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 December 26th, 2008, 05:22 AM   #4341
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

The reason for the Portugal/Spain joint bid is simple: Portugal could never host a WC on its own, Spain would not win this bid because its so soon after 1982.
Both parties have an interest in co hosting. Sure Spain could just wait a few more decades and try again, but why wait and risk missing out later when there is a decent chance of winning now with Portugal.



As for Australia, there are no rules about rectangular grounds. They are just guidelines.
The way I see it there would be 5 rectangular grounds: Suncorp Stadium, Skilled Park, Energy Australia Stadium, Sydney Football Stadium, Canberra Stadium upgraded.
Telstra Stadium is an Olympic stadium with movable lower tier seating.
That leaves MCG (98,000), Subiaco and AAMI stadiums which are oval. There has been talk total redevelopment of Subiaco and AAMI into multi purpose stadiums with movable seating or building completely new multi purpose stadiums which realistically has a decent chance of happening if Australia wins the bid (WA and SA governments would be falling over each other to put on the best show).

Infrastructure wise (transport, hotels, hospitals), all the cities already basically have adequate hotels, most the stadiums are within walking distance to rail, so Australia does not need to worry about infrastructure.



The time zone thing is more a plus than a negative for Australia. FIFA wants to grow the game in Asia and having it in Australia would be the perfect time zone for that. The success of 2002 in ratings was a real positive for FIFA.

Last edited by woozoo; December 26th, 2008 at 05:29 AM.
woozoo no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old December 26th, 2008, 09:51 AM   #4342
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,239
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
Again, I'm not attacking anyone here. FIFA said the Korea/Japan experience left a bad taste in their mouth and as such joint bids would be more highly scrutinized.
Compaired to Korea/Japan I see some additional problems for Spain/Portugal though...

1.Theres not much room to grow the game in either nation or to build a great deal of new infrastrcture. Those two factors were likey a large part of the reason why FIFA allowed a joint bid for 2002 in the first place.

2.Portugal being such a junior partner in the bid makes it alot easier to criticize them getting an automatic qualifiction spot. I can see the English espeically repeatly going after them in this area as it really does make it obvious there only included at all to help the Spainish bid.

3.Joint hosts means one less qualification spot for the federation there a part of, for Japan/Korea this was less a problem as there was no realistic alternative asia host for AFC members to vote for. Spain/Portugal will on the other hand be up agenst England and possible Russia, why would UEFA members(who make up a third of the votes) vote for a bid that makes there own countries qualification less likey?
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old December 26th, 2008, 10:23 AM   #4343
skaP187
Registered User
 
skaP187's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alicante
Posts: 2,207
Likes (Received): 503

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrLess View Post
Compaired to Korea/Japan I see some additional problems for Spain/Portugal though...

1.Theres not much room to grow the game in either nation or to build a great deal of new infrastrcture. Those two factors were likey a large part of the reason why FIFA allowed a joint bid for 2002 in the first place.

2.Portugal being such a junior partner in the bid makes it alot easier to criticize them getting an automatic qualifiction spot. I can see the English espeically repeatly going after them in this area as it really does make it obvious there only included at all to help the Spainish bid.

3.Joint hosts means one less qualification spot for the federation there a part of, for Japan/Korea this was less a problem as there was no realistic alternative asia host for AFC members to vote for. Spain/Portugal will on the other hand be up agenst England and possible Russia, why would UEFA members(who make up a third of the votes) vote for a bid that makes there own countries qualification less likey?
The advantige is that both Portugal and Spain are teams that normaly would qualify for a WC. This cannot be said for Japan or Korea.
Also Portugal and Spain are laid in a peninsula (donīt know how to write that.) This was defuantly not the case with Korea/Japan.
The same goes for a Benelux offer. the distances are rather small. Not bigger then if it where held in France or Italy. In the Benelux case even England would have bigger distances.
skaP187 no está en línea  
Old December 26th, 2008, 11:50 AM   #4344
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,239
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by skaP187 View Post
The advantige is that both Portugal and Spain are teams that normaly would qualify for a WC. This cannot be said for Japan or Korea.
Also Portugal and Spain are laid in a peninsula (donīt know how to write that.) This was defuantly not the case with Korea/Japan.
The same goes for a Benelux offer. the distances are rather small. Not bigger then if it where held in France or Italy. In the Benelux case even England would have bigger distances.
Actually the reverse is/was true, by 2002 Korea and Japan were both near garnteed qualification due to lack of competision in the AFC zone. Including 2002 they've both gone to the last 5 WC's were as Portugal have only been to the last two and arent looking in good shape to qualify for 2010.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old December 26th, 2008, 12:42 PM   #4345
Capital78
Registered User
 
Capital78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Celje, Ljubljana/Slovenia
Posts: 918
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
It's not the number of time zones but Australia's location on this planet in relation to Europe. Sydney is 9h ahead of Paris which means kick-offs at 0100 and 0500 local time. That would be a night World Cup. Are you aware of that?

So, at what time do you think you can watch matches from Brazil 2014? Also at night!
Capital78 no está en línea  
Old December 26th, 2008, 12:52 PM   #4346
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,764
Likes (Received): 10311

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capital78 View Post
Well, as an European I wish that 2018 is in Europe. The biggest favourite seems to be England. But also Spain or Spain/Portugal has good chances. I think Latinamerican countries will give their votes to Spain or Spain/Portugal. London has Olympic games in 2012 and I doubt England will gain honour to host 2 biggest sport events in period of 6 years.
I don't see why not.
RobH está en línea ahora  
Old December 27th, 2008, 12:58 AM   #4347
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,882
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capital78 View Post
So, at what time do you think you can watch matches from Brazil 2014? Also at night!
They are played in the afternoon, however. That's a daytime players are used to play football.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  
Old December 27th, 2008, 03:25 AM   #4348
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capital78 View Post
So, at what time do you think you can watch matches from Brazil 2014? Also at night!
a 1000 kickoff time would be 1400 in most of Europe

and a 1400 kickoff would be 1800 in most of Europe

So not really at night.
hngcm no está en línea  
Old December 27th, 2008, 11:17 AM   #4349
skaP187
Registered User
 
skaP187's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alicante
Posts: 2,207
Likes (Received): 503

South America is not realy a problem for tv in Europe. See the formule 1
14 00 start in Brazil, about 19 00 on television in Europe. Perfect mop.
Heat would not be a problem? it would be īwinterī in Brazil. But i do not know how big the difference between winter and summer in Brazil is. Depends also where you are at in that big ass (nice ass...) country.
skaP187 no está en línea  
Old December 27th, 2008, 07:20 PM   #4350
seattle92
Registered User
 
seattle92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lisboa
Posts: 8,400
Likes (Received): 2852

wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul the Gunner View Post
I don't get the point, I know there's a minimum number of cities that have to host, like Portugal in 2004...they didn't need Sporting's and Boavista's but they built an extra 2 anyway.
You missed that completly.

Sporting had his stadium planned long before Portugal's bid. Euro2004 had nothing to do with it. The only diference was that, with the Euro, the government gave Sporting some money. Benfica was the one that made the a new stadium simply because they would be out of the Euro2004

Boavista's stadium was already being rebuilt, before the bid was accepted.

Last edited by seattle92; December 27th, 2008 at 07:34 PM.
seattle92 no está en línea  
Old December 27th, 2008, 09:05 PM   #4351
Quintana
Registered Abuser
 
Quintana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 美好的码头
Posts: 4,316
Likes (Received): 1157

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrLess View Post
Actually the reverse is/was true, by 2002 Korea and Japan were both near garnteed qualification due to lack of competision in the AFC zone. Including 2002 they've both gone to the last 5 WC's were as Portugal have only been to the last two and arent looking in good shape to qualify for 2010.
Japan's first World Cup was in 1998. It wasn't until FIFA decided to have a 32 country World Cup with 4/5 Asian spots that they could qualify.
Quintana no está en línea  
Old December 27th, 2008, 09:41 PM   #4352
Capital78
Registered User
 
Capital78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Celje, Ljubljana/Slovenia
Posts: 918
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by hngcm View Post
a 1000 kickoff time would be 1400 in most of Europe

and a 1400 kickoff would be 1800 in most of Europe

So not really at night.

Since when games at World cup are played at 10am or 2pm? In Germany 2006 matches have started at 16.00, 18.00 and 21.00. If also in Brazil matches start at that hour, that means in Europe we will watch matches at 20.00, 22.00 and 01.00.
Capital78 no está en línea  
Old December 27th, 2008, 09:48 PM   #4353
PaulFCB
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,747
Likes (Received): 262

Since USA hosted the World Cup in 1994 and games were played at hours like 12, 13 or 16...including the final in L.A. at 12:30 but between L.A. and C.E.T. the difference is 10 hours or between N.Y. and C.E.T. 6 hours.

PS: And that was in the Northern Hemisphere in the middle of the summer .
PaulFCB no está en línea  
Old December 28th, 2008, 01:26 AM   #4354
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,016
Likes (Received): 4786

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriativus View Post
Jesus, all ugly stadiums. All big and all mediocre.

I couldn't find any remarkable architecture. Why americans don't give a shit about an original design? Sometimes itīs good to build something besides a toilet bowl.
Interesting that you should feel like that about American stadia.

On the whole, I think that new American stadia are far more interesting than the plethora of new stadia recently built or currently being built in Europe.
JimB no está en línea  
Old December 28th, 2008, 01:51 AM   #4355
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,016
Likes (Received): 4786

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capital78 View Post
Well, as an European I wish that 2018 is in Europe. The biggest favourite seems to be England. But also Spain or Spain/Portugal has good chances. I think Latinamerican countries will give their votes to Spain or Spain/Portugal. London has Olympic games in 2012 and I doubt England will gain honour to host 2 biggest sport events in period of 6 years.
Mexico City Olympics 1968; Mexico World Cup 1970.

Munich Olympics 1972; West Germany World Cup 1974.

USA World Cup 1994; Atlanta Olympics 1996.

Also quite close together: Spain 1982 and Barcelona 1992; Seoul 1988 and S Korea / Japan 2002.

In other words, there is not a shred of evidence to support the theory that a successful bid by a city to host the Olympics will damage any bid by a nation to host the World Cup.

The IOC and FIFA are two entirely independent organisations. The Olympics and the World Cup are two entirely different sporting extravaganzas.

As to Latin American countries giving their support to Spain / Portugal, you're probably right. But, in all probability, Spain would have won the the Latin American vote anyway. However, the decision to team up with Portugal might lose them vital votes. Firstly, it might lose them votes among FIFA traditionalists who dislike the idea of twin hosts - especially those who will see this as a cynical ploy by the Spanish to overcome the disadvantage of having hosted a World Cup relatively recently. Secondly, they might lose crucial European votes because many European countries will intensely dislike the idea of Europe losing one qualification place to automatic qualification by the second hosts.

Without a doubt, this is a risky manoeuvre by Spain.

And it might well backfire on them.
JimB no está en línea  
Old December 28th, 2008, 01:56 AM   #4356
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capital78 View Post
Since when games at World cup are played at 10am or 2pm? In Germany 2006 matches have started at 16.00, 18.00 and 21.00. If also in Brazil matches start at that hour, that means in Europe we will watch matches at 20.00, 22.00 and 01.00.
Kickoff times for '70 were 1200 and 1600.

Kickoff times for '86 were 1200 and 1600.

Kickoff times for '94 were anywhere from 1135 to 1935.

The match times were made that way to suit European audiences.

As Brazil is a bit ahead of the USA time-wise, as well as playing the WC in the winter, WC matches should be a bit earlier (hence the 1000 and 1400).
hngcm no está en línea  
Old December 28th, 2008, 01:58 AM   #4357
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,016
Likes (Received): 4786

Quote:
Originally Posted by skaP187 View Post
The advantige is that both Portugal and Spain are teams that normaly would qualify for a WC. This cannot be said for Japan or Korea.
That's a debatable claim. Portugal, in particular, has a patchy qualification record.

Besides, the principle of a national team proving itself worthy of the finals remains sacrosanct. Just because a country has a good qualification record - or even an impeccable record - it doesn't mean that it has any less obligation to prove itself worthy.
JimB no está en línea  
Old December 28th, 2008, 02:20 AM   #4358
Wuppeltje
Registered User
 
Wuppeltje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 5,839
Likes (Received): 965

I think a single bit from Spain would be stronger competitor for the Netherlands + Belgium, than a combined bid from Spain + Portugal. All facilities for a WC 2018 in the Netherlands + Belgium will take place on a relatively small area (less than Portugal alone), the low countries are working together for a long time as the Benelux and had a successful Euro 2000 as 1 organisation.
__________________
Volg de Noord/Zuidlijn op Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram en Flickr
Wuppeltje no está en línea  
Old December 28th, 2008, 02:47 AM   #4359
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,016
Likes (Received): 4786

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wuppeltje View Post
I think a single bit from Spain would be stronger competitor for the Netherlands + Belgium, than a combined bid from Spain + Portugal. All facilities for a WC 2018 in the Netherlands + Belgium will take place on a relatively small area (less than Portugal alone), the low countries are working together for a long time as the Benelux and had a successful Euro 2000 as 1 organisation.
Not forgetting England.

Regarding area size......within reason, I don't think that the distances between stadia / cities is a crucial deciding factor for FIFA. If it was, then the US, China, Russia, Australia and Brazil would all be compromised as potential hosts.

The only determining factors for FIFA are: the quality and capacity of the stadia; the quality and capacity of the transport and accomodation infrastructure; the potential to grow the popularity of the game (and making money, of course!); security provision; and at least some element of rotation (both in terms of continents and in terms of nations / joint bids).
JimB no está en línea  
Old December 28th, 2008, 03:37 AM   #4360
Wuppeltje
Registered User
 
Wuppeltje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 5,839
Likes (Received): 965

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
Not forgetting England.

Regarding area size......within reason, I don't think that the distances between stadia / cities is a crucial deciding factor for FIFA. If it was, then the US, China, Russia, Australia and Brazil would all be compromised as potential hosts.

The only determining factors for FIFA are: the quality and capacity of the stadia; the quality and capacity of the transport and accomodation infrastructure; the potential to grow the popularity of the game (and making money, of course!); security provision; and at least some element of rotation (both in terms of continents and in terms of nations / joint bids).
There are many strong bids, but just have the feeling that the Spanish bid has been weakened by choosing Portugal as co-host.

If it concerns multiple hosting countries it certainly might be an important factor concidering the history of Japan + South-Korea. Hosting a WC on a relatively small area has very interesting advantages, because you are also able to see the Benelux as a huge city (with more than 27 million inhabitants) with a low density. The hosting cities are very close to each other by both public transport and car.

For the Netherlands and Belgium I more wanted to make clear that they are working closely together and in many ways almost equally strong partners.

A more important factor is that Spain losses it's advantage as 1 host country over Belgium and the Netherlands. A combined host was a major point a critic of the Benelux bid.
__________________
Volg de Noord/Zuidlijn op Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram en Flickr
Wuppeltje 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 09:37 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