2. In a month's time, another capacity crowd will turn out to welcome another famous band, Coldplay. FNB Stadium is also now used as a home venue by South Africa's self-styled glamour team and one of the most popular clubs in the country, Kaizer Chiefs.

The Durban Stadium (now Moses Mabhida Stadium) has also seen a lot of action, having been converted into a multi-purpose sporting facility. In January, it hosted the first ever cricket match between South Africa and India - a sold-out event to honour one of South Africa's biggest sporting names, Makhaya Ntini, who also participated in the Final Draw for the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

The Moses Mabhida Stadium is also now called home by South African Premier Soccer League (PSL) side Amazulu. This stadium has become one of the major tourist attraction in Durban as it continues to lure visitors thanks to its majestic arch and cable car.

Other Stadiums:

Mbombela Stadium
• This arena has hosted a number of PSL matches and is currently being used as an alternative venue by several top flight sides, including Wits
• Rugby has also found a new home in Mbombela Stadium, where some of this season’s South African top flight rugby action has taken place
• In March this year, the Mbombela Stadium hosted the Nedbank Cup final between Orlando Pirates and Black Leopards, another sold-out affair
• Bafana Bafana, South Africa’s senior national side, recently played Niger in a 2012 CAF Africa Cup of Nations qualifier at the venue

Peter Mokaba Stadium
• This has been one of the busiest stadiums by far. This year alone, it has hosted a number of high-profile matches, mainly involving South Africa’s top side, Kaizer Chiefs
• A total of 18 PSL matches were played
• This season, newly-promoted Black Leopards have been using the stadium as their home ground
• One of South Africa’s top rugby side, Blue Bulls, played one of its fixtures at the Peter Mokaba

Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium
• This arena recently hosted the sold-out rugby match between South Africa and New Zealand
• The stadium is currently home to Eastern Cape rugby outfit Eastern Province Kings
• Some PSL sides have listed the stadium as an alternative venue



http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/southafrica2010/news/newsid=1518004/

http://www.kickoff.com/news/25660/mthathas-new-r500-million-too-small.php

i never knew a stadium like this existed. But what an idiotic achievement.