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 August 17th, 2005, 06:12 PM   #21
eddyk
Registered Abuser
 
eddyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: G-Town Massive
Posts: 17,017
Likes (Received): 1496

Old Trafford would be 90,000 by then.

St James' I think would of expanded.

Me I would prefer to see new stadiums being built that clubs redeveloping their current ones.
__________________
.
.

Visit Grantham Linconshire
eddyk no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old August 20th, 2005, 12:06 AM   #22
2005
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,547

Possible Venues that can host a match or more now or would be redeveloped with ease ie England 2018 simple as makes sense

Wembley
Emirates
Pride Park
Riverside stadium
Elen Road or new stadium
Coventry City's new stadium
New Anfield
Upton Park
City Ground
St. James Park
Stadium of light
Villa Park
St. Andrews
St. Marys
Goodisen Park or new stadium
Stamford Bridge
White Hart Lane or new big stadium
The Valley
Old Trafford
City of Manchester stadium
City Ground
and many more

Simple as Englands stadiums are always full, look great and have brilliant atmospheres well apart from Arsenal, Chelsea and Man Utd. In the last World Cup two countries hosted it South Korea and Japan between them they had 20 stadiums hosting the matches in England you would easylly find 20 stadiums to host the matches all health and safety goodies as well as over 30,000 capacity
2005 no está en línea  
Old August 20th, 2005, 12:30 AM   #23
Mr. T
Don't forget a towel!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: guess
Posts: 585
Likes (Received): 1

England will definatley win. They wont even have to build any stadiums.
__________________
Urban Heaven
Mr. T no está en línea  
Old August 20th, 2005, 03:37 PM   #24
Kampflamm
Endorsed by the NRA
 
Kampflamm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Occupied Europe
Posts: 23,660

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sikario
Perfect! Just think, Rooney will be contemplating retiring from international football, he'll be 32... Like me.
He'll be looking for his third liver by the time England hosts the World Cup.
Kampflamm está en línea ahora  
Old August 20th, 2005, 04:12 PM   #25
birminghamculture
BANNED
 
birminghamculture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 2,288
Likes (Received): 2

Well Villa Park want to expand to roughly 53,000+, Wolves will have expanded to minimum 42,300 and Maximum 46,500, The new Birmingham super stadium would be 60,000 (Completion 2010) and the Hawthorns im sure would expand to an excess of 40,000 so all in all, Birmingham alone could hold 1 group of World Cup football.

England has enough quality stadiums for it to hold only a single game in each stadium across the country. But obviously that wont happen

The 10 main stadiums will more then likely be

2 in London
1 in Birmingham
1 in Manchester
1 in Newcastle
1 in Liverpool
1 in Leeds
1 in Southampton
1 in Nottingham
1 in Middlesborough or something like that anyway.
birminghamculture no está en línea  
Old August 20th, 2005, 04:26 PM   #26
Sitback
NW London baby!
 
Sitback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,737
Likes (Received): 79

We should have the bleedin' world cup football is the game the British bought to the world.
Sitback no está en línea  
Old August 20th, 2005, 05:12 PM   #27
SouthBank
Amat victoria curam...
 
SouthBank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 66
Likes (Received): 1

Pure speculation of course, but for me the bid could look something like this:
* = Some work assumed...

Final: Wembley Stadium, London - 90,000
Semi 2: Old Trafford, Manchester - 76,000+
Quarter 1: New Anfield, Liverpool - 61,000*
Quarter 2: Emirates Stadium, London - 60,000
Quarter 3: St. James Park, Newcastle - 60,000*
Quarter 4: New Birmingham Stadium/Villa Park - 50,000+*
Group: Stadium of Light, Sunderland - 48,000
Group: Elland Road/New Stadium, Leeds - 50,000*
Group: Hillsborough/New Stadium, Sheffield - 40,000+*
Group: St Mary's Stadium, Southampton - 40,000*
Group: City Ground, Nottingham - 40,000*

Other potential venues include:

- City of Manchester Stadium if Manchester was allowed to use two venues.
- A second stadium in Brimingham if allowed, be it Villa Park, Molineux etc.
- Stamford Bridge instead of Emirates if Abramovich can be bothered.
- Bristol has previously shown interest in building a new shared stadium.
- Norwich or Ipswich.
- Portsmouth could replace Southampton if they finally build a new stadium.
- etc etc.

For me, the likes of Derby, Blackburn, Middlesborough, Coventry will struggle to be chosen even with their good stadia - a combination of a lack of hotel accomodation and proximity to other major venues, but that's just my opinion of course!

The only real shame is that the owners of Twickenham (85,000) are too arrogant to allow football to played on their hallowed turf - would provide an excellent semi-final location instead of Wembley.
__________________
LONDON 2012 -http://www.london2012.com/en/

Last edited by SouthBank; August 20th, 2005 at 09:44 PM.
SouthBank no está en línea  
Old August 20th, 2005, 06:29 PM   #28
Paulo2004
Luso from Aveiro
 
Paulo2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lusitania
Posts: 4,658
Likes (Received): 57

Portugal will be in the race too, either in 2014 or 2018.
__________________
Murtosa em Fotos

For the best photos or information on Portugal, visit the PORTUGUESE FORUM.
Paulo2004 no está en línea  
Old August 20th, 2005, 08:00 PM   #29
ManchesterISwonderful
Sometimes I, fan-ta-sise
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 628
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthBank
Semi 2: Old Trafford, Manchester - 74,000
.

Being a pedantic ****. Old Trafford's capacity will go upto 76,400 after the building work. And by 2018(talk about the future!) it'll be extended to 96,000 most likely, that's unless we've moved to a new ground. One never knows what the future holds eh.

But yeah, would love the world cup here.
ManchesterISwonderful no está en línea  
Old August 20th, 2005, 09:49 PM   #30
SouthBank
Amat victoria curam...
 
SouthBank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 66
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Being a pedantic ****. Old Trafford's capacity will go upto 76,400 after the building work. And by 2018(talk about the future!) it'll be extended to 96,000 most likely, that's unless we've moved to a new ground. One never knows what the future holds eh.
My mistake - changed it. You pedantic **** .

Have to say though, I'm not convinced by the idea of Old Trafford ever being 96,000 capacity given the potential problems in doing so. But then what do I know!
__________________
LONDON 2012 -http://www.london2012.com/en/
SouthBank no está en línea  
Old August 21st, 2005, 03:58 PM   #31
CorliCorso
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Stockport
Posts: 215
Likes (Received): 6

Going back to the World Cup rotation thing, I'm fairly sure that FIFA reckon from now on it'd be Europe, Rest of the World, South America, then Europe, Rest of the World, South America and so on. Otherwise it'd just plain be unfair for so many countries with the infrastructure already in plce to host a WC to only get one chance every 20 years.

For OT - going off current stand capacities, a secon tier for the South Stand, plus corners (but not a third tier) Old Trafford's capacity would be 91,500. With a 3rd tier it'd be 95,500. But given the problems of building over the railway line, and I remember reading it'd cost £46m or so - can't see that happening for a while yet, especially with the £800m debt Glazer's put on Man Utd.
CorliCorso no está en línea  
Old August 25th, 2005, 09:10 PM   #32
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,240
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorliCorso
Going back to the World Cup rotation thing, I'm fairly sure that FIFA reckon from now on it'd be Europe, Rest of the World, South America, then Europe, Rest of the World, South America and so on. Otherwise it'd just plain be unfair for so many countries with the infrastructure already in plce to host a WC to only get one chance every 20 years.
The problem with that would be that really only Brazil and Argentina could afford to host a 32+ team world cup. By increasing the number and standard of stadiums needed I'd say FIFA has actually greatly reduced the number of countries who can host a WC. You either need 10+ clubs who can fill 40,000 stadia or you need an economy big enough to cover the cost of building them.

As someone said earlier if you replace South America with the Americas as a whole in your rotation so adding the US and Mexico as possible hosts then I'd agree thats probabley the best way to go about it.

Quote:
For OT - going off current stand capacities, a secon tier for the South Stand, plus corners (but not a third tier) Old Trafford's capacity would be 91,500. With a 3rd tier it'd be 95,500. But given the problems of building over the railway line, and I remember reading it'd cost £46m or so - can't see that happening for a while yet, especially with the £800m debt Glazer's put on Man Utd.
46 million sounds very cheap for 15-20,000 extra seats(although I'd guess it would be slightly less with more prenium steaing instead) when you consider the massive costs of new stadia these days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulo2004
Portugal will be in the race too, either in 2014 or 2018.
I don't think Portugal could handle a modern world cup as you'd need at least 10 40,000 plus stadia and most of the 30,000 euro 2004 stadia have already prooved too larger for their clubs, your best chance IMHO would be to host a joint one with Spain using your 3 big stadia.

Last edited by MoreOrLess; August 25th, 2005 at 09:26 PM.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old August 26th, 2005, 02:16 AM   #33
HoldenV8
Registered User
 
HoldenV8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 207
Likes (Received): 25

Australia's biggest problem in staging the world cup is lack of suitable 40,000+ venues. We only have MCG, Telstra Stadium, Telstra Dome, Suncorp Stadium & Aussie Stadium. The only other 40,000+ stadiums are AAMI Stadium which is an oval venue. Same for Subiaco Oval & The Gabba (and for those who say Telstra Dome is an oval venue, true but it has retractable seating with a loss of only about 3,000 seats).

Upgrades to other stadiums such as Hindmarsh, Members Equity, Central Coast, WIN & Energy Australia Stadiums? Millions of dollars spent for a month of soccer and none of those grounds would be full for soccer again with capacities that high. Some would struggle to fill for rugby league & union games.

Is it worth it? Personally I don't think so.

Now a joint hosting with New Zealand would be better. They have the 45,000 seat Eden Park. An easily expandable North Harbour Stadium and/or Ericsson Stadium. Jade Stadium would only need a further 4,000 seats. Waikato Stadium is also easily expanded and needs an increase of only 15,000 and is a rectangle venue.

A joint hosting makes more sense to me and why not, it happened with Japan & Korea.
HoldenV8 no está en línea  
Old August 28th, 2005, 01:36 AM   #34
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

FIFA

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoldenV8

Now a joint hosting with New Zealand would be better. They have the 45,000 seat Eden Park. An easily expandable North Harbour Stadium and/or Ericsson Stadium. Jade Stadium would only need a further 4,000 seats. Waikato Stadium is also easily expanded and needs an increase of only 15,000 and is a rectangle venue.

A joint hosting makes more sense to me and why not, it happened with Japan & Korea.
FIFA said there would be no more joint hosts.

Realistically there are only a handful of countries that could stage a World Cup without a massive construction program. Even Germany did a lot of work to get ready for 2006.

I'd say Europe has 5 countries that can host a WC with a reasonable amount of work. England, Germany, France Spain and Italy. If Brazil do get it for 2014 (and I think they're certain to) then they will need to construct 6-8 totally new stadiums.

Of course I also confidently predict that should the 2018 WC not go to Europe then the G-14 will throw their toys out of the pram and there will be no more world cups.
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old August 28th, 2005, 01:52 AM   #35
vertigosufferer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oldham in Gtr Manchester
Posts: 1,019
Likes (Received): 2

Japan built alot of new stadiums for the last world cup didn't they?? I wonder if they are being used regularly now, and hope they haven't become white elephants.
vertigosufferer no está en línea  
Old August 28th, 2005, 02:00 AM   #36
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by vertigosufferer
Japan built alot of new stadiums for the last world cup didn't they?? I wonder if they are being used regularly now, and hope they haven't become white elephants.
1. many 2002 venues were completely demolished
2. some are still in use but barely
3. some are really struggling and the construction of 20 venues in the first place should not have been allowed by FIFA
4. germany are to use 12 venues i think and south africa cut it down officially from 13 to ten, allowing for more profits and in effect larger crowds...
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old August 28th, 2005, 02:09 AM   #37
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

Rugby vs Football

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush
1. many 2002 venues were completely demolished
2. some are still in use but barely
3. some are really struggling and the construction of 20 venues in the first place should not have been allowed by FIFA
4. germany are to use 12 venues i think and south africa cut it down officially from 13 to ten, allowing for more profits and in effect larger crowds...
Of course the difference with Germany and Japan is that the German stadiums will be well used afterwards.

Since you're from SA, how does the relative popularity of football vs rugby work out there? Is there a regional difference or do the 2 sports co-exist? How do crowds compare (numbers wise)? Didn't football used to be the black mans game and rugby the sport of whites? Is this just bunk or is there still a racial division?
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old August 28th, 2005, 03:22 AM   #38
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain1974
Of course the difference with Germany and Japan is that the German stadiums will be well used afterwards.

Since you're from SA, how does the relative popularity of football vs rugby work out there? Is there a regional difference or do the 2 sports co-exist? How do crowds compare (numbers wise)? Didn't football used to be the black mans game and rugby the sport of whites? Is this just bunk or is there still a racial division?
good question

we must remember south africa is about 80% non-caucasian and soccer still as much a black mans games and supported mainly by blacks, however there are great inroads between rugby and soccer, but there is also still a clear distinction between the two, you wont see more than a a handful of "white" spectators at a local premier leagu match with rugby its still majority white but the support is reasonable from non-whites....

in terms of the soccer world cup, south africa has a great soccer fan base, actually the "white " soccer fans are keen for international soccer and there is great support for the english premier league here,,,myself included...so for a world cup everyone irrespective of colour will be rushing out to purchase tickets, as the white minority are by far the richer they are able to afford the ticket prices, but special consideration will be made for the poorer average wealth fan...in effect with the stadiums of which most (about 6-7) are existing and 3 or 4 new stadia will be built....so in terms of legacy and sustainability the term white elephant wont exist...the division cannot just be corrected, and although the division is a racial one mainly we must also remember its as much an socia economic division too...however expect a packed 95,000 soccer city stadium for the final, a full house at the opening ceremony and semi finals as well as good capacities at the quarter finals.. and excellent crowd attendance at the opening round matches as fewer stadia means less travelling for spectators and more support in general at each match...

however with 3 years to go before construction needs to be completed, things seem a bit tight and FIFA are only selecting the official stadia to host the matches later in the year or early 2006 im not sure, from then on the real planning can begin ....e.g cape town has two options for matches to be played at theres newlands rugby stadium (50,000) and athlone stadium which will bcome a legacy for soccer and have its capacity increased to about 50,000 as well...joburg has two stadia as well so until these decisions are made constructions and plans can move full steam ahead.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old August 28th, 2005, 04:05 AM   #39
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

SA

Thanks for the detailed answer.
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old August 28th, 2005, 05:15 AM   #40
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain1974
Thanks for the detailed answer.
yeah i do tend to make things a bit long...
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 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