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 11th, 2009, 01:39 AM   #341
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

For me Bristol/Plymouth are shoe-ins because of the geographical spread factor, and an east anglian stadium might be on the cards, i expect FIFA might say at least one from each of the 9 regions, 3 of which would get two.
bigbossman no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old February 11th, 2009, 01:58 AM   #342
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,022
Likes (Received): 4813

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
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?
There isn't really a similar problem in Germany since, as far as I'm aware, the majority of German clubs (if not all) are tenants and the stadiums were paid for and are owned by local government.
JimB no está en línea  
Old February 11th, 2009, 02:49 AM   #343
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,022
Likes (Received): 4813

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
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).
Very true.

I had noticed that, in the UK forum thread, Archie advocated the use of only one London stadium. If he is now advocating the use of no south coast stadiums, then the geographical spread of stadia would be hopelessly lopsided and counter to FIFA recommendations. Something like 40% of England's 50 million population lives in the south east. Yet the south east would only host a tiny fraction of the games (albeit the final among them)? I don't think so!

London will definitely provide two of the bid stadiums. The FA are not crazy. They would not waste the Emirates stadium (or a new Spurs or Chelsea stadium if either is built in time and if either is deemed superior).

I'm equally certain that one south coast stadium will also be used.

Contrary to Gunnerjacket, I also happen to think it likely that both St James' Park and the Stadium of Light will be used. After all, as far as I am aware, there are no rules against using more than 12 stadiums. If so, no reason why one or two group games couldn't be held in Sunderland as well as one or two in Newcastle. They are sufficiently close that there should be no logistical problems.
JimB no está en línea  
Old February 11th, 2009, 02:56 AM   #344
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,022
Likes (Received): 4813

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
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!
Agreed with most of that.

Chelsea are historically one of the best supported clubs in the country. In good times, they will always get big crowds. And, of course, over the past 5-10 years, they've attracted a whole new generation of fans and that will serve them well in the years to come.

Where Chelsea has traditionally suffered by comparison with Spurs and Arsenal is when times are not so good. Unlike Spurs and Arsenal, their level of support does not hold up well when the team is not doing well. Their fans stay away.

But so long as Abramovich still has ambition for Chelsea and so long as he doesn't envisage anything but top four finishes and regular trophies in the years to come, there is no reason for him to think that a 60,000 capacity would be unreasonable.
JimB no está en línea  
Old February 11th, 2009, 11:34 AM   #345
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Addressing a few points about the North East...

It would be hard to have both St James' AND Stadium of Light in a bid as, despite being two distinct cities, they are served by just the one airport, and whilst there are numerous hotels in the area, I'm not sure if there are enough to satisfy FIFA's criteria for BOTH cities simultaneously.

The Riverside in Middlesboro would never be used ahead of either of the above mentioned existing stadia. They are both bigger and whilst neither really needs to be extended, The Riverside DEFINATELY doesn't need any more seats.

With regard to Portsmouth - I strongly suspect that the recently stated 36k capacity is a deliberate ploy by the club's owners to get others (government/FA) to chip in the extra funds to bump capacity up to 40/45k as part of a world cup bid. Clever tactic on their part.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old February 11th, 2009, 12:07 PM   #346
carlspannoosh
Registered User
 
carlspannoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Islington
Posts: 2,215
Likes (Received): 745

If there are no clubs on the south coast or west country that can sustain a stadium with a capacity of at least 40,000 then I dont think they should stage games there.
The best stadiums are a bit clustered around certain areas but if logistically possible, I think every effort should be made to use those, even if the distribution isnt as geographically fair as it might be.
In the North West you have Liverpool and Everton who probably will have brand new stadiums by 2018 plus Manchester has COM and Old Trafford. The North East has Stadium Of Light and St James's, in the Midlands there is Villa Park. In London there will likely be at least 5 stadiums suitable. The main problem area is Yorkshire with three big clubs that could sustain 40k plus stadia but all currently needing very expensive improvements to make any fit for a World Cup.
carlspannoosh no está en línea  
Old February 11th, 2009, 07:38 PM   #347
ArchieTheGreat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 0

Right I will clear a few things up.

London not having two stadiums was based on what I had heard in an interview. I was only relaying this information, as everybody thinks its a certainty that it will have two. It wasn't some great anti south conspiracy. My idea was to use it as a backup venue if one of the others falls through which will happen.

South coast stadium.
When pompey's was first announced I thought that would make a good world cup venue and add to the spread. My main point was the inclusion of Sunderland as its already built and some of the proposed venues might not happen. I picked on the south coast to highlight this, again not an anti southern thing. I was highlighting that with the financial situation of both clubs. Pompey might not be able to afford the new ground and if they do build one it might only be one of the drab bowls of about 32K and not expandable. Southampton is just a none starter.

This backs me up:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...th/7879229.stm

Before you say its in 9 years time. How long have Leeds and Sheffield Wednesday been out of the premier league. Both are still struggling financially.

I also highlighted the problems in the Yorkshire region where projects might not get off the ground. I mean Bates is too interested in his motels to build stands!

Also for people saying use government money that is a none starter. The public finances are in a mess and will take 20 years to put right. Also the public will not like government money being spent on football grounds. Why should they pick up the bill for an industry that is perceived to be awash with money. Plus the cost overruns of the Olympics will put people off spending government money.

What I'm trying to say is make use of as many of the stadiums that are there and that are likely to see a high level of use afterwards.
ArchieTheGreat no está en línea  
Old February 11th, 2009, 07:46 PM   #348
Bobby3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,267
Likes (Received): 52

Truro City FTW!
Bobby3 no está en línea  
Old February 12th, 2009, 03:29 AM   #349
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchieTheGreat View Post
Right I will clear a few things up.

London not having two stadiums was based on what I had heard in an interview. I was only relaying this information, as everybody thinks its a certainty that it will have two. It wasn't some great anti south conspiracy. My idea was to use it as a backup venue if one of the others falls through which will happen.

South coast stadium.
When pompey's was first announced I thought that would make a good world cup venue and add to the spread. My main point was the inclusion of Sunderland as its already built and some of the proposed venues might not happen. I picked on the south coast to highlight this, again not an anti southern thing. I was highlighting that with the financial situation of both clubs. Pompey might not be able to afford the new ground and if they do build one it might only be one of the drab bowls of about 32K and not expandable. Southampton is just a none starter.

This backs me up:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...th/7879229.stm

Before you say its in 9 years time. How long have Leeds and Sheffield Wednesday been out of the premier league. Both are still struggling financially.

I also highlighted the problems in the Yorkshire region where projects might not get off the ground. I mean Bates is too interested in his motels to build stands!

Also for people saying use government money that is a none starter. The public finances are in a mess and will take 20 years to put right. Also the public will not like government money being spent on football grounds. Why should they pick up the bill for an industry that is perceived to be awash with money. Plus the cost overruns of the Olympics will put people off spending government money.

What I'm trying to say is make use of as many of the stadiums that are there and that are likely to see a high level of use afterwards.
This is a negative for the bid imho, if we don't have stadiums geographical spread out around our country that are fit to host world cup games then surely our bid is a non starter...

The world cup is going to have a much bigger effect on our economy than the olympics, especially in regard to future tourism to our smaller cities not just for the world cup, but afterwards as well... surely the government can justify spending on stadiums dor this reason
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old February 12th, 2009, 03:45 AM   #350
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
Agreed with most of that.

Chelsea are historically one of the best supported clubs in the country. In good times, they will always get big crowds. And, of course, over the past 5-10 years, they've attracted a whole new generation of fans and that will serve them well in the years to come.

Where Chelsea has traditionally suffered by comparison with Spurs and Arsenal is when times are not so good. Unlike Spurs and Arsenal, their level of support does not hold up well when the team is not doing well. Their fans stay away.

But so long as Abramovich still has ambition for Chelsea and so long as he doesn't envisage anything but top four finishes and regular trophies in the years to come, there is no reason for him to think that a 60,000 capacity would be unreasonable.
very true, not to big up spurs but whenever they've been relegated there crowds have either increased or stayed the same.

spurs
division 1 1976-77 30,173
division 2 1977-78 33,417
division 1 1978-79 34,902

Chelsea's crowds are "big" in times of success no matter what dvision and small in hard times

Chelsea
division 1 1974-75 27,397 (bigger than spurs, relegated)
division 2 1975-76 18,957 (Less than palace in division 3)
division 2 1976-77 30,633 (promoted)

Although it must be said chelsea were in financial crisis during this period

Unfortunately i cannot cross reference with Arsenal as we don't seem to have been in the second tier post war and by war i mean the great war that began in 1914
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old February 12th, 2009, 03:48 AM   #351
Bobby3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,267
Likes (Received): 52

As outlandish as it sounds, what about Brighton?
Bobby3 no está en línea  
Old February 12th, 2009, 01:58 PM   #352
Republica
BUND
 
Republica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,036
Likes (Received): 3

It has suddenly dawned on me that to have a bid, and WC as good as Germany 2006 then a hell of a lot of work is needed.

Basically Germany's stadiums and transport to and from them pisses all over ours.
__________________
Rant
Republica no está en línea  
Old February 12th, 2009, 02:16 PM   #353
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,022
Likes (Received): 4813

Quote:
Originally Posted by Republica View Post
It has suddenly dawned on me that to have a bid, and WC as good as Germany 2006 then a hell of a lot of work is needed.

Basically Germany's stadiums and transport to and from them pisses all over ours.
At the time that Germany won the bid for the 2006 World Cup, in July 2000, their stadium infrastructure was inferior to what England could currently offer. They had far more work to do. And it turned out to be a great World Cup.

South Africa had (and have) a scary amount of work to do. But I am equally sure that it too will be a great World Cup with great stadiums.

So the amount of work required of England, should they win the 2018 bid, needn't be a problem.
JimB no está en línea  
Old February 12th, 2009, 04:32 PM   #354
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post

South Africa had (and have) a scary amount of work to do. But I am equally sure that it too will be a great World Cup with great stadiums.

.
Really? We bid with 6 existing venues. Chose to replace 2 of these with new venues.

The average cost of upgrades to existing venues is only $30 million.

More existing venues are and were available but building a new stadium in some case is better than continously upgrading an old venue e.g. Boet Erasmus stadium, Olympia Park, Danie Craven...all 1995 Rugby World Cup Venues.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old February 12th, 2009, 04:35 PM   #355
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

For an England bid

You would prob need 2 or 3 new venues, major expansions to another 3 or 4 with minor expansions perhaps to Old Trafford.

That's no easy task. Especially when you look at the cost of building anything in the UK.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old February 12th, 2009, 04:39 PM   #356
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,022
Likes (Received): 4813

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
Really? We bid with 6 existing venues. Chose to replace 2 of these with new venues.

The average cost of upgrades to existing venues is only $30 million.

More existing venues are and were available but building a new stadium in some case is better than continously upgrading an old venue e.g. Boet Erasmus stadium, Olympia Park, Danie Craven...all 1995 Rugby World Cup Venues.
More work than an English bid would require.
JimB no está en línea  
Old February 12th, 2009, 04:47 PM   #357
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,022
Likes (Received): 4813

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
For an England bid

You would prob need 2 or 3 new venues, major expansions to another 3 or 4 with minor expansions perhaps to Old Trafford.

That's no easy task. Especially when you look at the cost of building anything in the UK.
Old Trafford wouldn't "need" any expansion - though it is likely to happen simply because the demand is there.

The new Liverpool stadium is inevitable because of the demand. I also think it highly likely that Villa Park and at least one of St James Park or the Stadium of Light will be expanded over the next five years or so, regardless of the World Cup.

The only new builds or expansions that could be problematic, financially, are an expansion or new stadium for Nottingham Forest and an expansion to St Mary's or a new stadium for Pompey.
JimB no está en línea  
Old February 12th, 2009, 04:53 PM   #358
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
More work than an English bid would require.
Not by much. We had 6 stadia with 40,000 seats or more ready to go.


Anyway, building 10 new venues fortunately would still cost less than the cost of preparing venues for England 2018.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old February 12th, 2009, 04:54 PM   #359
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Yes, demand is important but you would still need to build 2 or 3 or 4 venues from scratch.
Thats gonna cost quite a bit, apart from the upgrades to Villa Park or Elland Road.

With regards to Old Trafford, minor upgrades here and there are necessary but its basically ready.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old February 12th, 2009, 04:58 PM   #360
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

The strength of an England bid would be the brand, commercial revenues, infrastracture, both transport and stadia and the "know how".

I fully support England 2018, but the preparation of its venues, new, existing or other should not be reduced to a minor task.
Mo Rush 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 04:42 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