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 27th, 2009, 08:28 PM   #4901
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Err it was still a FIFA organised event. England were just playing host. It wasn't the English FA that changed the venue.
How do you ignore the facts in front of you, the head of FIFA was english, and the secretary of the FA when we were awarded the world cup. He was a compromised leader.

Quote:
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.
As far as you know, you are just speculating there.

Quote:
Portuguese dont seem to mind but some teenage yank does? Crazy world.
Do you have evidence to back that up? I doubt it. Just because someone doesn't show visable signs of resentment doesn't mean they don't. I doubt you have an in dept knowledge of the portuguese cultural reaction to the 1966 world cup and nor do i.

The reason why this is an issue because any logical person can see that this wasn't fair.

Quote:
ANything would've been reviewed by FIFA and any decision would've been made by FIFA.
Sir Stanley Rous

Last edited by bigbossman; March 27th, 2009 at 11:35 PM.
bigbossman no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old March 27th, 2009, 10:02 PM   #4902
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
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.
I'm not american and i wasn't born in 92.

I'm portuguese and i know well enough that people still remember that episode of the semis as a cheating scheme of the english organization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecological View Post
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?
That's the story that i always knew. If have any proove of the oposite... go ahead and show us please.
seattle92 no está en línea  
Old March 28th, 2009, 12:27 AM   #4903
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

"At this point, all semifinalists were from Europe. The first semifinal between England and Portugal was controversial as well. Liverpool was the original venue for the first semifinal. However, due to intervention of the English officials, the venue changed to Wembley."
hngcm no está en línea  
Old March 28th, 2009, 05:07 AM   #4904
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

Ecological, you are an idiot.

Sorry, I have to say it. This argument has been going on for too long. BBM has made a number of good points, which you ignore or rebut with piss weak excuses.

You are wrong on your argument that it was right/common practice/normal to change a pre determined venue of a FIFA world cup.
When I asked you to provide evidence where this has occurred in the past, you ignored me and continued with your, for the most part, weak or baseless arguments.

Honestly BBM, there is no hope with this guy, just as there was no hope with the thick skulled Qataris. As hard as it is to do, its probably smart to just let it go. Some people just dont get shit.

I must say though, this discussion was an eye opener. We had a one eyed English football fan, a couple of reasonable objective English fans with varying opinions, a Portuguese dude and a couple of neutral guys like myself. Ecological I think your really in the minority with your views. Maybe have a read of what some of the more objective posters have to say and take that on board.




to change the topic, heres some photos of some venues which would need major upgrades IF Australia were to host:
Melbourne rectangular ground. Capacity 31,500. Foundations for 50,000+ capacity built with WC in mind.



Newcastle Stadium. Current upgrade capacity 33,000, designed for further expansion to 40,000+.



Skilled Stadium Gold Coast. Current capacity 27,000. Gold Coast population is forecast to almost double from 500,000 to 800,000 by 2021, and physically, expansion looks like it would be quite easy for the stadium.



Canberra Stadium. current capacity 27,000. Personally I think a whole new stadium would need to be built as the stadium is getting old, or a huge expansion of this one.


Townsville - Dairy Farmers Stadium. Current capacity 27,000. I dont know if the city is large enough to host games, though South Africa has a couple cities of similar size hosting so maybe. Personally I think a new stadium with semi permanent stands would be good.



Best case scenario Australia just scrapes through with the 12 stadiums. Hopefully the state governments get their act together and come up with some plans.
woozoo no está en línea  
Old March 28th, 2009, 09:05 AM   #4905
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Can't see us (Australia) winning a bid based on the stadiums listed in this thread. It's got to be something really ambitious - think big. I've suggested it before - but if the various concerned bodies (fed government, state governments, sports agencies, etc.), got together and agreed to build 8 new venues, 1 in each state, all multi-purpose, all suitable for everything from football/rugby to Aussie rules/cricket. These venues, added to the main venues already mentioned, would give us an excellent platform to host a world cup.

MCG, Melbourne - 100,000
Olympic Stadium, Sydney - 80,000
Lang Park, Brisbane - 60,000

Plus new multi-purpose venues:
Geelong - 50,000
Adelaide - 60,000
Perth - 70,000 (like the existing plans)
Darwin - 30,000 (not for use in the finals - but must keep the NT happy!)
Townsville - 40,000
Newcastle - 50,000
Canberra - 50,000
Hobart - 40,000
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old March 28th, 2009, 02:16 PM   #4906
Qaabus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 327
Likes (Received): 4

I have some serious doubts about Australia's ability to host a World Cup. First there is the matter of transportation. How can 50000 fans move from one city to the next in a matter of days? By air seems the only option. But can small airports even handle that traffic flow? Are there even enough aircraft?

How can small towns like Geelong, Darwin, Townsville, Hobart house 50000 people? Where are they going to sleep? In other countries there always is another city nearby that can handle the overflow, not so in Australia. Also, it's not like sleeping outside is going to be fun, it is the middle of winter after all. Temperatures in the southern cities will come pretty close to freezing at night. Even during the day it won't be comfortable in just a t-shirt.
Qaabus no está en línea  
Old March 28th, 2009, 03:50 PM   #4907
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,239
Likes (Received): 228

Personally I think Australia could get away with both Melbourne and Sydney(plus perhaps 1 or two other cities) having two venues. The main reason for the rule only allowing one city to have two is I'd say to give as fair a spread of venues as possible, if a country only has half a dozen cities with the facilties to host matches then I don't think FIFA would have a big problem accomodating them.

As far as the england 66 debate goes that seems like a very minor issue to me, I'm sure there have been hosts who've had a great deal more advanatge than that(argentina in 78 springs to mind).

Last edited by MoreOrLess; March 28th, 2009 at 04:00 PM.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old March 28th, 2009, 03:56 PM   #4908
Its AlL gUUd
Cute but Psycho...
 
Its AlL gUUd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 6,017
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrLess View Post
Personally I think Australia could get away with both Melbourne and Sydney(plus perhaps 1 or two other cities) having two venues. The main reason for the rule only allowing one city to have two is I'd say to give as fair a spread of venues as possible, if a country only has half a dozen cities with the facilties to host matches then I don't think FIFA would have a big problem accomodating them.
if that is the case then it would be easier for FIFA just to choose another country which has the facilities with a bigger geographic spread, rather then accomodating and compromising. they do have many countries queueing up to host it.
__________________
I T S Y
Its AlL gUUd no está en línea  
Old March 28th, 2009, 04:25 PM   #4909
Ecological
BANNED
 
Ecological's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,518
Likes (Received): 23

Im an Idiot because I fail to see how you can call a switch of venues as cheating when all logic and common sense suggests it was the right thing to do? Umm ok then. Maybe it's a case off you unwilling to think about it clearly and seriously have an issue with Englands world cup victory. One-eyed? I am very fair with my oppinions. I think the new Wembley is terrible which I make evident in that thread but I also think changing a venue to a larger capacity stadium when the home nation is involved in a major tournament is logically a good decision. Its not cheating which is how this all started with ridiculous allegations. The defence off such statements is not idiocy its explaining the reasons. No facts have been highlighted describing the effects MENTALLY it had on Portugal. As Big Boss Man has said. If Maradona used his nouse to make sure he's hand of god goal stood. Well done for England for using thier nouse to make sure they gained every advantage during thier time as host in 1966. Think we shall agree to disagree with this one Bossman. Both keen football fans it seems. You cant win when Pom bashers enter the fary. You could give them 3 houses, a world beating race horse and the Ashes and they would still be pissed off with you.
Ecological no está en línea  
Old March 28th, 2009, 04:27 PM   #4910
Ecological
BANNED
 
Ecological's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,518
Likes (Received): 23

I am going out to Australia this July for a pre-season tour I believe (Once details are released) ... its a trip to Perth Glory and another Western Aus A-League side so I may be able to get a clearer indication of thier prospects of holding a World Cup but I cant see any reason what so ever why 2022 shouldn't go to them.
Ecological no está en línea  
Old March 29th, 2009, 02:12 AM   #4911
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,861
Likes (Received): 968

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecological View Post
I am going out to Australia this July for a pre-season tour I believe (Once details are released) ... its a trip to Perth Glory and another Western Aus A-League side so I may be able to get a clearer indication of thier prospects of holding a World Cup but I cant see any reason what so ever why 2022 shouldn't go to them.
There's only 1 A-League team in WA. There was talk that Wolves might also play a WA State League team as well. Don't expect to see too much in the way of WC ready stadiums in Perth at all.
Wezza no está en línea  
Old March 29th, 2009, 07:24 AM   #4912
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecological View Post
... but I cant see any reason what so ever why 2022 shouldn't go to them.
Three letters:

U
S
A
hngcm no está en línea  
Old March 29th, 2009, 09:35 AM   #4913
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,239
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by Its AlL gUUd View Post
if that is the case then it would be easier for FIFA just to choose another country which has the facilities with a bigger geographic spread, rather then accomodating and compromising. they do have many countries queueing up to host it.
My point was that they may not view it as compromising, the 1 city 2 stadiums rule exists largely to prevent an unequal distribution of venues leading to bad press/public reaction IMHO not because its something the event needs.

If the second venue in Sydney, Melborne plus perhaps Perth, Adelaide or Brisbane was a dedicated football stadium that could actually be a positive.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old March 29th, 2009, 11:27 AM   #4914
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,861
Likes (Received): 968

Quote:
Originally Posted by hngcm View Post
Three letters:

U
S
A
Not really a reason..... Rather an alternative.
Wezza no está en línea  
Old March 29th, 2009, 02:19 PM   #4915
Joop20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
Can't see us (Australia) winning a bid based on the stadiums listed in this thread. It's got to be something really ambitious - think big. I've suggested it before - but if the various concerned bodies (fed government, state governments, sports agencies, etc.), got together and agreed to build 8 new venues, 1 in each state, all multi-purpose, all suitable for everything from football/rugby to Aussie rules/cricket. These venues, added to the main venues already mentioned, would give us an excellent platform to host a world cup.

MCG, Melbourne - 100,000
Olympic Stadium, Sydney - 80,000
Lang Park, Brisbane - 60,000

Plus new multi-purpose venues:
Geelong - 50,000
Adelaide - 60,000
Perth - 70,000 (like the existing plans)
Darwin - 30,000 (not for use in the finals - but must keep the NT happy!)
Townsville - 40,000
Newcastle - 50,000
Canberra - 50,000
Hobart - 40,000
I don't see how towns like Geelong or Hobart should or could have stadiums with those capacities. Following would be enough for Oz:

Melbourne
Sydney 2x
Brisbane
Adelaide
Perth
Canberra
Gold Coast
Townsville
Newcastle

That's 10 stadiums already, and there's no need to build 10 new multi purpose stadiums really. New multi purpose venues only need to be build in Adelaide and Perth, those cities really need to get their act together....

If 12 stadiums are needed, you can always throw in Darwin (fast growing population + tourism!) and / or Geelong/Tasmania.
Joop20 no está en línea  
Old March 29th, 2009, 05:31 PM   #4916
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

ARE austrailia going to use oval stadiums?? If so i say no. I don't think Somewhere like Geelong could sustain a normal one...
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old March 29th, 2009, 07:25 PM   #4917
Its AlL gUUd
Cute but Psycho...
 
Its AlL gUUd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 6,017
Likes (Received): 296

Well some of them will be, like the Melbourne Cricket Ground.
__________________
I T S Y
Its AlL gUUd no está en línea  
Old March 29th, 2009, 08:27 PM   #4918
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

FIFA should put a limit on non pure football stadiums to 2-3. I'd personally advocate 100% pure football and if you can't sustain that then you aren't a football country and don't deserve the world cup.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old March 29th, 2009, 08:50 PM   #4919
KiwiBrit
There's only one United
 
KiwiBrit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the garden city
Posts: 1,743
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
FIFA should put a limit on non pure football stadiums to 2-3. I'd personally advocate 100% pure football and if you can't sustain that then you aren't a football country and don't deserve the world cup.
That sounds an interesting idea, and a new rule like that could put the USA in an unusual position. I'm not sure of capacities for most teams in the MLS, but isn't one of the 'bigger' clubs the Galaxy's around the 25,000 mark?

Imagine if they had to redevelop al their MLS stadiums, when they have so many other fine venues used for other sports. Then we'd see if the States is serious about it's football!
__________________
I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure
KiwiBrit no está en línea  
Old March 29th, 2009, 08:56 PM   #4920
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

exactly, many MLS clubs can get bigger crowds and in the future if the sport grows they should be looking at 40,000+ stadiums, in areas of well over 2 million people. This isn't basketball where small capacities are desireable.

Some clubs can as you say the galaxy, sounders look like it too, and toronto FC all play with waiting lists, and the older two make massive profits.

Although i was more referring to athletics and oval stadiums, but it would make sense to develop your own specific infrastructure for "soccer" in the states as well.
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 09:26 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