daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas

Stadiums and Sport Arenas » Completed | Under Construction | Proposed | Demolished



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Which bid should host the FIFA World Cup 2018 / 2022?
Australia - 2018 255 12.32%
Belgium / Netherlands - 2018 247 11.94%
England - 2018 538 26.00%
Indonesia - 2018 68 3.29%
Japan - 2018 35 1.69%
Mexico - 2018 105 5.07%
Qatar - 2018 78 3.77%
Russia - 2018 279 13.48%
South Korea - 2018 16 0.77%
Spain / Portugal - 2018 267 12.90%
USA - 2018 116 5.61%
Australia - 2022 378 18.27%
Belgium / Netherlands - 2022 111 5.36%
England - 2022 114 5.51%
Indonesia - 2022 122 5.90%
Japan - 2022 37 1.79%
Mexico - 2022 149 7.20%
Qatar - 2022 153 7.39%
Russia - 2022 148 7.15%
South Korea - 2022 23 1.11%
Spain / Portugal - 2022 184 8.89%
USA - 2022 249 12.03%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 2069. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old May 17th, 2010, 09:46 PM   #5961
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,764
Likes (Received): 10311

The article I read said negative campaigning is not allowed and that's why it's being investigated, but I hardly think FIFA can legislate against a bid because an individual who is no longer involved in it made a throwaway comment in what he thought was a private conversation with a friend. To call that "negative campaigning" is stretching the truth to breaking point.

I don't think the ethics committee will be investigating this one for long to be honest. It's obvious what has happened.

Any damage this incident could do will already have been done in my opinion. That damage is likely to be substantial but I doubt the ethics committee will rule against England 2018 on the basis of what actually happened.
RobH está en línea ahora  

Sponsored Links
Old May 17th, 2010, 10:14 PM   #5962
jandeczentar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 152
Likes (Received): 1

Ahem...back on topic, below is a brief list of each of the bids pros and cons as I see it.

Australia Pros
-Decent stadium list.
-Games played in southern hemisphere winter (not in the boiling Aussie summer).
-Has never hosted the World Cup before.
Australia Cons
-Long distances between some venues.
-Many stadiums need a lot of work.
-Many of Australia's biggest stadiums are built for cricket / Aussie Rules rather than football.
-An extension to the previous point, some may question Australia's national appetite for football.

Belgium & Netherlands Pros
-Football is the national sport for both countries, thus guaranteed national enthusiasm.
-Short distance between venues.
-Good transport infrastructure.
-Neither have hosted the World Cup before.
Belgium & Netherlands Cons
-By far the smallest country or group of countries bidding.
-Belgium's lack of political unity.
-Many domestic teams don't need 40,000+ stadiums, thus costly and un-needed legacy.
-FIFA might be against joint bids.

England Pros
-Football is the national sport, thus guaranteed national enthusiasm.
-Decent stadiums that will be full for domestic games after the World Cup, thus useful legacy.
England Cons
-Incohesive bid team.
-Suspect infrastructure in places.
-Stanley Park Stadium, Liverpool: will it be built? Who knows?
-Recent outbreaks of hooliganism.

Russia Pros
-Government has pledged to spend a reported US$180bn on staging the World Cup.
-Has never hosted the World Cup.
-Football is a national sport with national enthusiasm for the World Cup.
Russia Cons
-Needs by far the most building work.
-Long distances between venues, even when using venue clusters.
-Most Russian domestic teams don't need 40,000+ stadiums, thus an expensive and un-needed legacy.

Spain & Portugal Pros
-Huge national appetite for football.
-Decent stadiums that will be filled after the World Cup.
-Well developed tourist industry even without the World Cup.
-Decent transport infrastructure.
-Nice weather.
Spain & Portugal Cons
-Both are economically only 1 notch above Greece.
-New Valencia Stadium. Will it be finished by 2018?
-FIFA maybe against joint bids.
-Hot in summer; no one wants to play football in oppressive heat.

USA Pros
-The biggest and highest quality stadiums of any of the bidders.
-Good transport infrastructure.
-Needs the least building work: all the stadiums are already there.
-Full stadiums after the World Cup.
-Very profitable World Cup in 1994.
USA Cons
-Very questionable national appetite for football.
-The stadiums will be full of gridiron rather than soccer fans after the World Cup.
-Long distances between venues, even with a cluster system.
-Lack of a decent LA stadium at the moment.

Have I missed anything?
jandeczentar no está en línea  
Old May 17th, 2010, 10:15 PM   #5963
jandeczentar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 152
Likes (Received): 1

Oops. It double posted for some reason. Is anyone else having that problem?

Last edited by jandeczentar; May 17th, 2010 at 10:18 PM. Reason: double posted
jandeczentar no está en línea  
Old May 17th, 2010, 10:16 PM   #5964
boyerling3
Registered User
 
boyerling3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dallas
Posts: 146
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Any damage this incident could do will already have been done in my opinion. That damage is likely to be substantial but I doubt the ethics committee will rule against England 2018 on the basis of what actually happened.
I agree. Although there could be a little bit of shady dealings by England bid committee, I still think it's a great bid and may be a fantastic WC. And it's not just that I'm an American and own the UK as some Russians seem to believe, but rather that the infrastructure, history, legacy, culture, and other factors of an English WC would be totally awesome. I hope the US will host a WC sometime in the next 20 years, though I think 2018-22 is too soon. Really all the European bids are great, but I think the time is especially right for England.
boyerling3 no está en línea  
Old May 17th, 2010, 10:17 PM   #5965
RedCoppa
Always looking up
 
RedCoppa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ufa
Posts: 22,006
Likes (Received): 10063

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
How many Georgians have you brutally killed today Landanar?
__________________
Уфа - Столица Российского Ислама
Ufa - the Capital of Russian Islam
RedCoppa no está en línea  
Old May 17th, 2010, 10:25 PM   #5966
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,764
Likes (Received): 10311

Quote:
Originally Posted by boyerling3 View Post
I agree. Although there could be a little bit of shady dealings by England bid committee, I still think it's a great bid and may be a fantastic WC. And it's not just that I'm an American and own the UK as some Russians seem to believe, but rather that the infrastructure, history, legacy, culture, and other factors of an English WC would be totally awesome. I hope the US will host a WC sometime in the next 20 years, though I think 2018-22 is too soon. Really all the European bids are great, but I think the time is especially right for England.
Couldn't agree more. I too think it's too soon for the US to host again but have no doubt they'll do a fantastic job whenever FIFA sees fit to give it them again. And I also think any of the European bids would result in a good world cup, though I'm obviously supporting my home country.

England 2018, Australia 2022 would be my choice at this stage.
RobH está en línea ahora  
Old May 17th, 2010, 10:26 PM   #5967
4miGO!!!
GeNtLe UsEr
 
4miGO!!!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: ThE mIdDlE oF nOwHeRe
Posts: 2,910
Likes (Received): 1228

Yo, russians! What a shame! Get the @@@ out of here and forget the name of the thread!
Gosh, what a nuisance youre not able to get the nonsence youve been trying to tell.
On topic. Hopefully, Russia will get the championship 2018. Im sure, we can make all thats in our bid real. The distances between the cities are not further than an hour by plane, so whats the problem? We got Olimpic games and Universiada, we have had the games in Moscow 1980. So the needed infrastructure exists in some host cities.
__________________
..споря с идиотом, задумайтесь, ведь, возможно, он делает то же самое...
4miGO!!! no está en línea  
Old May 17th, 2010, 10:28 PM   #5968
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
They were faxed yesterday according to every paper and according to England's bid team. Unless you have a link suggesting otherwise why should I believe you?

And why are you quoting a troll?
Football clubs and Football Associations must be the last businesses in the world to still use fax machines!

@jandeczentar Russia is planning on spending $180bn on the 2018 world cup thats an insane amount of money.
Kobo no está en línea  
Old May 17th, 2010, 10:34 PM   #5969
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

I also think that if South Africa 2010 does not make the money Fifa are hoping for, that may get them nervous about Brazil 2014 chances of making money. If they feel that Brazil won't then Fifa might pick 2 safe countries that were likely to make the cash in the next 2 world cups. The countries I think that could do this would be England or Spain/ Portugal for 2018 and then USA for 2022.
Kobo no está en línea  
Old May 17th, 2010, 10:35 PM   #5970
brewerfan386
Registered User
 
brewerfan386's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cheeseland
Posts: 712
Likes (Received): 158

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlch1987 View Post
Jjjajaja, this people is crazy, what the #$%& have to do the georgians, comunism, The Queen, USA with the WC?

This is now officially a MINE IS BIGGER, YOURS IS SHORTER THREAD... shame for both...

Um, the USA is bidding on the games (2018 and 2022) and cannot be counted out no matter how badly you or anyone else on here want them to be! PERIOD

__________________
[intentionally left blank]
brewerfan386 no está en línea  
Old May 17th, 2010, 10:38 PM   #5971
Evgen Ekb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Екатеринбург
Posts: 199
Likes (Received): 106

только РОССИИ!
Evgen Ekb no está en línea  
Old May 17th, 2010, 10:39 PM   #5972
igor_carlos
GASPARETOUR.COM
 
igor_carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Dublin( ) Cuiaba(X) Nagoya( )
Posts: 8,275
Likes (Received): 675

I didn t decide yet
Russia or England
igor_carlos no está en línea  
Old May 17th, 2010, 10:41 PM   #5973
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,764
Likes (Received): 10311

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobo View Post
I also think that if South Africa 2010 does not make the money Fifa are hoping for, that may get them nervous about Brazil 2014 chances of making money. If they feel that Brazil won't then Fifa might pick 2 safe countries that were likely to make the cash in the next 2 world cups. The countries I think that could do this would be England or Spain/ Portugal for 2018 and then USA for 2022.
FIFA are on course to make record profits from South Africa 2010. Whether that's repeated in Brazil is a different question but given the size of their footballing market and the fact that they're a quickly growing economy I don't see why they wouldn't.

I don't think the question of profit is the right one to ask but the question of preparation. If Brazil 2014 causes difficulties for FIFA in terms of getting stadiums ready they may feel they want an easier ride for 2018 or 2022. But that's all very speculative at this stage.

If this poll and newspaper reports are anything to go by FIFA will be looking to choose between a very safe bid which will result in a magnificent and hugely profitalbe world cup (England) and a riskier bid which is offering something new, exciting and different and has a lot of money behind it (Russia).

But I'm not ruling out Spain/Portugal or the Nederthlands/Belgium at this stage either.
RobH está en línea ahora  
Old May 17th, 2010, 10:46 PM   #5974
jandeczentar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 152
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobo View Post
Football clubs and Football Associations must be the last businesses in the world to still use fax machines!

@jandeczentar Russia is planning on spending $180bn on the 2018 world cup thats an insane amount of money.
Yes it is and it's a testament to how much building work the Russians would have to do to stage the World Cup. As far as I know, no one else is planning to spend even half that much: they don't have to. I suspect most of it will go on infrastructure rather than new stadiums. The venues will be expensive but new roads and airports will be more so. It will be like Beijing 2008, who spent $43bn, largely on roads (and that was mostly confined to 1 city).
jandeczentar no está en línea  
Old May 17th, 2010, 10:50 PM   #5975
Fobos2030
Registered User
 
Fobos2030's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Krasnodar, South of the EVIL empire.
Posts: 1,007
Likes (Received): 3189

2018: Russia

2022: Australia! I like this country
__________________
"z k.,k. hjccb." и только гугл поймет меня!
Fobos2030 no está en línea  
Old May 17th, 2010, 11:22 PM   #5976
jandeczentar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 152
Likes (Received): 1

I have to go with the USA, if only because they have the biggest stadiums and FIFA will fancy making as much money as possible. The USA is the place to do that, despite the native population's relative lack of enthusiasm for football.

Failing that, I'd go for Australia. It has a lot of good stadiums (although most are designed for Aussie Rules or Cricket) but it's potential market is small compared to the Americans.

The other 3 I consider rank outsiders. Japan and South Korea both staged it too recently and Qatar's entire population is only about 800,000. It simply isn't big enough to stage a World Cup or warrent building 10 40,000+ stadiums.
jandeczentar no está en línea  
Old May 17th, 2010, 11:41 PM   #5977
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

I think the US gets it. The money will be tantalizing and I think the struggles that South Africa is having selling tickets and Brazil is having getting their stadiums and infrastructure improvements under construction will make FIFA look towards something they know will be a sure thing.

Also, I think that FIFA doesn't want to keep China from hosting until 2034 at the earliest so they stay away from Australia so China can host 2026 or 2030.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old May 17th, 2010, 11:59 PM   #5978
Fobos2030
Registered User
 
Fobos2030's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Krasnodar, South of the EVIL empire.
Posts: 1,007
Likes (Received): 3189

Quote:
Originally Posted by jandeczentar View Post
Yes it is and it's a testament to how much building work the Russians would have to do to stage the World Cup. As far as I know, no one else is planning to spend even half that much: they don't have to. I suspect most of it will go on infrastructure rather than new stadiums. The venues will be expensive but new roads and airports will be more so. It will be like Beijing 2008, who spent $43bn, largely on roads (and that was mostly confined to 1 city).
I think the real cost will be much bigger. For example the official cost of Winter games in Sochi is 12 bn, but if we'll plus to this figure all cost of new roads (for example the road from Moscow to Sochi), new trains lines, new sea ports and many other things we'll have something like 40-45bn.
__________________
"z k.,k. hjccb." и только гугл поймет меня!
Fobos2030 no está en línea  
Old May 18th, 2010, 12:02 AM   #5979
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,764
Likes (Received): 10311

Infrastructure is something that would likely be built anyway. It's slightly disingenious to use that to either boost a bid or disparage one. Though saying that, Olympic Games and World Cups often have the effect of speeding up planned works. Knowing you have a deadline and a billion pairs of eyes on you is a pretty sure fire way of making sure things get done!
RobH está en línea ahora  
Old May 18th, 2010, 01:42 AM   #5980
AILD
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 506
Likes (Received): 30

Quote:
I am not sure exactly what Vlad means by “transform”. Will fewer oppositional journalists be executed? Will the oligarchs be kept in check? Putin is less forthcoming about this sort of stuff and you suspect the only thing that really matters, in the end, is the promise of raw cash. Even if it does mean teams in Group A playing games in Dzerzhinsk with the players glowing slightly from the plutonium residue.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle7127762.ece

Yeah! I like piece of british propaganda in the morning, to laugh all day long

Really, what's going on? This is hilarious. I know that UK must blackmail Russia and Russia's bid to support bad vision of the country inside UK, but not so obviously dumb)

No offensive
AILD 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 09:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu