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 30th, 2009, 04:09 AM   #4921
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

That's dumb though....

Not much of a difference between a soccer pitch and a football pitch, most stadiums have removable seats upfront to easily convert between the two.

Now using an Oval for soccer though...
hngcm no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old March 30th, 2009, 05:05 AM   #4922
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
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.
Yes, lets limit the possible WC hosting nations to England and ahhh.... England (France used stade de France, Germany used Berlin, Japan used Yokohama (most stadiums used in Japan were athletics stadiums, just under half in Korea were athletics) etc etc etc etc).

Frankly, there are very few countries with that many football specific stadiums. Spain, Germany and a few other European nations could sustain that, and throw in Brazil with its planned infrastructure upgrades for 2014, but apart from that it just isnt realistic.
What a Euro centric view of the world. FIFA is rightfully interested in spreading the game, both on moral and economic grounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
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.
Great atmosphere in a stadium when the average 17,000 turn up to watch a game in a 40K stadium. This is the exact reason why the soccer clubs are moving out of the bigger football grounds and into smaller soccer stadiums.

hngcm is right, big NFL grounds are perfectly suitable for WC matches.



Realistically Benjuk, I dont think multi purpose stadiums are going to be built all over Australia, there simply isnt a need when the centers you mentioned already have stadiums required for the most popular code in that region. Most probably the grounds used in Australia would be these:
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=121 Olympic stadium with movable lower tier for football and Rugby.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=71 Oval. I hate this ground for soccer, but realistically it will be part of the plan.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=120 Etihad stadium. Oval with movable lower tier for football and rugby. Would probably only be used if MCG gets knocked back.
Adelaide new multi purpose stadium. Oval with movable lower tier for football and rugby.
Perth new multi purpose stadium. Oval with movable lower tier for football and rugby.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=279 Rectangular ground Melbourne. Football and Rugby League.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=28 Canberra stadium. Rugby.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=9 Sydney football stadium. Rugby and football.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=46 Energy Australia stadium. Rugby and football.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=110 Suncorp. Rugby and football.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=280 Skilled park. Rugby.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=40 Dairy farmers. Rugby.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=92 Members Equity. Rugby football.

Bascially, there will be at least one Olympic stadium with a movable lower tier, two oval grounds with movable lower tiers, and one oval ground. The rest will be rectangular.


woozoo no está en línea  
Old March 30th, 2009, 05:17 AM   #4923
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qaabus View Post
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.
Sydney - Melbourne is about the 4th busiest air route in the world. Along with this, train lines exist between all major centers. 8 hours from Sydney to Melbourne is a bitch, but the same can be said for travel in USA and Brazil for a WC.

Most of the cities you stated would not be used in a WC. Only Townsville is a possible venue and I admit, is a big problem. I imagine they could use it to host games with historically have a small number of touring fans (African and Caribbean countries), though I really dont know how it would all work.
woozoo no está en línea  
Old March 30th, 2009, 05:35 AM   #4924
invincible
Lurker
 
invincible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,804
Likes (Received): 523

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qaabus View Post
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?
For a brief example, the air route between Melbourne and Sydney is/was the third busiest in the world and a flight departs every 15-30 minutes in each direction on a normal day. I seem to recall that during the Sydney Olympics, 747s were placed on domestic service, although the airline Ansett collapsed a year later.

Oh, and Geelong is less than an hour away from the Melbourne CBD by train (Newcastle, Wollongong and Gold Coast are similar) and the other small cities in the north of the country have strong tourism markets and would easily be able to temporarily accommodate an influx of visitors. No Australian city regularly gets temperatures close to freezing unless you head to higher altitudes either.

Also, people need to stop thinking that soccer is in competition with the other football codes. There is actually some amount of cooperation between the various ruling bodies here in Australia. For example, for the upcoming WC qualifier between Australia and Japan, the AFL agreed not to schedule any matches at the MCG over a two week period. It seems illogical to build stadiums to suit only one sport when it would be sitting around underutilised over the winter. Besides, the stadiums are funded by the government and as a taxpayer and voter, I expect that they aim to maximise the benefits to any investment into infrastructure they make.
invincible no está en línea  
Old March 30th, 2009, 06:21 AM   #4925
tjwonderboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulFCB View Post
Mexico 1986-1970 = 16 years
USA 2022-1994 = 28! Even in 2018 with 24 years seems way enough! But that's for England anyway. In the case Europe would have taken 2014 i think USA could have taken 2018, maybe moving the main action from the west to the east coast could have been a nice idea.
This was possible as Colombia retracted from hosting the WC, Mexico stepped up as it already had the infrastructure and the fans...
tjwonderboy no está en línea  
Old March 30th, 2009, 06:55 PM   #4926
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by woozoo View Post
Yes, lets limit the possible WC hosting nations to England and ahhh.... England
How does it limit the nations, if u can't sustain football stadiums you aren't a football country. Portugal built, what 10 new stadiums for Euro 2004 (1 was non football), but they showed where there is a will there is a way.

If Countries had to they would, most rarely hold non football events anyway.

Quote:
(France used stade de France, Germany used Berlin, Japan used Yokohama (most stadiums used in Japan were athletics stadiums, just under half in Korea were athletics) etc etc etc etc).
Stade france is passable, like i said i referring to athletics and oval stadiums

japan/korea was an awful world cup from the fact they had too many stadiums, to the fact that too many of them weren't football. To the results on the pitch.

Germany used three athletics stadiums. One is being converted into a football stadium (stuttgart), Nuremberg i remember hearing plan they want to go football specific too, and Hertha want to build their own stadium.

You shouldn't be using past examples, because if the rules were different they would've altered their bids.

Quote:
Frankly, there are very few countries with that many football specific stadiums. Spain, Germany and a few other European nations could sustain that, and throw in Brazil with its planned infrastructure upgrades for 2014, but apart from that it just isnt realistic.
What a Euro centric view of the world.
Germany re/built 8 in the run up to world cup 2006, previously all but Dortmund played in athletics stadiums. Crowds have gone up, and demand is sky high. You don't need football specific stadiums, you need a reason to build them. AKA the world cup. It's incentive.

currently

Spain, Germany, England, Portugal, Holland-Belgium, Nordic countries, Turkey, Japan (which has enough football stadiums), USA, Mexico have the relevant infrasture

Many of the countries in the running for the next world cups could sustain it also. How many countries are realistically in the running to hold a world cup?? I bet all but Australia could sustain football specific stadiums.

Quote:
FIFA is rightfully interested in spreading the game, both on moral and economic grounds.
Of course, but morally they would be wrong to encourage countries to build and use infrastructure not suitable for football, when another country who has or is willing to have them is overlooked.

Quote:
Great atmosphere in a stadium when the average 17,000 turn up to watch a game in a 40K stadium. This is the exact reason why the soccer clubs are moving out of the bigger football grounds and into smaller soccer stadiums.
I don't think you got the point. Clubs like Toronto, LA are filling their ggroudn avery week and have large waiting lists for season tickets, it only makes sense to increase capacity. I was not referring to every club.

Quote:
hngcm is right, big NFL grounds are perfectly suitable for WC matches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hngcm
That's dumb though....

Not much of a difference between a soccer pitch and a football pitch, most stadiums have removable seats upfront to easily convert between the two.

Now using an Oval for soccer though...
I never said anything about that, i said it would make sense for MLS to develop grounds as demand grows. I never said the USA shouldn't hold games at NFL grounds. Biggest suitable venues possible.

Last edited by bigbossman; March 30th, 2009 at 07:02 PM.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old March 30th, 2009, 07:04 PM   #4927
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

What about Perth, it would be a bitch having to travel to and from games, there especially for the teams. There is no other city near by, so teams travelling there after 3 days rest are gonna have their preparation destroyed.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old March 31st, 2009, 12:24 AM   #4928
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

So was travelling to Dallas, so will be traveling to Manaus, and so will be traveling to some of the venues in Russia and China when they finally get to host.

Preparations won't be destroyed. Its a 3 hour flight not a 3 week sail across an ocean. Teams will have prior knowledge and can prepare. I would say traveling first class in a plane is no more traumatic than sitting in a bus for 5 hours.
woozoo no está en línea  
Old March 31st, 2009, 01:38 AM   #4929
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

Quote:
Portugal built, what 10 new stadiums for Euro 2004
Europe.

Academia has average crowds of 6K and plays in a 30K stadium. Largest crowd in 07/08 season was 19K
Boavista has a 5K average, 30K stadium and 17K highest attendance.
Not one team in portugal filled its stadium to capacity in that season. The average attendance is about half of capacity.
There was a will, and now they are left with 10 stadiums which are inadequate.

The Brazilian league has an average attendance of about 16K, Argentinian has about 20K, and doubtfully truly need that many 40K stadiums. Are they not footballing nations?

Quote:
You shouldn't be using past examples, because if the rules were different they would've altered their bids.
Why not? Its not like im using the 1962 WC. These are the three most recent WCs. Im just going on the precedent.
As far as I know the rules havent changed much regarding stadiums.

Quote:
Portugal, Holland-Belgium, Nordic countries, Turkey, Japan (which has enough football stadiums), Mexico have the relevant infrasture.
None of those countries have the required stadiums for a WC. Turkey has only 3 over 40K, and 2 of them are athletics. Only two of Japans 13 over 40K are rectangular. www.worldstadiums.com (Im looking for full time work atm. I have a lot of time lol.)

Quote:
Many of the countries in the running for the next world cups could sustain it also. How many countries are realistically in the running to hold a world cup?? I bet all but Australia could sustain football specific stadiums.
Lets focus on 2022 because 2018 is realistically going to Europe. Japan and Korea have the required stadia, but for both, at least half are athletics. The average attendance for their leagues doesnt warrant further stadium expansion so soon after 2002 and with so many white elephants after that tournament.
As we have been informed in another thread, Qatar is "football crazy" and hence is in with a real chance.lol.
Indonesia doesnt have and doesnt need so many stadiums. Though it has a few at around 30K so expansion is possible (though a lot would be athletics).
Mexico doesnt have the stadiums but only needs to upgrade capacity in a few to meet requirements.
USA has the best sporting infrastructure of any country by far and dont need to do much at all.
Quote:
Of course, but morally they would be wrong to encourage countries to build and use infrastructure not suitable for football, when another country who has or is willing to have them is overlooked.
The problem is that there arent many countries which fulfill the requirements - especially if they were as strict as you suggest. Its about getting the balance right between having a good WC with good venues and making sure that the tournament doesnt rotate between a small handful of countries over and over again - which is morally wrong.

Quote:
I don't think you got the point. Clubs like Toronto, LA are filling their ggroudn avery week and have large waiting lists for season tickets, it only makes sense to increase capacity. I was not referring to every club.
I thought you were saying EVERY stadium has to be football specific. That means there would have to be at least 8 40K plus stadiums, and 2 60K plus stadiums, which is clearly unsustainable when only one or two teams sell out smaller venues.



At the end of the day, Im hearing less and less about the proposed stadiums in Perth and Adelaide. You would think that we would be hearing more as the deadline draws closer. Maybe the FFA is holding out to reveal its plans closer to the date, or maybe the premiers are waiting for the GFC to blow over to minimize any public discontent, but time is running out. I still hold out hope, and think that with those two grounds and some realistic upgrades to the other grounds I mentioned Australia is capable of holding the event and is in with a big chance.
woozoo no está en línea  
Old March 31st, 2009, 02:47 AM   #4930
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Why are you selectively quoting...

Quote:
Originally Posted by woozoo View Post
Europe.
Yeah so??

Quote:
Academia has average crowds of 6K and plays in a 30K stadium. Largest crowd in 07/08 season was 19K
As you can see by the image below, they play in the one athletics stadium built



And they have filled there stadium in the past and averaged higher in the past. It is easy to selectively pick out stats.

Quote:
Boavista has a 5K average, 30K stadium and 17K highest attendance.
Not one team in portugal filled its stadium to capacity in that season. The average attendance is about half of capacity.
What, you are doing a sample of attendances for one season...

guimaraes averaged 20,000 and filled their ground on at least one occasion. Braga averaged 15,000 and have filled their ground many times.

Boavista have filled their ground in the past, when the stadium was built they were winning and competing for titles, the capacity was deemed enough and they have filled it.

Beira mar have filled their ground, in the past but aren't in superliga atm.

Your stats were massively selective

Quote:
There was a will, and now they are left with 10 stadiums which are inadequate.
No they are not, 7 get filled, when needs be. 1 is an athletics stadium, and farense have dissapeared off the earth.

Quote:
The Brazilian league has an average attendance of about 16K, Argentinian has about 20K, and doubtfully truly need that many 40K stadiums. Are they not footballing nations?
You accept stats from Brazil and Argentina as accurate?? it is common knowledge that clubs give out free tickets to some fans.

Of course they truly need these sized stadiums for the big games, of which there are many they are full. And most clubs play in stadiums much larger than 40,000 as we stand.

I'd even advocate colombia if it wasn't for the security.

Quote:
Why not? Its not like im using the 1962 WC. These are the three most recent WCs. Im just going on the precedent.
As far as I know the rules havent changed much regarding stadiums.
The reason why is because there were no rules in place preventing it, if there were then things would've been different. And that's why in the instance of a rule change the past can't be a baring.

Italy only put athletics tracks in their stadiums because they were municipal. Once again most rarely get used!!

Quote:
None of those countries have the required stadiums for a WC. Turkey has only 3 over 40K, and 2 of them are athletics. Only two of Japans 13 over 40K are rectangular. www.worldstadiums.com (Im looking for full time work atm. I have a lot of time lol.)
The point wasn't that they had the required stadiums now, it's that they have enough football stadiums in place, and they had the demand to expand them. Which all the countries i listed do, all will have in the future.

On japan, there were 4 at the world cup out of 10 http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium...dcup2002.shtml, and toyata wasn't used.

Quote:
Lets focus on 2022 because 2018 is realistically going to Europe. Japan and Korea have the required stadia, but for both, at least half are athletics. The average attendance for their leagues doesnt warrant further stadium expansion so soon after 2002 and with so many white elephants after that tournament.
It can be argued that the clubs with the higher attendances, play in the football stadiums... The point is football and fans benefit from venue specific to it.

Quote:
As we have been informed in another thread, Qatar is "football crazy" and hence is in with a real chance.lol.


Quote:
Indonesia doesnt have and doesnt need so many stadiums. Though it has a few at around 30K so expansion is possible (though a lot would be athletics).
I would not allow indonesia anywhere near the world cup until they qualify

Quote:
Mexico doesnt have the stadiums but only needs to upgrade capacity in a few to meet requirements.
Exactly my point in most of the countries you wrote off earlier

Quote:
USA has the best sporting infrastructure of any country by far and dont need to do much at all.
Except grow some fans

Quote:
The problem is that there arent many countries which fulfill the requirements - especially if they were as strict as you suggest.
That's in your opinion. As i have shown most of the countries who are bidding now with a realistic chance, could fulfill the requirements. Only Oz couldn't.

All realistic countries in the americas could (Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and USA) , all realistic countries in Europe could. Japan and South korea could. Who else are you advocating?? Morrocco?? There aren't that many potential hosts as it is.

These stadiums aren't full for athletics and rarely stage meetings!!

Quote:
Its about getting the balance right between having a good WC with good venues and making sure that the tournament doesnt rotate between a small handful of countries over and over again - which is morally wrong.
I'd rather we didn't give the world cup to indonesia etc thanks.

It's about giving the WC to countries with a football following who can sustain the venues required. Who have a track record of qualifying for world cups etc. Not allow any tosh to hold it. If Europe has to relinquish the rights to every other tournament. The bids better be good, and non football stadiums aren't good!!

Quote:
I thought you were saying EVERY stadium has to be football specific. That means there would have to be at least 8 40K plus stadiums, and 2 60K plus stadiums, which is clearly unsustainable when only one or two teams sell out smaller venues.
Of course every stadium in the MLS has to be football specific in the long run, what's your point?

I repeat i neve said that MLS stadiums should be used for world cup games. Read what i say!!

Quote:
At the end of the day, Im hearing less and less about the proposed stadiums in Perth and Adelaide. You would think that we would be hearing more as the deadline draws closer. Maybe the FFA is holding out to reveal its plans closer to the date, or maybe the premiers are waiting for the GFC to blow over to minimize any public discontent, but time is running out. I still hold out hope, and think that with those two grounds and some realistic upgrades to the other grounds I mentioned Australia is capable of holding the event and is in with a big chance.
It is capable yes, but in unsuitable venues in remote places. It is the weakest of all the major candidates.

Last edited by bigbossman; March 31st, 2009 at 02:53 AM.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old March 31st, 2009, 02:50 AM   #4931
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by woozoo View Post
So was travelling to Dallas, so will be traveling to Manaus, and so will be traveling to some of the venues in Russia and China when they finally get to host.
Russia?? Russia has 75% of it's population west of the Ural mountains, in European russia. European Russia has 1/3 the area of america, I doubt they'll place stadiums in Asian Russia so it won't be a problem

Who says manaus will be chosen as a venue by brazil?

Quote:
Preparations won't be destroyed. Its a 3 hour flight not a 3 week sail across an ocean. Teams will have prior knowledge and can prepare. I would say traveling first class in a plane is no more traumatic than sitting in a bus for 5 hours.
What? how many teams have driven for 5 hours to get to a game in the world cup?

a three hour flight isn't desirable in the slightest. And how cheap are domestic flights in Oz for the average fan?
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old March 31st, 2009, 04:24 AM   #4932
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

If not Manaus then Fortazela then, or one of the other cities which arent in the South East which will most probably be used to keep the people of those regions happy.

As far as plane travel in Australia, I bought a last minute ticket from Newcastle to Melbourne for 79 dollars a few weeks ago. Thats about 30 pound or 40 Euro. Pre booked in advance tickets to Perth from Melb your lookion at 200 bucks - 100 Euro.

Last edited by woozoo; March 31st, 2009 at 04:32 AM.
woozoo no está en línea  
Old March 31st, 2009, 07:44 AM   #4933
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

Quote:
Your stats were massively selective
Yes. I selected the two most extreme examples of a 16 team league. But to have an average attendance which barely 1/6 fills a stadium is ridiculous. That needs to be selected and pointed out.

Im using stats from last season. Which season would you like me to use?

I also pointed out that none of the clubs sold out any home games last season, and that the average attendance is about half of average capacity (I just guessed that looking at the figures, didnt actually use a calculator). I dont think I was being selective there.

Anyway, its not overly relevant.
Quote:
You accept stats from Brazil and Argentina as accurate?? it is common knowledge that clubs give out free tickets to some fans.
Actually every source I have found has come up with pretty much the same figures, so I would say they are reliable.
Free tickets are given out to increase their attendance figures ie: they count whoever walks through the gates, not who pays for tickets.

Quote:
The point is football and fans benefit from venue specific to it.
Only if they get regular use and good average crowds. Otherwise they end up costing money to maintain rather than making money for anyone. Its got to be a balance. Building 12 soccer specific stadiums for a country with no demand isnt helping anyone.

In Australias case, the Perth and Adelaide stadiums are old, of relatively poor standard, not well located and not suited to Rugby or soccer matches. New, large multi purpose venues would provide maximum benefit for fans of all codes in those cities (Currently they miss out on any National team games despite being 4th and 5th largest population centers).

Quote:
Exactly my point in most of the countries you wrote off earlier
Mexico needs modest capacity (though significant quality) upgrades to its stadiums to meet requirements. this is a perfect case of how a nation can benefit - new and better infrastructure with little change in attendance to capacity ratio. But why should Mexico benefit again, if its already had the benefits of two world cups?

Quote:
The point wasn't that they had the required stadiums now, it's that they have enough football stadiums in place, and they had the demand to expand them. Which all the countries i listed do, all will have in the future.
Most of those countries currently have poorer or relative stadium infrastructure to Australia. Japan and Korea have a lot of stadiums, but most are athletics which you dont like.
Attendance wise the Australian league performs similar or better than Korea, Norway, Sweden and Turkey. Australia also has the National Rugby League and Super 14 Rugby Union competition with even higher attendance. population wise it is similar to the nordic countries combined, and not much less than benelux.
I dont see why, lets say Turkey or the Nordic countries, are so much better suited to hosting a WC infrastructure wise than Australia.
Quote:
As i have shown most of the countries who are bidding now with a realistic chance, could fulfill the requirements. Only Oz couldn't.
As far as who is bidding, if Europe wins 2018, 2022 is between USA, South Korea, Japan, Qatar and Indonesia.

2 things about Japan and Korea.
1) They hosted the first Asian WC 7 years ago. Do you propose one of them host the second Asian WC as well, only 20 years after it hosted its first event?
2) Both countries underrtook a massive stadium infrastructure upgrade before 2002. I doubt either country is keen to invest a similar amount on new football specific stadiums so soon.
Even if it does, what happens with the athletics stadiums which will be just 20 years old - They just sit empty with no tenant at all costing millions annually in maintenance???? I cant see it happening, if it does they are crazy.

Quote:
Read what i say!!
Chill. You wrote a lot.

Quote:
It is capable yes, but in unsuitable venues in remote places. It is the weakest of all the major candidates.
If USA didnt host in 94, Mexico hadnt hosted twice - most recently 86, and Japan and Korea hadnt hosted in 2002 then I would say yes.
Australia is the only serious candidate which hasnt hosted before. All the other serious candidates have hosted recently which mixes everything up.

I dont know why you say unsuitible venues. The only questionable venue I have proposed is the MCG, but that could be replaced with Etihad stadium.
1 Olympic stadium with retractable seating, and three oval grounds with retractable seating is no worse than the previous two world cups. Im going on precedent, what else is there to go on?

Last edited by woozoo; March 31st, 2009 at 09:46 AM.
woozoo no está en línea  
Old March 31st, 2009, 12:10 PM   #4934
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

MCG will be a venue FOR SURE for an OZ bid, no way it gets replaced.

Australia is behind only the USA as far as bidding for 2022 goes, all other bids either suffer from hosting too soon (Japan, Korea), too much (Mexico), or not serious contenders (Indonesia, Qatar).

And please, no ovals...
hngcm no está en línea  
Old March 31st, 2009, 06:37 PM   #4935
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by woozoo View Post
Yes. I selected the two most extreme examples of a 16 team league. But to have an average attendance which barely 1/6 fills a stadium is ridiculous. That needs to be selected and pointed out.

Im using stats from last season. Which season would you like me to use?
You should know 1 season does not make a fair sample. There are many mititgating scircumstances. The only way to truely evaluate is to see if the stadiums have ever been filled or worthwhile and that takes look at the bigger picture, not just capturing last season and saying look it proves my point. When all it proves is last season crowds were bad.

By your logic, sporting, Benfica and porto are playing in stadiums to big for themselves... when they clearly aren't. They are just too big for the average liga game. But the big games they are full domestically and in Europe and that is the point!

Quote:
I also pointed out that none of the clubs sold out any home games last season, and that the average attendance is about half of average capacity (I just guessed that looking at the figures, didnt actually use a calculator). I dont think I was being selective there.
Like i said 1 season doesn't tell a story. It's just a capture of an ever moving cycle of events.

Quote:
Anyway, its not overly relevant.
It is as you said a country couldn't sustain venues, and you used the example of portugal claiming they didn't sell out, basing this on one seasons worth of stats.

Quote:
Actually every source I have found has come up with pretty much the same figures, so I would say they are reliable.
It's not that the figures are incorrect, it's that the amount of people turning up is probably twice as many at some clubs.

Quote:
Free tickets are given out to increase their attendance figures ie: they count whoever walks through the gates, not who pays for tickets.
What i have heard is that, they give free tickets to the "hooligans" to stop them causing trouble, the "hooligans" then sell the tickets on. So everyone in the ground has paid for it, except the hools that keep the tickets. It's not because no one would turn up otherwise. Modern venues, with greater security will attract average fans into the stadiums.

Quote:
Only if they get regular use and good average crowds. Otherwise they end up costing money to maintain rather than making money for anyone. Its got to be a balance. Building 12 soccer specific stadiums for a country with no demand isnt helping anyone.
Only you doesn't think there is a demand in Brazil or Argentina. When there clearly is. These are football crazy countries.

I actually can't even believe you don't think cities in Argetina and Brazil could sustain a 40,000 seater football stadium.

I think you fail to understand just because clubs don't come close to filling their grounds every week, it doesn't mean there is no demand for that capacity. It's just how it is in football, in some countries ticketless games are still common place. It was the same in England until the 90s, hence why in England clubs didn't fill their grounds even in the good old days.

Quote:
In Australias case, the Perth and Adelaide stadiums are old, of relatively poor standard, not well located and not suited to Rugby or soccer matches. New, large multi purpose venues would provide maximum benefit for fans of all codes in those cities (Currently they miss out on any National team games despite being 4th and 5th largest population centers).
So the 4th and 5th largest centres of England and France do also.

I don't see the problem in you guys building temporary 40,000 stadiums and scaling them back after the world cup.

Quote:
Mexico needs modest capacity (though significant quality) upgrades to its stadiums to meet requirements. this is a perfect case of how a nation can benefit - new and better infrastructure with little change in attendance to capacity ratio. But why should Mexico benefit again, if its already had the benefits of two world cups?
Why shouldn't Mexico benefit, if they can host it, then let them. I'm not in the lets include everyone business and have a shit world cup. We do that by letting the likes of Trinidad and Tobago qualify, lets not do it in hosting as well.

[quote]Most of those countries currently have poorer or relative stadium infrastructure to Australia. Japan and Korea have a lot of stadiums, but most are athletics which you dont like. [quote]

What about the concept of these stadiums aren't used for athletics don't you understand?? Football is what pays the bills!!!

Quote:
Attendance wise the Australian league performs similar or better than Korea, Norway, Sweden and Turkey.
Turkey doesn't publish attendance figures. Sercan said all those figures on the internet are wrong.

are you seriously comparing a 20m country with 8 teams who play 90 games to countries with half and a quarte your population and double the amount of games??

Sweden's biggest city is smaller than your fifth biggest city and it has 3 teams in it. LASt season attendances went down by 25%.

Quote:
Australia also has the National Rugby League and Super 14 Rugby Union competition with even higher attendance. population wise it is similar to the nordic countries combined, and not much less than benelux.
Why do persist with this comparison??

Australia has what 4 super 14 teams? Each in major population centres.
And the NRL is a closed league, you can't compare it to a country with a proper sports system. And that's by the by, it's not football.

If you combined total of the average attendances in the nordic countries and benelux for professional clubs. You would see that more people watch professional football in these countries than watch sport in your country. If these places had 8 teams a piece you think they'd get the poxy crowds you are championing in australia?? Sydney has 4m people and you are celebrating averaging 20,000.

Quote:
I dont see why, lets say Turkey or the Nordic countries, are so much better suited to hosting a WC infrastructure wise than Australia.
Because they have more football fans per head of the population. Thus could sustain crowds long after

Quote:
As far as who is bidding, if Europe wins 2018, 2022 is between USA, South Korea, Japan, Qatar and Indonesia.
I'd give it to Japan or the USA

Quote:
2 things about Japan and Korea.
1) They hosted the first Asian WC 7 years ago. Do you propose one of them host the second Asian WC as well, only 20 years after it hosted its first event?
If that's the way the cookies crumbles then yes.

Quote:
2) Both countries underrtook a massive stadium infrastructure upgrade before 2002. I doubt either country is keen to invest a similar amount on new football specific stadiums so soon.
As far as i know Japan is planning to

Quote:
Even if it does, what happens with the athletics stadiums which will be just 20 years old - They just sit empty with no tenant at all costing millions annually in maintenance???? I cant see it happening, if it does they are crazy.
Rebuild and refurbish. Not all were built for the world cup you know...

Quote:
If USA didnt host in 94, Mexico hadnt hosted twice - most recently 86, and Japan and Korea hadnt hosted in 2002 then I would say yes.
I could care less if they have hosted before, if they are the best candidate. 20 years is long enough time for me.

Quote:
Australia is the only serious candidate which hasnt hosted before. All the other serious candidates have hosted recently which mixes everything up.
Hmmm i'd say many countries in europe and the americas would have something to say about that.

Quote:
I dont know why you say unsuitible venues. The only questionable venue I have proposed is the MCG, but that could be replaced with Etihad stadium.
1 Olympic stadium with retractable seating, and three oval grounds with retractable seating is no worse than the previous two world cups. Im going on precedent, what else is there to go on?
Just because it's no worse than the previous world cups, doesn't mean it shouldn't get better in the future. Football is powerful enough to not have to accommodate other sports...

Anyway, i can't be bothered anymore, Football should be played in Football only stadiums, space between the stands and the pitch, harm the atmosphere and views for fans. If you can't sustain that then you should look inside yourself and realise that you are not a football country, and being so have no place holding the world cup. If you are lucky like the USA and have stadiums which are large enough and able to hold football, then that's just luck.

Last edited by bigbossman; March 31st, 2009 at 06:44 PM.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old March 31st, 2009, 08:09 PM   #4936
seattle92
Registered User
 
seattle92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lisboa
Posts: 8,400
Likes (Received): 2852

woozoo is right.

Portugal shouldn't have built 10 stadiums. Everyone in the country says that. Things are even worse when we know that UEFA could picked the bid with only 8 stadiums.

Portugal is mad about football but people don't go to the stadiums as much as other european countries. It's a more like a pub/home fans. I think that there are to main reasons:
- Ticket prices a bit high
- Everybody is a Benfica, Sporting or Porto fan (even in cities far from Lisbon or Porto)


Benfica, Sporting and Porto's stadiums have the capacity they should have. They are not always full, but in the big games they usually are, and no one as ever heard someone talking about "how big the venues are", or something like that.

Braga and Guimar„es also should have a 30.000 stadium. It's the same story, they are only full in the big games. But those 2 clubs are growing in terms of fans and associates, so they have the stadiums ready for the future.

I talked about 5 stadiums. And that's it.


Boavista colapsed since the 2004. If in 2000 i could say about Boavista what i said about Braga and Guimar„es, the reality is that the club is now in the second division and with many problems to stay "alive".

Leiria is in the second division and it's a city that clearly doesn't support it's home team. Some of the seats were temporary and the stadium now has 20.000. Even so it's to much. Maybe when they return to the first league.

Coimbra deserved a good stadium but it should have been made with temporary seats. A 20 or 15.000 venue would be good for the club.

Algarve should never had a stadium in the Euro. They only did it because it's THE tourism zone in Portugal. But at the time everyone knew that Farense (local team) was going to end or play in the 3th or 4th division.

Aveiro should never had a stadium in the Euro. Beira-Mar was one of the weakest teams in the first division. They have been in the second division for 2 years since 2004. The city people clearly don't suport the team enough to have a stadium like that.


So it was to much for the country, everybody knows that. But wait a second. I'm talking about this season (or the previous one) where 3 of those teams are in the second division and where one as even ended (think Farense as a junior team now, and maybe in 5 years they'll be back to the league).

The reallity is that everyone's hopes are that this teams grow (just like Braga and Guimar„es) and that people in those cities start paying attencion to their own teams and forget about Benfica, Porto and Sporting. It is possible, Braga was knowned as the second Benfica house some years ago. In a matter of 5 years things have changed a lot and i think the new stadium helped.
seattle92 no está en línea  
Old March 31st, 2009, 08:44 PM   #4937
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by seattle92 View Post
woozoo is right.

Portugal shouldn't have built 10 stadiums. Everyone in the country says that. Things are even worse when we know that UEFA could picked the bid with only 8 stadiums.

...

The reallity is that everyone's hopes are that this teams grow (just like Braga and Guimar„es) and that people in those cities start paying attencion to their own teams and forget about Benfica, Porto and Sporting. It is possible, Braga was knowned as the second Benfica house some years ago. In a matter of 5 years things have changed a lot and i think the new stadium helped.
I don't think the issue is the volume of stadiums. Some of the new venues, though not as used/full as desired, were sorely needed. The Euro's simply gave Portugal the excuse to do the construction at the time, and at least it appears they did a fine job with the opportunity.

Their problem as it relates here is comparable to that for most smaller countries: Modest total population and few large metro population centers. Scotland is a more extreme example of this but Portugal is also hampered by this. The hope was that the new facilities would spur interest but in the end it's tough for smaller clubs to sustain challenges against established giants on limited budgets and with smaller fan bases to pull from. Long term hope remains, but until they can inspire the locals to support clubs in ways much like we see in the Netherlands there'll be little impetus for the fans of Guimaraes and Coimbra to pack the stands.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old March 31st, 2009, 10:36 PM   #4938
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

The Netherland has a higher population, and is a lot denser than Portugal. There are more "cities" in Netherlands as well. I think it's the case as what seattle said, the TV culture has hit the game in it's growth period when otherwise those people would be going to watch games in the stadiums. I think The Netherlands has the same mentality to football on TV as we (England) do, no real substitute.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seattle92 View Post
woozoo is right.

Portugal shouldn't have built 10 stadiums. Everyone in the country says that. Things are even worse when we know that UEFA could picked the bid with only 8 stadiums.

Portugal is mad about football but people don't go to the stadiums as much as other european countries. It's a more like a pub/home fans. I think that there are to main reasons:
- Ticket prices a bit high
- Everybody is a Benfica, Sporting or Porto fan (even in cities far from Lisbon or Porto)


Benfica, Sporting and Porto's stadiums have the capacity they should have. They are not always full, but in the big games they usually are, and no one as ever heard someone talking about "how big the venues are", or something like that.

Braga and Guimar„es also should have a 30.000 stadium. It's the same story, they are only full in the big games. But those 2 clubs are growing in terms of fans and associates, so they have the stadiums ready for the future.

I talked about 5 stadiums. And that's it.


Boavista colapsed since the 2004. If in 2000 i could say about Boavista what i said about Braga and Guimar„es, the reality is that the club is now in the second division and with many problems to stay "alive".

Leiria is in the second division and it's a city that clearly doesn't support it's home team. Some of the seats were temporary and the stadium now has 20.000. Even so it's to much. Maybe when they return to the first league.

Coimbra deserved a good stadium but it should have been made with temporary seats. A 20 or 15.000 venue would be good for the club.

Algarve should never had a stadium in the Euro. They only did it because it's THE tourism zone in Portugal. But at the time everyone knew that Farense (local team) was going to end or play in the 3th or 4th division.

Aveiro should never had a stadium in the Euro. Beira-Mar was one of the weakest teams in the first division. They have been in the second division for 2 years since 2004. The city people clearly don't suport the team enough to have a stadium like that.


So it was to much for the country, everybody knows that. But wait a second. I'm talking about this season (or the previous one) where 3 of those teams are in the second division and where one as even ended (think Farense as a junior team now, and maybe in 5 years they'll be back to the league).

The reallity is that everyone's hopes are that this teams grow (just like Braga and Guimar„es) and that people in those cities start paying attencion to their own teams and forget about Benfica, Porto and Sporting. It is possible, Braga was knowned as the second Benfica house some years ago. In a matter of 5 years things have changed a lot and i think the new stadium helped.
Why do people never read what you write on the internet??

That's what i said not woozoo. He said all the stadiums built in Portugal were inadequate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by woozoo
There was a will, and now they are left with 10 stadiums which are inadequate.
I said Porto, Boavista, Braga, Guimaraes, Sporting and Benfica were the right size when they were built.

I never said anything about aveiro or beira-mar

Last edited by bigbossman; March 31st, 2009 at 10:46 PM.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old April 1st, 2009, 09:53 AM   #4939
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Why do people never read what you write on the internet??
Bcoz its the internet, not a written humanities exam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
That's what i said not woozoo. He said all the stadiums built in Portugal were inadequate.
Perhaps I should choose my words more carefully. The point I was trying to get across, is that in Portugal's case, the big increase in stadiums is not necessarily a completely good thing. Even for some of the larger clubs, it could be argued that the grounds are slightly excessive at this point in time. As Seattle said, for the others they are well and truly too big.

Building a whole lot of big stadiums is not going benefit every club in every country.
woozoo no está en línea  
Old April 1st, 2009, 02:18 PM   #4940
seattle92
Registered User
 
seattle92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lisboa
Posts: 8,400
Likes (Received): 2852

Ok, i was saying woozo was right in the posts where he said the atendences were very low when comparing to the size of the venues.

The 5 stadiums i said are not big enough woozo (Benfica, Sporting, Porto, Braga and Guimar„es).
Even if in the last season the averages weren't that good. In many games during the last seasons the venues were full or close to it. And in Guimar„es and Braga's case, everyone is expecting the fan base to grow even more (just like it's hapenning every year).

And you have to take in mind that the older stadiums were even bigger. It was not very good to Benfica's ego for example to go from a 85000 stadium to a 65000 one. It could never be smaller than that. Same for Sporting and Porto, it would be impossible to build stadiums smaller than 50000.

A good deal for Euro 2004 should have been 8 stadiums:
Benfica 65000
Sporting 55000
Porto 55000
Braga 30000
Guimar„es 30000
Academica 30000 (with 10000 temporary)
Boavista 30000 (with 10000 temporary. But even so, no one expected the club to colapsed )
Leiria 30000 (with 15000 temporary)


Euro 2004 was a big success, everybody says that. Uefa even said it had been the best ever (and didn't repeat that in the last one). But it could have been made with lower cost. And we're not exactly that rich
seattle92 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