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 January 10th, 2009, 02:39 AM   #241
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

the decision of where the venues will be is FIFAs not ours!
bigbossman no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old January 10th, 2009, 02:48 AM   #242
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

the way it will likely be... 12 stadiums,
5 group stages, last 16
3 group stages, quarter final
2 group stages, last 16, semi
1 group stages, last 16, 3rd/4th playoff
1 group stages, quarter final, Final

The way i would have it, 16 stadiums, each hosting 3, 4 or 5 games

8 group stages only
5 group stages and last 16
3 group stages and quarter finals
2 group stages, last 16 and semis
1 group stages, last 16 and 3rd/4th playoff
1 group stages, quarter final and final

or

8 group stages and last 16
4 group stages and quarter final
2 group stages and semi
1 group stages and 3rd
1 group stages and final

16 stadiums would mean we could bring the tournament to everywhere and it would still be less than south korea/ japan. and it would be similar amounts to the euros which have 8-10 stadiums for a 16 team tournament and similar structure (usually)
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old January 10th, 2009, 08:12 AM   #243
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 188

Sorry I didnt know where to ask this question (couldnt find a wembley thread).
How many times a year is Wembley used for events? What kind?
woozoo no está en línea  
Old January 10th, 2009, 12:29 PM   #244
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,883
Likes (Received): 296

The World Cup finals won't be spread over 16 grounds. That's for sure. 10 or 12 grounds, not more.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  
Old January 10th, 2009, 04:44 PM   #245
plasticterminator
Registered User
 
plasticterminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 467
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by woozoo View Post
Sorry I didnt know where to ask this question (couldnt find a wembley thread).
How many times a year is Wembley used for events? What kind?
Around 30 first class events and about 20 corporate type events, so basically once a week. The stadium has a limit for public spectator events obviously in accordance with the council and local residents.

The 2009 events can be downloaded from the wembley national stadium site as a pdf.
plasticterminator no está en línea  
Old January 10th, 2009, 06:41 PM   #246
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 Paul the Gunner View Post
Probably you're thinking of Wembley as the host of all England matches, lets say...fair enough! Even though again, totally not fair for others...in this case England would play all 3 group games at home and ONLY in case it wins its group it will play the R16, QF, SF on Wembley so in case someone sends them 2nd or even eliminates them from the group stage, the winner has the chance of playing all it's games on Wembley!?!? How would it be Argentina, France or Germany?
I really doubt England will play all there Matches at Wembley. Euro 96 was different due to the smaller stadia we had and Wembley was the only stadium that was able to cope with the large amounts of fans that had to be accomidated for England matches.
__________________
I T S Y
Its AlL gUUd no está en línea  
Old January 10th, 2009, 07:06 PM   #247
plasticterminator
Registered User
 
plasticterminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 467
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Its AlL gUUd View Post
I really doubt England will play all there Matches at Wembley. Euro 96 was different due to the smaller stadia we had and Wembley was the only stadium that was able to cope with the large amounts of fans that had to be accomadated for England matches.
You are entitled to your opinion but as stated its going to be the fa decision and the pressure to use wembley will be massive. The other contributor would be the players and coach whoever they are in a few years when a definitive decision is made and again as a player and a coach staying in one place in a tournament is an advantage.

Again we see posters saying about the fans but a decision is not going to be made because another stadium has a capacity very close to wembley, 10,000 is neither here nor there when deciding this issue as explained. Lets face it Engalnd in a semi final in a world cup in England could fill a stadium with a capacity of 5 million right?
plasticterminator no está en línea  
Old January 10th, 2009, 09:35 PM   #248
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
The World Cup finals won't be spread over 16 grounds. That's for sure. 10 or 12 grounds, not more.
1. japan/korea was spread over 20 grounds... for 64 games
2. Euro 2004 had 10 grounds for 31 games

therefore as there are 64 games in the world cup for 16 stadiums it is a ratio of 1:4 less than japan/korea, there are 31 games at the euros 10 stadiums a ratio of more than 1:4, also less than euro 2004, both moderately succesful tournaments!

it's logic imho, we have a vast amount of cities and this will allow everyone a piece of the pie

but as i said in my post, it will likely be 12 stadiums, i am just saying 16 would be better!
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old January 10th, 2009, 10:24 PM   #249
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,883
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
1. japan/korea was spread over 20 grounds... for 64 games
2. Euro 2004 had 10 grounds for 31 games

therefore as there are 64 games in the world cup for 16 stadiums it is a ratio of 1:4 less than japan/korea, there are 31 games at the euros 10 stadiums a ratio of more than 1:4, also less than euro 2004, both moderately succesful tournaments!

it's logic imho, we have a vast amount of cities and this will allow everyone a piece of the pie

but as i said in my post, it will likely be 12 stadiums, i am just saying 16 would be better!
Japorea were two bids with 10 grounds each. After forcing both countries to host it jointly FIFA couldn't insist on a reasonable number of venues.

The number of grounds in Portugal was out of proportion either. This because of the local politics. They conceded every town in the country to be part of the party.

England, however, will stage this World Cup alone. Furthermore are English taxpayers much more sensible regarding to public investments in stadium infrastructure. The British public has no sympathy for white elephants beyond the minimum number of stadiums. Neither has the FIFA who turned down pleas by the organising committee of Germany 2006 for a greater number of host cities. It's 12 and not more.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  
Old January 10th, 2009, 10:54 PM   #250
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
Japorea were two bids with 10 grounds each. After forcing both countries to host it jointly FIFA couldn't insist on a reasonable number of venues.

The number of grounds in Portugal was out of proportion either. This because of the local politics. They conceded every town in the country to be part of the party.

England, however, will stage this World Cup alone. Furthermore are English taxpayers much more sensible regarding to public investments in stadium infrastructure. The British public has no sympathy for white elephants beyond the minimum number of stadiums. Neither has the FIFA who turned down pleas by the organising committee of Germany 2006 for a greater number of host cities. It's 12 and not more.
i'm not saying it will happen, i'm saying it would be logical, based on the fact there have been precidents set and that it's the same logic as 8 stadiums hosting a 16 team tournament, which is how the euros ran at every 16 tournament except EUro 2004...

there wouldn't be white elephants in these country most cities could sustain a 40,000 seater with premiership football (with the right pricing), i include the likes of Brighton in this aswell...

As i have repeatedly said we don't get to decide the host cities, FIFA chooses where the host cities will be based on equal geographical distibution...
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old January 10th, 2009, 11:34 PM   #251
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

This is what I think could be England's worst possible bid. I have taken into consideration minimal expansions and new stadiums, and also bad geographic spread:

London:
Wembley Stadium 90,000
Emirates Stadium 60,355

Manchester:
Old Trafford 76,212

Liverpool:
New Anfield 60,000

Newcastle:
St James Park 52,387

Birmingham:
Villa Park: 43,000

Sunderland:
Stadium of Light 49,000

Middlesbrough:
Riverside Stadium 42,000

Leeds:
Elland Road 40,000

Sheffield:
Bramall Lane 40,000

Derby:
Pride Park 42,000

Nottingham:
New Stadium 40,000


What does everyone think, could it be worse?

Last edited by Kobo; January 10th, 2009 at 11:45 PM.
Kobo no está en línea  
Old January 11th, 2009, 08:15 AM   #252
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,240
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by plasticterminator View Post
You are entitled to your opinion but as stated its going to be the fa decision and the pressure to use wembley will be massive. The other contributor would be the players and coach whoever they are in a few years when a definitive decision is made and again as a player and a coach staying in one place in a tournament is an advantage.

Again we see posters saying about the fans but a decision is not going to be made because another stadium has a capacity very close to wembley, 10,000 is neither here nor there when deciding this issue as explained. Lets face it Engalnd in a semi final in a world cup in England could fill a stadium with a capacity of 5 million right?
Would be interesting to see what happens since obviously the FA have much more of a stake in Wembley. I suspect we'd see Wembley host the opening game, 2 england games and 1 match involving the previous champions(espeically if they were Brazil) with Old Trafford or New Anfield getting the other England game for PR sake.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old January 11th, 2009, 10:30 AM   #253
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by plasticterminator View Post
Around 30 first class events and about 20 corporate type events, so basically once a week. The stadium has a limit for public spectator events obviously in accordance with the council and local residents.

The 2009 events can be downloaded from the wembley national stadium site as a pdf.
Thanks

Thats much more than I was expecting.
woozoo no está en línea  
Old January 11th, 2009, 01:20 PM   #254
Steel City Suburb
Registered User
 
Steel City Suburb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,711
Likes (Received): 230

Kobo: Bramall lane, 40,000?

Not yet, its only 32,000 at the moment, if you want minimum expansion then its Hillsborough - only needs TLC.
__________________
Discover Sheffield
Steel City Suburb no está en línea  
Old January 13th, 2009, 03:36 PM   #255
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Hillsborough needs relatively little work to bring it up to minimum standards - but it wouldn't be pretty - not a great look for FIFA, the FA, etc.

Bramall Lane on the other hand, has been modernised over recent years, has a fantastic new hotel opening up on site, and already has plans (dependant on promotion and the world cup) to go over 40k. The fact that the Lane is the oldest major stadium in the world to have been continuously used for league football would be an attractive element from a historical point of view.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old January 13th, 2009, 05:40 PM   #256
Steel City Suburb
Registered User
 
Steel City Suburb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,711
Likes (Received): 230

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
Hillsborough needs relatively little work to bring it up to minimum standards - but it wouldn't be pretty - not a great look for FIFA, the FA, etc.

Bramall Lane on the other hand, has been modernised over recent years, has a fantastic new hotel opening up on site, and already has plans (dependant on promotion and the world cup) to go over 40k. The fact that the Lane is the oldest major stadium in the world to have been continuously used for league football would be an attractive element from a historical point of view.
Makes a tiny bit of sense until you see that the occupiers of Bramall lane (SUFC) are looking less and less likely for promotion and expansion. The new hotel at BL is ok, but would it really sway FIFA?

Hillsborough isn't pretty, its an old fashioned english ground - maybe that might help it get some games too. Over Bramall lane, even though it is 'older'.

The oldest stadium in the world? Its not really, its been knocked down and redone that many times since it opened its not really old, plus the new modern facilities are over rated.
__________________
Discover Sheffield
Steel City Suburb no está en línea  
Old January 13th, 2009, 07:48 PM   #257
PaulFCB
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,747
Likes (Received): 262

A hotel right next to the stadium might help, especially that I have no idea how Sheffield is and might be a advantage...but anyway both look good.
Hillsborough isn't pretty but its still a english ground which is extraordinary for the view it offer from the stands, same for Bramall Lane i guess.
PaulFCB no está en línea  
Old January 14th, 2009, 04:18 PM   #258
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steel City Suburb View Post
Makes a tiny bit of sense until you see that the occupiers of Bramall lane (SUFC) are looking less and less likely for promotion and expansion.
Currently sitting 4th in the CCC in a play-off spot, unbeaten in 6 league games, should be getting some big money from West Ham one day (not that anyone should hold their breath) which would enable them to outspend just about anyone in the CCC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steel City Suburb View Post
The new hotel at BL is ok, but would it really sway FIFA?
Can't hurt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steel City Suburb View Post
The oldest stadium in the world? Its not really, its been knocked down and redone that many times since it opened its not really old, plus the new modern facilities are over rated.
Location, location. Wembley isn't really Wembley, but the name and location carries the history. Bramall Lane may not be as famous - but it still carries the history.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old January 15th, 2009, 05:42 AM   #259
raynsity
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 135
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by plasticterminator View Post
The simple fact is if England win the bid it will be down to the league status of the respective clubs at the time of development plans becoming concrete. Since the award of the finals is within 2 years the status of the contenders can only be as follows under normal circumstances and within the realms of reality.

1 CONFIRMED
Wembley- Final, SF-QF Group games
-no change here as wembley development status does not rely on a clubs position and its already a new build with 90,000 capacity and 1966 and all that this will host the final unless a ufo lands and destroys it. It gets the nod for a semi also because i think the fa will want to set up the draw so England can play all their games at wembley similar to euro 96 which did work quite well. I could be wrong and if i am then the 2 semis would be old trafford and new anfield.

2 CONFIRMED
Old Trafford- SF-QF Group games
-Man utd are still going to be one of the top three clubs in England for the next 10 years and ot will probably be expanded by about another 5000 taking it past the 80,000 mark. With its history, location etc etc this will without doubt be the number 2 venue for the tournament.

3 CONFIRMED
Arsenal-Group games
-Arsenal are unlikely to be anywhere other than where they are now in 2 years time and so with there stability excellent venue and capacity this will be Londons second venue and a group stage venue. It will miss out on qf status due to being in London.

4 CONFIRMED
Villa Park-QF-Group games
-this is where it gets interesting! For sure the midlands are going to have a venue and Englands second largest city is not going to miss out on a major slice of the world cup action which is why it gets the nod for a QF berth. There is talk of a 'Birmingham stadium' but lets face it Birmingham and Wolves are not going to be in any kind of position to develop and construct a 50,000 seat stadium within the next 6 years. Villa are improving all the time have a fan base that can fill a 50,000 seater providing they remain in the top 4

5 CONTENDER
St James Park-QF-Group games
-the issue here is not if the North east gets a venue because it will but which venue will get the nod and will it get the final QF berth? Its a difficult one because if Newcastle were a top three side and a regular champ league entrant then no one is in doubt they could consistently attract more than there current capacity say 60,000. But and its a big but the way the ground has been developed means there is no further scope for taking the capacity into the realms of 60k +. With the current plan just to survive and no major overseas investor interested in the club (it was on the market for 6 months with no interest) then a small redevlopment is the best we can hope for in the next 5 years.

6 CONTENDER
Stadium of Light-Group games
-very unlikely to have further redevlopment from is current 48,000 due to the clubs status and the fact that empty seat syndrome will be forefront in the clubs mind post world cup.

7 CONTENDER
New Anfield-QF-Group games
-a straight battle between the north east(newcastle) and Liverpool for the final QF berth. The difficulty here is predicting what will happen with the new stadium and what will be its final capacity. If everything goes well and the stadium gets underway within the next 24 months with a capcity of 60-75k then without doubt this will be the qf venue.

8 CONTENDER
New Goodison-Group games
9 CONTENDER
Bramall lane-Group games
10 CONTENDER
Elland road-Group games
11 CONTENDER
Hillsboro-Group games
12 CONTENDER
New Portsmouth- Group games
12 CONTENDER
New Notts Forest- Group games
Most of english stadiums have the same problems, which make them not meet the latest FIFA requirements.

Old Trafford is a well known stadium but the field is to close to the stands and what's worse is that the player tunnel isn't in the middle of the stands. Tehy need to cut the stands to meet the distance requirements but that decreases the capacityand the first row wont be on the ground level.

New Anfield will have too short rows of seating of 78cms averagely and the kop 75cms, while FIFA requires at least 80cms. The first rows are going to be below the ground level, if you put ad boards their you be able to see the lines. so if the balls crosses the line you wont know if its a goal or not.

new stadium like emirates have problems too. The distance is okay but again those sight line problems would make them fail to host.

these are typical english stadium problems, too close and too low. if they want to host then they need totally new stadiums. well, that's what i think.
i believe you guys have read the latest FIFA requirements for WC stadiums, so just think about it.
raynsity no está en línea  
Old January 15th, 2009, 06:11 AM   #260
marrio415
Registered User
 
marrio415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mansfield and Oxford UK
Posts: 835
Likes (Received): 22

don't read too much into that rubbish
marrio415 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 04:41 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