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: -
- 0 0%
- 0 0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old July 1st, 2008, 04:16 AM   #181
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
Can't have Wembley, Twickers and Emirates in the same bid.
Derby, Pompey, Southampton and Reading can't go up to 50k with current designs.
I know the 2 stadiums for one city rule. We can have one or the other. Almost 100% sure it would be Emirates.

As far as the other expansions are concerned, where there's a will, there's a way.

I can see the possibilities for Norwich but doubt very much it would be justified post 2018. Bristol has a lot of potential, it's been what, 25yrs+ since City were in Div 1? I think there's a good possibility they could pull big crowds given a decent team.

I doubt we'd see a swathe of new facilities being built. I suspect we'll see 2 at most specifically for the WC. What I expect to see is current facilities extensively upgraded and expanded.
Iain1974 no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old July 1st, 2008, 04:57 AM   #182
masterpaul
(Nilaul)
 
masterpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,713
Likes (Received): 217

How about keeping the olympic stadium for a few extra years and using it to host one of the WC matches?
__________________
masterpaul no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 05:12 AM   #183
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by masterpaul View Post
How about keeping the olympic stadium for a few extra years and using it to host one of the WC matches?
I wondered about that myself. Just to delay the conversion a few years can't be so terrible can it?

I think the problem would be that we'd have 11 football stadiums plus on with spectators 15M from the pitch. Good for the extra 20,000 or so who could get into each games vs Emirates however.
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 10:32 AM   #184
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10338

Erm, running track.
RobH no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 01:29 PM   #185
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by masterpaul View Post
How about keeping the olympic stadium for a few extra years and using it to host one of the WC matches?
If the stands are being built as temporary structures, would they still be in suitable condition after 6 years?

Quote:
Originally Posted by theespecialone View Post
would the government be able to fund any proposals without opposition from oppsing clubs?
I'd imagine there would be problems if the government/FA paid for improvements to the property of a club, but if government funding was used to construct a stadium for Bristol, Norwich or Birmingham, to be owned by the government/local councils, and leased to the clubs, so that the club wasn't at a huge advantage is probably wouldn't be that much of a problem.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 01:49 PM   #186
matthemod
Registered User
 
matthemod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Gillingham, Medway
Posts: 766
Likes (Received): 95

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Erm, running track.
Could always lower the pitch? Although that would be at tremendous cost!
__________________
http://pricetown.myminicity.com

My MiniCity!
matthemod no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 03:10 PM   #187
Efflorescence
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 73
Likes (Received): 0

People continue to look over one major factor. By 2018, all major refurbishments when the legislation is passed once Conservatives come to power will see any club being given the option of up to 20% of thier stadium being designated for "safe standing". The majority will take them up on it.

It could increase capacities by an average of 5,000 fans per Championship and lower league club. More so for Premiership teams.
Efflorescence no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 03:21 PM   #188
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Efflorescence View Post
People continue to look over one major factor. By 2018, all major refurbishments when the legislation is passed once Conservatives come to power will see any club being given the option of up to 20% of thier stadium being designated for "safe standing". The majority will take them up on it.

It could increase capacities by an average of 5,000 fans per Championship and lower league club. More so for Premiership teams.
Even if standing room returns, it's a non-starter for World Cup games.
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 04:36 PM   #189
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

The Conservative Party, thankfully, have no control over FIFA or UEFA and both of those bodies require all seated stadia.

I'm also not sure with this suggestion that a majority will take them up on it - what good will it do clubs like Bolton, Wigan, Blackburn or Middlesbrough, whom already cannot fill their stadia? Perhaps cheaper tickets may encourage more fans through the gates but that does not necessarily increase revenue. I'd say only larger clubs, who could fit twice as many supporters into standing room as seating room and sell standing tickets for less than half of seated tickets would be interested in transformation.

Indeed, this ignores the cost of transformation - more people in a stadium requires more vomitories and staircases and more egress routes. This cannot be done cheaply in many existing stadia so it's not even worth a club's while to do this in order to remain revenue neutral after the change. Especially in new build stadia, the conversion would prove incredibly difficult.

Finally - there is no sound plans from the Conservatives about the introduction of terracing. Cameron once said something to a question posted on his website that has been totally blown out of proportion by football fans since then - Cameron said that, if he got to power, he would consider a review because it may be possible to have safe standing areas - this is a lot different to what has been suggested on this and other forums in the year and a half since Cameron last mentioned this.

Ironically, there was an early day motion in the house of commons, raised by the Liberal Democrat MP, Mike Hancock. The motion received more support from Labour MPs than Conservative MPs.

matthemod - one of the major problems the Olympic Bid has is that it made a promise to maintain the stadium as athletics venue. Essentially, the track has to stay and this is, apparently, why big clubs like West Ham and Tottenham weren't interested in relocating to the stadium. It's highly improbable that any digging down will take place at the Olympic stadium and as Benjuk says there would also be concerns about potential degradation of the temporary stands at the stadium.

Interestingly - in theory, it may well be possible to use Wembley, Emirates and Twickenham if the logic of Portugal's Euro 2004 bid is followed - Portugal met the minimum requirement of 8 stadia in 8 cities but, ultimately, submitted a bid with 10 stadia in 8 cities. This bid was accepted because, while there were two stadia used in two cities, the minimum requirement was already met. Perhaps it could be possible, should England make the other minimum requirements that three London stadia, as well as the minimum required elsewhere, were presented?

As a matter of interest, and I apologise if this has been posted elsewhere in this thread; this is the 2007 feasibility study carried out into the practicalities of hosting the 2018 World Cup in England:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/...easibility.pdf
__________________
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.
NeilF no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 04:52 PM   #190
Gherkin
actual gherkin
 
Gherkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13,796
Likes (Received): 515

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain1974 View Post
I seem to remember that the original plans for Wembley said it could be reconfigured for 100,000.
It's possible to add more seats behind the goals (above the TV screens and seats at the top of the stadium) but this just means more money being spent on it. It won't happen.
Gherkin no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 04:53 PM   #191
Efflorescence
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 73
Likes (Received): 0

I see you guys are unware of the actual term "safe standing". Its amazing how some here can debate England credentials for its world cup stadia yet know nothing about the changes which are being considered.

Quote:
“There has been a debate going on for some time and my attention has been drawn to new technology in Germany and I said I was opened minded and willing to look at it. I then asked the Football Licensing Authority to give me a report on these grounds, which they could not do because they did not have an up-to-date record, but they have now visited the grounds and so I am now waiting for their reports. In the meantime, supporters' organisations themselves have gone out and visited a number of the grounds and I am in receipt of their report.

We are waiting to hear what the FLA says. I am very conscious that this whole debate has to be handled in a very sensitive way. But I am hoping that because the FLA has been looking at this that we will now get the Premier League to look at it seriously.

We are not talking about going back to the old-style terraces, which were very unsafe and were not stewarded properly. What I am talking about and what supporters are talking about is whether it is possible for what we would call small standing areas that would allow people to stand in safety and would allow people to sit without people standing around them.
Efflorescence no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 04:59 PM   #192
Efflorescence
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 73
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain1974 View Post
Even if standing room returns, it's a non-starter for World Cup games.
I see people talk alot about things they dont really know about on this forum.

i'll explain in my next post.
Efflorescence no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 05:00 PM   #193
Efflorescence
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 73
Likes (Received): 0

umm wierd. post came out before.
Efflorescence no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 05:10 PM   #194
Efflorescence
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 73
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilF View Post
The Conservative Party, thankfully, have no control over FIFA or UEFA and both of those bodies require all seated stadia.
Other post. And NO! they dont. It was the football associations choice implemented by the natioinal goverment.

Quote:
I'm also not sure with this suggestion that a majority will take them up on it - what good will it do clubs like Bolton, Wigan, Blackburn or Middlesbrough, whom already cannot fill their stadia? Perhaps cheaper tickets may encourage more fans through the gates but that does not necessarily increase revenue. I'd say only larger clubs, who could fit twice as many supporters into standing room as seating room and sell standing tickets for less than half of seated tickets would be interested in transformation.
Very wrong. It would bring an aura and a sense of traditonalism back to the game. Something which has been lost, along with many fans. Football was about enjoyment. Now its about money. With so many foreign takeovers and increased TV deals. Ticket sales are down the priority compared to revenue like it was all those years ago.

Quote:
ndeed, this ignores the cost of transformation - more people in a stadium requires more vomitories and staircases and more egress routes. This cannot be done cheaply in many existing stadia so it's not even worth a club's while to do this in order to remain revenue neutral after the change. Especially in new build stadia, the conversion would prove incredibly difficult.
Please research "SAFE STANDING"

Quote:
Finally - there is no sound plans from the Conservatives about the introduction of terracing. Cameron once said something to a question posted on his website that has been totally blown out of proportion by football fans since then - Cameron said that, if he got to power, he would consider a review because it may be possible to have safe standing areas - this is a lot different to what has been suggested on this and other forums in the year and a half since Cameron last mentioned this.
Conservative MP's have always been the voice on this concept. Labour did a review. 80% chance with Cons. to 20% with Labs. LD would pass it straight away.

Efflorescence no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 05:21 PM   #195
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Efflorescence View Post
I see people talk alot about things they dont really know about on this forum.

i'll explain in my next post.
What's your point? Standing is not allowed for World Cup games. Fact.

I'm not saying it would be a bad thing for league games but this thread is about a World Cup bid so standing has no relevance here.
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 05:38 PM   #196
Efflorescence
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 73
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain1974 View Post
What's your point? Standing is not allowed for World Cup games. Fact.
Well I stood at the world cup. May not have been allowed to but I could'nt see them telling thousands of us to perch our bums.

Anyway.

It's still time to support the safe seating campaign and regain our atmospheres.
Efflorescence no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 05:41 PM   #197
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

First of all, let me say that I really don't think the tone of your post is in keeping with the discussions elsewhere in this thread and in this forum.

Now:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Efflorescence View Post
Very wrong. It would bring an aura and a sense of traditonalism back to the game. Something which has been lost, along with many fans. Football was about enjoyment. Now its about money. With so many foreign takeovers and increased TV deals. Ticket sales are down the priority compared to revenue like it was all those years ago.
I don't think tradition has much of a role to play when a football club faces drops in revenue and profits from a potential costly change to terracing. I don't know how I'm 'very wrong' when this post is, in essence, in agreement with my post - a majority of clubs are not likely to take up terracing because it would not guarantee increased revenues, even if it means more people through the gates. Clubs will only take it up if it increases revenues and if the transformation of the ground is cost effective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Efflorescence View Post
Please research "SAFE STANDING"
I know what 'safe standing' is - none of that changes the fact that if you, "could increase capacities by an average of 5,000 fans per Championship and lower league club. More so for Premiership teams," then modifications would need to be made to stadia, both inside and outside, in order to cope with the extra 5,000+ fans, regardless of where they are located within the stadium - 5,000 extra fans means that 5,000 more fans have to enter and leave the stadium safely, it means that all the other health and safety issues that go along with 5,000 extra fans have to be in place. Your apparent suggestion that there would be little conversion required because of the design of safe standing areas is absurd.
__________________
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.

Last edited by NeilF; July 1st, 2008 at 05:52 PM.
NeilF no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 05:55 PM   #198
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

Thanks for the link to the govt. document.

It was interesting that the German government spent an average of 50M pounds per venue.

If our glorious leaders could match that then I would like to see a scheme where, for example, the clubs could apply for perhaps 50% of the cost of an expansion project should it meet predetermined capacity. Up to the 50M

For example, if Sunderland got a quote of 70M for bringing the SOL to a full 64,000 they might expect to get 35M in a grant. Suddenly the average 60,000 that I've proposed seems feasible. Even the 'potential' 100M expansion of OT to 95,000 seems possible.

I recognize that the government has made no such proposal nor made such any offers. But Big Gordon seems to like public+private partnerships.

If the govt. is paying for half an expansion they might even be able to demand that a certain % of seats be priced reasonably for a set number of seasons after the WC unless the club want's to repay the grant.

It should work out a LOT cheaper than the Olympics.
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 10:13 PM   #199
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,240
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain1974 View Post
To get to a 60K average, which I believe is a reasonable target, in 2018;

The FA need to demand

1) First round venues capacity be a minimum 50,000.
2) Second round venues minimum 60,000.
3) QTR final venues a minimum of 70,000.
4) Semis/Final a minimum of 80,000.

Requirements

2 - 80,000+
2 - 70,000+
4 - 60,000+
4 - 50,000+

Total of 12 stadiums
Lets be more specific;

Semis/Final - Wembley (90K) and Old Trafford (85K)
QTR's - W+OT+Stanley Park(73K) + Twickers(82)? or AN Other
2nd Round - QTRS+St James/Emerites/St. Light/New Brum?
1st Round - 2nd Rnd + 4 from Derby/Nottingham/Southampton/Madjeski/Pompey/one from Yorkshire

Now, remember that I'm not being paid millions to think this up, but is this so unreasonable?

Apart from the new builds, all the stadiums I've mentioned are within reasonable grasp of the capacities I've suggested.

Not sure what the spread of games would be but surely this outline will take us past 60K.
Is that taking into account that the larger stadiums will host more games? Wembley, Old Trafford and New Anfield would almost certainly have 6 games, possible even seven while smaller stadiums would have only 4/5.

Tied into that I think the bid should be focusing less on average capacity and more on correct capacity for each game. To expect minor group games to sellout 70,000+ like they did in 94 maybe a mistake(unless prices drop) as were dealing with a smaller host population and more matchs much closer together.

Personally I think the German's made a mistake in there even allocation of matchs with teams moving around and every stadium getting 2 seeds in the groups. Yes it was "fair" but it resulted in the capacity often not reflecting the demand for tickets and generally left the event feeling a little souless for me. A better route to take would IMHO to have the seeds play all ther games in big stadiums(that everyone in the country can reach pretty easily) and give the smaller nations a "home" venue where they play 2 out of there 3 matchs. A team like Togo just flitting around really isnt going to draw much interest where as if you say based there training and matchs in Leeds I think you'd see the locals get behind them far more.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 10:50 PM   #200
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,883
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrLess View Post
Personally I think the German's made a mistake in there even allocation of matchs with teams moving around and every stadium getting 2 seeds in the groups. Yes it was "fair" but it resulted in the capacity often not reflecting the demand for tickets and generally left the event feeling a little souless for me. A better route to take would IMHO to have the seeds play all ther games in big stadiums(that everyone in the country can reach pretty easily) and give the smaller nations a "home" venue where they play 2 out of there 3 matchs. A team like Togo just flitting around really isnt going to draw much interest where as if you say based there training and matchs in Leeds I think you'd see the locals get behind them far more.
You sell out Wembley even if Burkina Faso plays North Korea. You don't have to worry about selling tickets. Capacity will in no way reflect the demand for tickets.

Back to the 2006 World Cup. Fixtures have been arranged to allow Germany to play in the three biggest venues only. Brazil had to play in a smaller venue just once. Any more preference for bigger nations (whoever they may be) wouldn't have made sense. The World Cup finals are hosted by the whole nation and not just by two or four cities.

Forget about setting a new attendance record. Leave that to the yanks. They don't understand what football is actually about. It is much more important to make that summer memorable. And public screens all around the country distributes a lot more to the atmosphere than a few more seats in the ground.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Tags
world cup 2018

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 01:19 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