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 March 26th, 2009, 06:30 PM   #4881
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,766
Likes (Received): 10315

China isn't bidding for either tournament so you can rule them out.

Welcome to SSC
RobH no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old March 26th, 2009, 06:42 PM   #4882
Fizmo1337
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bruges
Posts: 931
Likes (Received): 61

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
China isn't bidding for either tournament so you can rule them out.

Welcome to SSC
I must have missed the news on that
Ignore the China part
Fizmo1337 no está en línea  
Old March 26th, 2009, 07:07 PM   #4883
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,766
Likes (Received): 10315

Here you go

Nine individual nations registered their intention to bid with FIFA by the February 2009 deadline: Australia, England, Indonesia, Japan, Qatar, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. Additionally Belgium and the Netherlands registered to bid together, as have Portugal and Spain.

FIFA confirmed the list of bidders in March, with South Korea and Qatar bidding for 2022 only.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup
RobH no está en línea  
Old March 27th, 2009, 12:16 PM   #4884
CarlosBlueDragon
CarlosRedDragon
 
CarlosBlueDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Beijing/Shanghai/Guangzhou/HK
Posts: 1,848
Likes (Received): 678

I like ....is

2018 Belgium/the Netherlands
2022 USA or Mexico

2026 China
2030 Uruguay (100years ago in 1930)

2034 England (patient)!! ^_^
__________________
||CHINA|||
说:
> 同一个世界
> 同一个做夢
> 同一个中国
(同一个北京)(同一个上海)(同一个天津)(同一个广州)(同一个深圳)(同一个重庆)(同一个杭州)(同一个南京)(同一个沈陽)(同一个武汉)(同一个成都)(同一个長春)(同一个长沙)(同一个苏州)(同一个无锡)(同一个扬州)(同一个西安)(同一个吉林)(同一个青島)(同一个大连)(同一个厦门)(同一个潮州)(同一个高州)(同一个香港)(同一个澳門)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I LoVe ChInA
CarlosBlueDragon no está en línea  
Old March 27th, 2009, 12:34 PM   #4885
Ecological
BANNED
 
Ecological's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,518
Likes (Received): 23

Do you think England and Britain in general have a disadvantage simply because of spite. It seems jealously is high on the agenda off many peoples minds and on internet forums its easy to portray it without feeling an ounce of guilt. I wish some would grow up.
Ecological no está en línea  
Old March 27th, 2009, 12:57 PM   #4886
Ecological
BANNED
 
Ecological's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,518
Likes (Received): 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by seattle92 View Post

It's insane to say it's normal for a home nation to change the venues just because... they want to. I hope for your sake you don't propose that to FIFA for your 2018 bid... or else you wont have a chance. We're not in 1966 any more.




I don't know if you're just being a liar or an ignorant...
Would you like to prove to me your statement? Also it was put forward by England due to the number of supporters and safety. The governing head off world football had to decide, England didn't just move it willy nilly.

In 1970, controversy surrounded the world cup before a ball was even kicked. For England, the build-up to the tournament took a bizarre turn when their captain was accused of theft. While England were in Colombia for a pre-tournament friendly, Bobby Moore was arrested for allegedly stealing a bracelet from a jeweller's shop. He was released on bail to allow him to appear in the World Cup finals, and the charges were later quietly dropped.
Ecological no está en línea  
Old March 27th, 2009, 02:12 PM   #4887
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

No venues change.

FIFA sets out match schedule.
Match schedule is followed.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old March 27th, 2009, 02:23 PM   #4888
Ecological
BANNED
 
Ecological's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,518
Likes (Received): 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
No venues change.

FIFA sets out match schedule.
Match schedule is followed.
NOW!

People learn from mistakes which is what FIFA did. They moved the game to a greater capacity stadium. Like it or not thats the way the cookie crumbles. It takes 3 or so hours to get to Liverpool from London. Not exactly a hard ship and considering the majority of England players at the time played in the north west where ever they played it would've been the same out come. Why would you play two teams who noboyd could give a flying tuppence about at Wembley with space for 100,000 people and only have 30,000 turn up then go and put the two greatest teams at the time in a stadium with space for only 50,000 people when 100,000 will pay to watch it? There must be a little bit of common sense trawling these boards somewhere from abroad.
Ecological no está en línea  
Old March 27th, 2009, 02:35 PM   #4889
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

[QUOTE=Ecological;34253328]NOW!

Why would you play two teams who noboyd could give a flying tuppence about at Wembley with space for 100,000 people and only have 30,000 turn up[ /QUOTE]

Match schedule is tweaked

e.g. you wont see many F1 vs F2 or C1 vs C2 matches at smaller venues.
You also won't see smaller venues hosting anything beyond the first round matches.

Once the match schedule is set major planning takes place around those venues, from seat number to transport to operations of security, crowd control, road closures.


We're not in 1966.

South Africa is also not playing its 3 world cup matches i.e. first round matches, at the largest stadia. Its playing Jhb, 91,000 and in Bloem 46,000 and in Pretoria 50,000.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old March 27th, 2009, 02:39 PM   #4890
Ecological
BANNED
 
Ecological's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,518
Likes (Received): 23

[QUOTE=Mo Rush;34253656]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecological View Post
NOW!

Why would you play two teams who noboyd could give a flying tuppence about at Wembley with space for 100,000 people and only have 30,000 turn up[ /QUOTE]

Match schedule is tweaked

e.g. you wont see many F1 vs F2 or C1 vs C2 matches at smaller venues.
You also won't see smaller venues hosting anything beyond the first round matches.

Once the match schedule is set major planning takes place around those venues, from seat number to transport to operations of security, crowd control, road closures.


We're not in 1966.

South Africa is also not playing its 3 world cup matches i.e. first round matches, at the largest stadia. Its playing Jhb, 91,000 and in Bloem 46,000 and in Pretoria 50,000.

Sorry but I think we've confused each other.

I wasn't refering to South Africa 2010. I was talking about 1966. And for reasons beyond anyones wildest dreams the movement off a game wasn't just for a leg up. It was for specific reasons, most noteably safety. We all know what happened at Hillsborough. Now imagaine 100,000 trying to cram into Goodison park.
Ecological no está en línea  
Old March 27th, 2009, 02:47 PM   #4891
seattle92
Registered User
 
seattle92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lisboa
Posts: 8,400
Likes (Received): 2852

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecological View Post

Now imagaine 100,000 trying to cram into Goodison park.
You're talking about the 66 fans like some kind of animals...


Your story about 1970 doesn't change the fact that in 66 some strange things happened. Things that helped England win the tournment (not that you didn't have a great team).
seattle92 no está en línea  
Old March 27th, 2009, 03:08 PM   #4892
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,766
Likes (Received): 10315

Helped....arguably...though I wouldn't say to an extent where it made any difference to the outcome (Portugal put up a good fight). If a train ride is enough to take it out of super-fit athletes aiming to reach a World Cup final, as you claim, then they're probably not worthy of being in a final anyway. As it is, I doubt it would have made much difference.

Poor organisation which may have given England a tiny advantage; that's all. And no, it's not normal and I wouldn't like to see such changes again, but using words like "cheating" as you did earlier is nothing but flaming in my opinion. There's no place for it in this thread.
RobH no está en línea  
Old March 27th, 2009, 03:57 PM   #4893
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

You are seriously a deluded fool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecological View Post
Would you like to prove to me your statement? Also it was put forward by England due to the number of supporters and safety. The governing head off world football had to decide, England didn't just move it willy nilly.
See this has been answered by me and others, but you just ignore it, because you know your argument is weak. And what's more you change it, one minute it's to allow more fans to watch it, the next minute it is safety, sort it out.

Please learn how to spell of it's getting on my nerves now

Quote:
In 1970, controversy surrounded the world cup before a ball was even kicked. For England, the build-up to the tournament took a bizarre turn when their captain was accused of theft. While England were in Colombia for a pre-tournament friendly, Bobby Moore was arrested for allegedly stealing a bracelet from a jeweller's shop. He was released on bail to allow him to appear in the World Cup finals, and the charges were later quietly dropped.
That has nothing to do with the organisation of the tournament and is totally irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecological View Post
NOW!

People learn from mistakes which is what FIFA did. They moved the game to a greater capacity stadium.
I have proven that they don't so don't lie, read back and learn. The next world cup had a near identicle case handle differently.

Quote:
Like it or not thats the way the cookie crumbles. It takes 3 or so hours to get to Liverpool from London. Not exactly a hard ship and considering the majority of England players at the time played in the north west where ever they played it would've been the same out come.
Hotels, training ground. You are talking tosh.

Quote:
Why would you play two teams who noboyd could give a flying tuppence about at Wembley with space for 100,000 people and only have 30,000 turn up then
In your opinion only 30,000 would turn up. But i proved to you the worst attended game at wembley was 61,000. The apathy for foreign teams was in the north not the south.

Quote:
go and put the two greatest teams at the time in a stadium with space for only 50,000 people when 100,000 will pay to watch it?
50,000 when the stadium had a crowd of 62,000 during the world cup, and had crowds of over 70,000 in the seasons prior.

Quote:
There must be a little bit of common sense trawling these boards somewhere from abroad.
you are unbelievable.

i don't expect you to reply, and even if you do it probably will just be a rehash of the same lies. But we can't have you spreading all this crap, you are wrong you know you are wrong, so stop it!
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old March 27th, 2009, 04:05 PM   #4894
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Helped....arguably...though I wouldn't say to an extent where it made any difference to the outcome (Portugal put up a good fight).
Home advantage was a much bigger issue in those days than it is now, i think you are under estimating how much impact this might've had. I'm sure they took it with good grace but inside they were probably bitter.

Quote:
If a train ride is enough to take it out of super-fit athletes aiming to reach a World Cup final, as you claim, then they're probably not worthy of being in a final anyway. As it is, I doubt it would have made much difference.
Inclined to agree, i think it is more mental. They were prepared for goodison, they had trained for it, then there preparations were distrupted. Remember Wembley had a bigger pitch etc etc

Quote:
Poor organisation which may have given England a tiny advantage; that's all.
I wouldn't underestimate the power organisation has on disrupting a good thing.

Quote:
And no, it's not normal and I wouldn't like to see such changes again, but using words like "cheating" as you did earlier is nothing but flaming in my opinion. There's no place for it in this thread.
It's not flaming, it's an opinion. What is it, if it is not cheating?? I am not saying it is, but what is it?? You are gaining advantage by changing the rules, that's against the principles of fair competition, thus what is that other than what it sounds like??

I don't expect you to answer, you never do.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old March 27th, 2009, 04:16 PM   #4895
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,766
Likes (Received): 10315

It's cheating if the intention is to cheat. I don't believe for a second that was the case.

An indirect effect may have been a small advantage to England but that wasn't the reason for the move. A subtle but important difference.

BTW, I answer most questions here. I don't spend hours writing essays detailing every point addressed to me and nor, may I point out, do I send aggresive sounding PMs if someone doesn't answer a post within twenty minutes like yourself. You're clearly very knowledgable about football but you need to change your attitude if I and others are to continue debating with you.
RobH no está en línea  
Old March 27th, 2009, 04:38 PM   #4896
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
It's cheating if the intention is to cheat. I don't believe for a second that was the case.
fair enough, i look at the shady character at the head of FIFA and beg to differ. i am not blaming the england team in anyway.

Quote:
An indirect effect may have been a small advantage to England but that wasn't the reason for the move. A subtle but important difference.
So they say, i'm not gettting all conspiracy theory, but negative alterior motives can be disguised behind good natured acts.

Quote:
BTW, I answer most questions here. I don't spend hours writing essays detailing every point addressed to me and nor,
Nor do i, i like to meticulously answer posts is all, it takes time and effort, but not as much as you think and it is a way of keeping the old grey matter ticking.

Quote:
may I point out, do I send aggresive sounding PMs if someone doesn't answer a post within twenty minutes like yourself.
i don't think it was necessary to bring that up. To me it wasn't aggressive and i apologised if you thought it was. I just wondered why you had ignored my post and answered someone elses was all...

Quote:
You're clearly very knowledgable about football but you need to change your attitude if I and others are to continue debating with you.
I don't mean to come on condescending, but if i think something isn't right i like to say. Being opinionated shouldn't be a hinderance to debate surely.

Anyway lets crack on
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old March 27th, 2009, 05:00 PM   #4897
Ecological
BANNED
 
Ecological's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,518
Likes (Received): 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
You are seriously a deluded fool
You really do contradict yourself.



Quote:
See this has been answered by me and others, but you just ignore it, because you know your argument is weak. And what's more you change it, one minute it's to allow more fans to watch it, the next minute it is safety, sort it out.
Err, both are related. The more fans the bigger the safety issue.

Quote:
Please learn how to spell of it's getting on my nerves now
Apologies


Quote:
That has nothing to do with the organisation of the tournament and is totally irrelevant.
Do you think it didn't disrupt the team and thier preperations though? After all apparently playing a game in a different city in the same country (which is what football is all about) apparently disrupted Portugal immensly. So much so according to some off you its cheating? Cry me a river darling.



Quote:
I have proven that they don't so don't lie, read back and learn. The next world cup had a near identicle case handle differently.
You have proven that people and FIFA didn't learn from thier mistakes? I believe they did.



Quote:
Hotels, training ground. You are talking tosh.
Yes because in those days London has terrible hotels and poor footballing facilities.



Quote:
In your opinion only 30,000 would turn up. But i proved to you the worst attended game at wembley was 61,000. The apathy for foreign teams was in the north not the south.
Infact only 38,000 people did watch the other semi-final. Why would you not play a match which had such demand in the largest stadium avaliable? was it feasible to play it at a ground that could handle only half the number of supporters as the main stadium?



Quote:
50,000 when the stadium had a crowd of 62,000 during the world cup, and had crowds of over 70,000 in the seasons prior.
SAFETY



Quote:
you are unbelievable.

i don't expect you to reply, and even if you do it probably will just be a rehash of the same lies. But we can't have you spreading all this crap, you are wrong you know you are wrong, so stop it!
There is no wrong. The game was moved because off numerous reasons. To call it cheating is nothing but petty and ignorant. If anything you are being extremely childish about it.
Ecological no está en línea  
Old March 27th, 2009, 06:49 PM   #4898
seattle92
Registered User
 
seattle92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lisboa
Posts: 8,400
Likes (Received): 2852

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Helped....arguably...though I wouldn't say to an extent where it made any difference to the outcome (Portugal put up a good fight). If a train ride is enough to take it out of super-fit athletes aiming to reach a World Cup final, as you claim, then they're probably not worthy of being in a final anyway. As it is, I doubt it would have made much difference.

Poor organisation which may have given England a tiny advantage; that's all. And no, it's not normal and I wouldn't like to see such changes again, but using words like "cheating" as you did earlier is nothing but flaming in my opinion. There's no place for it in this thread.

First of all, i didn't say Portugal lost the game because of that incident.

But of course it had some impacts in the team, physical, and mentaly. A trip by train in 1966 from Liverpool to London, few hours from the beginning of a game as to have some effects.



Cheating seems to strong for you? Ok sorry. But it seems that if one changes the rules to have some adavantage... yeah, that seems cheating to me.

Of course there are worse kinds of cheating...


Even so, the episode is still remembered in Portugal as a trick made by the english to get advantage. The english wc organization didn't stay well in the picture.

Of course those were other days... and today this would be impossible.
seattle92 no está en línea  
Old March 27th, 2009, 07:49 PM   #4899
Ecological
BANNED
 
Ecological's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,518
Likes (Received): 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by seattle92 View Post
First of all, i didn't say Portugal lost the game because of that incident.

But of course it had some impacts in the team, physical, and mentaly. A trip by train in 1966 from Liverpool to London, few hours from the beginning of a game as to have some effects.



Cheating seems to strong for you? Ok sorry. But it seems that if one changes the rules to have some adavantage... yeah, that seems cheating to me.

Of course there are worse kinds of cheating...


Even so, the episode is still remembered in Portugal as a trick made by the english to get advantage. The english wc organization didn't stay well in the picture.

Of course those were other days... and today this would be impossible.

Err it was still a FIFA organised event. England were just playing host. It wasn't the English FA that changed the venue. They may have applied for it, but as far as we know it might have been decided before hand that should England make the semi-final after the draw was made the tie would switch venue. Portuguese dont seem to mind but some teenage yank does? Crazy world. ANything would've been reviewed by FIFA and any decision would've been made by FIFA.

And for christ sake, they didnt travel down on the day of the game. Where have you got this from? Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee?
Ecological no está en línea  
Old March 27th, 2009, 08:23 PM   #4900
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecological View Post
You really do contradict yourself.
ok


Quote:
Err, both are related. The more fans the bigger the safety issue.
They may be related but they are different points.

Demand will exceed supply no matter where you play it, so that is a weak excuse.

Quote:
Apologies
accepted

Quote:
Do you think it didn't disrupt the team and thier preperations though?
Yes of course, but it was nothing to do with the organisers or the other teams. It was unrelated to football

Quote:
After all apparently playing a game in a different city in the same country (which is what football is all about) apparently disrupted Portugal immensly.
You obviously have no grasp of psychology, I have explained this so many times, these things affect mentality.

Quote:
So much so according to some off you its cheating? Cry me a river darling.
It’s gaining an advantage to the detriment of your competition, by changing the rules. That’s cheating in anyone’s book regardless of the size of advantage.

OF

Quote:
You have proven that people and FIFA didn't learn from thier mistakes? I believe they did.
The wording of that reply was slightly misleading. I was referring to your logic.

The mistakes that you say occurred aka staging games at stadiums too small were repeated at further world cups and far more to the extreme. By your logic it hasn't actually learnt from its mistakes.

When in reality they have. They don't move games, that is learning from your mistakes

Quote:
Yes because in those days London has terrible hotels and poor footballing facilities.
You obviously didn't understand that. They had a set up and they had to disrupt it because of the change of venue. The littlest things are unsettling, especially in high pressure situations

Quote:
Infact only 38,000 people did watch the other semi-final.
Something established long ago. The point that highlights is the apathy for the world cup in the North West of England. No game in London had a lower crowd, regardless of the opposition. And the crowd would’ve most likely been significantly higher in London.

Quote:
Why would you not play a match which had such demand in the largest stadium avaliable?
Because that defeats the point of making a fixed draw beforehand. And would mean in anything we don't make decisions to the last minute which is ludicrous a well run tournament should be planned in advance.

Quote:
was it feasible to play it at a ground that could handle only half the number of supporters as the main stadium?
65-70% isn't half. It was clearly feasible. They wanted to accommodate more fans, everyone else makes do with the decisions they make.

Based on your logic, I take you agree with the FA staging FA cup semi finals at Wembley.

Quote:
SAFETY
, the stadium held 60,000+, there were no laws making it hold less than that. It was considered safe to do the job, that is your excuse, and it's very weak.

Quote:
There is no wrong. The game was moved because off numerous reasons.
Yes there may have been no wrong doing, but when you way up the facts, the reasons are weak, and don't mask the fact that there were many other benefits which would (be far more logical) to a single minded host nation intent on winning the world cup on home soil. I expect no nation in this world to be any different.

Quote:
To call it cheating is nothing but petty and ignorant.
No being ignorant is to shove your head in sand, believe what you are told and not examine the facts that are presented to you.

Being petty is make an issue out of something small, the world cup semi final is hardly a small issue.

Quote:
If anything you are being extremely childish about it.
OK, that was relevant to the debate. But you scored a point, good for you!
bigbossman 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 06:48 AM.


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