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 25th, 2009, 10:52 AM   #481
LandOfGreenGinger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 55
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
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.
I don't think you can discount Hull simply because its in Yorkshire and so are Sheffield and Leeds. The fact is that Hull is a long way from those 2 venues. Leeds and Sheffield are closer to Manchester than thay are to Hull. If you discount Hull on its proximity to other venues then Brighton would be also too close to London ditto Reading, Nottingham too close to Birmingham etc.

Big plus for Hull is the stadium location, a city centre park next to a railway, so lots of room for hospitality and potential for a rail halt. Saying that the big question mark over Hull as a venue would be hotel rooms, at the moment nowhere near enough, and no real demand for the numbers required. So i think that Hull's chance will in the end come as a backup if Sheffield and Leeds can't put together redevelopment packages, and with the work required that isn't beyond the realms of possibility.
LandOfGreenGinger no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old February 25th, 2009, 11:06 AM   #482
LandOfGreenGinger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 55
Likes (Received): 1

To me the argument about SoL or St James is easy to solve, it will be both, as little upgrade is required to meet the venue requirements. There is no reason NOT to choose SoL & St James. IF there is an argument Sunderland is too close to Newcastle then maybe its a case of them sharing games, these 2 venues don't need 4-5 games each to make it viable for them to be venues. Surely that makes these 2 automatic choices?
LandOfGreenGinger no está en línea  
Old February 25th, 2009, 01:17 PM   #483
Schmeek
Registered User
 
Schmeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,568
Likes (Received): 1

Well at present they would be certainties. That's for sure, as there is no reason against using both right now. But my argument is a hypothetical one, which reasons that if/when competition arrives in the form of new stadia/expansions in areas of the country where present infrastructure is inadequate (which is a highly likely scenario), then would both still be certainties?
Schmeek no está en línea  
Old February 25th, 2009, 02:08 PM   #484
ccfc-4-life
Play up Sky Blues
 
ccfc-4-life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 820
Likes (Received): 2

The probelm is the area - Sunderland is a dump (no offence intended to locals)

Also, I dont think Sunderland has the amenities to support and cater for large numbers of international football fans. Not enough hotels, bars, restaurants etc. The thousands of supporters would be watching football at SoL and then travelling back to their hotels....in Newcastle.

So really we may aswell have just Newcastle in the bid.
ccfc-4-life no está en línea  
Old February 25th, 2009, 03:23 PM   #485
berkshire royal
Registered User
 
berkshire royal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 557
Likes (Received): 1


Thatís my thinking as well. Newcastle is a classy and underrated city, and St James' is the bigger of the two but also a far more known stadium worldwide.

I think and hope that at least 2 maybe 3 new stadiums will be built with the help of government funding and all the other stadium get some kind of improvement and modernisation. Sadly I can see the team being to short sighted and cocky though and just putting in stadiums that are built and not offering much in terms of financial help for teams building or improving their stadia
berkshire royal no está en línea  
Old February 25th, 2009, 03:44 PM   #486
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc-4-life View Post
The probelm is the area - Sunderland is a dump (no offence intended to locals)

Also, I dont think Sunderland has the amenities to support and cater for large numbers of international football fans. Not enough hotels, bars, restaurants etc. The thousands of supporters would be watching football at SoL and then travelling back to their hotels....in Newcastle.

So really we may aswell have just Newcastle in the bid.
As a native of Sunderland, I've been saying this for quite a while now. However, I resent it coming from someone from Coventry!

As I said before, the only way I can see the Stadium of Light involved is if we upped our capacity to 63k, and used the hosting scenario to upgrade the area around the stadium and the city center. There's plenty that could be done but hasn't over the years because everytime there's public money available it seems to go to Newcastle.
eg/ the Metro transit system, paid for by Tyne & Wear rate-payers, wasn't connected to Wearside for 20-25 years after it opened on Tyneside.

I'll take that chip off my shoulder now.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old February 25th, 2009, 03:48 PM   #487
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by berkshire royal View Post

Thatís my thinking as well. Newcastle is a classy and underrated city, and St James' is the bigger of the two but also a far more known stadium worldwide.

I think and hope that at least 2 maybe 3 new stadiums will be built with the help of government funding and all the other stadium get some kind of improvement and modernisation. Sadly I can see the team being to short sighted and cocky though and just putting in stadiums that are built and not offering much in terms of financial help for teams building or improving their stadia
I have to say it's been a pet peeve of mine that various clubs have bent over backwards to redevelop their own stadia, at their own cost, over the last 20 years, often sacrificing spending on players and getting themselves into all kinds of trouble (I'm looking at Coventry, Southampton, and to an even more dramatic extent Oxford)... All of a sudden, some bugger is going to get lucky (Bristol, Norwich, possibly a Yorkshire club and maybe one of the east midlands, maybe even Pompey down south) and have a large chunk of their stadium paid for as part of the world cup program.

We have a chance to do it in existing stadia - I'd love to see us do it that way. After all, the biggest strength of the English bid is the popularity and success of the game in England - what better way to prove that popularity than to be able to say, we'll do it with what we've already got, we're so good we don't have to build anything!
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old February 25th, 2009, 03:53 PM   #488
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,022
Likes (Received): 4813

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
I have to say it's been a pet peeve of mine that various clubs have bent over backwards to redevelop their own stadia, at their own cost, over the last 20 years, often sacrificing spending on players and getting themselves into all kinds of trouble (I'm looking at Coventry, Southampton, and to an even more dramatic extent Oxford)... All of a sudden, some bugger is going to get lucky (Bristol, Norwich, possibly a Yorkshire club and maybe one of the east midlands, maybe even Pompey down south) and have a large chunk of their stadium paid for as part of the world cup program.

We have a chance to do it in existing stadia - I'd love to see us do it that way. After all, the biggest strength of the English bid is the popularity and success of the game in England - what better way to prove that popularity than to be able to say, we'll do it with what we've already got, we're so good we don't have to build anything!
Agreed. If any permanent structure at any stadium is to be built with public money, then the money must only be in the form of a loan at a market interest rate.
JimB no está en línea  
Old February 25th, 2009, 04:23 PM   #489
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,780
Likes (Received): 10347

A loan yes, but surely it'd have to have a lower rate. Otherwise what's the advantage in taking public money?

Unless you're suggesting the taxpayer gives money to clubs that banks wouldn't, in which case that sounds rather risky, for the clubs and for the taxpayer.
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 25th, 2009, 05:01 PM   #490
Schmeek
Registered User
 
Schmeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,568
Likes (Received): 1

probably a loan which on which repayment could be deferred until a certain time - 5 years for instance.

However, this is where my home town has the advantage I feel. City's new stadium is planned to be expandable especially for the WC on a temporary basis.
This means that the club would not benefit in this way, as the temporary expansion would be removed afterwards, and no money would be spent by the club itself.
Schmeek no está en línea  
Old February 25th, 2009, 05:01 PM   #491
ccfc-4-life
Play up Sky Blues
 
ccfc-4-life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 820
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
As a native of Sunderland, I've been saying this for quite a while now. However, I resent it coming from someone from Coventry!

As I said before, the only way I can see the Stadium of Light involved is if we upped our capacity to 63k, and used the hosting scenario to upgrade the area around the stadium and the city center. There's plenty that could be done but hasn't over the years because everytime there's public money available it seems to go to Newcastle.
eg/ the Metro transit system, paid for by Tyne & Wear rate-payers, wasn't connected to Wearside for 20-25 years after it opened on Tyneside.

I'll take that chip off my shoulder now.
Hey, Coventry is no Venise, we all know that

But I wouldnt go as far as to say that Coventry is as bad as Sunderland or worse!

Even if SoL was expanded to 64k, I just cant see why a place like Sunderland should be hosting games for the world's biggest sporting event (football pisses over the olympics)I think larger cities around the country should be given priority over Sunderland IMO.
ccfc-4-life no está en línea  
Old February 25th, 2009, 05:14 PM   #492
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by LandOfGreenGinger View Post
I don't think you can discount Hull simply because its in Yorkshire and so are Sheffield and Leeds. The fact is that Hull is a long way from those 2 venues. Leeds and Sheffield are closer to Manchester than thay are to Hull. If you discount Hull on its proximity to other venues then Brighton would be also too close to London ditto Reading, Nottingham too close to Birmingham etc.
The difference being. That Brighton and reading are in a different region to London. And nottingham is in the east midlands, birmingham in the west. Hull maybe far from Leeds but it's all yorkshire, and it's hardly heavily populated area that deserves it's own representation.

Quote:
Big plus for Hull is the stadium location, a city centre park next to a railway, so lots of room for hospitality and potential for a rail halt. Saying that the big question mark over Hull as a venue would be hotel rooms, at the moment nowhere near enough, and no real demand for the numbers required. So i think that Hull's chance will in the end come as a backup if Sheffield and Leeds can't put together redevelopment packages, and with the work required that isn't beyond the realms of possibility.
And so it should be
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old February 25th, 2009, 06:08 PM   #493
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,022
Likes (Received): 4813

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
A loan yes, but surely it'd have to have a lower rate. Otherwise what's the advantage in taking public money?

Unless you're suggesting the taxpayer gives money to clubs that banks wouldn't, in which case that sounds rather risky, for the clubs and for the taxpayer.
Not necessarily.

The banks have swung from one extreme to another. That's why the government are desperately trying to get them to start lending again. Banks have become overly cautious.

As to offering a lower rate, why should a select few clubs benefit from an arbitary decision on the location of World Cup venues? How would you feel, for instance, if Spurs were struggling to pay off their stadium loan at a high interest rate and Arsenal were suddenly given public money at a lower interest rate to increase their capacity to 75K? I know that I would be furious.
JimB no está en línea  
Old February 25th, 2009, 11:21 PM   #494
Gherkin
actual gherkin
 
Gherkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13,796
Likes (Received): 515

Bristol City's new stadium can officially be expanded to 42,000 seats for the 2018 WC
Gherkin no está en línea  
Old February 25th, 2009, 11:52 PM   #495
ccfc-4-life
Play up Sky Blues
 
ccfc-4-life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 820
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gherkin View Post
Bristol City's new stadium can officially be expanded to 42,000 seats for the 2018 WC
I thought 45,000 was the minimum capacity for a WC bid?
ccfc-4-life no está en línea  
Old February 26th, 2009, 01:22 AM   #496
Wolds Mariner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 0

Not yet. I've heard FIFA are looking at increasing the minimum figure, but it is still 40,000 at the moment.
Wolds Mariner no está en línea  
Old February 26th, 2009, 01:29 AM   #497
Wolds Mariner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmeek View Post
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.
On this occasion, my specific query was in relation to the KC. Great arena though it is at the moment, surely this could well be another Reading in the making - talk about expansion one moment only to see that shelved indefinitely if or when results on the pitch go wrong.

If you are not going to use Sunderland, and I really do think you're wrong on that one, then the safest option is Sheffield. At the present moment, Hull can only be considered as a back-up for both footballing, accommodation and transport reasons.
Wolds Mariner no está en línea  
Old February 26th, 2009, 01:48 AM   #498
Schmeek
Registered User
 
Schmeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,568
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gherkin View Post
Bristol City's new stadium can officially be expanded to 42,000 seats for the 2018 WC
Told you so

With the 45k thing, yes Blatter has been blethering about this amongst other mumblings, but I doubt it would be implimented before 2018 if at all. Considering the bidding has begun it would be a bit cheeky to start changing the rules.
Schmeek no está en línea  
Old February 26th, 2009, 02:16 AM   #499
Robert23262
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20
Likes (Received): 0

I can't see it being a problem for City's new stadium if the capacity required was 45,000. The design of the extra two tiers (6,000 each) could easily be increased, I mean it's only an extra 1,500 seats they would need to add to the two tiers.

Last edited by Robert23262; February 26th, 2009 at 02:21 AM.
Robert23262 no está en línea  
Old February 26th, 2009, 11:14 AM   #500
ArchieTheGreat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmeek View Post
Told you so

With the 45k thing, yes Blatter has been blethering about this amongst other mumblings, but I doubt it would be implimented before 2018 if at all. Considering the bidding has begun it would be a bit cheeky to start changing the rules.

I think the 45k comes from the fact that the stadiums have to have a net capacity of 40k. That means after taking out all the seats for the media etc. So to make sure you'll be easily over 40k need to have several thousand in excess.
ArchieTheGreat 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 06:26 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