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 4th, 2007, 03:51 AM   #1781
BobDaBuilder
Registered User
 
BobDaBuilder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yarck
Posts: 1,542
Likes (Received): 1

Manchester and Liverpool would be the equivalent of "one" Aussie city. It is one big urban sprawl up there in Lancashire now.

So, really England would have to chose Liverpool or Manchester as a host city and not both.
__________________
In the 1960s and 1970s, British rock bands ruled the world.

Now they have Susan Boyle.
BobDaBuilder no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old March 4th, 2007, 06:08 AM   #1782
jordancda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16
Likes (Received): 0

Didn't Blatter already say that the 2018 Cup WILL be in South America? And according to FIFA's cycle of the major regions, isn't North America then next in line?? I know its been a long time since the UK's had it, but its been in Europe many times since then. Since the USA last hosted its gone to Europe, Asia, Europe again, Africa, and ost likely Brazil next. Its North America's turn. Europe already gets the Cup basically twice as frequently as anywhere else so I don't get what's bringing about all this crying. 2018 will be in the USA or Mexico. Canada will have to experience some major growth and stadia building if it hopes to have a chance. I know the USA hosted only 13 years ago, but in 2018 it'll have been 24 years which is plenty long of a gap; and its not the USA's fault that the only other two North American countries aren't really capable of hosting on the same level. I foresee Brazil getting the 2014, USA 2018, and England 2222, when it'll really be Europe's turn again.
jordancda no está en línea  
Old March 4th, 2007, 07:16 AM   #1783
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 10,332
Likes (Received): 2254

Quote:
Originally Posted by jordancda View Post
I know the USA hosted only 13 years ago, but in 2018 it'll have been 24 years which is plenty long of a gap; and its not the USA's fault that the only other two North American countries aren't really capable of hosting on the same level.

Thats precisely the point- Why should CONCACEF hold the world cup the same amount of times as Europe when it essentially means it will either go to USA or Mexico evrytime. Whereas UEFA with its 50 odd members with most of the worlds footballing powerhouses (bar essentially Argentina & Brazil) with the biggest & best leagues in the world that provides almost all the competitors from the QF stages onwards (again bar the exceptions of Argentina & Brazil normally) only get to stage it as often as CONCACEF .FIFA politics stinks & the sooner Blatter buggers off the better.
london lad no está en línea  
Old March 4th, 2007, 07:28 AM   #1784
Lancer17
BANNED
 
Lancer17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico
Posts: 105
Likes (Received): 1

2018 is for Mexico.
Lancer17 no está en línea  
Old March 4th, 2007, 08:06 AM   #1785
Dean
Registered User
 
Dean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,294
Likes (Received): 911

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
Melbournians would probably understand (if it was explained to them very slowly)
Now you live in Melbourne AND an you're ignorant, So im going to go through this really slowly for you. It's spelt MELBURNIAN.
Dean está en línea ahora  
Old March 4th, 2007, 08:06 AM   #1786
KiwiBrit
There's only one United
 
KiwiBrit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the garden city
Posts: 1,743
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobDaBuilder View Post
Manchester and Liverpool would be the equivalent of "one" Aussie city. It is one big urban sprawl up there in Lancashire now.

So, really England would have to chose Liverpool or Manchester as a host city and not both.
That's plain daft. Of course they are two seperate cities, and each has the right to host games seperately.

Back to the thread. I'm enjoying reading the Aussie comments about the various stadiums. I would love nothing more than you guys hosting a WC...after England get the chance of course!

In all seriousness though, it would be interesting to have an Australian perspective of when you think you could realistically host the tournament?

My thoughts are you need to expand the A-league to include at least 4 more teams. Try and encourage some kind of partnership with some Euro teams, similar to Man Utd's link with Royal Antwerp. And kick the NZ Knights out and stick to just Aussie teams!
KiwiBrit no está en línea  
Old March 4th, 2007, 08:22 AM   #1787
Calvin W
Canadian eh!
 
Calvin W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,287
Likes (Received): 359

Why even have any type of rotation anyways. Europe has by far the most countries that could and should host the World Cup.

If a rotation system must be used, then why not alphabetically with ALL the countries taking turns. LOL. Each country would get a turn every 800 years or so!
Calvin W está en línea ahora  
Old March 4th, 2007, 09:20 AM   #1788
Riise
Registered User
 
Riise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South London & Sprawlgary
Posts: 104
Likes (Received): 12

Although I think England has waited long enough and a good case can be made for them holding the 2018 WC, I really hope that Canada gets it. My reasoning behind this is that in 2022 England will still be able to host it but Canada may not. For us to hold the World Cup we'll need a mix of old and new stadiums and the longer we wait the less likely those old stadiums with their large capacity (50,000 +) will be around in favour of mid-capacity stadiums (~40,000). If the situation was different I wouldn't mind stepping aside and allowing England to host it in 2018 and us in 2022 since you guys have had a long wait, but I just don't want us to have an even longer one. And btw America, this isn't the freakin Olympics stop trying to own everything!
__________________
"A city can be friendly to people or it can be friendly to cars, but it cannot be both" | Enrique Penalosa
Riise no está en línea  
Old March 4th, 2007, 11:39 AM   #1789
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by NavyBlue View Post


There's that rule that only seems to pop up for an Australian bid again. Meanwhile some English bids have 3x London, 2x Manchester, 2x Liverpool etc...
The rule applies to ALL countries, it seems that only the Aussies seem to have a problem with it.

When you see threads about an English bid you will see numerous stadiums mentioned as possible venues - that doesn't mean they will be used, or that anyone believes they will all be used. The popular betting is that the City of Manchester will lose out due to Old Trafford, that Goodison (or it's replacement) will lose out due to New Anfield/Stanley Park, and that in London it'll be Wembley and Emirates (the only two stadium city in any likely bid). In the event that Chelsea build something huge, it will no doubt replace Emirates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobDaBuilder View Post
Manchester and Liverpool would be the equivalent of "one" Aussie city. It is one big urban sprawl up there in Lancashire now.

So, really England would have to chose Liverpool or Manchester as a host city and not both.
I can't spell Melbournian/Melburnian/whatever, but at least I know a little about geography. Manchester and Liverpool are entirely separate cities geographically, politically, and historically.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old March 4th, 2007, 11:41 AM   #1790
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean View Post
Now you live in Melbourne AND an you're ignorant, So im going to go through this really slowly for you. It's spelt MELBURNIAN.
Dean, admit it, when it comes to sport, Melburnians can be awfully closed minded.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old March 4th, 2007, 02:49 PM   #1791
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiBrit View Post
That's plain daft. Of course they are two seperate cities, and each has the right to host games seperately.

Back to the thread. I'm enjoying reading the Aussie comments about the various stadiums. I would love nothing more than you guys hosting a WC...after England get the chance of course!

In all seriousness though, it would be interesting to have an Australian perspective of when you think you could realistically host the tournament?

My thoughts are you need to expand the A-league to include at least 4 more teams. Try and encourage some kind of partnership with some Euro teams, similar to Man Utd's link with Royal Antwerp. And kick the NZ Knights out and stick to just Aussie teams!
Whilst there isn't a chance in hell of Australia stepping in as emergency host for 2010, I honestly think the Aussies could host it in 2022 (2018 might be one finals too soon due to the relative youthful status of the A-League).

They lack the stadiums at the moment, but the A-League is growing fast. The odds appear to be on the league expanding in 2010 - most likely with Townsville (assuming they don't get in earlier due to the New Zealand franchise falling apart), Canberra, Wollongong and a second Melbourne side joining the mix. Personally I think they need to get up to 16 sides - but others I've spoken too don't believe the country can support that many sides yet. (That said, getting 16 clubs going would most likely mean splitting the support in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane, which would effectively cut down the need for new 'large' rectangular stadiums.)

The key to any bid will be new stadiums. Most of the new rectangular stadiums appear to be being built to 30000 capacities, which still leaves bids reliant on AFL/Cricket venues in a bid, and the view at these stadiums is simply not great for football (I've seen games at Telstra Dome and the MCG, and can compare them to games seen at the Olympic Stadium of Berlin, etc. I don't know if it's the psychological effect of all that extra grass, but the distance does seem much larger at AFL grounds than at athletics stadiums).

Assuming the Socceroos qualify, and do well (that is, make it through the group stages) for both 2014 and 2018, I reckon the interest in football will continue to grow here and by 2022 they will NEED purpose built 40k 'rectangular' stadiums in Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Canberra and Newcastle, and maybe Gold Coast, Townsville and Wollongong too. On top of that, they already have suitable facilities in Sydney (Telstra) and Brisbane (Suncorp). That's not to mention what will happen when (not if) 'soccer' breaks AFL's back and becomes the premier football code in Australia. It's just a matter of time, folks.

Last edited by Benjuk; March 4th, 2007 at 02:56 PM.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old March 4th, 2007, 03:10 PM   #1792
Yardmaster
Registered Melbourne
 
Yardmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,151
Likes (Received): 198

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
That's not to mention what will happen when (not if) 'soccer' breaks AFL's back and becomes the premier football code in Australia. It's just a matter of time, folks.
No way!
Yardmaster no está en línea  
Old March 4th, 2007, 04:29 PM   #1793
PerthCity
Registered User
 
PerthCity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Perth
Posts: 2,338
Likes (Received): 104

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
That's not to mention what will happen when (not if) 'soccer' breaks AFL's back and becomes the premier football code in Australia. It's just a matter of time, folks.


Might happen about the same time soccer overthrows the NFL in America.

We've all know about soccer for a long time. Its not a new sport. Why do you think its suddenly going to sweep the world?
PerthCity no está en línea  
Old March 4th, 2007, 07:55 PM   #1794
KiwiBrit
There's only one United
 
KiwiBrit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the garden city
Posts: 1,743
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeachRes44 View Post


Might happen about the same time soccer overthrows the NFL in America.

We've all know about soccer for a long time. Its not a new sport. Why do you think its suddenly going to sweep the world?
More American school kids play football (soccer) than any other sport.

As the saying goes 'from little acorns, grow great oak trees'.
KiwiBrit no está en línea  
Old March 4th, 2007, 08:54 PM   #1795
||-GOB-||
I've made a huge mistake.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 215
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiBrit View Post
More American school kids play football (soccer) than any other sport.

As the saying goes 'from little acorns, grow great oak trees'.
It's the same in Australia, soccer is by far the most popular junior sport in the nation.
||-GOB-|| no está en línea  
Old March 4th, 2007, 10:02 PM   #1796
KiwiBrit
There's only one United
 
KiwiBrit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the garden city
Posts: 1,743
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by ||-GOB-|| View Post
It's the same in Australia, soccer is by far the most popular junior sport in the nation.
And therefore when those juniors grow up, more and more will begin to play at a senior level.
KiwiBrit no está en línea  
Old March 4th, 2007, 10:55 PM   #1797
||-GOB-||
I've made a huge mistake.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 215
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiBrit View Post
And therefore when those juniors grow up, more and more will begin to play at a senior level.
The thing is that it has been that way for decades. You would think that the 'sleeping giant of Australian sport' should've woken up by now.
||-GOB-|| no está en línea  
Old March 5th, 2007, 12:01 AM   #1798
Its AlL gUUd
Cute but Psycho...
 
Its AlL gUUd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 6,017
Likes (Received): 296

I don't like how the US has to have so many turns to host sporting events.
__________________
I T S Y
Its AlL gUUd no está en línea  
Old March 5th, 2007, 12:41 AM   #1799
jordancda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Its AlL gUUd View Post
I don't like how the US has to have so many turns to host sporting events.
I think it has nothing to do with us "having to have" so many sporting events hosted here. I think it has far more to do with this being by far (not even close by any comparison) the most lucrative place to host them, whether it be the World Cup (Mens/Womens), the Olympics, World Championships (Skating, skiing, baseball, basketball, etc), etc. The USA is more well equipped in every facet needed to pull off mega-events. There is an established infrastructure, ease of travel, a plethora of facilities, and more than enough money to build what is necessary. Europe is a close second. Now, Europe may be the home/hotbed of soccer, but its no secret the United States is where FIFA sees the future. The soccer growth in this country has been phenomenal since the 1994 World Cup. It did everything it was supposed to: we now have a succeeding professional soccer league (obviously not up to European standards, but getting better every year), we've experienced exponential growth in the media coverage of soccer (we have a soccer-dedicated cable channel for the first time ever and ESPN actually takes the time to cover it as well), we've built our very first soccer-specific stadia and have many more in the works, we've become much more competitive on the international stage, and our youth soccer programs are still the fastest growing of all sports in the USA. To say that the 1994 WC had no impact is absurd; and if you think that FIFA doesn't see the profitability in hosting another WC in the USA sooner rather than latter, than that is just foolish thinking. I'm not saying the USA should host one every 15 years, but the impact of hosting another one in the next three would do wonders for the continued growth of the sport and bring FIFA millions of dollars because I guarantee you it would put the 1994 Cup (already the best the World has seen) to shame.
jordancda no está en línea  
Old March 5th, 2007, 01:15 AM   #1800
KiwiBrit
There's only one United
 
KiwiBrit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the garden city
Posts: 1,743
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by jordancda View Post
...and if you think that FIFA doesn't see the profitability in hosting another WC in the USA sooner rather than latter, than that is just foolish thinking. I'm not saying the USA should host one every 15 years, but the impact of hosting another one in the next three would do wonders for the continued growth of the sport and bring FIFA millions of dollars because I guarantee you it would put the 1994 Cup (already the best the World has seen) to shame.
And there lies the problem. Most people outside the USA think 'uncle Sam' see's football purely as a money making exercise. When to footballing purists (like me) it is more, so much more. It is about sole and passion and flair. Football is the World's game and should therefore be shared by the World. The USA has staged a WC in the recent past, and should NOT have the opportunity again for the forseeable future.

Who cares if FIFA get's millions of extra dollars (apart from FIFA themselves!) for staging the event in the States again. They would make a hearty profit even if it was staged on the Moon! Exactly what happens to these profits is up to debate. I'm not so sure every last cent of profit is ploughed back into the game anyway?
KiwiBrit 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 07:40 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