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 February 10th, 2009, 09:53 PM   #321
berkshire royal
Registered User
 
berkshire royal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 557
Likes (Received): 1

I think sometimes people forget we're talking about 9 years in the future and the english league. This means that it is almost certain that a number of clubs will have expanded their stadiums or moved by then. Here is my list (based upon solid rumours at the bare minimum)

Wembley/London - 90,000-100,000
Old Trafford/Manchester - 76,000-90,000
New Anfield/Liverpool - 73,000
New WHL or Emirates/London - 60,000
St James' Park/Newcastle - 52,000-60,000
Villa Park/Birmingham - 42,000-51,000
New Leeds/Leeds - 50,000
New Forest/Nottingham - 40-50,000
Brammel Lane/ Sheffield - 40,000
New Portsmouth/Portsmouth - 40,000

Other
City of Birmingham/Birmingham - 50,000
City of Manchester/Manchester - 48-60,000
New Everton - 50,000
Walkers/Leicester - 40,000
Ricoh/Coventry - 40,000
St Marys/Southampton - 40,000
Stadium of Light/Sunderland - 48,000
Pride Park/Derby - 40,000
Riverside/Middlesborough - 42,000
New Bristol City/Bristol - 40,000
Hilsborough/Sheffield Wednesday - 40,000

The FA and government will offer money for stadium renovations and being a potential WC host could spur a number of clubs to further expand their stadiums.
berkshire royal no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old February 10th, 2009, 09:54 PM   #322
canarywondergod
Registered User
 
canarywondergod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Camberley/ Norwich/ Birmingham
Posts: 713
Likes (Received): 83

i know wembley can go to 100,000 without lowering the pitch. In its athletics mode the extra capacity comes from installing seats where the current disabled fans sit. They would be allocated elsewhere in the stadium and an additional 10,000 seats or so can be put in place.

St James Park can get to 60,000 but no more, not unless the listed buildings behind one of the stands are moved brick by brick and i seriously doubt that would happen.
canarywondergod no está en línea  
Old February 10th, 2009, 10:17 PM   #323
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,022
Likes (Received): 4813

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alemanniafan View Post
Well my posting was meant a little provokative I admit(you know the good old soccer rivalry between Germany and England ), but I do believe the stadia in Uk are at the rather small end for a worldcup in Europe.

The thing is, you have to take the capacity of the stadia as all seaters, without terracing and at the moment you have don't have many stadia that are large enough, but of course that wil change until 2018 to some extend.




Well the 2006 worldcup in Gemany had an overall average attendance of the matches of 52.000 visitors.

we had these twelve worldcup stadia with the following Worldcuo capacities (all seaters):

Berlin: 72.000

Munich: 66.000

Dortmund: 65.000

Gelsenkirchen:52.000.

Stuttgart: 52.000

Hamburg: 50.000

Frankfurt am Main: 48.000

Kaiserslautern: 46.000

Cologne: 45.000

Hannover: 43.000

Leipzig: 43.000

Nürnberg: 41.000

So we had exactly 6 Stadia with a capacity of 50.000 and more seats. in the world cup 06 and in a few cases we could theoretically also have chose one or two larger stadia than we did with the ones in Leipzig, Hannover and Nürnberg.
So as you see the average attendance was 52.000 which was slightly more than 50.000

I believe England has plenty of nice stadia. But there are other countries in Europe who have a similar number of very lage stadia also.

Someone mentioned Japan as an example for smaller stadia, but Japan is not realy comparable because it's in asia and the not in Europe, so they had completely other countries to compete with there. England is going to have to win the race against countries like Spain/Portugal, maybe the Benelux countries, maybe Russia and whatever else, like Greece, Turkey... etc. So I believe England has got good, probably even very good chances, but they're surely not going to go win the bid easily if they do. The competitors aren't gonna make it easy for you. If one country hasn't got enough very large stadia, they'll just run with a joint bid like Spain and Portugal or the Benelux.
You guys here mostly sound like it's all been decided allready and you only need to find the best and biggest stadia in the country, but the trurth is, it's not and there are a number of other options in europe who could win the bid also.
My question was more about the state of Germany's satdiums at the time of the bid in 2000 rather than when the World Cup was held in 2006.

Back in 2000:

1. the Olympiastadion needed a massive refurbishment which wasn't completed until 2004.
2. the Allianz Arena wasn't built until 2005.
3. the Westfalenstadion had a seated capacity of 52,000 rather than 65,000.
4. the Veltins Arena wasn't built until 2001 (though building work had started).
5. the Mercedes Benz stadium had a seated capacity of 50,000 rather than 52,000.
6. the Nordbank Arena required no further work.
7. the Commerzbank Arena wasn't built until 2005.
8. the Fritz Walter Stadion had a seated capacity of 20,000 rather than 46,000.
9. the Rhein-Energie Stadion wasn't renovated until 2004.
10. the AWD Arena wasn't redeveloped until 2004.
11. Zentralstadion was not built until 2004.
12. the Frankenstadion wasn't renovated until 2004.

So, you see, the state of Germany's stadiums at the time of the bid wasn't so very great (only the Nordbank Arena remained substantially unchanged). Certainly, the stadiums in Germany required a lot more work to be FIFA compliant than the likely stadiums for England's bid.

The point I'm making is this. The current and existing capacity and quality of each stadium is only of partial significance. Equally important are the various plans for the improvement and increased capacity of each stadium.

I am perfectly confident, should England be awarded the 2018 World Cup, that the average capacity of the stadiums involved would comfortably exceed that of Germany 2006 (and would massively exceed the likes of France 1998).
JimB no está en línea  
Old February 10th, 2009, 10:24 PM   #324
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,130
Likes (Received): 3205

Quote:
Originally Posted by Its AlL gUUd View Post
So i don't see how you can support your arguement with Germany's stadia (as nice as they are).
I think this comes from the fact that right now Germany has more venues in the 40-60k range than England, and, likely, more than England could have after 2018. Reason being is that England has (as you pointed out) more venues above that and a whole lot more right below it. Which is about right considering the population disparity between the nations. England's success, right now, is the volume of great venues (more than anyone else) in the 20-40k range, which is probably what skews everyone's impressions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by www.sercan.de View Post
Can somebdy make a EXTREME list? For example:
As an option to Berkshire's list, here's what I'd perceive the realistic, best case scenario, pending new schemes not yet realized:

90k Wembley
84-88k Old Trafford (Banter among architects is the South stand expansion would be heavy on box seats so as to avoid heavy construction over the rail line, hence the capacity , 90k)
77k Emirates (Would require transportation upgrades and rumors suggest the club are investigating even higher, but I suspect this is the cost effective range for an expansion)
73k Stanley Park ('Pool will do the full size as soon as funding comes through. Which may be 3018 the way things are being handled! )
72k Millennium (Cardiff) (You said extreme! It's possible England could "rent" the Welsh facility without giving Wales an automatic berth, giving FIFA's wavering on permissive co-hosting for nations that would never host on their own. Doing the one venue would be more logical than entering the whole Scotland debate for that reason, plus it'd be cost effective vs. building too large in Bristol, the governments and pro leagues are already intertwined and when else would Wales host a FIFA event? Unlikely, but...)
60k St. James
52k Villa Park (Frankly they could do so much more but that would require the type of money they don't have. And again, I don't see Birmingham building larger)
50k Leeds/Nottingham
45k Portsmouth (Possible use of "temporary" seating above one side/end)
45k Hull (Ditto)

That would yield an average attendance for group stage matches of approx. 65k, and arguably yield the best event possible. One man's opinion, anyway.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old February 10th, 2009, 10:28 PM   #325
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,022
Likes (Received): 4813

Quote:
Originally Posted by berkshire royal View Post
The FA and government will offer money for stadium renovations and being a potential WC host could spur a number of clubs to further expand their stadiums.
I very much hope that that does not happen. It would be quite wrong.

Such a system of subsidy works fine in countries like Italy or Germany, where the stadiums are generally owned and managed by local government. But it cannot work in England, where stadiums are owned and managed by the individual clubs.

Just imagine the outcry if, for instance, Portsmouth, Bristol City and Nottingham Forest were given £20 million of public or FA money to increase their stadium capacity by 10,000. There would be riots in Southampton, Derby and Leicester - not to mention an awful lot of unhappy Notts County and Bristol Rovers fans!

Nope, if stadiums are to be renovated and expanded, it absolutely must be at the expense of the clubs involved. If they genuinely desire the honour of becoming a World Cup host then they must be prepared to make all necessary financial committments.
JimB no está en línea  
Old February 10th, 2009, 10:38 PM   #326
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,130
Likes (Received): 3205

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
I very much hope that that does not happen. It would be quite wrong.
While you're correct there is also the matter of compensation when the costs don't make sense for the club. After all, unless you're among those top tier clubs hosting more than 3-4 matches then chances are you won't be making enough money to even pay for whatever renovations you need/want. Think of it as the govt. paying a rental fee for the rights to use the facility, and in return the govt. gets the taxes made from the tourists. I know it won't be that simple or directly profitable, but that's the idea to be used.

No way the likes of Bristol or Nottingham could afford 40-50k on their own, nor would they need to. And gleaning an additional 7M GBP for three games won't exactly be worth it compared to the savings they could've incurred by simply building a more appropriate venue <31k. Thus, there'll be some public support, but hopefully leveraged in proportion to return on investment. Besides, haven't some places enjoyed some public kick in, like Coventry?
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old February 10th, 2009, 10:41 PM   #327
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,022
Likes (Received): 4813

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
I don't share your optimism regarding proposed stadium projects.

This is a more realistic list of ground capacity in the year 2018

Wembley..................90,000
Old Trafford..............76,000
New Anfield...............60,000
Emirates...................60,000
St James' Park...........52,000
Stadium of Light.........48,000
Villa Park...................50,000
Elland Road................40,000

Chelsea.....................42,000
Tottenham.................55,000 if it ever gets built
Everton.....................55,000
Birmingham City...........36,000
Manchester City..........48,000

The UK is in a severe economic crisis that will last several years. Attendance figures will soar and a lot of clubs will struggle to survive. Ground redevelopments and new stadium project will be delayed or simply discarded.
Three medium sized grounds like those in Derby, Middlesbrough and Hull/Sheffield/Stoke or maybe Bristol will be enlarged by public funds to fulfil the minimum criteria.
Yes, England is in the midst of a major recession. But 2018 is nine years away and the 2018 vote will not be held until December 2010. Not even the most pessimistic of forecasts predicts the recession to last for more than a few years.

Besides, if England's bid is successful, that will inevitably stimulate a new building and redevelopment spurt.
JimB no está en línea  
Old February 10th, 2009, 10:43 PM   #328
ccfc-4-life
Play up Sky Blues
 
ccfc-4-life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 820
Likes (Received): 2

England 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by www.sercan.de View Post
Can somebdy make a EXTREME list? For example

Wembley 90,000-100,000 (lowering pitch and adding 3-5 rows)
Old Trafford: 90-92,000
Liverpool: 73,000
Newcastle: 60,000 or even 80,000?

etc

So what would be the max. possible capacity
Here you go

The Ultimate Bid


London

Wembley Stadium = 90,000 > 115,000 capacity from lowering the pitch and adding 5 rows to the 1st tier and adding 5-7 rows to the back of the 3rd tier.

Emirates Stadium = 60,000 > 80,000 capacity by filling in the corners and adding a few rows to the 1st tier.


Manchester

Old Trafford = 76,000 > 96,000 capacity by rebuilding the south stand to mimic the north stand.


Liverpool

Stanley Park = 60,000 - 73,000+ capacity.


Birmingham

Villa Park = 42,000 > 60,000+ from redevelopment of the north stand and filling in the corners on either side of the north stand. This is possible.


Newcastle

Saint James' Park = 52,000 > 80,000+ by expanding the remaining small stands and corners to mirror the two larger stands. This may however prove difficult or even impossible due to listed buildings behind one of the stands.


Leeds

Elland Road / New stadium = 50,000 - 55,000 capacity stadium by either major redevelopment of the current stadium or a move to another location.


Sheffield

Hillsborough / New stadium = 50,000+ capacity stadium by either major redevelopment of the current stadium or a move to another location.


Nottingham

New Forest Stadium = 50-55,000 capacity stadium.


Bristol

New Stadium = 45,000 capacity stadium that could be renovated after the WC.


Ipswich / Norwich

New stadium = 45,000+ capacity to be used by either Ipswich or Norwich after the WC.


Southampton

Saint Mary's = 32,000 >>> 45,000 capacity through redevelopment.



Others to consider


London

New Chelsea Stadium = 65,000 >>> 80,000+ capacity.

New White Heart Lane = 60,000+ capacity

Twickenham Stadium = 82,000+ capacity


Manchester

City of Manchester Stadium = 48,000 >>> 60,000+ capacity by adding a 3rd tier to the stands behind each goal end.


Liverpool

New Goodison = 50,000 - 60,000 capacity.


Birmingham

City of Birmingham Stadium = 55,000 capacity.


Sunderland

Stadium of Light = 48,000 >>> 64,000 through expansion to a 2 tier bowl.


Coventry

Ricoh Arena = 32,600 >>> 45,000+ through partial redevelopment.


Leicester

Walkers Stadium = 32,500 >>> 45,000+ through partial redevelopment.
ccfc-4-life no está en línea  
Old February 10th, 2009, 10:49 PM   #329
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,022
Likes (Received): 4813

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
While you're correct there is also the matter of compensation when the costs don't make sense for the club. After all, unless you're among those top tier clubs hosting more than 3-4 matches then chances are you won't be making enough money to even pay for whatever renovations you need/want. Think of it as the govt. paying a rental fee for the rights to use the facility, and in return the govt. gets the taxes made from the tourists. I know it won't be that simple or directly profitable, but that's the idea to be used.

No way the likes of Bristol or Nottingham could afford 40-50k on their own, nor would they need to. And gleaning an additional 7M GBP for three games won't exactly be worth it compared to the savings they could've incurred by simply building a more appropriate venue <31k. Thus, there'll be some public support, but hopefully leveraged in proportion to return on investment. Besides, haven't some places enjoyed some public kick in, like Coventry?
That's precisely the point. But the likes of Bristol City, Nottingham Forest and Southampton could easily expect to utilise the greater part of that extra capacity should they make it to the Premiership. Why should they be subsidized thus and given such a huge advantage over other clubs?

Perhaps an agreement can be worked out whereby, whenever any part of the extra capacity is utilised, all profits are paid to the taxpayer / FA unless or until such time as the club has repaid whatever subsidy they received (including interest)?
JimB no está en línea  
Old February 10th, 2009, 11:13 PM   #330
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10341

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc-4-life View Post
London

New Chelsea Stadium = 65,000 >>> 80,000+ capacity.


I know this is an "extreme" list but still!

RobH no está en línea  
Old February 10th, 2009, 11:24 PM   #331
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10341

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
That's precisely the point. But the likes of Bristol City, Nottingham Forest and Southampton could easily expect to utilise the greater part of that extra capacity should they make it to the Premiership. Why should they be subsidized thus and given such a huge advantage over other clubs?

Perhaps an agreement can be worked out whereby, whenever any part of the extra capacity is utilised, all profits are paid to the taxpayer / FA unless or until such time as the club has repaid whatever subsidy they received (including interest)?
It would have to be a loan in effect, yes. Especially for the richer clubs if they needed a kick-start. Given that the Premier League seems to be recession-proof (look at their latest TV deal) having the struggling parts of the economy putting money into rich football clubs with no prospect of getting it back would cause outrage.

Even if it's a loan, I'm not sure people would be hugely happy about it still.

But there's no way the government should simply subsidise expansion. Either clubs build it for themselves and reap the benifit, or they get public funds, in which case the public gets a certain amount of the profit until such time that the money is repaid. The clubs will effectivley be getting benifit anyway because of extra punters coming through the gates watching the match, even if they aren't getting all the money from them.

How did it work in Germany, out of interest?
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 10th, 2009, 11:26 PM   #332
ccfc-4-life
Play up Sky Blues
 
ccfc-4-life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 820
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post


I know this is an "extreme" list but still!

Any reason behind your response?

If you've had a look at some of the high-profile players that abramovich has braught in then you might be able to see that when that guy spends, he spends big I wouldnt be surprised if abramovich didn't splash out the cash to give the club a huge stadium worthy of any of Europe's best teams. Why would he settle for a measely() 60k stadium - too common now - when he could spend big...again
ccfc-4-life no está en línea  
Old February 10th, 2009, 11:29 PM   #333
ArchieTheGreat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 0

There seems to be the consensus that only one stadium in the North East will be used. I can't understand that. I believe that both st james's and the stadium of light will be used. OK they are close together but they are two distinct separate cities. It would be better using both these than holding out for a stadium on the south coast that isn't going to be big enough and is likely to be white elephant. Or the ones in sheffield.

Also a bit of history in 1966 they were going to use both, but NUFC wouldn't improve the ground so Middlesbrough was used instead.
ArchieTheGreat no está en línea  
Old February 10th, 2009, 11:35 PM   #334
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10341

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc-4-life View Post
Any reason behind your response?

If you've had a look at some of the high-profile players that abramovich has braught in then you might be able to see that when that guy spends, he spends big I wouldnt be surprised if abramovich didn't splash out the cash to give the club a huge stadium worthy of any of Europe's best teams. Why would he settle for a measely() 60k stadium - too common now - when he could spend big...again
Chelsea advertise in the London papers for Champions League games. 65,000 is pushing it, 80,000 would be half empty most of the time.

Chelsea are by a distance the third club in London by fanbase. The only way a stadium of that size would be realistic would be if the Russian subsidised tickets; possible, but he seems to be putting less and less money into the club lately.

Maybe my response was OTT, but it remains unlikely that Chelsea will go any bigger than Arsenal or Spurs' new stadium. If they do it won't be by much.
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 10th, 2009, 11:40 PM   #335
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10341

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchieTheGreat View Post
There seems to be the consensus that only one stadium in the North East will be used. I can't understand that. I believe that both st james's and the stadium of light will be used. OK they are close together but they are two distinct separate cities. It would be better using both these than holding out for a stadium on the south coast that isn't going to be big enough and is likely to be white elephant. Or the ones in sheffield.

Also a bit of history in 1966 they were going to use both, but NUFC wouldn't improve the ground so Middlesbrough was used instead.
You have some strange ideas about this bid.

In the other thread you seem to be convinced London won't have two stadiums and in this thread you're advocating having two stadiums in the N.E. instead of a south coast stadium!

Your idea for the bid would be incredibly lopsided towards the north! Two London stadiums and a stadium on the coast (Portsmouth being the most likely option and it would no way be a white elephant) seems to give the best spread to me. Then have a few in the midlands, and your big northern stadiums (Liverpool, Man U, Newcastle).

Last edited by RobH; February 10th, 2009 at 11:59 PM.
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 10th, 2009, 11:59 PM   #336
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,130
Likes (Received): 3205

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc-4-life View Post
Any reason behind your response?

If you've had a look at some of the high-profile players that abramovich has braught in then you might be able to see that when that guy spends, he spends big I wouldnt be surprised if abramovich didn't splash out the cash to give the club a huge stadium worthy of any of Europe's best teams. Why would he settle for a measely() 60k stadium - too common now - when he could spend big...again
I'll echo RobH, here: West End Posers are not a large club but a rich club, and even that's incorrect as it's their owner who's wealthy. Without RA's support they don't have the budget for half their roster, the quality drops and the losses ensue. And that's assuming they never have to pay back the $1B+ owed to the russian! Thus, it's tough to say they could support 65k in perpetuity (let alone afford that extra debt) when just last year they drew 24k for a Champions League game!

If Chelsea ever build something larger than Emirates or WHL it would be a house of cards, something built on a sham.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchieTheGreat View Post
There seems to be the consensus that only one stadium in the North East will be used. I can't understand that. I believe that both st james's and the stadium of light will be used. OK they are close together but they are two distinct separate cities. It would be better using both these than holding out for a stadium on the south coast that isn't going to be big enough and is likely to be white elephant. Or the ones in sheffield.
Again, though, consider the intent of the organizers. They've said they want to use this as an opportunity to induce investment around the country. Technically neither St. James nor SOL need expansion, WC or for their clubs, while other places could use this as an excuse to jump start truly beneficial improvements. Further, having both venues in use likely wouldn't significantly alter the tourism directed to that area, whereas you're suggesting leave another metro area out of that mix. Now I could see Middlesbrough being added as a second, but using both SOL and St. James would be logistical overkill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
Why should they be subsidized thus and given such a huge advantage over other clubs?

Perhaps an agreement can be worked out whereby, whenever any part of the extra capacity is utilised, all profits are paid to the taxpayer / FA unless or until such time as the club has repaid whatever subsidy they received (including interest)?
It will be that type of approach (if at all), I'm sure. Think of it this way - In order to win the bid the organizers (and the govts) need the best bid possible. This requires stadiums and community support. Would the folks at, say, Derby rather risk not having a world cup just to deny Nottingham favorable loan conditions to improve their stadium situation? Doubtful. In the long run what's good for the game in England is good for each club, as their residuals from league revenues and advertising would increase, even if only incrementally, by simply doing nothing. After all, nations bidding for this expect a return as well, so it's part of that "Take one for the team" mentality.

Besides, if we're going to pick on the the likes of Bristol as potential winners of this lottery then that sword must swipe at the big boys, as well, for surely they'll receive some benefits over their counterparts. Maybe go global? Why should England get this extra boost from an event when it could do more good in, say, Indonesia? Bottom line the conditions for the event may dictate some compromises on the locals, even if it means accepting your local option isn't the best one. So, it comes back to whether or not England wants to win the WC?

Sure there'll be some competition and resentment of those receiving the biggest support, but I'm confident any public support will be duly repaid.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old February 11th, 2009, 12:11 AM   #337
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10341

LONDON
Wembley
Emirates or New WHL

SOUTH
New Portsmouth

BIRMINGHAM
Villa Park

MANCESHTER
Old Trafford

LIVERPOOL
Stanley Park

NEWCASTLE
St James' Park

YORKSHIRE
Elland Road

EAST MIDS
Derby expansion or New Forest Stadium

-----------

These nine would be definites for me. Then, depending on how many stadiums you wanted I'd also line up a Bristol new build, the Stadium of Light, and a Sheffield Stadium. But the core of the bid, and the cities and stadiums I would definitely include, I've listed above.

Last edited by RobH; February 11th, 2009 at 12:16 AM.
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 11th, 2009, 12:58 AM   #338
ArchieTheGreat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
LONDON
Wembley
Emirates or New WHL

SOUTH
New Portsmouth

BIRMINGHAM
Villa Park

MANCESHTER
Old Trafford

LIVERPOOL
Stanley Park

NEWCASTLE
St James' Park

YORKSHIRE
Elland Road

EAST MIDS
Derby expansion or New Forest Stadium

-----------

These nine would be definites for me. Then, depending on how many stadiums you wanted I'd also line up a Bristol new build, the Stadium of Light, and a Sheffield Stadium. But the core of the bid, and the cities and stadiums I would definitely include, I've listed above.
Ok seems a good geographical spread. My main concern is the new Portsmouth is going to be 36000. Even with temporary expansion it will only scrape in at the bottom end. Thats if they ever build it, the club are haemorrhaging money, selling players left right and centre, is up for sale and likely to be relegated. The other south coast stadium is a non starter as Southampton fc might not exist in a couple of weeks and definitely going into administration and the 3rd division. So they wont have the money to expand. Its good idea for a south coast stadium but practically I can't see it happening.

I also don't think the new forest stadium will be as big as they say 40K at the most. I have also concerns over the 3 possible venues in Yorkshire. Bramall lane will always be too small. When FIFA say 40K thats in world cup mode so you are really meaning 43K+. Wednesday and Leeds their redevelopments depend on getting finance, as both would need large amounts of money. The only outsider that will definitely be built is Bristol City, they're a well run club and that ground will be built.

My point is Sunderland is there it can be expanded easily and is used by 40k+ every other week. Thats why I would always include it, its a low risk option.

This highlights the problem in England the best supported clubs are the 2 in North London, 2 in Liverpool, 2 in Manchester and the 2 in the North East.
ArchieTheGreat no está en línea  
Old February 11th, 2009, 01:15 AM   #339
ccfc-4-life
Play up Sky Blues
 
ccfc-4-life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 820
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Chelsea advertise in the London papers for Champions League games. 65,000 is pushing it, 80,000 would be half empty most of the time.

Chelsea are by a distance the third club in London by fanbase. The only way a stadium of that size would be realistic would be if the Russian subsidised tickets; possible, but he seems to be putting less and less money into the club lately.

Maybe my response was OTT, but it remains unlikely that Chelsea will go any bigger than Arsenal or Spurs' new stadium. If they do it won't be by much.
Oh yes i definately agree with you that interms of fanbase chelsea couldnt fill a stadium as big as the emirates every game, i was merely suggesting that with RA's fortune and 'eccentricity' it was simply a possibility that he would aim high and large as he always does.
ccfc-4-life no está en línea  
Old February 11th, 2009, 01:33 AM   #340
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Chelsea advertise in the London papers for Champions League games. 65,000 is pushing it, 80,000 would be half empty most of the time.

Chelsea are by a distance the third club in London by fanbase. The only way a stadium of that size would be realistic would be if the Russian subsidised tickets; possible, but he seems to be putting less and less money into the club lately.

Maybe my response was OTT, but it remains unlikely that Chelsea will go any bigger than Arsenal or Spurs' new stadium. If they do it won't be by much.
Come on saying chelsea don't have the fanbase is balderdash. It is proven over time fanbases fluctuate up and down dependant on success etc, and you can never predict what is going to happen in the future.

case in point:

In the 50s Arsenal and Tottenham outdrew every club in england (most seasons) massively, regularly finishing 1 and 2 in the attendance charts and swaping with 50,000+ averages every season. I'm sure someone then suggesting manchester united or liverpool were bigger would've been laughed at!

In the early 60s Tottenham were getting the largest crowds, again manchester united's crowds still fluctuated and liverpool were nowhere to be seen... Once again who would know??

In the late 60s and 70s chelsea got bigger crowds (40,000+) that tottenham most seasons. However even west ham and palace were drawing 30,000+ during this era. Who would've thought then chelsea would struggle to get 20,000 regularly for top flight games in less than 20 years

In the 80s chelsea's fanbase dissapeared, but so did everyones except Man united's and liverpool's except in succesful seasons (Everton 87 etc). Who would've thought then with averages in 16,000s that the fans would return??

Basically what i am saying is chelsea do have an historically large fanbase, easily in the top 6 in the country, it goes up and down with success just like everyones, and i believe that a 60,000 seater is well within their remit, especially with the "current" levels of ambition and "success"!

I personally feel the gap between Tottenham and chelsea fanbase wise is similar to that between Arsenal and Tottenham, not that big but significant!
bigbossman 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 11:01 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