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 20th, 2009, 03:11 PM   #461
www.sercan.de
Galatasaray SK
 
www.sercan.de's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 27,950
Likes (Received): 2719

Come one.
Ok i can understand if they will sue it instead of Emirates. But Wembley out?
__________________
International titles of Galatasaray SK
UEFA Europa League (1): 2000
UEFA Super Cup (1): 2000

ULEB Eurocup (1): 2016

FIBA EuroLeague Women (1): 2014
FIBA EuroCup Women (1): 2009

IWBF Champions Cup (5): 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014
IWBF André Vergauwen Cup (1): 2017
IWBF Intercontinental Cup (4): 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012

EJU Golden League (1): 2014
www.sercan.de no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old February 20th, 2009, 03:14 PM   #462
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10341

No suggestion of that sercan. Where did you get that idea?
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2009, 03:41 PM   #463
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,022
Likes (Received): 4813

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
I think a lot of us have been hoping for this - partly because it's a huge boost in terms of quality and capacity, and partly because it'll put an end to the Arsenal/Spurs arguments about who should be the 2nd venue in London.
Twickenham would certainly offer a bigger second London stadium than Emirates or the new Spurs or Chelsea stadiums. But I'm not so sure that capacity is a major issue. Wembley will be the main London bid stadium and it has more than enough capacity for the big games. A 60K capacity would be perfectly adequate for smaller games, between less glamorous or popular nations. Besides, if rumours are to be believed, Arsenal will look to increase capacity to 70K or so in the not too distant future.

As to quality - there I have to disagree with you. The Emirates stadium (just as the new Spurs or Chelsea stadiums will be) is of a far higher quality than Twickenham. Other than the new south stand, Twickers is just an ugly, concrete giant. Its corporate areas aren't anything like the quality of the Emirates' and neither are the general public concourses. The Emirates also has an infinitely superior pitch for football that won't have to undergo any last minute overhaul. Lastly, although the Emirates' stands are too far from the pitch for my liking, I believe that they would still be considerably closer to the pitch than those at a Twickers in football mode.
JimB no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2009, 03:49 PM   #464
www.sercan.de
Galatasaray SK
 
www.sercan.de's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 27,950
Likes (Received): 2719

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
No suggestion of that sercan. Where did you get that idea?
Dmans sorry. I thought instead of
My fault. But 3 stadiums in London?
__________________
International titles of Galatasaray SK
UEFA Europa League (1): 2000
UEFA Super Cup (1): 2000

ULEB Eurocup (1): 2016

FIBA EuroLeague Women (1): 2014
FIBA EuroCup Women (1): 2009

IWBF Champions Cup (5): 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014
IWBF André Vergauwen Cup (1): 2017
IWBF Intercontinental Cup (4): 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012

EJU Golden League (1): 2014
www.sercan.de no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2009, 03:55 PM   #465
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10341

Exactly. They might be right that England 2018 are considering Twickenham, but they almost certainly aren't right about 3 stadiums being used in the capital plus two in Manchester. It's not very well researched and there are no quotes.

A pinch of salt required until we get more information I think.
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2009, 06:12 PM   #466
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

Well there could be a deal on here, as the RFU want to use Wembley in a possible 2015 English Rugby Union world cup, and if so then the FA would want to use Twickenham in a 2018 World Cup. Here is an article on it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...cup-twickenham
Kobo no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2009, 06:45 PM   #467
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
As someone who comes from that area
hmmm

Quote:
I think there's an element to do with population here as well. Both Newcastle and Sunderland have support which is in many ways disproportionate to the local population.
No they don't tyne and wear has a population of over a million people in it. 2 professional teams for a million people = two well supported teams!!

Quote:
The entire North-East, from the Scottish border in the north to south of the Tees, has a population of around a million,
no it doesn't

the population in north east england based on the 2001 census is 2.5 million.

are you sure you're from the north east...


Quote:
yet we've got 40-50k regularly at Newcastle, 30-40k regularly at Sunderland and 25-30k at Boro.
I re-iterate. 3 clubs in that area should = three well supported clubs


Quote:
Thus, it's a bit of a hard sell to justify that million people having two venues, whilst the million in the south west have one (or none).
If Bristol has half a million, and plymouth has a quarter of a million. do you honestly think the population of the rest of the south west is 250,000.

Devon has over a million people for crying out loud!

The actual population of the south west is
4,928,458

So if the north east got 2 venues and the south west got none it would be completely unfair. However considering the south west has only 2 cities that can sustain it, the same as the north east. 2 stadiums in the NE and one in the SW wouldn't be unfair at all!
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2009, 09:49 PM   #468
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,130
Likes (Received): 3205

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobo View Post
Well there could be a deal on here, as the RFU want to use Wembley in a possible 2015 English Rugby Union world cup, and if so then the FA would want to use Twickenham in a 2018 World Cup. Here is an article on it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...cup-twickenham
Now that type of quid pro quo would lead me to believe Twickers could very well be used, however this line from the linked article caught my eye and I'm now gauging how much salt needs to be applied here:
Quote:
Fifa has made it clear that each city in the bid can have up to three stadiums and, while Wembley Stadium will inevitably be the centrepiece and host the final, Twickenham and Arsenal's Emirates Stadium are both impressing the team behind England's bid.
'm not sure if they mean simply for bidding purposes and the list will be culled by FIFA, or if they mean above and beyond the minimum distribution of venues and cities (10 & 9). I wouldn't be disappointed if Twickenham was indeed used for the cup, but it'd be a shame to see a quality club venue left out at their expense.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2009, 10:18 PM   #469
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10341

Quote:
The other possible venues in London would include one that does not yet exist – Tottenham's proposed new ground near their current White Hart Lane home which is not beyond the planning stage – and Chelsea's Stamford Bridge. However, neither is felt to be up to the required standard
Amazing that they already know! Stamford Bridge, fair enough; that'll never be chosen over the Emirates. But, if this is true and isn't just paper talk, they're being rather hasty on Spurs' new stadium!
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 21st, 2009, 03:28 PM   #470
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
hmmm

(re: population of north-east being 1 million) No they don't tyne and wear has a population of over a million people in it. 2 professional teams for a million people = two well supported teams!!

the population in north east england based on the 2001 census is 2.5 million.

are you sure you're from the north east...

If Bristol has half a million, and plymouth has a quarter of a million. do you honestly think the population of the rest of the south west is 250,000.

Devon has over a million people for crying out loud!

The actual population of the south west is
4,928,458

So if the north east got 2 venues and the south west got none it would be completely unfair. However considering the south west has only 2 cities that can sustain it, the same as the north east. 2 stadiums in the NE and one in the SW wouldn't be unfair at all!
Why would I lie about my heritage? I was born in Durham and grew up in Sunderland, first house I owned was in Washington. Have had jobs in Sunderland, Washington and Newcastle. Have attended several games at St James' Park, the old Ayresome Park and the Riverside, and the vast majority of home games played by Sunderland between 79-99.

As for the population figures - re: North-east, Tyne & Wear and south-west, I got my numbers mixed up. Very simple. I remembered the figure of a million and incorrectly associated it with the north east rather than with Tyne & Wear.

I think it's funny that you accuse someone of bashing the south, but when the same person suggests that two stadiums in the north-east and only one in the south-west is unbalanced you immediately switch round to saying that the south-east can't support the required stadiums (which was my point earlier in the thread).
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old February 22nd, 2009, 12:05 AM   #471
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
Why would I lie about my heritage? I was born in Durham and grew up in Sunderland, first house I owned was in Washington. Have had jobs in Sunderland, Washington and Newcastle. Have attended several games at St James' Park, the old Ayresome Park and the Riverside, and the vast majority of home games played by Sunderland between 79-99.
I'm happy for you!

Quote:
As for the population figures - re: North-east, Tyne & Wear and south-west, I got my numbers mixed up. Very simple. I remembered the figure of a million and incorrectly associated it with the north east rather than with Tyne & Wear.
ok... and the fact you thought there were 1 million people in the south west....?

Quote:
I think it's funny that you accuse someone of bashing the south, but when the same person suggests that two stadiums in the north-east and only one in the south-west is unbalanced
It is unbalanced in overall population terms, but it's not that black and white

if you look a few pages back, i was advocating a 16 stadium bid, based on the fact that they use 8 stadiums in the euros for 31 games, the world cup is 64 games...

However as it is a maximum 12 stadium bid i have no problems in the NE having 2, because as there are 8 regions in England, at least 4 will have two stadiums, it's unavaoidable!

The north east has the facilities already regardless

Quote:
you immediately switch round to saying that the south-east can't support the required stadiums (which was my point earlier in the thread).
No i didn't, stop lying.

I said 1 stadium for the SOUTH WEST, i still maintain the "greater SOUTH EAST" should have at least 3 stadiums, 2 of which should be in London and another in one of the major settlements (portsmouth, Southampton, Reading or brighton etc)
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old February 22nd, 2009, 12:42 PM   #472
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,240
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
I don't know quite how seriously to take this article (not just because it's in the Daily Bumwipe) as it suggests:

"Twickenham would be used in addition to Wembley and Arsenal's Emirates Stadium."

and

"As things stand, Old Trafford would be used and so, in all probability, would Manchester City's home at Eastlands."

Really? So five stadiums in two cities?
I'd guess they maybe getting confused between a shortlisted stadium and a definate host. As I said I wouldnt be at all supprized if the FA presents a bid with 10-12 stadiums at or very near FIFA standards then another half dozen new stadiums or major redevolpments to get the best of security(no repeat of 1986 or the rumours around 2010, not that I think there was ever much behind them Mo ) and sustainable redevolpment. One possilbe weakness I an see with an English bid is that rivals will point out the problems we have getting new stadiums approved and built so not depending on them maybe a smart move.

The most interesting point in that for me and something I hadnt considered was the cost of the twickenham redevolpment. Recouping the £80 million or whatever it was may well be enough to overcome objections to football and perhaps spend some cash on projects to sweeten the local residents.

Last edited by MoreOrLess; February 22nd, 2009 at 12:56 PM.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old February 22nd, 2009, 01:32 PM   #473
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
I'm happy for you!
I'm glad you are. I've got no problem with people picking fault with my numbers, my reasoning or my general thickness, but it gets my goat when my heritage (or honesty) is questioned!

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
ok... and the fact you thought there were 1 million people in the south west....?
Probably should have said more than a million, it was simply to indicate that the south-west would have fewer stadiums for AT LEAST the same number of people (I was fairly sure it was more, I didn't realise it was that much more)... Which could be considered to be unfair. Your numbers strengthen my case on that score. It's not something I agree with - put the world cup games where people currently go to watch football, seems a fair concept to me.

Re: South-East/South-West. It was a typo on my part, apologies. I was referring back to your previous comments about Swindon, Plymouth, etc.

For the record, I fully support the idea of the North-East having two venues, principally because I support the notion of an English world cup being held in 'existing' stadia (that is, stadia that would be there whether we won a world cup bid or not). There aren't too many countries in the world who could do this and I think it would be something of a point of pride to be able to say that we can do this without making any significant stadium changes. The main reason I put the opposing argument was to show (a) a lack of bias, and (b) the reality that some of the required facilities (airports, hotels, etc) for Sunderland to host would already be a part of Newcastle's 'quota'. I'm not sure how FIFA would calculate this. I understand an international airport is required for host cities - I'm not sure if the same international airport can service two of those cities or not.

Last edited by Benjuk; February 22nd, 2009 at 01:38 PM.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old February 23rd, 2009, 01:11 AM   #474
Schmeek
Registered User
 
Schmeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,568
Likes (Received): 1

Sorry I still don't see the argument for using both St. James' and SOL unless as a backup. It will surely be the former with the latter in reserve.
Both stadiums are very good, and SOL is worthy of WC action, but I can't see any justification for needing two stadiums so close to each other in a fairly remote area of the country. Yes I know Middlesbrough is just down the road as well, but I think the KC would get the nod before the SOL.
Yes, I've heard the argument about Old Trafford and the new Anfield being close together, but we're talking here about the two biggest clubs in the country which belong to core cities lying in very densly populated areas. It's simply a different kettle of fish...
Schmeek no está en línea  
Old February 23rd, 2009, 01:46 AM   #475
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

firstly it's hull

secondly, Yorkshire has two stadiums/cities ahead of it in the pecking order leeds and sheffield. It shouldn't and won't beat out either of these, so if we include it, it would mean three stadiums for one region, which isn't fair at all.

we have 8 regions and 12 stadiums. 4 regions will have two stadiums, it's a given it will be yorkshire, the north west and london that will get two, the other i'd sooner have the north east personally
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old February 24th, 2009, 01:57 AM   #476
Schmeek
Registered User
 
Schmeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,568
Likes (Received): 1

I think you mis-read my sentance. But then again it was badly written/misleading I suppose.
I meant Hull's KC would be more desirable tied in with a bid containing St. James' rather than the latter being with the Riverside or SOL.
Schmeek no está en línea  
Old February 24th, 2009, 01:09 PM   #477
Wolds Mariner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 0

On what basis?
Wolds Mariner no está en línea  
Old February 24th, 2009, 06:00 PM   #478
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmeek View Post
I think you mis-read my sentance. But then again it was badly written/misleading I suppose.
I meant Hull's KC would be more desirable tied in with a bid containing St. James' rather than the latter being with the Riverside or SOL.
For me sunderland is a much greater prospect than hull. no offence but hull.

I think you misunderstood my point. Hull is in Yorkshire not the north east, so can't really be tied in with Newcastle. For that matter middlesbrough is in yorkshire and the north east (major paradox ). However, the point is Yorkshire already has two candidate cities (Sheffield and Leeds) above Hull. So Hull is out of the running, for me anyway.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old February 25th, 2009, 01:02 AM   #479
Schmeek
Registered User
 
Schmeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,568
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolds Mariner View Post
On what basis?
We seem to be going round in circles on the same issue in two seperate threads...
Look, it's nothing against Sunderland - fantastic club, very impressive stadium, rich history, never been to the town so can't comment on that. My opinion is based solely on the basis of geographic spread (god I hate that term). I simply can't see the justification on using two grounds so close together, when other areas have none at all. Yes I understand these areas will require new stadia/upgrading but this is what happens at world cups. I cant think of any WC's where no building work was necesary except usa '94, and I suspect maybe even there there might have been something done (cant be arsed to research).
So there you have it. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Schmeek no está en línea  
Old February 25th, 2009, 08:18 AM   #480
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Grew up in Sunderland and spent an awful lot of time at the Stadium of Light... Speaking from that point of view, but trying to look beyond my Wearside-blinkers... If there are going to be 10 stadiums in England, then I can't see Sunderland being one of them - UNLESS someone can justify completing the second tier.

Geographically speaking - Sunderland and Newcastle are so close together and so well linked by public transport and roads, that which stadium is used very much comes down to capacity.

From a footballing point of view, and from the needs of the local community, I can't think of a reason to complete the second tier at Sunderland. However, the stadium was designed with the extensions in mind - so bumping capacity to 63k at the SoL would be far cheaper and far easier than bumping St James' to anything close to that capacity.

From the point of view of urban regeneration - no doubt if Sunderland bumped the capacity up and the FA/FIFA opted for our place the stimulus to the city center and particularly the area around the stadium would be enormous. (political rant starts here) The center of Newcastle on the other hand is already extremely well developed due to successive projects and local government schemes which have been centered on the Tyne rather than the Wear.

Perfect world, both venues would be used because they're both top class and but for the front couple of rows of seating they both match FIFA's guidelines.
Benjuk 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 11:02 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