daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas > Proposed



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: How many tiers should the new Curva Sud have?
One 132 48.00%
Two 67 24.36%
Three 76 27.64%
Voters: 275. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old April 26th, 2011, 09:50 PM   #61
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,859
Likes (Received): 10553

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

Sponsored Links
Old April 27th, 2011, 06:58 AM   #62
MS20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,055
Likes (Received): 2

Agreed. People need to read Soccernomics though to get rid of some fantasy regarding small market teams; the idea that metropolitan areas of sub-500,000 people will ever be relevant in European football again is nonsense. The "big" clubs would be the "big" clubs irrespective of financial fair play, FFP will just keep them solvent. It's no surprise that these same big clubs all come from metropolitan areas of a +1m.
MS20 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 27th, 2011, 05:28 PM   #63
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,653
Likes (Received): 1628

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

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

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

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

The middle-sized clubs could compete if the structure was different.
kerouac1848 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2011, 06:13 AM   #64
MS20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,055
Likes (Received): 2

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

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

There is no room for sub-1 million metro areas in European football. In domestic league football, a slightly higher chance, but not by much. Look at every European football league, city size more or less determines league position/division/standing (with some exceptions granted). And its not just because there are more people there for support; it has as much to do with everything that comes with a large metropolitan centre (economic, political, and technical resources, among other reasons).
MS20 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2011, 02:05 PM   #65
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,653
Likes (Received): 1628

Quote:
I will just ask you one thing: where are the successful European clubs that come from population centers sub-1 million? And I'm not buying the Schalke argument...Rhine-Ruhr has 10 million inhabitants. Norwich it is not.
First, I was never denying that the most successful clubs were from the largest cities. My point was that it is a to simplistic position to take and when you look into it, things aren't that clear. How many clubs are in said city, the wealth of that city, etc all have to be considered. If it was all (or even primarily) about size, why is Liverpool, with two clubs, a far more successful city than Leeds, which is significantly larger and has just one major club? Indeed, why doesn't Bristol have a trophy to its name, yet tiny Blackburn does (and indeed has been a major force in English football far more than any of those clubs from the SW city)?. The point being that you have to take the context into consideration, which helps explains Liverpool's success and Leeds lack of.

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

It's no different to the Randstad and, under your logic, why aren't (or were) ADO Den Haag major European players yet PSV are when Eindhoven has 750K in its metro area? Indeed, the NW corner of England with Merseyside, Greater Manchester and some Lancashire would likely be a metro region if it was in Germany. Does that give Wigan a greater chance of success than Brighton (without their backer of course)?
Quote:
The last time a metropolitan area of under 1 million won the European Cup was Forest in 1980. In UEFA Cup, its Parma in 1998. If you think they, or anyone else like them, are ever getting anywhere again, you might be waiting a while.
Actually, it was PSV in 1988 for the EC, whilst Ipswich and IFK Goteborg won 3 UEFA Cups during the 80s. This also ignores finalists, such as Club Brugge, EC and UEFA Cup finalists during the latter 70s (metro area 250k), Alaves in 1999 and Dundee during the 80s.

Anyway, I never claimed they would, and under the current system it is more difficult as the best supported clubs hoover up the TV revenue
Quote:
There is no room for sub-1 million metro areas in European football. In domestic league football, a slightly higher chance, but not by much. Look at every European football league, city size more or less determines league position/division/standing (with some exceptions granted). And its not just because there are more people there for support; it has as much to do with everything that comes with a large metropolitan centre (economic, political, and technical resources, among other reasons).

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

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

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

Last edited by kerouac1848; April 28th, 2011 at 02:23 PM.
kerouac1848 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2011, 05:41 AM   #66
MS20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,055
Likes (Received): 2

I take your point.

Few thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know if we will ever see a truly European league (which might have as many as 5-6 divisions), but the game will continue to work in the favour of the larger clubs, which for many reasons will be situated in the largest European metropolitan areas.
MS20 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2011, 02:19 PM   #67
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,653
Likes (Received): 1628

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

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

- It is actually like the Randstad yes. And within Randstad, you'll find Amsterdam. PSV on the other hand: you may want to check your figures. Eindhoven, as a metropolitan area, has over 2 million inhabitants.
To me, it seems that countries which use the idea of a metro 'region' do so for administrative and statistical reasons, largely so they can rationalise a state (in Germany it allows them to neatly divided the country geographically into a dozen or so metro regions). I've lived in the Randstad (The Hague) and it does not feel like you are part of one core area, certainly the way it does in my home city, London, or in il-de-France. No one in The Hague says they live in the 'Randstad', it's just a political and administrative concept. In other words, it's just terminology.

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

Quote:
- Considering I'm European, I'm not coming from an American mindset at all. It's a logical mindset. Of course medium sized cities have won competitions before. My whole argument is that they never will again; and they haven't for over 10 years already which just solidifies my point. Yes, money is a massive contributing factor, but why does that work against my argument? Resources (economic, tactical, political, technological, etc) are concentrated mainly in larger urban areas. So its natural that the largest markets are not only the largest clubs because of support and success, but because of the financial rewards that go with being a large metropolitan area.
Well, experience tells me you do not have to be an actual American (or even live there) to have a US mindset in some areas....... (it was the use of the term 'small-market teams' which alerted me)

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

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

- If football ever went the way of revenue sharing, I'd probably give up on it. There is no evidence to suggest that the current European model is any worse than the American model. Football is ubiquitously popular around Europe - and the world - in spite of the incredibly disparity on hand. So why would we change anything now? The only thing I would like to see is the introduction of wage cap based on turnover, to stop the clubs from being their own worst enemy. Otherwise, equalization for all European clubs is insanity.
Why? Anyway, I wasn't arguing for complete revenue sharing or 'equalization', just TV rights, because a) the smaller the gap between clubs the closer the competition, which makes it more attractive over the long-term which benefits everyone; and b) the valuation of TV rights is dependent upon the collective worth of the clubs in question. As such, what right does any club have to cream off a larger slice? If the CL was Arsenal and 31 clubs from Iran and Central Asia it would be worth a fraction of what is now. It is the collective weight of a competition which determines its value.

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

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


Quote:
- Bristol can be explained quite easily by geography. West and south-west of England are not the footballing hotbeds of north worst, north east and Midlands. For a long time it has been removed from the areas where clubs strive most. It is also a reason why south-west has been so bereft of football success. These are areas where rugby union is traditionally is equally embedded as football. Part of the reason why larger towns like Wigan, Bradford, Warrington (which have large rugby league traditions), etc in the football hotbed of the north west, have not been traditionally anywhere near successful as other 'football only' towns in the area like Blackburn or Bolton.
Er, but that is the context I am talking about!! Anyway, what you said is not really true at all (apart from the RL towns). Southern clubs have historically been at a disadvantage because the FL was until after 1920 overwhelming a northern and midlands affair. There was a separate Southern League. Even after this many southern clubs (esp. outside london) joined by the FL creating a 3rd division, meaning they started at the bottom. During those days it was much harder to get promoted as only one out 22 (24 from 1950) could go up. Considering that 20s and especially 30s were English football's boom time (crowds grew to stupid levels), many potential big clubs in the South (outside London) were at a huge handicap. it wasn't until 1958 that the two 3rd divisions were merged into one and it was 4-up-4-down.

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

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

I don't know if we will ever see a truly European league (which might have as many as 5-6 divisions), but the game will continue to work in the favour of the larger clubs, which for many reasons will be situated in the largest European metropolitan areas.
To me that is defeatist and fatalist (no offence meant).

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

Last edited by kerouac1848; April 29th, 2011 at 03:39 PM.
kerouac1848 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2011, 07:21 PM   #68
yungtris
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1
Likes (Received): 0

yeah, i read the fifa fair play rules just this week. it strictly applies to player transfers and wages. it has nothing to do with infrastructure... it means therefore that moratti should be able to proceed with plans, so too lazio... la viola... all teams. platini wants the leagues to have good stadiums, he's not gonna punish that...
yungtris no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2011, 09:53 PM   #69
merope
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 51
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS20 View Post

The last time a metropolitan area of under 1 million won the European Cup was Forest in 1980. In UEFA Cup, its Parma in 1998. If you think they, or anyone else like them, are ever getting anywhere again, you might be waiting a while.
Porto is close. It has a population of 220,000 officially, and a metro area population of 1.1m - 1.3m depending on which source you use. Either way, it's far smaller than the mega-centers, and has two European trophies in the last eight years.
merope no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2011, 07:13 PM   #70
repin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 604
Likes (Received): 150

repin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2011, 04:43 PM   #71
michał_
Registered User
 
michał_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Krk | Stw
Posts: 1,634
Likes (Received): 71

Quote:
Originally Posted by repin View Post
Does this come with any new info about the project?
michał_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2011, 05:36 PM   #72
Carrerra
Registered User
 
Carrerra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pohang
Posts: 1,452
Likes (Received): 22

It seems to be located so remote from the downtown.
Carrerra no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2011, 09:18 PM   #73
DimitriB
Registered User
 
DimitriB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Antwerp
Posts: 548
Likes (Received): 76

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

I say : GO ROMA
DimitriB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 26th, 2011, 05:21 AM   #74
MS20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,055
Likes (Received): 2

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

I say : GO ROMA
Absolutely. I've been pleasantly surprised by how realistic the new Italian projects are as far as capacity is concerned. 35k at Palermo; 55k at Roma; 41k at Juve... they are being smart about it. There is a light at the end of the tunnel for Italian football.
MS20 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 21st, 2011, 10:04 PM   #75
o.S.T.mus.tis.nt.
...
 
o.S.T.mus.tis.nt.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 167
Likes (Received): 1

http://www.goal.com/en/news/10/italy...anned-for-2014
o.S.T.mus.tis.nt. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2011, 02:44 AM   #76
michał_
Registered User
 
michał_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Krk | Stw
Posts: 1,634
Likes (Received): 71

Quote:
Originally Posted by o.S.T.mus.tis.nt. View Post
doesn't lookanything like this stadium would be built. I mean this concept, not any stadium for Roma...
michał_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2011, 02:46 AM   #77
italiano_pellicano
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Los Angeles , US / Cancun , MX
Posts: 16,687
Likes (Received): 2010

quando lo fano questo stadio
italiano_pellicano no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2011, 05:17 PM   #78
CurvaSud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2
Likes (Received): 0

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

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



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

One this is sure, forget the Stadio Franco Sensi, the new Roma stadium will have a new look and different name.
CurvaSud no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2011, 01:09 PM   #79
Brigate Rossonere
Milanista
 
Brigate Rossonere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 152
Likes (Received): 1

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

One this is sure, forget the Stadio Franco Sensi, the new Roma stadium will have a new look and different name.
Yes, correct on all accounts. It is good to have someone so informed on the matters. Keep us posted.
__________________
Milan, Tu Sei Tutta La Mia Vita
Brigate Rossonere no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2011, 11:20 PM   #80
troeba
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 25
Likes (Received): 10

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



[IMG]http://i34.************/fz2ba.jpg[/IMG]
troeba no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
rome

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium