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

Stadiums and Sport Arenas » Completed | Under Construction | Proposed | Demolished



Global Announcement

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


View Poll Results: Which bid should host the FIFA World Cup 2018 / 2022?
Australia - 2018 255 12.32%
Belgium / Netherlands - 2018 247 11.94%
England - 2018 538 26.00%
Indonesia - 2018 68 3.29%
Japan - 2018 35 1.69%
Mexico - 2018 105 5.07%
Qatar - 2018 78 3.77%
Russia - 2018 279 13.48%
South Korea - 2018 16 0.77%
Spain / Portugal - 2018 267 12.90%
USA - 2018 116 5.61%
Australia - 2022 378 18.27%
Belgium / Netherlands - 2022 111 5.36%
England - 2022 114 5.51%
Indonesia - 2022 122 5.90%
Japan - 2022 37 1.79%
Mexico - 2022 149 7.20%
Qatar - 2022 153 7.39%
Russia - 2022 148 7.15%
South Korea - 2022 23 1.11%
Spain / Portugal - 2022 184 8.89%
USA - 2022 249 12.03%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 2069. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old May 20th, 2008, 06:07 PM   #3281
BeestonLad
PQS
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 3,217
Likes (Received): 550

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobDaBuilder View Post
We call our football team the 'Socceroos' actually. Never heard it called the Australian Football Team. That would imply that our football is played internationally.

England is too risky a place to have the World Cup because you cannot keep all the villains away if you stage it in their backyards. It is like an open invitation to all known troublemakers.

Also your hotels and transport infrastructure is laughable and over-priced. What does it cost, something like $120 USD just to take the train to the next city? The standard of hotels in England is shameful. Fawlty Towers is not a comedy but a documentary!

The only reason FIFA would go to England is to make shed loads of cash. And they manage to rub up FIFA so wouldn't bet on it. There is a lot of water to go under the bridge yet. Hopefully sanity will prevail. Also, what makes the English think they would be worthy hosts in any case? You might not qualify for the World Cup for a while yet. All you players are all prima donas who don't give a **** about anything but money.
Whats up with you did an english guy shag your missus while on holiday or something? Get that chip off your shoulder
BeestonLad no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old May 20th, 2008, 06:32 PM   #3282
Elensar77
Aslantepe Stadium
 
Elensar77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: İstanbul
Posts: 350
Likes (Received): 5

ı want to world cup 2018 bid to Turkey but,we are not enough yet,maybe 2022...
Elensar77 no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2008, 11:28 PM   #3283
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by skaP187 View Post
Bwoah, that´s a design with balls. How serious are the planns of Portsmouth?
Serious, but as discussed earlier that particular design and location are now removed from the equation. The club will have something, the questions is exactly where and how large. Original proposal called for 36k.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flare View Post
One problem I can see with Englands bid is that many of the existing stadium (and ones planned to be redeveloped) are in very tight inner city locations.

World Cup matches demand so much space for all the promotion/advertising activites and wider FIFA community.
This issue isn't unique to England nor too big a concern for FIFA. Local governments are responsible for security and accessibility, and if a ground prohibits the volume of luxury or advertising/merchandising space that would be considered ideal, it will merely cut into the profits for the hosts. FIFA will get their cut and then merely care about the success of the games, and social events can be held away from the actual stadium.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flogging Molly View Post
There will only be 10 host cities and 11 stadiums that will be used.
Seems to me 11 and 12 are the more reasonable numbers, as 11 stadiums creates an interesting imbalance in how to distribute matches.

Quote:
Its just a shame Wolverhampton is such a dive...
The Birmingham metro will host games by default, so it's simply a matter of the community and the clubs determining the best package. Clearly Villa has the most direct path to a large facility that will be used after the WC, but, by all accounts and images I've noted from afar, Villa Park is among the least graceful of facilities available. Renovations would have their restrictions and be quite costly on a per seat basis. Depending on the money the club could bring to the table, I'd venture that a brand new ground for Birmingham City would be the most attractive option here, even if slightly smaller than what Villa Park could achieve. Honus is on BCFC to prove they can make a 45k (or larger) seat stadium a financially viable home for their club.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
The essense of a great bid is to exceed the minimum requirements - in stadium terms, you present FIFA with 14 stadiums and say 'pick the ones YOU like'.
Host cities must also prove their package to bid organizers, and thus far it seems there will be no "If we get the bid" conditions allowed. In other words, they only want offers to host from cities/facilities where any improvement plans or new construction will be followed through regardless so as to ensure each situation is on safe financial footing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
It'll be very interesting to see what happens in the Premier League over the next few seasons - because the location of major new stadiums is highly dependant on who's up and who's not.
Traditionally, but this may change that, especially as the Championship is retaining strong revenue returns. Some clubs know they can attract larger crowds with the right facilities even outside the premiership and see this as their means for making that move up (Bristol City, Nottingham, etc). No better time to build when you're (practically) guaranteed some nice extra revenue through hosting 3+ WC matches.

Quote:
Certainly, if Nott'm Forest, Norwich, Bristol City, Sheff Utd and Leeds could all get into the top league (at the expense of Fulham, Bolton, Wigan, Middlesbro, and West Brom), then the geographic spread of potentially well supported Prem clubs with good facilities, or the need for new stadia would be much better.
This is something the EPL needs quite desperately, IMO. England is unmatched in the volume of great stadiums for lower drawing clubs around the 20-30k mark, and the upper echelon of stadiums should be grand come 2014, assuming Liverpool and Everton do their parts. However that second level of clubs are now well behind their counterparts in Germany in terms of great facilities, especially outside the major metro areas. Elland Road has the size but hardly the amenities, plus some obstructed views still. Forest has built themselves into a bind given their limitations to expand, while Sheffield's main clubs might be loathe to leave their historic grounds but find expansions truly difficult. Middlesbrough can't sell out Riverside now, so what good would 45k do?

Sounds like a topic for it's own thread, no?
Regarding an England WC bid, and assuming that London (2 stadiums), Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle/Sunderland and Liverpool are given locations, which cities are the next best options for distributing the vents, and which clubs would best maximize the expanded/new facility of 45k or larger? Hmmm....

I dare say a number of facilities will be built with at least one side of upper tier seats made temporary. Portsmouth's new ground could see one long side taken down after the games so as to reduce capacity to the 36k mark they're looking for. Others might follow suit.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2008, 11:45 PM   #3284
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
Sunderland:

The Stadium of Light - 61000 (new tiers on East and South stands to expand from 49000; approved) will only happen if we have huge on pitch success over the next 5 or 6 years
But extending over the other end to 55k is quite reasonable and unlikely to be a deterrent to the club even if they move down (which I don't think will happen). This facility is too good to be left out, the club could likely fill that for big games and what better time to expand then when extra revenue is coming in.

Quote:
Leeds:

New stadium for Leeds Utd - 50000 (current Elland Road 40000 seats) again, will only happen if they have tremendous success - (a) they would need to win the play-offs, THEN get promoted again within 2 or 3 years, and (b) they'll find it incredibly hard to get enough credit together to build a stadium as they've done two massive credit write-offs in the last 4 years
Possibly not. Leeds, like Newcastle and Sunderland, benefits from essentially being "the only show in town," and have a proven track record of support. Since the bid organizers will want to disperse the games then something has to go in central england, and Leeds might be the best candidates to make use of that bill. May not be 50k, but will certainly exceed Elland Road and may serve as the catalyst for the club to prosper again.

In time for Mr. Bates to ruin them all the more...

Quote:
Sheffield:

Bramall Lane - 42000 (expanded Kop and Main stand to expand from 33000) of all the pipe-dreams suggested for 2018, this is the only one I'd put 'public' money into. Bramall Lane is the oldest stadium that has been in continuous use for football in the world - would be a great element to the bid
A great sentimental nod and one I agree may get the bill for that reason. The overall site seems confining, however, and I'm dubious of the club's ability to maximize such a gift.

Quote:
Nottingham:

New Forest Stadium - 45000 (current City Ground 31000)
Ground can't really be expanded. Not nicely, anyway. Great candidate for a new stadium with some seats removed after the games.

Quote:
I'd like to see a new stadium in East Anglia, whether in Norwich or Ipswich, to allow a true georgraphic spread around the country. I think Norwich could possibly justify one if they could get back into the Prem.
+1.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2008, 11:59 PM   #3285
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by flare View Post
One problem I can see with Englands bid is that many of the existing stadium (and ones planned to be redeveloped) are in very tight inner city locations.

World Cup matches demand so much space for all the promotion/advertising activites and wider FIFA community. Stadiums I'm particularly thinking of are:

Old Trafford (Manchester)
Villa Park (Birmingham)
Stamford Bridge (London/Chelsea)
St James Park (Newcastle)
Stamford Bridge won't be used and isn't at all worry - the likely London stadia will be Wembley and Emirates Stadium, although Emirates will have similiar problems. If, by some miracle, the bid chose to use Twickenham instead, then this problem is removed entirely from the equation. Wembley has parkland to the south-east that could be used.

Villa Park has parkland to the south-west, including a full-size astroturf pitch that could easily be used to accomodate the various space requirements. Old Trafford is surrounded by vast carparks, which could be used. St. James's Park has a large parkland to the north-west which could be used. Anfield has parkland to the north-east; New Anfield will have it's own surrounding space.

While many English stadia do not have their own space, most have usable spaces nearby. Given that most of these spaces are publically owned parklands, there is no doubt they could be used to fulfill these kinds of roles.
__________________
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.
NeilF no está en línea  
Old May 21st, 2008, 12:07 AM   #3286
BeestonLad
PQS
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 3,217
Likes (Received): 550

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post

Ground can't really be expanded. Not nicely, anyway. Great candidate for a new stadium with some seats removed after the games.
Well it could easily be expanded up to 40k with a new main stand but its whether that will be enough to get a world cup game by 2018. But you're right a new stadium on another site is more likely given the value of the land its currently on. The new stadium would be between 45,000 and 50,000 apparently
BeestonLad no está en línea  
Old May 21st, 2008, 05:51 AM   #3287
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
Traditionally, but this may change that, especially as the Championship is retaining strong revenue returns. Some clubs know they can attract larger crowds with the right facilities even outside the premiership and see this as their means for making that move up (Bristol City, Nottingham, etc). No better time to build when you're (practically) guaranteed some nice extra revenue through hosting 3+ WC matches.
Red herring. You need a lot more than 3 sell-out crowds to even consider building work.

With regard to my own club, Sunderland, and our expansion plans - we could easily sell extra seats in a South Stand extension for a couple of games a season (Newcastle, Man Utd), but wouldn't even consider extending just for that.

Assuming Nottingham, for example, were to build a new 50k stadium prior to the World Cup, and assuming they got to keep 50% of the ticket revenue, with an average ticket price of GB100 (which is steep) - they would only earn 7.5 million.

That would hardly make a convincing dent in the cost of constructing the stadium in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobDaBuilder View Post
'It Ail Shite', you quote some of the most extreme places. Who said anything about playing the World Cup in Italy, Turkey or Spain?

In England you have crowd 'issues' every weekend. It just does not get reported. I lived in your country and saw it all firsthand every weekend down Fulham Broadway.

If you want to have to deal with moronic drunkards fighting then sure go and stage it in England. Most Brits couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag and need a bucket load of booze to get their courage up.

It will be interesting to see how to go over in Russia, the 'born to rule' mentality will get you a long way over there!
Having lived in England for the first 29 years of my life, and having attended games at the majority of stadia around the country, throughout the mid/late 80s and the 90s... Having walked around the outside of many venues on matchdays prior to and after fixtures... Having travelled on public transport to many of these games... Etc., etc... I've never witnessed anything that would be regarded as football related violence. There's no doubt that it happens - just as it does in Italy, Turkey, Spain, etc... Just as it did at Melbourne Victory vs Sydney FC last year, just as it did at South Melbourne vs Melbourne Victory in pre-season last year...

Last edited by Benjuk; May 21st, 2008 at 05:58 AM.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old May 21st, 2008, 06:10 AM   #3288
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

Aren't Nottingham Forest planning on moving to a new stadium in 2014? I know a plan to that effect was released at some point last year. Have they been shelved? As far as I remember, the plan is for a 50,000 all seated stadium, which would be more than enough for a world cup, even if grossly excessive for the club given their current on-pitch travails.



An interesting thought that seems to have been ignored is a possible expansion of the K.C. Stadium in Hull. I'm aware that this city doesn't have a particularly 'desirable' image but it is undergoing some manner of an urban renaissance with considerable investment in the city centre. The K.C. was build with easy expansion to around 30,000 in mind by expanding the East Stand. I believe Paul Duffen has said that this expansion will go ahead if Hull City win the playoff final on Saturday, taking capacity up to 32,000 (although I'm unsure where the extra 2,000 seats in this figure have come from - a replica of the upper West Stand would only hold 5,000, so an overall capacity on the East side of the stadium would require a fairly significantly larger upper tier than currently found on the West side. If Hull City made the Premier League and stayed there, further expansion of the North and South stands, taking capacity up to 38,000-40,000 isn't beyond the realms of possibility. Indeed, the potential to use the quadrants could give a final capacity in excess of 40,000.
__________________
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.
NeilF no está en línea  
Old May 21st, 2008, 07:35 AM   #3289
BobDaBuilder
Registered User
 
BobDaBuilder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yarck
Posts: 1,542
Likes (Received): 1

World Cup bid at risk if fans fail to behave, warns British Minister

Sachin Nakrani The Guardian, Wednesday May 21 2008

This article appeared in the Guardian on Wednesday May 21 2008 on p5 of the Sport news & features section. It was last updated at 00:07 on May 21 2008. The sports minister, Gerry Sutcliffe, last night warned Chelsea and Manchester United supporters who travelled to Moscow for the Champions League final to be on their best behaviour, emphasising that any violence in the Russian capital, coming so soon after the riots that took place during last week's Uefa Cup final in Manchester, could jeopardise England's bid to host the 2018 World Cup.

"The World Cup is a showpiece event and Fifa does not want violence attracted to it in any way," said Sutcliffe, who has also made the trip to Moscow. "Our bid has a long way to go, there is still a World Cup in South Africa and Brazil to take place, but we want to have a successful bid for 2018 and we may not be successful if there are repeats of the violence in Manchester last week."

A Russian fan was stabbed and 42 people were arrested after riot police clashed with Glasgow Rangers supporters who became irate when large-screen televisions in the city centre broke down and failed to show their team's match against Zenit St Petersburg from the City of Manchester Stadium.

More than 42,000 supporters of the Premier League sides have descended on Moscow and they have been met by 6,000 police and military officers who have been deployed to maintain order in the city during the week of the final. Other measures include a ban on public drinking.

"I hope the next couple of nights in Moscow go off without any hitches and the people who have gone there enjoy what should be an opportunity to show off the best of British football," said Sutcliffe. "As a Manchester United fan, I of course hope United win."

Responding to the minister's warning, the Football Association said it did not believe the riots in Manchester will affect the 2018 bid and that it did not want to discuss incidents "that have not yet happened".

"The behaviour of English supporters remains an issue but it has improved beyond recognition in recent years due to the efforts of the supporters themselves, the football authorities, clubs, police and government legislation," a spokesman said. "We hope all supporters who have travelled to Moscow have a great time, back their team and travel home without any problems."

The FA last week announced the creation of its 2018 "company", a panel headed by its chairman Lord Triesman that will spearhead the bid. The role of the government was at that stage unclear and yesterday Sutcliffe said discussions were ongoing to clarify how the two authorities will work together to bring a World Cup to England for the first time in 62 years.

"As a government, we want to provide every effort of support we can to the bid," said Sutcliffe. "I believe we already have the stadiums to host the tournament, what we want to show Fifa now is that this country can establish a legacy which lasts beyond the hosting of a World Cup."
__________________
In the 1960s and 1970s, British rock bands ruled the world.

Now they have Susan Boyle.
BobDaBuilder no está en línea  
Old May 21st, 2008, 08:07 AM   #3290
Vanguard
Registered User
 
Vanguard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,193
Likes (Received): 207

I would have thought trouble in Moscow would more likely have an adverse effect on Russia's ambitions for the 2018 WC?

Like I said before, 100,000 English and Welsh fans were in London over the weekend, there were no problems whatsoever.
Vanguard no está en línea  
Old May 21st, 2008, 11:53 AM   #3291
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,861
Likes (Received): 968

FIFA move boosts 2018 World Cup bid
21 May 2008

Australia’s chances of hosting the 2018 FIFA World Cup have been strengthened with an unexpected decision by FIFA to bring forward the bid process for the following event in 2022.

The World Game can EXCLUSIVELY reveal that FIFA’s top brass, only in the past few days, has decided to align awarding the hosting rights to both the 2018 and 2022 World Cups on the same date – a decision due in June 2011.

It is thought that the decision was driven by the view that aligning the announcements will increase potential television and sponsorship revenues.

The right to host the 2018 World Cup already has a multitude of declared likely bidders – among them Australia, China, USA and up to five European aspirants, including England.

The late decision by FIFA, on the eve of the world body’s Congress in Sydney, is sure to cause a re-think by some of the 2018 bidders, especially those from outside Europe.

With the 2010 World Cup due to be hosted by South Africa and the 2014 edition already awarded to Brazil, popular betting has the 2018 tournament returning the World Cup to the financially powerful seat of Europe which, by then, will be 12 years without hosting football’s most prized tournament.

But the move by FIFA is likely to spread bids across two World Cups and dilute the competition for the 2018 tournament, thereby strengthening Australia’s chances and conversely weakening the case for a European host that year.

Australia, unfazed by formidable opposition from European bidders, has so far stayed the course in its pursuit of the 2018 World Cup, with serious financial backing from the federal government.

But this decision might persuade it to put its hand up for two editions at the price of one.

The FFA declined to comment on FIFA’s latest move.

FIFA will issue hosting tenders for both World Cups in June next year. The deadline for delivery of the bids is March 2011 with FIFA’s executive committee due to announce the winning bids in June of that year.

LINK: http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/austr...up-bid-118960/

Last edited by Wezza; May 21st, 2008 at 03:36 PM.
Wezza no está en línea  
Old May 21st, 2008, 12:54 PM   #3292
BeestonLad
PQS
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 3,217
Likes (Received): 550

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilF View Post
Aren't Nottingham Forest planning on moving to a new stadium in 2014? I know a plan to that effect was released at some point last year. Have they been shelved? As far as I remember, the plan is for a 50,000 all seated stadium, which would be more than enough for a world cup, even if grossly excessive for the club given their current on-pitch travails.

As far as I know the plans are still on the cards after all we did get promoted this year! As for financing the works it shouldnt really be a problem as the majority of the funds will come from outside the club. The land that the current ground sits on is worth quite a lot with good potential to develop some luxury flats apparently (riverside views etc). The council are very keen on the idea as well.
BeestonLad no está en línea  
Old May 21st, 2008, 02:29 PM   #3293
Flogging Molly
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 3,495
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by flare View Post
One problem I can see with Englands bid is that many of the existing stadium (and ones planned to be redeveloped) are in very tight inner city locations.

World Cup matches demand so much space for all the promotion/advertising activites and wider FIFA community. Stadiums I'm particularly thinking of are:

Old Trafford (Manchester)
Villa Park (Birmingham)
Stamford Bridge (London/Chelsea)
St James Park (Newcastle)
Obviously you've never been to Spain. All these stadiums reguarl cope with huge crowds. I dont think a World Cup would be any different.
Flogging Molly no está en línea  
Old May 21st, 2008, 04:07 PM   #3294
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
Red herring. You need a lot more than 3 sell-out crowds to even consider building work.

With regard to my own club, Sunderland, and our expansion plans - we could easily sell extra seats in a South Stand extension for a couple of games a season (Newcastle, Man Utd), but wouldn't even consider extending just for that.

Assuming Nottingham, for example, were to build a new 50k stadium prior to the World Cup, and assuming they got to keep 50% of the ticket revenue, with an average ticket price of GB100 (which is steep) - they would only earn 7.5 million.

That would hardly make a convincing dent in the cost of constructing the stadium in the first place.
The point is that if you're already investigating the expansion/improvement of your ground or considering a new one, what better time to do that than when you're guaranteed extra money and exposure. Don't forget there's more than just the tickets - concessions, parking, etc, will add significantly to that. IIRC, the organizers behind the German bid expected the host facilities to pull in a minimum 10M GBP. Still not enough to pay for an expansion outright, but if you're already considering such development surely you wouldn't object to having the cost dropped a few million!

There's also something to be said for the exposure. Modern technology has enabled fans the world over to learn about many different clubs and cities, and events such as this usually lead to a geometric increase in awareness of clubs and cities previously disregarded by the casual fans. Again, folks in Germany say the exposure has increased the appeal and interest in many middling clubs beyond the likes of Bayern and Dortmund. I know many folks who could name some clubs in the EPL but have never heard of Sunderland. Hosting some WC matches could help change that.

Otherwise there wouldn't be such interest in bidding, no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilF View Post
An interesting thought that seems to have been ignored is a possible expansion of the K.C. Stadium in Hull...
There are a handfull of clubs and facilities that could fit this description, but if I could place a wager on this I'd say the organizers don't want anything less than 45k, preferably 50k, for every stadium. This will also be cross referenced with cities that serve as the best tourist destinations. Thus, while KC Stadium may meet the letter of the standards required by FIFA, it may still be well behind the list of better options available. And, to be frank, if England can't foist 12 better facilities together than Hull City's home, then they should rethink their bid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobDaBuilder View Post
World Cup bid at risk if fans fail to behave, warns British Minister
Please note this headline could apply to any of the organizers. After all, this isn't a startling analogy - Criminal behavior could make you look bad! Yes, if English fans get out of control it could harm their bid.

Ditto Spanish fans.
Ditto Dutch fans.
Ditto Australian fans.

And so on, and so on.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old May 21st, 2008, 04:14 PM   #3295
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

England 2018
China 2022
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old May 21st, 2008, 04:51 PM   #3296
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
There are a handfull of clubs and facilities that could fit this description, but if I could place a wager on this I'd say the organizers don't want anything less than 45k, preferably 50k, for every stadium. This will also be cross referenced with cities that serve as the best tourist destinations. Thus, while KC Stadium may meet the letter of the standards required by FIFA, it may still be well behind the list of better options available. And, to be frank, if England can't foist 12 better facilities together than Hull City's home, then they should rethink their bid.
I can see where you're coming from, but... Leeds, specifically, is a generally more pleasing location than Hull. The city is nicer for the most part, it's a bigger city and it's more easily accessible by existing transport than Hull. As such, if Leeds can put a decent stadium into the mix then Hull would never be considered. Ditto Sheffield. The trouble is that, at this time, Hull is the only city with a realistic redevelopment in the works, although a lot can change in 10 years.

I'd say a stadium somewhere in Yorkshire will be desirable for any planners because of geographic spead. At the moment, realistically, it's going to come down to a race between Leeds United, Sheffield Wednesday / United and Hull City. Of those four, at this moment in time, Hull City actually have the most realistic chance of expansion, with plans on the table and the finances in place to carry out the expansion. Not to mention the potential demand for use of the extra seating if Hull do win promotion.

The K.C. Stadium is frequently voted as the best stadium in the Championship by away fans. It is a better facility than either Hillsborough or Elland Road in that sense. You must also remember the huge docks in Hull and the passenger ferries that come into Hull from mainland Europe - Hull easily accessible for many mainland European fans because of these docks. Given the nature of travelling around the UK, Hull is also a 50 minute train journey from York which is on the main east-coast line.

As I said, I'm dealing in theory here - if Leeds and / or Sheffield fail to provide a facility up to standard then Hull is a realistic possibility, even if the city is seen as being less desirable.
__________________
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.
NeilF no está en línea  
Old May 22nd, 2008, 03:45 AM   #3297
BobDaBuilder
Registered User
 
BobDaBuilder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yarck
Posts: 1,542
Likes (Received): 1

I'd be happy to have it in England in 2018 as long as Australia gets it in 2022.

China hosting it, you must be crackers. It is a despotic state.

India would be a better location by a country mile.
BobDaBuilder no está en línea  
Old May 22nd, 2008, 04:28 AM   #3298
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilF View Post
I can see where you're coming from, but...

...

As I said, I'm dealing in theory here - if Leeds and / or Sheffield fail to provide a facility up to standard then Hull is a realistic possibility, even if the city is seen as being less desirable.
Fair enough, and after reviewing population numbers and the distribution of English metros I can see where this is indeed an attractive option. Would be better still if the stadium could surpass 45k, even if only temporarily.

Shame Bristol and Hull must fight for promotion when it'd be so interesting to see both in the Prem.

So assuming you're correct, my "as of today" selection of cities, based on geographic dispersal, etc: would probably pan out as:

London (2)
Manchester
Liverpool
Birmingham
Sunderland
Portsmouth
Bristol
Norwich/Ipswich
Derby/Nottingham

That leaves 2 from
Hull
Sheffield
Leeds
Middlesbrough
Newcastle

If the bid ends up with a set of 40-45k facilities to choose from, I wonder if there'll be sympathy to favor the situation that provides the biggest improvements, regardless of club stature? For instance, it could be said Derby have less need for facility upgrades compared to Nottingham. We shall have to watch and see, I guess!

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobDaBuilder View Post
China hosting it, you must be crackers. It is a despotic state.
One would agree, but then China got the Olympics, didn't it? Sadly.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old May 22nd, 2008, 08:15 AM   #3299
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
England 2018
China 2022
Ha!!

England - 2018
USA - 2022
rover3 no está en línea  
Old May 22nd, 2008, 09:32 AM   #3300
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,764
Likes (Received): 10311

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobDaBuilder View Post
I'd be happy to have it in England in 2018 as long as Australia gets it in 2022.
I thought you said Britain couldn't be trusted with the world cup.

I wish you'd make your mind up, though I'm glad you've changed your tune even if it is because of the new circumstances surrounding the bidding process.
RobH está en línea ahora  


Closed Thread

Tags
australia, united states of america, world cup

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 09:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

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

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu