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 17th, 2009, 03:37 PM   #401
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
Mate, you clearly have FAR too much time on your hands.

I really haven't got the time to answer you in any detail (except to say that I did have a good chuckle at the way you managed to massage the figures to get Arsenal to the top of the attendance charts).

So we'll just have to agree to disagree. Until such time as Brighton has established itself as a perennial Premiership club, there will be no need for a 40K stadium. Brighton aren't even in the Championship and don't look like getting there any time soon. In fact, they're currently sitting in the League One relegation zone. League Two beckons and the Premiership is a long, long way away. Why run before you can walk? A 30K stadium would more than suffice for the time being.
lol yes i do atm at least!

Fair enough, the only reason i brought this up, is coz i feel clubs should build stadiums for the future as well as the present!
bigbossman no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old February 17th, 2009, 03:38 PM   #402
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
I know there's one white elephant in Germany as a result of the 2006 finals, but I really don't like the idea of 40k seater stadiums being built anywhere and then left half-empty (or worse) for the next 20 years... Bradford, Plymouth, Brighton, etc., all cities that are never going to sell 40k tickets for football - the locals simply aren't interested enough.

To contradict myself, the only other thing I would add to the debate over which city/club needs a bigger stadium would be this...

In 1996 when Sunderland were building the Stadium of Light, many of our supporters (including myself) questioned the logic of building a 40k seater stadium for a club which hadn't managed to regularly sell-out Roker Park in the top division (capacity 20k at the time). A year after the 40k Stadium of Light opened an extra 2k seats were crammed in due to demand (and this was in the 2nd division), 2 or 3 years on and we were adding another 6k seats.

In short, even those of us who think we know everything, don't.
the bold comment imho is not true at all!

and your sunderland go a small way to proving why
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old February 17th, 2009, 03:47 PM   #403
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alemanniafan View Post
I fully agree with you there. Here in germany a few clubs suffer from too large stadia. And that is one of the worst szenarios that can happen to a club.
1860 München for example, currently 2nd Bundesliga, is almost about to go bankrupt, mostly because of the horrendous rent for the, in their case completely oversized, Allianzarena. Hertha BSC Berlin is for several years allready still looking for optional possibillities to leave the famous and beautiful Olympic Stadium in Berlin. And there are other examples where an oversized stadium creates a lot of problems because of the great costs.
And sadly it also causes a poor stadiumatmosphere which in turn makes it rather unattractive for people to visit the matches again. Stadium sizes should allways much rather be calculated according to the clubs average attendancies with a reasonable plus and not to meet the maximum possible attendancies for one or two matches during the season. And the reason why many German stadia even though several of them are still rather large are so crowded, allmost to the max, is that their sizes have been well calculated to match those numbers anot only because the popularity of soccer or the secific club increased so much. It's much rather a mix of a reasonable capacity, good marketing, good ticketing and the usual factors licke success. But even large teams like Cologne or Gladbach had well attended matches in their stay in the second Bundesliga, because of those other aspects like: not oversized stadia, reasonable ticketprices and a still fairly popular second Bundesliga.
It really doesn't make all that much sense to expand or build a stadium that is way too big for the local team. The local club will most certainly not profit in any way then. And that is why some stadia for the European cup in Switzerland and Austria were just temporarily expanded and downsized again after the cup. An oversized infrastructure is most certainly not beneficial at all for most clubs or cities.
So I suggest it would be much better to focus on the reasonable local demand and then either expand a stadium temporarily just for the Worldcup or just consider the clubs and cities that reasonably can get a 40k stadium filled, that would be much more beneficial for all parties than having oversized stadia here and there after a Worldcup.
On 1860 they averaged 40,000+ in 2. Bundesliga, in there first season in the allianz, there is no reason why they couldn't fill that stadium every week in the bundesliga. If they were getting those sort of crowds in the second tier.

On hertha, they got 70,000+ against bayern at the weekend, you may say it was against bayern, but i remember they had 70,000+ against chelsea in the champions league. They have a big fan base. They are in a big city, and with success they should definately fill their ground every week. If they maintain thier level attop the table, there is no reason why they can't pull 70,000+ crowds for the rest of the season. Obviously they are no Dortmund, so getting these crowds relies on massive success, but a smaller stadium would deny the maximum amount of fans the chance to see their team crowned champions. It's a fine balance!

On your final point i agree, but then doesn't selling out your ground prove that you can have a bigger one??
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old February 17th, 2009, 03:50 PM   #404
carlspannoosh
Registered User
 
carlspannoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Islington
Posts: 2,215
Likes (Received): 745

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Arsenal in the 20th century were the countries best supported.
I do agree with this bit.
carlspannoosh no está en línea  
Old February 17th, 2009, 03:52 PM   #405
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,022
Likes (Received): 4813

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlspannoosh View Post
I do agree with this bit.
S******!

Edit: Oops! Looks like the arbitary racism filter won't let me use the word "s n i g g e r"!
JimB no está en línea  
Old February 17th, 2009, 03:56 PM   #406
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

lol
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old February 17th, 2009, 04:15 PM   #407
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10338

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
S******!

Edit: Oops! Looks like the arbitary racism filter won't let me use the word "s n i g g e r"!
I believe it was designed by the Hampshire police. Can't be too careful, you know.
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 17th, 2009, 04:25 PM   #408
bumdingo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 143
Likes (Received): 0

On hertha, they got 70,000+ against bayern at the weekend, you may say it was against bayern, but i remember they had 70,000+ against chelsea in the champions league. They have a big fan base. They are in a big city, and with success they should definately fill their ground every week. If they maintain thier level attop the table, there is no reason why they can't pull 70,000+ crowds for the rest of the season. Obviously they are no Dortmund, so getting these crowds relies on massive success, but a smaller stadium would deny the maximum amount of fans the chance to see their team crowned champions. It's a fine balance!

Why is it Hertha seem to have so many empty seats compared to other German Clubs? (Bayern game aside). Berlin is the largest city in Germany with the only competion for support coming from Union Berlin. The Rhine-Rhur conurbation is far larger but is a conglomeration of cities and it contains at least 5 Bundesliga clubs.
bumdingo no está en línea  
Old February 17th, 2009, 04:42 PM   #409
Wuppeltje
Registered User
 
Wuppeltje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 5,839
Likes (Received): 965

I think the city seize isn't that important as it sometimes might look like.

In the Netherlands the city of Heereveen has about 29.000 inhabitants in a municipal of 43.313. At this moment they have a stadium of 28.500 (virtually every match full) and would like to expand to 40.000. An advantage is that Heereveen has the only succesful club in the area. They are however in one of the least dense area's of the Netherlands.

The city of the Hague has 482.212 inhabitants and has it own (and only) footballclub for years, just like Amsterdam with Ajax and Rotterdam with Feyenoord. However they have never been able to fill their new 15.000 seater. The local club has not been succesfull the last decades (they are switching a lot between the highest division and the first division a lot). But it is the only local club in the area.
__________________
Volg de Noord/Zuidlijn op Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram en Flickr
Wuppeltje no está en línea  
Old February 17th, 2009, 11:57 PM   #410
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
the bold comment imho is not true at all!

and your sunderland go a small way to proving why
I'm simply saying that none of those clubs have indicated that they would ever threaten to fill a 40k stadium.

Sunderland's massive rise in support surprised us, but really shouldn't - it was more or a return to the good times than an unprecedented wave of 'new' fans.

Ideal solution (in terms of a world cup, rather than in terms of my personal delight) would be:

Sheffield Utd (or Wed), Bristol City and Wolves promoted to the EPL this season (unlikely, I know).

Norwich promoted to EPL next season.
Leeds win promotion to CCC this season and to the EPL next season.

All 5 staying in the Prem at the expense of Fulham, Bolton, Middlesbro, Blackburn, Wigan, etc.

Hull, Portsmouth and Stoke all build there presence in the EPL and relocate/expand their grounds accordingly.

That way we'd have EPL clubs in London, Portsmouth, Bristol, Stoke, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Sunderland, Hull and Norwich, all cities that would appear capable of supporting a decent sized stadium. (Although, as above, I'd be a tad twitchy about Bristol, the South West has never been a traditional home for football).
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 12:31 AM   #411
Alemanniafan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 676
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman
On 1860 they averaged 40,000+ in 2. Bundesliga, in there first season in the allianz, there is no reason why they couldn't fill that stadium every week in the bundesliga. If they were getting those sort of crowds in the second tier.

On hertha, they got 70,000+ against bayern at the weekend, you may say it was against bayern, but i remember they had 70,000+ against chelsea in the champions league. They have a big fan base. They are in a big city, and with success they should definately fill their ground every week. If they maintain thier level attop the table, there is no reason why they can't pull 70,000+ crowds for the rest of the season. Obviously they are no Dortmund, so getting these crowds relies on massive success, but a smaller stadium would deny the maximum amount of fans the chance to see their team crowned champions. It's a fine balance!

On your final point i agree, but then doesn't selling out your ground prove that you can have a bigger one??
On 1860:
They're actually making a minus of about 3 mio € per year. And they're selling their best players each season to keep the debt down. The 1860 fans mostly hate the Allianzarena... and so on. The Alianzarena in fact is not a very good stadium at all, not even for Bayern München. The Bayernfans also complained about the poor stadiumatmosphere. The Allianzarena is overly expensive not al that reat compromise to meet the demands of both Clubs in Munich, which didn't work out all that well, even thought the stadium is a beauty. Bayern Munich would rather have the Allianzarena for themselves and 1860 might most likely not be able to afford playing there much longer. And they're not really close to going back up into the first Bundesliga soon, no surprise when you consider that in the last years they needed to sell their best players again and again.

Hertha BSC is very suzccessfull this season, but in all the last years they were pretty much average in the first Bundesliga. The Olympic Stadium in Berlin is one of the biggest stadia and in the last years they did have plenty of empty seats except for a few highlights like Bayern München. when bayern plays any club gets their stadium crowded. because they're a very attractive opponent and because they have Fans all over Germany and the world that come to see their stars. Hertha would theoretically have a huge fanbase, but in reality they don't have all that many fans. Berlin has several small soccerteams also. And Hertha isn't very trendy or all that popular in Germany eventhough they're succesfull at the moment.

Now back to this aspect:
Quote:
On your final point i agree, but then doesn't selling out your ground prove that you can have a bigger one??
actually yes it does... BUT in most of all cases you don't really want a bigger stadium as long as the capacity is still somewhat big enough. There are several reasons. First of all the maintenance and other cost for running a stadium. The bigger the stadium the higher the cost If you don't get your stadium rather full you pay extra money you could save otherwise. And the money a club makes alone with the standard ticketprices isn't all that much. Now if you maintain an extra capacity all season only to sell extra tickets for two or three matches you don't make more money. Usually the opposute is the case, you make less money. The reverse argument shows the problem better: Oversized stadium -> too many empty seats -> poor stadium atmosphere -> fewer fans -> Less money -> ...
The biggest problem is that an oversized stadium "dooms" a club to have success whatever the cost for that, to be able to finance the oversized stadium. So those clubs in many cases don't really have a very solid financial basis. When they're successfull everything works well, they get their stadium filled and make some extra money by selling more tickets (the extra income through the ticketing is actually coparably rather low to other sources like sponsoring and TV contracts, etc...) As long a sthey're sucessfull everything is allright, but as soon as they aren't an oversized and expensive stadium soon "eats up" everything. Oh and for whatever reason, here in germany usually those oversized stadia are in most cases also rather expensively built ones also by the way which worsenes the whole financial situation for the clubs, or the communities that run the stadiums to support their localclub, like Kaiserslautern for example. The city or state just decided to reduce the stadiumrent by 50%. Now suddenly the club is "successfull" again and wastes all the money they don't have on investing into new, rather expensive players.
But in reality it's just a generous financial support from the politicians and taxpayers in the end. The teams with oversized stadia are allmost all not very successfull... Hertha and Kaiserslautern are the only ones I can think of right now, but kaiserslautern still isn't sucessfully financially. And even if they should go up into the first league, as soon as they drop back out their financial crisis will most likely just start all over again. I don't know any club that did profit from an oversized stadium, besides those few small ones where the local community runs the stadium and let's the club play there for a very low rent. And that financial model is way too popular in Germany, not just with oversized stadia, also with several smaller well proportioned ones.
And it's not a very good solution to the dilemma, having taxpayers jump in whenever the clubs financial situation isn't all too good.
Alemanniafan no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 12:50 AM   #412
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

i beg for you not to call it the EPL!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
I'm simply saying that none of those clubs have indicated that they would ever threaten to fill a 40k stadium.

Sunderland's massive rise in support surprised us, but really shouldn't - it was more or a return to the good times than an unprecedented wave of 'new' fans.

Ideal solution (in terms of a world cup, rather than in terms of my personal delight) would be:

Sheffield Utd (or Wed), Bristol City and Wolves promoted to the EPL this season (unlikely, I know).
Not unlikely as you think, i take it you aren't following the league. Wolves are top, Sheffield united are 6th and Bristol city are 8th. Perfectly concievable that 2 of the three will go up.

Quote:
Norwich promoted to EPL next season.
Leeds win promotion to CCC this season and to the EPL next season.
Or ipswich they are interchangeable really

NO chance Leeds are done for at least another season



Quote:
All 5 staying in the Prem at the expense of Fulham, Bolton, Middlesbro, Blackburn, Wigan, etc.
I resent you lumping fulham in with the rest of that tosh!

Quote:
Hull, Portsmouth and Stoke all build there presence in the EPL and relocate/expand their grounds accordingly.
Hulll???? and you say Bristol has no football pedigree. Play off final last year between Bristol city and Hull. It wasn't Hull who were given extra tickets to their allocation. It was Bristol city. who took 45,000 aka 4-5000 more than Hull IIRC and could've sold more

Quote:
That way we'd have EPL clubs in London, Portsmouth, Bristol, Stoke, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Sunderland, Hull and Norwich, all cities that would appear capable of supporting a decent sized stadium. (Although, as above, I'd be a tad twitchy about Bristol, the South West has never been a traditional home for football).
The bold comment is bull. I don't want to get too statistical. But last year Bristol Rovers the second team of Bristol took 40,000 to Wembley for the Johnsons paint trophy final.

Bristol, Plymouth, Swindon are football cities. Much more so than Hull. To find out why they haven't showed much in football you need to look into their histories etc etc

Hull a bigger football town than Bristol

let alone some of the others on your list!
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 11:39 AM   #413
bumdingo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 143
Likes (Received): 0

Regarding Hull v Bristol City play off match, we must remember that Bristol is much nearer to Wembley than Hull is. It should be appreciated that for these one off games cost / distance will go out the window but there comes a point of thinning out where x amount of supporters will travel regardless of match importance, cost and distance. We could suggest that both Bristol City and Hull could take say 40k each to Wembley of hard core money / distance no object supporters, after that we have the supporters where these factors influence their decision. For Bristol City fans these factors are less detrimental allowing more will they won't they fans to make the trip. Personally I would say the clubs are of very similar size and stature though you would have to say on current league position Hull are the "bigger" club. Hull get relegated, Bristol promoted and the balance shifts.
bumdingo no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 02:36 PM   #414
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
i beg for you not to call it the EPL!!
It's a lot easier than English Premier League, if we were talking about Scotland we'd be saying SPL. I'm in Australia, it's become natural shorthand when discussing football with the locals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Not unlikely as you think, i take it you aren't following the league. Wolves are top, Sheffield united are 6th and Bristol city are 8th. Perfectly concievable that 2 of the three will go up.
Noted - but the 'not likely' was based on all three, 1 or 2 is very possible, 3 is 'not likely'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
NO chance Leeds are done for at least another season
Only 4 points off the play-offs. They still have a decent shot at promotion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
I resent you lumping fulham in with the rest of that tosh!
Purely on the basis that London is already covered - I could quite happily toss West Ham and Spurs into the equation, and I'd LOVE to put Chel$ki in there as well!

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Hulll???? and you say Bristol has no football pedigree. Play off final last year between Bristol city and Hull. It wasn't Hull who were given extra tickets to their allocation. It was Bristol city. who took 45,000 aka 4-5000 more than Hull IIRC and could've sold more
Hull have proved this season that they can fill their stadium (average is only 1k off capacity). Bristol may well do the same if given a chance. They always used to appear better supported than most southern clubs to be fair, I'm not sure they could support a 40k venue though. Taking large numbers of supporters to Wembley is no indicator of real support - many clubs have done the same down the years. No point in having fans who will travel to London to say "I was there" if the buggers don't turn up at Ashton Gate on Saturday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Hull a bigger football town than Bristol

let alone some of the others on your list!
Hull are there by virtue of (a) already being in the EPL (sorry), which is the biggest element in the equation of who needs/can support a larger venue, and (b) being geographically separated from the other cities listed, thus being an attractive option if the FA wanted to spread the bid around the country.

As I said before, if Bristol get up they may prove that they could regularly fill a 30-40k stadium - hopefully they do because a large venue in Bristol would be a massive boost for an English world cup bid.

As for Swindon, Plymouth, etc., being big football towns - they may or may not be bigger than Hull, but as I've said - Hull are up there and doing it, Swindon, Plymouth etc, aren't. Supporter numbers may be low because of a lack of success, but if they were really so passionate about their team and their football, wouldn't these supporters be going along regularly anyway?

Swindon - average crowd 7.5k.
Huddersfield - average crowd 13k (despite a similar lack of success over the last few decades).

Plymouth - average crowd 11k.
Norwich - average crowd 23k (from a capacity of 25k).
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 03:38 PM   #415
Jizzy
Royal Pimp
 
Jizzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 203
Likes (Received): 1

2018 will go to england. if it boils down to america vs england, england would win easily. their stadiums are newer and refurbished, they actually care about the sport whereas the stupid yanks see it as a profit opportunity, and we havent hosted the damn thing for over 40 years, whereas america hosted it in 94 and look how boring that tourny turned out to be. furthermore, english passion for football crushes anything the americans are capable of. plus the.....at football - they even have the.....to label it 'soccer' not 'football'!!

"Inappropriate Language"

Last edited by www.sercan.de; February 18th, 2009 at 04:16 PM.
Jizzy no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 03:40 PM   #416
Jizzy
Royal Pimp
 
Jizzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 203
Likes (Received): 1

2022 should go to australia. i think the football in oz is very underappreciated. plus their players are alot better than the yanks. for example, harry kewell, a champions league winner - far more successful than any (name one who has a champions league medal). and again, it shouldnt go to america. their stadiums are old and , they think just because its bigger that means itll be better when this is clearly not the case; the world dont has such 5-yr old style of thinking. plus i think oz is capable of an upset. and they've never hosted it before, which will be refreshing for once. and it sounds quite exotic too, i love to see sydney host the final, sounds wicked.

"Inappropriate Language"

Last edited by www.sercan.de; February 18th, 2009 at 04:17 PM.
Jizzy no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 03:43 PM   #417
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10338

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jizzy View Post
2018 will go to england. if it boils down to america vs england, england would win easily. their stadiums are newer and refurbished, they actually care about the sport whereas the stupid yanks see it as a profit opportunity, and we havent hosted the damn thing for over 40 years, whereas america hosted it in 94 and look how boring that tourny turned out to be. furthermore, english passion for football crushes anything the americans are capable of. plus the yanks are shit at football - they even have the ******* gall to label it 'soccer' not 'football'!!
If that's going to be your level of debate could you not bother?

Incidentally, the best American stadiums are far more modern than what we've got. Let's ignore these two posts people as they're not indicative of what the English really think of America. Correcting this troll would be a waste of your energy.
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 03:49 PM   #418
berkshire royal
Registered User
 
berkshire royal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 557
Likes (Received): 1

I agree Rob I don’t like that sort of attitude. If England are to win the rights to host the 2018 World Cup I want it to be because the bid is quality not because it's been to long or we have a passion for game. Hopefully the FA and the government use this opportunity to put some money into stadiums and infrastructure after all this could give a much needed boost to the economy. And none of us should be drawn into bashing other nations it’s childish.
berkshire royal no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 04:18 PM   #419
berkshire royal
Registered User
 
berkshire royal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 557
Likes (Received): 1


They (SOME) take cheap shots at our sports and you say they should be bombed of the planet that does sound childish to me . Anyone who responds to stuff like that is only lowering themselves to their level when you respond especially in that manner. If their media wants to trash our sport let them we will just continue to watch our sports and show absolutely no interest in theirs thats a better response don't you think.
And please don't continue your arguements are just plain and simply childish and only make us look bad.
berkshire royal no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 04:41 PM   #420
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10338

Well, let's ignore Jizzy now he's been brigged and get back on topic:

Coe joins 2018 World Cup bid team

Sebastian Coe has been appointed as a non-executive board member of England's 2018 World Cup bid team.

Lord Coe will continue to chair the London Organising Committee for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

But he has agreed a leave of absence from his position as chairman of Fifa's ethics committee.

"Winning the World Cup would be the hat-trick in a golden era for the UK following the Olympics in 2012 and the Commonwealth Games in 2014," said Coe.

It is understood that Coe, who led the team that successfully secured the Olympics and Paralympics for London, will not receive a salary for his position with the 2018 bid.

"I look forward to playing my part in our bid for the Fifa World Cup," he added.

"I am passionate about football so am delighted to be standing alongside many other people and football greats up and down the country in bidding for this event.

"I would like to thank Fifa President Mr Blatter for agreeing to this arrangement."

England 2018 Ltd chairman Lord Triesman said: "I firmly believe that making Lord Coe a member of our executive board significantly enhances our chances of success.

"Lord Coe is a highly regarded international sports ambassador who is not only passionate about football but also commands great respect in the global football community.

"His experiences in leading the successful London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic bid and generating a wealth of domestic and international support will be invaluable to us.

"He is also held in high esteem by the Fifa football family and this, coupled with his London 2012 success, means he is a tremendous addition to the board and to the 2018 team in general."

Lord Coe joins Sir Keith Mills, another member of the London 2012 bid, as a non-executive director of the World Cup bid team.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7896703.stm

RobH 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 01:20 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