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 October 22nd, 2010, 03:44 PM   #7801
void0
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St.Petersburg, Espoo
Posts: 2,098
Likes (Received): 2869

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyalex View Post
Nah more like Cold War 2
Nah, UK speaks on behalf of itself only.
void0 no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old October 22nd, 2010, 05:29 PM   #7802
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,016
Likes (Received): 4786

FIFA World Cup 2018 bids (the NO politics version)

I'm tired of reading silly squabbles on the other thread that have nothing whatsoever to do with the merits or weaknesses of the actual bids.

So this thread is for those who, like me, don't want to wade through page after page after page of political pissing contests.

To kick it off, some speculation about FIFA's forthcoming technical report:

England's 2018 World Cup bid gets massive boost
Published 23:00 21/10/10 By Martin Lipton

England's 2018 World Cup bid is set for a major boost when it is named the stand-out candidate to host the tournament by FIFA.

While the world governing body is trying to deal with the fall-out of the cash for votes scandal that saw Nigeria's Amos Adamu and Tahitian Reynald Temarii suspended pending a full investigation, there are now less than six weeks until the venue decision is taken in Zurich on December 2.

A major element that Sepp Blatter's 24-man Executive Committee will take into account is the official FIFA Inspection Team's report into the bidding nations' campaigns.

That team, headed by Chile's Harold Mayne-Nicholl's, includes South Africa's Danny Jordaan, the favourite to be co-opted to take over Adamu's Ex-Co seat next month.

And UEFA chiefs are understood to believe the report, due to be published in the middle of November, will make it clear that England and not Russia or the joint bids from Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium is the best candidate for 2018.

One highly-placed UEFA source said: "From what we have heard, the English bid is miles ahead of the rest in terms of the lack of risk, infrastructure and readiness to host the World Cup."

If the intimations are correct, it will give England's bid team a huge step forward in the vital last few weeks before the decision is made.

The temporary suspensions of Adamu and Temarii came as Blatter was forced to promise he would expel "these devils you find in football" and vow: "We have to fight that the people in charge of FIFA behave as they should do and if this is not the case then we have to intervene."

If Temarii is also expelled, as seems likely, the most probable successor as Oceania representative would be New Zealander Fred De Jong, expected to be enthusiastic towards an England bid.

But Blatter is now under huge pressure to ensure the vote for 2018 and 2022 is clean, with Spain/Portugal and 2022 candidate Qatar at serious risk of being thrown off the ballot by FIFA's Ethics Committee if they are found to have colluded in a banned vote-swapping deal.

Jordaan hinted earlier this month that the report will make firm recommendations, when he said: "You will have a good idea of how we see the full strength of the cases when the report comes out next month. We will report objectively on what we find."

And if the Technical report does come down as strongly in England's favour, it will justify the view of insiders such as Northern Ireland's Jim Boyce, who will replace England's Geoff Thompson as the Home Nations' FIFA vice-president in June.

Boyce said: "I feel England has to be given the 2018 World Cup. The country already has proper infrastructure and proper stadiums. England has everything in place and could organise a World Cup in 10 days' time. I would be very disappointed if England are not successful."



While that all sounds good for England, there's many a slip twixt cup and lip. I know that FIFA and the IOC are separate institutions but there are enough similarities to be able to draw an analogy: Paris was clear favourite to win the vote for the 2012 Olympics. But their complacency and London's late surge shows that it's never over until the fat lady sings. Plenty of time for England to shoot themselves in the foot or for the other bidders to make a late dash for the line.
JimB no está en línea  
Old October 22nd, 2010, 05:45 PM   #7803
Russia__WC__2018
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 176
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
England has everything in place and could organise a World Cup in 10 days' time.
Then why choose the country 7,5 years before WC?
To give such a big time to prepare. And this time is for building of a lot of infrastructure.
Russia__WC__2018 no está en línea  
Old October 22nd, 2010, 05:45 PM   #7804
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

Quote:
If Temarii is also expelled, as seems likely, the most probable successor as Oceania representative would be New Zealander Fred De Jong, expected to be enthusiastic towards an England bid.
So the two suspended execs are going to be replaced for the vote???

You would think this should be also good for Australia. An Oceania executives vote would naturally go to Australia due to proximety, but there's the added plus of Wellington Phoenix (Oceania's only proffesional football club) being in the Australian A-League with support from the FFA despite protest from Bin Hamman.
woozoo no está en línea  
Old October 22nd, 2010, 06:34 PM   #7805
crazyalex
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 244
Likes (Received): 19

I like Russia get it But I know England will win for sure.
crazyalex no está en línea  
Old October 22nd, 2010, 06:38 PM   #7806
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,764
Likes (Received): 10311

Hardly any surprise there, England is of course well, well ahead of Russia in technical terms and readiness for hosting this world cup. That's no secret and you don't need a technical committee to tell you that. I'm surprised we're apparently well ahead of the Spain/Portgual bid but perhaps the technical committee have concerns about the lopsidedness of their effort given the number of stadiums in each nation.

Does anyone know if this document is being made public, as the IOC do with their evaluation reports, or are we to be treated to the very particular brand of FIFA transparency which also ensures bidding nations have no requirement to publicise their bid books??
RobH está en línea ahora  
Old October 22nd, 2010, 07:12 PM   #7807
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,239
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russia__WC__2018 View Post
Then why choose the country 7,5 years before WC?
To give such a big time to prepare. And this time is for building of a lot of infrastructure.
I think its alot more important than it was in a post recession world.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old October 22nd, 2010, 07:19 PM   #7808
dacrio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 529
Likes (Received): 0

I think we need an update poll!
dacrio no está en línea  
Old October 22nd, 2010, 08:43 PM   #7809
mattec
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 820
Likes (Received): 112

Quote:
Originally Posted by T74 View Post
Saw on the England thread some of the feedback re: the technical report has leaked, with England apparently rated well ahead of the others.

Any word yet on how the contenders for 2022 measured up??
I figure it will basically say that the US and Australia are well out in front technically, with the US having a small advantage over australia
mattec no está en línea  
Old October 22nd, 2010, 08:56 PM   #7810
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,764
Likes (Received): 10311

The US has a big advantage over Australia in technical terms, but there are so many non-technical reasons why Australia is still right up there - 1994's proximity and the Australian passion and ability to pull off great sports events being the most obvious ones. Though I'd love to see a world cup in Australia and support their bid, I suspect if neither of these countries had hosted the world cup in the past, the US would be streets ahead in everyone's eyes purely becuase of their bid's technical superiority.
RobH está en línea ahora  
Old October 22nd, 2010, 09:29 PM   #7811
Rev Stickleback
Registered User
 
Rev Stickleback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,107
Likes (Received): 1921

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidrobot View Post
I appreciate your british humour. I'm a great fan of it. May I also, humbly remind you of other things which are not as funny.
British press wrote there were WMD in Iraq. British press wrote Hitler is a great leader of his nation. British press wrote that BP oil spill is "just a minor accident" until the coast went black from oil. British press wrote many other things which were completely not true..
The prime minister was ridiculed in the British press for the WMD claims at the time.

I'm sure "that nice Mr. Hitler" was praised for a while, but I do have a sneaky suspicion that view may have changed.

The BP spill wasn't written off as a minor accident. The BBC was already reporting it could be a major spill just hours after the explosion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8638638.stm

So, are you getting this info about what the British media says from media that you've personally read, or are you just reporting what you've heard they've said? It sounds rather like the latter.



For all the criticism the British press might receive, they can't receive any for exposing this vote-buying scandal. If anyone was complaining it ought to have been the Americans, as the undercover reporters posed as being part of the US bid.

I don't think anyone can be remotely surprised vote-buying goes on, but it's disappointing that it takes such an investigation for FIFA to act. Maybe FIFA needs to look at the voting process to look at a way that would make corruption less like to succeed.
Rev Stickleback no está en línea  
Old October 22nd, 2010, 09:37 PM   #7812
Rev Stickleback
Registered User
 
Rev Stickleback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,107
Likes (Received): 1921

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Hardly any surprise there, England is of course well, well ahead of Russia in technical terms and readiness for hosting this world cup.
To a large degree I think the stadiums are where a Russian bid walks all over the English one. The venues they are proposing are just a lot better than what England is offering by comparison.

The question mark against the Russian bid would be if they would be able to construct the stadiums or not. The same accusations were levelled at South Africa though, and Russia is rather better equiped than South Africa. With the world cup 8 years away, I don't see readiness being an issue.

A lot of people, especially in England, see England as clear favourites, but I think it's much closer than that. If I was a neutral, I could well plump for Russia as the better bid.
Rev Stickleback no está en línea  
Old October 22nd, 2010, 10:52 PM   #7813
schmidt
Registered User
 
schmidt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,557
Likes (Received): 59

Thing is, you don't have to have the best of the best infrastructure. If it can do, why not? I didn't see any major complaints about the World Cup in South Africa or Mexico for example. Actually they even chose Mexico to host it twice.

That shouldn't be really the only matter, otherwise the WC should only go to Western European, North American countries and Japan/Australia!
schmidt no está en línea  
Old October 22nd, 2010, 11:16 PM   #7814
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

With regards to Liverpool getting new owners last week. It has been reported in the UK media that the new owners NESV might prefer to expand Anfield than build a new stadium in Liverpool. The proposed stadium by the old owners would have been 60,000 with the potential to be expanded to 72,000+. I think that if Liverpool don't build a new stadium it would make Englands 2018 bid a weaker. Firstly the bid would realistically only have 2 new stadiums built in Bristol and Nottingham, unless Tottenham's new stadium is chosen as a 3rd London venue or instead of the Emirates. Secondly it would allow the bid to have another very large stadium (assuming the Stanely Park stadium would be72,000) outside of London and Manchester. I hope the new owners really consider building the new stadium that was designed by the old owners Hicks & Gillett. It would be such an amazing ground to have in our bid.
Kobo no está en línea  
Old October 23rd, 2010, 12:41 AM   #7815
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,016
Likes (Received): 4786

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback View Post
To a large degree I think the stadiums are where a Russian bid walks all over the English one. The venues they are proposing are just a lot better than what England is offering by comparison.

The question mark against the Russian bid would be if they would be able to construct the stadiums or not. The same accusations were levelled at South Africa though, and Russia is rather better equiped than South Africa. With the world cup 8 years away, I don't see readiness being an issue.

A lot of people, especially in England, see England as clear favourites, but I think it's much closer than that. If I was a neutral, I could well plump for Russia as the better bid.
Equally a lot of people, especially in Russia, see Russia as clear favourites.

As to the Russian bid "walking all over" the English bid in terms of stadiums, I don't think so.

Yes, Russia are proposing a lot of new stadiums - most of which look nice. But 75% of them are in vicinity of a 45K capacity. Only Zenit's new stadium and the Luzhniki will be of any great size.

By contrast, England will have Wembley; Old Trafford; the new or redeveloped Anfield; and one (or possibly two) of The Emirates, the Olympic stadium and the new White Hart Lane. The smallest of these will have a capacity of 56K.

In addition, St James' Park has a capacity of 52K; Villa Park will be increased to more than 50K; and Elland Road will be increased to 50K.

There are also a number of possible further capacity increases in the offing (of varying credibility): Old Trafford to anything up to 95K; St James' Park up to 60K; the Stadium of Light to 60K; Nottingham Forest new stadium of 50K; the Emirates up to 70K; City of Manchester Stadium to 65K. Lastly, it has been suggested that the use of Twickenham cannot be entirely ruled out.

That's the quantifiable element of England's stadium lineup - and, in terms of average capacity, it beats Russia's stadiums, hands down.

But you also have to consider the intangible, star quality of England's stadiums.

Wembley - a new stadium, maybe, but the name still excites wonder and quickens the pulse of footballers and fans around the world.

Old Trafford - home to possibly the most supported club in the world.

Anfield - again, even if it is a new stadium, the name conjures up great images, teams and heroes of the past to football fans around the world.

Emirates, White Hart Lane, Elland Road, St James' Park, Villa Park........not as iconic as the three above, maybe, but they're all stadiums that are famous around the world because of the enormous and enduring popularity of the Premier League. Quite apart from the fact that it will be the World Cup, everyone will be hugely excited to be playing for or watching their countries playing in these stadiums.

With the best will in the world, and with all due respect, you cannot say the same thing about any of the Russian stadiums (even a great stadium like the Luzhniki). They do not hold a special place in the hearts and minds of football fans. They may be good or even great stadiums but they won't have the aura that comes as part and parcel of the English stadiums.
JimB no está en línea  
Old October 23rd, 2010, 02:30 AM   #7816
matthemod
Registered User
 
matthemod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Gillingham, Medway
Posts: 765
Likes (Received): 95

In my opinion, the pro's and con's for England vs Russia.

England
Pros: Very good infrastructure, easy to get around on public transportation, police and security guaranteed. Only marginal adaptations needed on stadia, only 2/3 new stadiums in the pipeline. England has the heritage and reputation in International football to warrant having the world cup again after 52 years.

Cons: In terms of logistical aspects, not much to talk about however could a sense of "deserving" it be on the cards? Dare I say even boring? It's not as if a world cup in England would be bad or anything, but it's not as if it's bringing the game to areas where it is relatively uncommon (Japan/Korea, South Africa).

Russia
Pros: First and foremost, they have never hosted it before which in my opinion is what FIFA is what the world cup is all about, portraying the cultural differences of countries that have never had it. It would be good for Russian infrastructure/development.

Cons: A lot of that said infrastructure needs to be done. The country is big and getting around would need to be worked on a lot. Some reservations about security issue's but I'm sure if they were to receive the world cup things would get sorted out.

So effectively, in my opinion, the English and Russian bids seem pretty much opposite sides of the coin. England has the infrastructure, Russia has the novelty. Tough choice.
__________________
http://pricetown.myminicity.com

My MiniCity!
matthemod no está en línea  
Old October 23rd, 2010, 03:15 AM   #7817
Trelawny
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tdot & The Caribbean Region
Posts: 2,580
Likes (Received): 1

I agree with you, it's a very tough choice.
Trelawny no está en línea  
Old October 23rd, 2010, 04:01 AM   #7818
slipperydog
Registered User
 
slipperydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,851
Likes (Received): 2401

There is definitely something to be said for a first time host, you're right England and USA would be kind of boring. I mean, we see all these stadiums in England every single week. It would just be national teams playing in them instead of Premiership squads. Meh.

The World Cup is always something exotic and special, that's why I found Korea/Japan to be such a fascinating and intriguing tournament to watch. Just to get that feeling back, I gotta hope for Russia/Australia.
slipperydog no está en línea  
Old October 23rd, 2010, 06:03 AM   #7819
T74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 622
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by slipperydog View Post
There is definitely something to be said for a first time host, you're right England and USA would be kind of boring. I mean, we see all these stadiums in England every single week. It would just be national teams playing in them instead of Premiership squads. Meh.

The World Cup is always something exotic and special, that's why I found Korea/Japan to be such a fascinating and intriguing tournament to watch. Just to get that feeling back, I gotta hope for Russia/Australia.

you think they may go for a half/half option? Have a newbie for one year and the experienced incumbent.

This would see either Russia/USA or England/Australia as the likely combos

have to laugh with one thing though, this whole FIFA implosion is throwing out any predictability now. Will they follow the tech report recommendations absolutely to "show" they are not corrupt? Will they allow OFC and CAF to replace their exco delegates? Will the bidders challenge only 22 voters? Will the vote occur on Dec 2? Will Sepp retain his power? Will Qatar and Spain/Portugal survive? Will the Qatar/Spain "seven" remain exco delegates? Will any other bids be dragged into the fray?

Interesting times

Reading the press today, sounds like the Nigerian delegate is in some serious trouble now, with investigations back home. The Tahitian is less so, but I get the vibe he may walk quietly.

Spain is mute (last I heard), Portugal is screaming they knew nothing, and Qatar has broken its silence to just say that everyone should be investigated (and not just them/Spain).

England and Russia seem to know its just them, and are going to war with each other!! The Dutch I have no idea whats happening there, maybe they are just having a good laugh at us all

USA is getting some interestingly mixed press. Lot of focus naturally on the FIFA corruption side of things, but a few raising concerns as to why the Times pretended to be US business interests, and if this may cause a bit of unintended blow back their way. Australia is on the see-saw. One minute convinced the changes may help us, the next the changes will kill us.
T74 no está en línea  
Old October 23rd, 2010, 09:29 AM   #7820
AlekseyVT
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Moscow City
Posts: 8,283
Likes (Received): 7059

Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidt View Post
Thing is, you don't have to have the best of the best infrastructure. If it can do, why not? I didn't see any major complaints about the World Cup in South Africa or Mexico for example. Actually they even chose Mexico to host it twice.
Chile in 1962 and Mexico in 1986 have constructed the own infrastructure despite terrible earthquakes in 1960 and in 1985 correspondingly. Despite it, FIFA hasn't deprived of their right to organize the World Cups.

Great Chilean earthquake:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_Valdivia_earthquake

1985 Mexico City earthquake:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Me...ity_earthquake
AlekseyVT 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 09:35 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