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 24th, 2007, 03:52 PM   #1941
Vermeer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 124
Likes (Received): 0

Forget Australia

Give the World Cup to a country where football means anything. Of course itís a nice idea to spread the sport around the globe, but it does not work. USA was a nice experiment, but did it do any good for the sport? They brought money to FIFA, but football already has more than enough money. The US creates a professional league now and then, but it will most likely never become a success. The same happened in Japan. Football has to start on the ground. To start on the top with a professional league and hope that it would grow from the bottom, has never worked.

Australia has no football tradition. The have an artificial professional league where the best teams maybe could compete in the top league in Luxemburg. OK, they had a national team that made it to the world cup and had a few good results, but the team and the players did not impress anybody outside Australia. The name of these players indicated that their football traditions came from all other countries than Australia.

I do not write this to criticise Australian football, but to defend this fantastic sport. I donít even write it to support a Dutch/Belgian bid, because I find it far too expensive.

World Cup should only be hosted by countries where football is the #1 sport, which it is in all European and South-American countries. In Australia I doubt football is on the top five lists.

A World Cup is supposed to be an event there the best team plays for the most interested audience. Not a competition to support recruitment or an event for people that loves big gatherings.

If I would had to support a Dutch bid, I would have used the fact that no country except of Brazil have produced as many top world class players as the Netherlands, the last 30 years. USA, China and Australia have so far not produced one world class player.

All countries where football is a small sport should accept that it would maybe take 50 years to build a football tradition and they should accept to wait that long before they ask for the main football event.

Only a few countries should be allowed to host the World Cup. For me that would be England, France, Spain, Italy, Russia, Germany, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. They have the interest, the population and most of them the economy. The rest of us have to accept that we comes from small countries where it becomes too expensive or countries without any real football interest where it would be a waste of money.
Vermeer no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old May 24th, 2007, 06:16 PM   #1942
Joop20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 4



Ugh...seems like you've got some catching up to do! Football may well be the 2nd most popular sport in Australia in a decade, after Aussie rules. Australia is building on its football tradition, like many other countries. You probably dont know anything about the Luxemburg league, but even less about the Australian A-League. May I give you some attendence figures from the 2006/2007 season:

Highest attendances
55,436: Melbourne Victory vs
Adelaide United, 18 February 2007 (Grand Final)

50,333: Melbourne Victory vs
Sydney FC, 8 December 2006 (Round 16)

47,413: Melbourne Victory vs
Adelaide United, 4 February 2007 (Finals Week 2)

39,730: Melbourne Victory vs
Sydney FC, 2 September 2006 (Round 2)

32,371: Queensland Roar vs
Sydney FC, 20 January 2007 (Round 21)

Better than your average luxemburg attendence I think, more then some Ajax or Feyenoord games even! And Australia got some world class stadiums, and there are some serious plans for new ones. And what about the names of the players from the Australia national team? Australia is an immigrant country, whats wrong with that. In Holland, surinam, morrocan etc players make it to the national team!

Saying that the WC should only be organized in a couple of big countries where it is the no1 sport is bullsh*t, as is your critisism on Australia. How are you ever gonna spread the game that way? And what about the economic side of it, you're saying a WC should never be organized in North America, Africa, Asia or Australia!
Joop20 no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2007, 06:27 PM   #1943
Gherkin
actual gherkin
 
Gherkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13,796
Likes (Received): 515

Wow! Impressive stuff. I suppose Australia's success the World Cup contributed to those higher attendances?
Gherkin no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2007, 06:32 PM   #1944
KoolKeatz
█████████
 
KoolKeatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Berlin
Posts: 979
Likes (Received): 102

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermeer View Post
World Cup should only be hosted by countries where football is the #1 sport, which it is in all European and South-American countries.
Exactly! Remember the US World Cup. No atmosphere and only stupid AmericanFootball-Fans in the stadiums. The only good thing was the big stadiums but uve seen that stadiums arent that improtant for a good world cup.
KoolKeatz no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2007, 07:24 PM   #1945
skaP187
Registered User
 
skaP187's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alicante
Posts: 2,207
Likes (Received): 503

To be hounest I think the WC in the USA was a very good tournament!
Great stadiums and good organisation.
__________________
Truth is like poetry.
And most people hate ******* poetry.
skaP187 está en línea ahora  
Old May 24th, 2007, 07:25 PM   #1946
Sparks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne / Bournemouth, UK
Posts: 1,148
Likes (Received): 153

No World Cup's should ever include Diana Ross.
__________________
"The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter." Sir Winston Churchill
Sparks no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2007, 08:00 PM   #1947
Benn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,729
Likes (Received): 167

Quote:
Originally Posted by KoolKeatz View Post
Exactly! Remember the US World Cup. No atmosphere and only stupid AmericanFootball-Fans in the stadiums. The only good thing was the big stadiums but uve seen that stadiums arent that improtant for a good world cup.
First off, give some of us Americans a little more credit as fans. I know during the '94 worldcup football was at a low point here, but things are certainly heading in the right direction. Yes I love American football as well, but I am certainly trying to every Premiership or Euro game that is on (not much from other leagues is on over here though).
Secondly having something like 21 stadiums that are to a 5 star standard right now (with more on the way), and NONE WITH ATHLETICS TRACKS counts for something. Germany put a absolutely fantastic cup, but games at Stuttgart (beautiful stadium though) and Nurnberg seemed be lacking, especially compared to the stadiums without tracks. I am not saying that the passion of everbody in town here is going to come close to Germany because it won't, however most of the local bars & pubs would be decked out for the cup atleast in my hometown. A good number did for the 2006 cup and that was an ocean away. And just try telling me that even a first round match at Reliant in Houston wouldn't have great atmosphere much less a final with 90,000 on hand in Washington? For the game itself where it's staged won't matter, ecitement will still be there. Plenty of fans from Europe, South America ect. will still make the trip to see the World Cup be it in the South Africa, Australia or the U.S.
Benn no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2007, 11:00 PM   #1948
Chimaera
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bruges
Posts: 2,707
Likes (Received): 172

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juddy View Post
No i wasnt having a go at Holland's on field performance (it speaks for itself really) nor was i having a go at Belgiums rich off-field history.

But what i was really amped about is the amount of 'free tickets' to the World's biggest sporting tournement and especially a celebration of 'the best of the best' of the beutiful game. China, South Africa, Belgium... Seriously cmon? Il hate to be that country that misses out because they had a ridiculous qualifying period.
Not an attack, but just something I'd like to say:

Who am I to deny any country the organization of a World Cup? Although, emotionally, I also prefer countries with football tradition. I think Australia has that in some aspect... I recently discovered that some of the oldest clubs in the world outside the UK are/were to be located in Australia (most probably because of the link with the UK). OK that England deserves a second WC. But why would Australia deserve it more than B+NL?

Some things are to be said about a Belgian organisation for sure. Only a few clubs might be able to fill a stadium with 40,000 places. But that is only a national argument, look at what happened with much of the Greek Olympic infrastructure, Portugese stadiums, Korean stadiums...

And finally, as a reaction to your focus on Belgium's off-field history only: yes, the Belgian national team has a hard time qualifying for tournaments since 2002 (but between 1982 and 2002 they qualified 6 times in a row, one of the few countries to realize that; Belgium also played the final of Euro'80, and the semis in Mexico'86), and the last big performance of a Belgian club in European competitions also dates back to the early 21st century (Anderlecht playing in the second group phase of the CL), not to mention some individual victories (Bruges-Galatasaray, Bruges-Dortmund, Bruges-Ajax, Milan-Bruges...). In the 1970's, 1980's and early 1990's Belgian teams were capable of progressing far in European cups: Anderlecht (3 cups, 2 supercups), Bruges (2 finals), Antwerp (1 final), Standard (1 final), Mechelen (1 cup, 1 supercup). The Netherlands have a far better score though, I can admit that.
__________________
My websites:
Belstadions Belgian stadiums and arenas
Arch4MC Sketchup designs
Chimaera no está en línea  
Old May 25th, 2007, 01:00 AM   #1949
[email protected]
Global Citizen
 
R@ptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Frankfurt
Posts: 4,295
Likes (Received): 6366

2002: Asia (Japan/South Korea)
2006: Europe (Germany)
2010: Africa (South Africa)
2014: America (Brazil)
2018: Asia's turn again

...so either China or Australia.
R@ptor no está en línea  
Old May 25th, 2007, 02:20 AM   #1950
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
2002: Asia (Japan/South Korea)
2006: Europe (Germany)
2010: Africa (South Africa)
2014: America (Brazil)
2018: Asia's turn again

...so either China or Australia.
Depends what mood Blatter is in (this week) - sometimes he says 'the rotation will continue' (in which case, most likely China or Australia for 2018), but if he's in his placating UEFA mood, it'll be England or Spain, with the rotation coming back in 2022 (Asia), 2026 (Americas), etc.

Personally, I can't see it being out of Europe for more than 2 tournaments in a row.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old May 25th, 2007, 02:35 AM   #1951
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermeer View Post
Give the World Cup to a country where football means anything.
We're working on building the game here. The Straylian appearance in Germany raised the profile of the game to the point that crowds of 50k have turned up for Melbourne games - I've no doubt the same would have happened in Sydney had they dominated the league (because the Aussies do love a winner!). Hosting a Finals tournament would put the game over the top, which would destroy AFL (please).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermeer View Post
Football has to start on the ground. To start on the top with a professional league and hope that it would grow from the bottom, has never worked.

Australia has no football tradition. The have an artificial professional league where the best teams maybe could compete in the top league in Luxemburg.
Every Saturday I go watch a team that has just celebrated it's 50th anniversary. Tradition enough? They play in the 3rd division of the Victorian State League - does this indicate enough depth in the league structure?

After being semi-professional in England, I played for a couple of seasons after arriving over here - in a side 2 divisions BENEATH the 3rd division of the Victorian league. Enough depth now?

As for the A-League's comparitive skills... After watching a number of matches last season, and noting the players playing here, I'd say that the better teams could play in the CCC in England, definately the SPL. They wouldn't win it - but they could compete.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermeer View Post
OK, they had a national team that made it to the world cup and had a few good results, but the team and the players did not impress anybody outside Australia. The name of these players indicated that their football traditions came from all other countries than Australia.
The same can be said of the Aussie cricket and rugby teams - does that make them any less valid?

The only truly Aussie footy code is AFL, and the 'Aussie' names that dominate the sport? Well, they all sound English, Scottish, Greek, Italian, etc., to me - rather than indiginous.

I understand where you're coming from in all your other points, and I know your not bagging Australia (as a Pom living down here, bagging the Aussies is something I enjoy).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermeer View Post
Only a few countries should be allowed to host the World Cup. For me that would be England, France, Spain, Italy, Russia, Germany, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. They have the interest, the population and most of them the economy. The rest of us have to accept that we comes from small countries where it becomes too expensive or countries without any real football interest where it would be a waste of money.
Why accept it? Would South Africa have been on your list of 'acceptable' hosts 5 or 6 years ago, or would you have been scornful of an African nation hosting a finals? They'll do a good job. As much I doubt it will happen - I know the Aussies would do an amazing job if they got the chance.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old June 21st, 2007, 04:28 PM   #1952
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

These are the football grounds and cities I would hope to get picked for a potential England 2018 World Cup. I have chosen them to give a wider geographical spread of England. They have their potential capacity and the rounds they would be used for. Only 1 city can have 2 stadiums, and its an English bid hence why Millennium Stadium, Hapeden Park etc are not on the list.

LONDON:
Wembley Stadium, 90,000. Group stages, Quarter Final, Final.

Emirates Stadium, 60,432. Group Stages, Round of 16, Semi Final.


SOUTHERN ENGLAND:
Bristol, New Stadium for Bristol City 40,000. Group stages, Round of 16.

Portsmouth, New Stadium 40,000. To be built by 2009 hopefully add 4,000 extra seats to meet minimum capacity. Group stages, Round of 16.


MIDLANDS:
Birmingham, Villa Park 51,000. To be expanded by 2012. Group stages, Round of 16, 3rd/4th place match.

Nottingham, New Nottingham Forest Stadium 50,000. To be built by 2014. Group stages, Round of 16.


EAST ANGLIA:
Norwich, New Stadium for Norwich City 40,000. Group Stages, Round of 16.


YORKSHIRE:
Sheffield, Re-developed Hillsborough 45,000. Group Stages, Round of 16.

Leeds, New Stadium for Leeds United 50,000. Plans have been announced in past for new stadium but Leeds would have to get back to Premiership. Group Stages, Quarter Final.

NORTH WEST:
Manchester, Old Trafford 96,000. There have been plans to expand to this capacity in the future but it would be hard. Group stages, Round of 16, Semi Final.

Liverpool, Stanley Park 78,000. To be built by 2009 can be expanded from the initial 68,000 capacity. Group Stages, Quarter Final.

NORTH EAST:
Newcastle, St James Park 60,000+ to be redeveloped in the near future. Group stages, Quarter Final.
Kobo no está en línea  
Old June 22nd, 2007, 12:54 AM   #1953
BeestonLad
PQS
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 3,219
Likes (Received): 551

Not bad although get rid of norwich and limit yorkshire to one, 10 stadiums should do us! would be rather strange having the final at wembley if old trafford had been increased to 96k! Although obviously it would still have to be Wembley!
BeestonLad no está en línea  
Old June 22nd, 2007, 01:30 AM   #1954
DennisRodman
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston Texas
Posts: 503
Likes (Received): 0

USA 2018.......
DennisRodman no está en línea  
Old June 22nd, 2007, 01:36 AM   #1955
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 DennisRodman View Post
USA 2018.......
oh please no, there are so many other sports, why does football have to be americanised aswell?

ENGLAND 2018!
__________________
I T S Y
Its AlL gUUd no está en línea  
Old June 22nd, 2007, 02:22 AM   #1956
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeestonLad View Post
Not bad although get rid of norwich and limit yorkshire to one, 10 stadiums should do us! would be rather strange having the final at wembley if old trafford had been increased to 96k! Although obviously it would still have to be Wembley!
Hi BeestonLad, yeah I have selected 12 so to give the most geographical spread over England, hence why a venue is in Norwich. I see this potential 2018 World Cup as a massive global touirst promotion for our island.

With Norwich, it has good tranportation links with an International Airport and trains to London in under 2 hours. Its in an area of outstanding natural beauty with the Norfolk broads, and is the most complete medieval city in Britain. So already has hotels to cope with the tourists. It would also be able to promote Cambridge which is near by with its colleges and famous punting. Norwich City are one of those sides that do make appearences in the premiership for a season or 2, so I would have thought they would have a large fan base for a 40,000 ground.

Yes it would be odd if Old Trafford had a larger capacity to Wembley, but everyone would want an English World Cup final to be played at Wembley. However maybe Old Trafford could be used as the opening match venue.
Kobo no está en línea  
Old June 22nd, 2007, 02:49 AM   #1957
Aceventura
Registered User
 
Aceventura's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Miami
Posts: 1,899
Likes (Received): 2046

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparks View Post
No World Cup's should ever include Diana Ross.
Germany had Shakira and Wyclef, a Columbian and a Hatian. That IS Miami!
Aceventura no está en línea  
Old June 22nd, 2007, 06:40 AM   #1958
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobo View Post
Hi BeestonLad, yeah I have selected 12 so to give the most geographical spread over England, hence why a venue is in Norwich. I see this potential 2018 World Cup as a massive global touirst promotion for our island.

With Norwich, it has good tranportation links with an International Airport and trains to London in under 2 hours. Its in an area of outstanding natural beauty with the Norfolk broads, and is the most complete medieval city in Britain. So already has hotels to cope with the tourists. It would also be able to promote Cambridge which is near by with its colleges and famous punting. Norwich City are one of those sides that do make appearences in the premiership for a season or 2, so I would have thought they would have a large fan base for a 40,000 ground.

Yes it would be odd if Old Trafford had a larger capacity to Wembley, but everyone would want an English World Cup final to be played at Wembley. However maybe Old Trafford could be used as the opening match venue.
Agreed on Norwich. I thought it was staggering that all the post 'Government back 2018 bid' analysis failed to include the East Anglia area despite banging on about the need for a venue in the South West. Why one and not the other?

I will, once again, query the inclusion of St James Park (at 60k). By the time they have 60k seats shoe-horned in the ground, Sunderland (only 10 miles away) could have 64k in their ground (which was designed specifically for such an extension). What's more, both of these grounds are likely to be developed by the clubs themselves due to supporter demand. Is there such demand in Bristol or Sheffield, even Norwich, and taking into account Leeds recent bankruptcy, their League One status and the fact that they already have a near 40k capacity (any money they make will have to be used on keeping them in the Prem should they get their) - I find it hard to imagine them splashing out on a new ground early enough to help out a 2018 bid.

I get the feeling that there is going to be a line of clubs (both Sheffield sides, Leeds, Preston/Blackpool, Southampton/Portsmouth/Bristol City, Derby, Nott'm Forest, Wolves, etc.) trying to get extra cash out of the government/FA to bring their facilities up to scratch - I'd like to see the clubs that have got their own sh*t together being 'rewarded'.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old June 22nd, 2007, 02:11 PM   #1959
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
Agreed on Norwich. I thought it was staggering that all the post 'Government back 2018 bid' analysis failed to include the East Anglia area despite banging on about the need for a venue in the South West. Why one and not the other?

I will, once again, query the inclusion of St James Park (at 60k). By the time they have 60k seats shoe-horned in the ground, Sunderland (only 10 miles away) could have 64k in their ground (which was designed specifically for such an extension). What's more, both of these grounds are likely to be developed by the clubs themselves due to supporter demand. Is there such demand in Bristol or Sheffield, even Norwich, and taking into account Leeds recent bankruptcy, their League One status and the fact that they already have a near 40k capacity (any money they make will have to be used on keeping them in the Prem should they get their) - I find it hard to imagine them splashing out on a new ground early enough to help out a 2018 bid.

I get the feeling that there is going to be a line of clubs (both Sheffield sides, Leeds, Preston/Blackpool, Southampton/Portsmouth/Bristol City, Derby, Nott'm Forest, Wolves, etc.) trying to get extra cash out of the government/FA to bring their facilities up to scratch - I'd like to see the clubs that have got their own sh*t together being 'rewarded'.

I personally feel that the FA / Government shall choose both Newcastle and Sunderland for the 2018 bid, due to the sizes of their stadiums.

However I would have thought Newcastle to be able to offer more interms of infrastructure and tourism for fans. Newcastle has an international airport, metro system linking the airport with all of Newcastle, Gateshead, the coast and St James Park. Newcastle has fantastic cultural attractions such as the Baltic Centre (one of largest contemporary art centres in europe). The Angel of the North and recently regenerated Grainger town, a distrct in the heart of Newcastle, which blends Victorian & Georgian architecture with modern cafe culture. It also has Europes largest shopping complex in the Metro Centre. Plus a fantastic nightlife which I am sure all the football fans would appreciate.

With regards to the stadiums Newcastle have anounced that they shall expand St James to 60,000+ in the near future. Sunderlands at the moment is 48,707 with the North & West stands being developed more recently. Sunderlands next expansion would be the South stand taking it to 55,000, then the East stand with then a capacity of 64,000.

Here are comparisons between Sunderlands Stadium of light and Newcastles St James Park.

St James Park currently 52,387:



Possible St James Park after future expansion 60,000+ :



Stadium of Light currently 48,707:





Bristol would have to be chosen its Englands 6th largest city and has the infrastructure to cope with such an event. Bristol City have a wealthy chairman who wishes them to become the football giant of the South West. They also occasionally share their stadium with Bristol Rugby Club for local fixtures. City have the fan base to fill my proposed stadium capacity providing they start to achieve more. With Bristol's South West location it would promote its own attractions, along with neighbouring places: Bath (A world heritage city), Stonehenge, Glastonbury (Glastonbury festival would be taking place along side World Cup in June) and the coasts of Devon and Cornwall just down the M5.

Leeds and Sheffield are the 4th & 5th largest cities in England and both have large football communities. They both currently have large stadiums but these would need to be refurbished or new ones built. I would have thought both the clubs and the government would pay for such schemes, as it is happening to the football stadiums being used for the 2012 Olympics.
Kobo no está en línea  
Old June 22nd, 2007, 02:42 PM   #1960
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparks View Post
No World Cup's should ever include Diana Ross.
I strongly agree with you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXjCKwBtG0I
Kobo 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 10:42 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