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 22nd, 2008, 03:22 PM   #3301
ccfc-4-life
Play up Sky Blues
 
ccfc-4-life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 820
Likes (Received): 2

2018 -

London - Wembley - 90,000 cap.
- Emirates Stadium - 60,000 cap.

Manchester - Old Trafford - 96,500 cap.

Newcastle - St, James' Park / New stadium - 80,200 cap.

Liverpool - Stanley Park - 71,000+ cap. (possibly)

Birmingham - Villa Park - 51,000+ cap.

Leeds - New Stadium - 50,000+ cap

Nottingham - New Forest stadium - 40-50,000+ cap.

Southhampton - St. Mary's - 40-45,000+ cap.

East Anglia - New Stadium - 45,000+ cap.

Others to consider :-

London - New Chelsea Stadium - 65,000+ cap.
- New Spurs Stadium - 55-65,000+ cap.
- New Hammers Stadium - 50,000 cap.

Bristol - New Stadium - 45,000 cap.

Sunderland - Stadium of Light - 64,000 cap.

Coventry - Ricoh Arena - 45,600 cap.

Portsmouth - New Stadium - 40-45,000 cap.

Wolverhampton - Molineux - 45,000+ cap.

Leicester - Walkers Stadium - 42,000+ cap.

Hull - KC Stadium - 40,000+ cap.

Sheffield - Hillsborough - 48,000-55,000 cap.
- Bramall Lane - 42,000 cap.
ccfc-4-life no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old May 22nd, 2008, 03:28 PM   #3302
aidar89
There`s a golden sky
 
aidar89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kazan
Posts: 7,268
Likes (Received): 8873

Russia would like organaize Euro 2016. I think it possible, but euro 2012 allready goes in Eastern Europe mb Platini and Blatter hope to Russia to realize it in Russia ( sorry with my English )
aidar89 no está en línea  
Old May 22nd, 2008, 03:47 PM   #3303
LandOfGreenGinger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 55
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilF View Post
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.

Would be great to see this come to Hull which also has the advantage of the location of the ground being in a city centre park. Lots of space therefore for the FIFA hospitality tents and media circus that are big part of hosting matches. Also good access for public transport with the possibility of a rail halt at the ground.

What might be the deal breaker for me would be the lack of hotel beds which is substantially short of what would be expected for a venue city.
LandOfGreenGinger no está en línea  
Old May 22nd, 2008, 04:05 PM   #3304
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc-4-life View Post
2018 -

Newcastle - St, James' Park / New stadium - 80,200 cap.
Where did that come from? All the others I can see as physically possible - but 80,200 at St James' Park? Physically impossible. A move to a new ground? Not going to happen when they already have St. James' Park.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old May 22nd, 2008, 04:11 PM   #3305
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
Ha!!


USA - 2022
apart from ticket sales..why?
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old May 22nd, 2008, 04:11 PM   #3306
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wezza View Post
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/
I don't get it... Why would the Euro bid be weakened? England, etc., will still be bidding, UEFA delegates will still be pushing hard to ensure that a European nation gets to host 2018 - and the biggest threat to any bid was always going to be Europe.

I suspect the Euro nations will concentrate on 2018, leaving the others to concentrate on 2022... Again, doesn't strengthen the Aussie bid significantly as we'll still be up against China, USA, Mexico, etc.

Infact, one could argue that it takes away the 'second chance' of going for 2022 if the bid for 2018 fails - thus reducing the chance of Australia hosting the finals.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old May 22nd, 2008, 05:03 PM   #3307
Pelha
Registered User
 
Pelha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,041
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by skaP187 View Post
If they would pull that together it would be a serious thread for an England bid.
They could do the same ofcourse by making it a UK bid.
But Portugal and Spain together would make a spectacular bid.
Sounds like a good idea. I doubt Portugal will ever get to host a final tournament on its own so this could be a good chance.
Pelha no está en línea  
Old May 22nd, 2008, 08:01 PM   #3308
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
apart from ticket sales..why?

Why NOT? What's wrong with strong boffo sales?

Why South Africa for '10?

OK, I'l revise that:

2018 - USA
2022 - Bangladesh!!
rover3 no está en línea  
Old May 23rd, 2008, 01:46 AM   #3309
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
Why NOT? What's wrong with strong boffo sales?

Why South Africa for '10?

OK, I'l revise that:

2018 - USA
2022 - Bangladesh!!
south africa brazil england....usa after that just seems very been there done that. not suggesting any issues with hosting in the US, just a personal opinion.
china would seem to complement the list. again just opinion.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old May 23rd, 2008, 02:16 AM   #3310
ccfc-4-life
Play up Sky Blues
 
ccfc-4-life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 820
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
Where did that come from? All the others I can see as physically possible - but 80,200 at St James' Park? Physically impossible. A move to a new ground? Not going to happen when they already have St. James' Park.
I've heard a few whispers every now and then...

10 years is a long time, you never know what will happen by 2018.
ccfc-4-life no está en línea  
Old May 23rd, 2008, 02:41 AM   #3311
Gherkin
actual gherkin
 
Gherkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13,796
Likes (Received): 515

Probably the expansion to around 60,000 for the tournament, if we're lucky:



No chance of getting planning permission for 80,000 seats, so we can only marvel at this PhotoShop job:




Current ground (52,000ish seats):

Last edited by Gherkin; May 23rd, 2008 at 02:50 AM.
Gherkin no está en línea  
Old May 23rd, 2008, 08:16 AM   #3312
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,861
Likes (Received): 968



What a beast!! Very imposing to say the least.
Wezza no está en línea  
Old May 23rd, 2008, 10:50 AM   #3313
KaSpEr5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 37
Likes (Received): 9

Neither of those impressions is possible because of the nearby roads
KaSpEr5 no está en línea  
Old May 23rd, 2008, 11:46 AM   #3314
Gherkin
actual gherkin
 
Gherkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13,796
Likes (Received): 515

I remember reading that the first one is possible, but it requires building over the road which would be costly. The second one has pretty much no chance as the terraced houses behind that stand are all listed/protected
Gherkin no está en línea  
Old May 23rd, 2008, 12:31 PM   #3315
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

The first one also requires the re-routing of lines and the complete replacement of a busy Metro underground train station.

A consortium has made noises about building a hotel/retail/entertainment complex which would be topped off with 8000 seats. Essentially NUFC will get the extra seats for virtually no investment, but only if the consortium can figure out how to do all of the other work for a budget that would allow them profits. Plans were initially announced about 14/15 months ago and as yet there hasn't been a single official render.

The funny thing about the Georgian buildings behind the Milburn Stand (the small side) is that I've always found them to be quite ugly and I don't see how them being flattened would have any negative impact on the city's architectural 'splendor'. That said, as a Sunderland supporter, I find it very amusing that they can't expand their stadium because of them.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old May 23rd, 2008, 12:54 PM   #3316
EPA001
Registered User
 
EPA001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rotterdam metropolitan area
Posts: 28,723
Likes (Received): 5591

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wezza View Post


What a beast!! Very imposing to say the least.
In my humble opinion this proposed or dreamed of version of Newcastle United Sint James' Park is absolutely stunning. It would easily beat Wembley, Old Trafford and Emirates. Not to mention the new Liverpool stadium which design does not appeal to me.
Wouldn't it be something if this proposal for some reason was going to be build? But sadly enough that probably will not happen, such a shame.
EPA001 no está en línea  
Old May 23rd, 2008, 01:19 PM   #3317
canarywondergod
Registered User
 
canarywondergod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Camberley/ Norwich/ Birmingham
Posts: 713
Likes (Received): 83

things can always be delisted as well, so its not totally impossible although i guess the local reaction wouldnt be as supportive as the newcastle fans, technically they may also be able to move the houses brick by brick as well but the costs of both would be huge too, they should have moved to the adjacent park when those plans came about in the 90's
canarywondergod no está en línea  
Old May 23rd, 2008, 01:39 PM   #3318
Salif
Registered User
 
Salif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,786
Likes (Received): 327

As said expansion at St James Park would be very tricky.

On one side you've got a busy road almost touching the back of the stand, disruption on this road would cause trouble for the city as it's a main artery.

On the North side you've got parkland which is very well thought of and any plans to build on it would be met with large scale protests. Newcastle United tried to build a new 75,000 capacity stadium there a while back but it was never allowed to come to fruition.

On the East side is those protected buildings, to suggest demolishing them would lead to an intensive campaign for their survival. But given the city councils attitude to previous historic buildings I think the chance of having 80,000 supporters coming to Newcastle for a World Cup match would be enough to sway their decision. Government might be another obstacle altogether.

And on the South side you have another main road, a car park and the entrance to an underground metro station all on a bank. Needless to say expanding over that would be extremley expensive.
Salif no está en línea  
Old May 23rd, 2008, 04:26 PM   #3319
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc-4-life View Post
I've heard a few whispers every now and then...
Doesn't Newcastle have something of a "Cry wolf" history with such statements?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaSpEr5 View Post
Neither of those impressions is possible because of the nearby roads
Not impossible, just politically and financially unviable for the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EPA001
In my humble opinion this proposed or dreamed of version of Newcastle United Sint James' Park is absolutely stunning. It would easily beat Wembley, Old Trafford and Emirates. Not to mention the new Liverpool stadium which design does not appeal to me.
Rather bold based on one image. Exterior isn't all together enticing, but I do like the interior of St. James.

. . .

The club have reached a point where they must figure out if 60k, the most financially attractive option and possibly the cap for Saint James, will be sufficient in the long term for a club that hopes to compete for trophies. While Newcastle remain among the biggest revenue producing clubs despite absence from European competitions lately, They could lose ground by standing still if other clubs such as Everton (which hopes to have a new home of 55k in the next 5 years), Villa and Man City all secure higher Premiership positions for the next several years. Sunderland have a realistic chance of seeing their ground expanded and hosting a WC match instead of St. James if the English bid decides to award that area just one host site. I'm sure the concept is so galling to the Toon army they'll beg borrow and steal for any expansion to remain the top dog up north.

So it's a matter of running the numbers, and if they find that 60k set-up won't be enough for the long-term, then it's time to explore a move ASAP.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old May 23rd, 2008, 04:29 PM   #3320
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,239
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
I suspect the Euro nations will concentrate on 2018, leaving the others to concentrate on 2022... Again, doesn't strengthen the Aussie bid significantly as we'll still be up against China, USA, Mexico, etc.
I agree, thats IMHO the purpose of this idea as Blatter's support generally comes from outside UEFA he softens the blow of an european WC in 2018 by giving out one elsewhere at the same time.

The biggest plus for Austalia would I'd say be that if they go for 2022 they'd be bidding agenst a China with much less time to devolp the sports popularity.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  


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 09:40 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