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 February 19th, 2007, 03:48 PM   #1641
Its AlL gUUd
Cute but Psycho...
 
Its AlL gUUd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 6,017
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
Were Spain or Italy to bid against England, it would be a very interesting competition.

Italy, I think, would be out of the picture very soon (reputation has been tarnished by the match fixing scandles and crowd troubles in excess of anything in England over the last decade, plus they had the tournament in 1990)... But Spain vs England would be a good match up (as demonstrated elsewhere on the forums).

As for Australia - they're not ready yet in terms of stadia, but if and when they ever get to host the finals, they'll do a fantastic job. The people here are the kind who love to jump on a bandwagon and boast about seeing the 'soccer' world cup, etc. All they have to do is catch onto the need for 'rectangular' football stadiums, then find another city or two capable of supporting a large stadium, then build them.
Even if spain got it it would be a traversty, they hosted it in 82 how long should England go without the World Cup?
__________________
I T S Y
Its AlL gUUd no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old February 19th, 2007, 05:13 PM   #1642
gambit06
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 207
Likes (Received): 86

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juanl View Post
All this talk about England's hosting of the 2018 event makes it seem as though it's a foregone conclusion that they've one the bid twelve years before the main event. All they need is a half decent bid from Spain or Italy, ignoring the events of recent weeks, and they'll be out six love. I for one would much rather spend a month in sunny Spain than dull England where the only culture lies in mushy peas!!!

wow.

You ignorant muppet.
gambit06 no está en línea  
Old February 19th, 2007, 05:25 PM   #1643
Gherkin
actual gherkin
 
Gherkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13,796
Likes (Received): 515

To cut a long story short, FIFA will only allow London and Manchester to have 2 host venues in thier respective cities IF there are 8 OTHER host cities. FIFA recommend spreading out the tournament to all regions of England, regardless of stadium size. To summarise:

London Area: Wembley (90,000+) and Emirates (60,000+) are pretty sure bets

Midlands: Either a redeveloped Villa Park (45,000+) or a new stadium (55,000)

West England: Bristol is the best bet, but an new 40,000+ stadium would have to be built

South Coast: Plymouth, Brighton, Portsmouth and Southampton have all been shortlisted, although none particularly stand out as World class host cities with suitable venues.

Yorkshire Area: Leeds and Sheffield are the big contenders, as they are big sporty cities with stadiums that can easily be redeveloped in time for 2018. I feel the two cities should both be used.

North West: Liverpool's new 61,000 seater stadium, Old Trafford's 75,000+ stadium and Manchester Stadium's (48,000) would exhaust the need for any other stadiums to be built in this area.

North East: A fairly safe bet that Sunderland's large stadium won't be used because of the state of the city, so the bid would go to Newcastle's 52,000 seater stadium.

Lancashire is a contender (on paper) as Preston is the so-called "home of football in the UK" and Blackpool is apparently still a tourist destination. I personally think that the Liverpool and Manchester venues are not too far away, and the two cities offer so much more than preston or Blackpool.

'Source' - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...4#post11806954



SO, my thoughts at the moment (completely regardless of stadium size or football league position) would be:

London: Wembley (90,000)
Emirates (60,000)

Manchester: Old Trafford (75,000)
C.O.M.S (48,000)

Liverpool: New Anfield (61,000)

Birmingham: New Stadium (55,000)

Bristol: New Stadium (40,000)

Sheffield: New Stadium (40,000)

Leeds: Re-developed Elland Road (50,000)

Newcastle: St. James's Park (52,000)

Portsmouth or Brighton: New Stadium (40,000)

Southampton or Plymouth: Redeveloped stadium (40,000)

Blackpool or Preston: New stadium (40,000)

Last edited by Gherkin; February 20th, 2007 at 04:35 PM.
Gherkin no está en línea  
Old February 19th, 2007, 10:21 PM   #1644
gincan
Gincan
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 887
Likes (Received): 182

For a spanish bet i guess they would go with:

Madrid

Bernabeu (80.000) hosting the final even if Barcelona has a larger grund.
possibly Atleticos new ground (60-70.000)

Barcelona
Camp nou (99-115.000) depends if the extension get built.

Valencia
Nou mestalla (75.000)

Bilbao
New San Mamés (60.000)

Seville
Sánchez pizjuán (55.000) simply for history and location even if Lopera stadium will be bigger (65,000), they might also go with both but thats not likely.

Galicia
Either in La coruña or Vigo, both cities clubs have looked into a new stadium but
yet to materialise. A ( 40.000) ground probably

Zaragoza
Romareda rebuilt to ( 40.000)

San sebastian
Anoeta (40.000) very unlikely but if they host the world Cup maybe

Elche
Martinez valero (40.000) has very good infrastructure around and is located in a populous area between Alicante and Murcia.

Palma
Ono stadium (40.000) easily expanded but no real need, would end up like a white elephant.
gincan no está en línea  
Old February 19th, 2007, 10:21 PM   #1645
Juanl
ba doom tsh
 
Juanl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Johannesburg
Posts: 434
Likes (Received): 8

Firstly, I am not an ignorant muppet. And secondly, what makes you think England deserves a wold cup based on merely on the fact that it hasn't gotten it in fourty years? Do any of you think there might be a reason why it was knocked out in the first round for the oh six finals? And by the way, i think it's wrong for a country to indicate its intention so early on in the race. It makes it seem a little too sure of itself. I mean Brazil vs Columbia is as yet undecided. Now that's a foregone conclusion.
Juanl no está en línea  
Old February 19th, 2007, 10:36 PM   #1646
3SPIRES
Registered User
 
3SPIRES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Global Britain
Posts: 419
Likes (Received): 124

We deserve it because we invented the damn game!
3SPIRES no está en línea  
Old February 19th, 2007, 11:04 PM   #1647
SimLim
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Likes (Received):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juanl View Post
Firstly, I am not an ignorant muppet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juanl
Do any of you think there might be a reason why it was knocked out in the first round for the oh six finals?
Now, I dont know how stupid you really want to look, but after 6 posts I reckon you're up thier with being one of the biggest retards we have had the pleasure of meeting.

3 quarter finals, 1 semi final and 1 16 round is reasonably good. Not great considering we could've won the last two WC's, but certainly not bad. Unfortunately we failed to qualify for USA 94 due to only winning 7-1 in the final game when we needed to win by 7 goals to pip The Netherlands in our qualifying group
 
Old February 19th, 2007, 11:53 PM   #1648
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,861
Likes (Received): 968

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
As for Australia - they're not ready yet in terms of stadia, but if and when they ever get to host the finals, they'll do a fantastic job. The people here are the kind who love to jump on a bandwagon and boast about seeing the 'soccer' world cup, etc. All they have to do is catch onto the need for 'rectangular' football stadiums, then find another city or two capable of supporting a large stadium, then build them.
By the time our chance comes around to host the WC here in Oz, Townsville could easily cope with a permanent 40,000+ size stadium. Newcastle could cope with a stadium that size already. It's just the matter of having rectangle shaped fields in the AFL cities.
Wezza no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2007, 12:46 AM   #1649
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gherkin007 View Post
To cut a long story short, FIFA will only allow London and Manchester to have 2 host venues in thier respective cities IF there are 8 OTHER host cities. FIFA recommend spreading out the tournament to all regions of England, regardless of stadium size. To summarise:

London Area: Wembley (90,000+) and Emirates (60,000+) are pretty sure bets

Midlands: Either a redeveloped Villa Park (45,000+) or a new stadium (55,000)

West England: Bristol is the best bet, but an new 40,000+ stadium would have to be built

South Coast: Plymouth, Brighton, Portsmouth and Southampton have all been shortlisted, although none particularly stand out as World class host cities with suitable venues.

Yorkshire Area: Leeds and Sheffield are the big contenders, as they are big sporty cities with stadiums that can easily be redeveloped in time for 2018. I feel the two cities should both be used.

North West: Liverpool's new 61,000 seater stadium, Old Trafford's 75,000+ stadium and Manchester Stadium's (48,000) would exhaust the need for any other stadiums to be built in this area.

North East: A fairly safe bet that Sunderland's large stadium won't be used because of the state of the city, so the bid would go to Newcastle's 52,000 seater stadium.

Lancashire is a contender (on paper) as Preston is the so-called "home of football in the UK" and Blackpool is apparently still a tourist destination. I personally think that the Liverpool and Manchester venues are not too far away, and the two cities offer so much more than preston or Blackpool.
You been reading The Observer? Your post is very similar to the shocking article which stated that the North East could be covered by one stadium in Newcastle, whilst the North West should apparently have 3 (Liverpool, Manchester and either Preston or Blackpool), stated that the South Coast would need a stadium, and/or South West (Bristol or Plymouth), then completely neglected to mention that football is better supported but less resourced in East Anglia (Ipswich/Norwich).

That Newcastle is a better city than Sunderland is not in dispute, that it would represent any kind of a problem to travel to Sunderland for a match (20 minutes from Newcastle by car, or on the Metro rail system, 30 minutes from Newcastle airport), is conveniently ignored.

I'm pretty sure that when the bid goes in, the FA (and FIFA) would prefer to have 12 stadiums rather than 8 - if that's the case then both St James and the Stadium of Light will be used, it's not an either/or.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2007, 12:51 AM   #1650
Its AlL gUUd
Cute but Psycho...
 
Its AlL gUUd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 6,017
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimLim View Post
Now, I dont know how stupid you really want to look, but after 6 posts I reckon you're up thier with being one of the biggest retards we have had the pleasure of meeting.

3 quarter finals, 1 semi final and 1 16 round is reasonably good. Not great considering we could've won the last two WC's, but certainly not bad. Unfortunately we failed to qualify for USA 94 due to only winning 7-1 in the final game when we needed to win by 7 goals to pip The Netherlands in our qualifying group
Dude he was talking about the 2006 England world cup BID to host the tournament
__________________
I T S Y
Its AlL gUUd no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2007, 12:55 AM   #1651
Its AlL gUUd
Cute but Psycho...
 
Its AlL gUUd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 6,017
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juanl View Post
Firstly, I am not an ignorant muppet. And secondly, what makes you think England deserves a wold cup based on merely on the fact that it hasn't gotten it in fourty years? Do any of you think there might be a reason why it was knocked out in the first round for the oh six finals? And by the way, i think it's wrong for a country to indicate its intention so early on in the race. It makes it seem a little too sure of itself. I mean Brazil vs Columbia is as yet undecided. Now that's a foregone conclusion.
What a ridiculous statement, firstly several other countries have indicated an intention i dont see u slamming them, and secondly the FA hasnt even confirmed they would bid!!! The government just said it would back the bid IF they did want to bid.

Now, did you get that or should i type slower?
__________________
I T S Y
Its AlL gUUd no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2007, 03:25 AM   #1652
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

The argument against AFL/cricket venues being used for football has bugged me for some time (since I originally raised it). The more I think of it, the more I wonder whether I am being bigotted and narrow minded.

First off, I dislike running tracks around pitches as I feel they take supporters too far from the game, however, watching world cup games in Nuremberg, Berlin and Stuttgart, I never felt particularly disconnected from the action.

Can anyone furnish information on the dimensions of the average athletics designed 'area of play', comparable to the below figures for the MCG in Melbourne. I've had a look around but have been unable to find anything definative.

Pitch area of the MCG = 172.9 m long x 147.8 m wide.
This means that there would be a gap of some 30m from the side of the pitch to the front row of spectators, and of 25m from the end of the pitch to the supporters behind the goals.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2007, 03:47 AM   #1653
NavyBlue
Under Construction
 
NavyBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 541
Likes (Received): 9



It's been answered many times before. The MCG stands are closer behind the goals than an athletics stadium (hence the need to remove 8 rows of seaing for the commie games), but it's circular shape means the sidlines are a bit further away depending on what stadium you compare it to. eg the sidelines at Berlin are a lot closer than say Ataturk.
NavyBlue no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2007, 04:14 AM   #1654
NavyBlue
Under Construction
 
NavyBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 541
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gherkin007 View Post
SO, my thoughts at the moment (completely regardless of stadium size or football league position) would be:

London: Wembley (90,000)
Emirates (60,000)

Manchester: Old Trafford (75,000)
C.O.M.S (48,000)
I've been told many times (mainly by Englishmen) that FIFA won't allow two stadiums in more than one city (eg. Melbourne & Sydney), but reading this thread it seems as thou the rules are different for England.

Is there any such rule and could someone please provide a link???
NavyBlue no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2007, 04:16 AM   #1655
gambit06
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 207
Likes (Received): 86

THe problem with a Bristol stadium is that Rovers have just got planning permission for rebuilding the memorial ground with Bristol Rugby (wouldn't be expandable to 40k) taking a way the possibility of the shared stadium that has been on the cards for so long.

The only way it would work now is that the government funds a nice new Stadium for City (they certainly can't afford it themselves)
gambit06 no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2007, 04:39 AM   #1656
kinggeorge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 102
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
Which would suggest that Australia, with it's 20 million population is taking a far greater shine to the game than America with it's 260 million population.
with beckham and toronto fc watch the average attendance rise, soon all the big names will be in the mls, you cannont compete with north american sports, say what you want but everyone knows what will happen, look at canada and their young talent now its ridiculous the players coming out of canada and now the americans are getting serious with their ncaa program and such im on a tangent now but to clear up that point something had to be said
kinggeorge no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2007, 05:54 AM   #1657
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,861
Likes (Received): 968

Quote:
Originally Posted by kinggeorge View Post
with beckham and toronto fc watch the average attendance rise, soon all the big names will be in the mls, you cannont compete with north american sports, say what you want but everyone knows what will happen, look at canada and their young talent now its ridiculous the players coming out of canada and now the americans are getting serious with their ncaa program and such im on a tangent now but to clear up that point something had to be said
Who are the other big names? I think you might be a tad optimistic there mate. I'm sorry, but all of the big names are in Europe. The only time other leagues get big name players is when they are getting older & go searching for a retirement job.
Wezza no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2007, 06:00 AM   #1658
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,861
Likes (Received): 968

Quote:
Originally Posted by NavyBlue View Post
I've been told many times (mainly by Englishmen) that FIFA won't allow two stadiums in more than one city (eg. Melbourne & Sydney), but reading this thread it seems as thou the rules are different for England.

Is there any such rule and could someone please provide a link???
I'm thinking exactly the same thing!! It seems kind of unfair in a way.
Wezza no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2007, 06:01 AM   #1659
nyrmetros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,274
Likes (Received): 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
Same could be said of the USA, who've had one and are in line to get another pretty soon.
yes, but everyone loves our $$. Coporate Amerika is beloved by FIFA.
nyrmetros no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2007, 08:45 AM   #1660
kinggeorge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 102
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wezza View Post
Who are the other big names? I think you might be a tad optimistic there mate. I'm sorry, but all of the big names are in Europe. The only time other leagues get big name players is when they are getting older & go searching for a retirement job.
optimistic that must be it, go to ebay type in la galaxy beckham, tickets are being sold for over 1000$, go to the bmo field on this forum and look at how many season ticket holders there are..ya im optimistic, business and the running of business is what north americans do best, you will see the best players will come the north america, watch and see, mls within the next 10 years will be in the top 3 leagues in the world, go look at toronto fc's roster there is some quality players there and as the league grows the cap will be higher and higher each year allowing players to make more then more players will come, players go to the money, ie figo, quatar, delgado quatar, batistuta quatar, rivaldo oly, for the most part the players want money and they will get it in the usa, as for a world cup bid could austrailia support 8, 50 000 seat plus stadiums because by 2018 or whatever there will be a bigger increase for bigger stadiums and you know the usa could host a world cup in a few states, soooo
kinggeorge 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 04:57 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