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 March 3rd, 2009, 05:22 PM   #561
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10341

Quote:
Is it too much to ask for the sponsors to have a tented area with some parking? for the media to have a decent temporary media centre? a waiting area for volunteers? a reasonable area for a medium size transport mall?
No, it's not too much to ask. But the choice of stadiums should be worked out based on footballing reasons and what the fans would enjoy most: that's the primary consideration. Then you do your utmost to induldge the sponsors. Tents by the stadium where possible, sure! Tents in the city centres, why not?! Huge amounts of billboard space around the stadiums and in the cities, great idea! etc. etc.
RobH no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old March 3rd, 2009, 05:52 PM   #562
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
But the choice of stadiums should be worked out based on footballing reasons and what the fans would enjoy most
and the "fans" would enjoy a 60,000 seat stadium rather than an 82,000 seat packed venue because its in the "football realm".

ticket sales vs sponsorship?

i repeat. if you're paying $5 billion, a tent next to the stadium, a decent temporary media centre, emergency areas, vip parking, volunteers areas etc. is not asking too much.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old March 3rd, 2009, 06:57 PM   #563
Schmeek
Registered User
 
Schmeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,568
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
and the "fans" would enjoy a 60,000 seat stadium rather than an 82,000 seat packed venue because its in the "football realm".

ticket sales vs sponsorship?

i repeat. if you're paying $5 billion, a tent next to the stadium, a decent temporary media centre, emergency areas, vip parking, volunteers areas etc. is not asking too much.
Hang on a minute, Mo, I think you've got this all the wrong way round.
Why are the sponsors paying out ridiculously large sums of money? Just for laughs? For charity? Of course not, it's so that they can use the tournament to increase their business. We shouldn't be thankful to them, they should be thankful to the game of football and FIFA for the opportunity to promote themselves to such a huge broad audience..
Schmeek no está en línea  
Old March 3rd, 2009, 07:04 PM   #564
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmeek View Post
Hang on a minute, Mo, I think you've got this all the wrong way round.
Why are the sponsors paying out ridiculously large sums of money? Just for laughs? For charity? Of course not, it's so that they can use the tournament to increase their business. We shouldn't be thankful to them, they should be thankful to the game of football and FIFA for the opportunity to promote themselves to such a huge broad audience..
have you seen the global climate?

dont confuse me with a sponsor lover. im just suggesting that perhaps, given the bundles of sponsorship revenues they throw at FIFA, that a tent outside a venue along with other necessary requirement for world cup matces is not asking too much.

that and the 1km ban on advertising surrounding the venue
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old March 3rd, 2009, 07:54 PM   #565
skaP187
Registered User
 
skaP187's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alicante
Posts: 2,207
Likes (Received): 503

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
have you seen the global climate?

dont confuse me with a sponsor lover. im just suggesting that perhaps, given the bundles of sponsorship revenues they throw at FIFA, that a tent outside a venue along with other necessary requirement for world cup matces is not asking too much.

that and the 1km ban on advertising surrounding the venue
The last reason I do see as very strange and I can hardly imagene it is legal.
(just a feeling I have.)
skaP187 no está en línea  
Old March 3rd, 2009, 08:24 PM   #566
Its AlL gUUd
Cute but Psycho...
 
Its AlL gUUd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 6,017
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
There is a big difference between "isn't always used for football" and "has never hosted a football match in its history".

Footballing history may not be essential but it is something we have which bids from the likes of the US and Australia won't have. The appeal of a world cup in Premier League (and some football league) stadiums is strong and I don't want to see that diluted.
any new stadium won't have a history thats fact, and if a stadium like Twickenham can't be used just because it has never hosted a football match but has everything else would be ridiculous. if it meets the criteria which Fifa provide then it should be allowed to host (obviously depending on the RFU). it probably meets the criteria moreso then majority of the football stadiums on offer. it hardly dilutes the bid with regards to history, its only one stadium. if the stadium means more real fans get to attend then im all for it. we should not just dismiss an 82,000 seater stadium.

In an ideal world i'd prefer London to have 3 stadiums.
__________________
I T S Y
Its AlL gUUd no está en línea  
Old March 3rd, 2009, 08:38 PM   #567
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by skaP187 View Post
The last reason I do see as very strange and I can hardly imagene it is legal.
(just a feeling I have.)
oh its very legal.
if its not yet legal in your city, it will be if you want to win the bid.

when you sign that host city agreement you're hooked.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old March 3rd, 2009, 08:41 PM   #568
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

No person shall, except with the prior approval of the City Manager, and to the extent applicable and within the area of jurisdiction of the City, conduct any advertising activity on any public advertising media –

(a) during the final draw and for a period of two weeks immediately prior to the final draw;

(b) during the period of the Competition and for a period of 2 weeks immediately prior to the first match and 2 weeks immediately following the final match,

(c) in the following areas -

(i) immediately outside or surrounding airports;
(ii) in or immediately outside or surrounding main train stations; and
(iii) within a 1 kilometre radius of the central business district of the area of jurisdiction of the City or as demarcated by the City Manager; and
(iv) to the extent the City has jurisdiction, on the principal routes from the airport and main train stations to the central business district of the area of jurisdiction of the City and to the stadium.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old March 3rd, 2009, 08:43 PM   #569
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,130
Likes (Received): 3205

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
dont confuse me with a sponsor lover. im just suggesting that perhaps, given the bundles of sponsorship revenues they throw at FIFA, that a tent outside a venue along with other necessary requirement for world cup matces is not asking too much.
Yes and no. Some wonderful, older stadiums and those in established urban areas may have everything needed to host the event except this extraneous outside space. When you factor in how such barren landscapes can be detriments to the day-to-day health for such urban areas it seems an egregious request for what is for most communities just one month and 3-5 games.

If this request can be handled gracefully within existing development and urban fabric, then there is no issue. If it is more difficult then FIFA should be accepting of alternative methods, like the use of convention centers and nearby parks, so that the event doesn't become more costly than needed nor leaves an ill-conceived void just to temporarily accommodate some ugly t-shirt give-aways. I'd rather the sponsors pay less then dictate urban form.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old March 3rd, 2009, 08:47 PM   #570
Dan-87
Registered User
 
Dan-87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bracknell, England
Posts: 1,118
Likes (Received): 1

I don't want us to win the bid for the World Cup, having a trip to Spain with thousands and thousands of English will do me nicely .
It would also mean more clubs will lose their original stadiums to make way for bigger venues, although it will happen anyway for a fair few it will just speed the process up and English football is losing it's soul as it is, let alone having more plastic, souless bowls.
Dan-87 no está en línea  
Old March 3rd, 2009, 08:47 PM   #571
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

No person shall erect, maintain, distribute or display a sign, a billboard or an advertising structure in a Controlled Access Site or an Exclusion Zone

Exclusion zone indicated in red.
Loftus Versfeld Exclusion Zone

Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old March 3rd, 2009, 08:53 PM   #572
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
Yes and no. Some wonderful, older stadiums and those in established urban areas may have everything needed to host the event except this extraneous outside space. When you factor in how such barren landscapes can be detriments to the day-to-day health for such urban areas it seems an egregious request for what is for most communities just one month and 3-5 games.

If this request can be handled gracefully within existing development and urban fabric, then there is no issue. If it is more difficult then FIFA should be accepting of alternative methods, like the use of convention centers and nearby parks, so that the event doesn't become more costly than needed nor leaves an ill-conceived void just to temporarily accommodate some ugly t-shirt give-aways. I'd rather the sponsors pay less then dictate urban form.
Perhaps the community based stadium is no longer suited to hosting major events, cannot cope with the security required in these times, or the level of safety required for the movement of spectators.

I refer to an article by Patrick Ronan, a leading private sector international major event risk management and safety and security legislation specialist based in Johannesburg. He refers to Newlands stadium, proposed in the bid book for the 2010 FIFA world cup, in Cape Town, and subsequently dropped by FIFA as world cup venue after the bid was won.


"The elevated global security environment since 9/11 aside, one must appreciate the behavioural profile of football supporters, rugby supporters and attendees at rock concerts is somewhat different to that of spectators to athletic events.

The bottom line is that Newlands Stadium/a community based stadium, hemmed in by narrow streets, a railway line, and a mixed residential commercial node, is not, for example, conducive to the deployment of internationally benchmarked safety and security strategies designed to protect the most important stakeholder who attend sporting events at Newlands - the general public.

For example, the deployment of multiple concentric rings of security strategies at such events requires space as spectators who exited Newlands Stadium immediately after the Tri-Nations test against Australia in July can attest to." Patrick Ronan

Space is not only important to sponsors and FIFA but important to protect spectators.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old March 3rd, 2009, 08:54 PM   #573
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
FIFA should be accepting of alternative methods.
Or FIFA can drop the venue. Its happened before.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old March 3rd, 2009, 09:13 PM   #574
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,130
Likes (Received): 3205

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
Perhaps the community based stadium is no longer suited to hosting major events, cannot cope with the security required in these times, or the level of safety required for the movement of spectators.
True enough, but it's leaning towards a form of extremism that I feel is unwarranted. By comparable logic we should never go through airports or fly, every structure should be acres apart and motorways should be abandoned as simply too dangerous.

Clearly newer and larger stadiums will feature larger footprints with exterior space comparable to what FIFA is requesting, for transport and safety reasons as well as possible tents and temporary events. But if sound building codes suggest a facility is capable of hosting within tight spaces then i should be allowed. It's very much like the issue with allowing modern fans to stand during matches. Germany is showing it can be done with architectural tweaks (compared to days of old) and better crowd control. Similarly, just because a venue may be deeply urban doesn't mean it HAS to be a transport or security nightmare. It simply requires more attention than some venue in the middle of acres of open space.

I don't think anyone is doubting your intentions or spirit, Mo. It's simply a thin line in determining how much the architecture should be compromised to accommodate various functions, and I for one don't wish to see a sport in some space that's so dehumanizing and stale that I'm not at a sporting event but rather some interactive corporate commercial that coincidentally features some type of athletic activity.

Then again this is FIFA. Sepp probably thinks we're all there to see him and are simply catching a game or two while in the neighborhood.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old March 3rd, 2009, 09:19 PM   #575
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,130
Likes (Received): 3205

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
Or FIFA can drop the venue. Its happened before.
They can, surely. But they'll run the risk of further hampering the intention of increasing the number of potential host nations and the possible hosting venues. Perhaps they're out to make everyone build brand new, in which case I'll loathe this organization all the more as blind, foolish tyrants of a myopic empire. Football can thrive without FIFA. The converse, however, can not be called true.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old March 3rd, 2009, 10:10 PM   #576
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
True enough, but it's leaning towards a form of extremism that I feel is unwarranted. By comparable logic we should never go through airports or fly, every structure should be acres apart and motorways should be abandoned as simply too dangerous.

Clearly newer and larger stadiums will feature larger footprints with exterior space comparable to what FIFA is requesting, for transport and safety reasons as well as possible tents and temporary events. But if sound building codes suggest a facility is capable of hosting within tight spaces then i should be allowed. It's very much like the issue with allowing modern fans to stand during matches. Germany is showing it can be done with architectural tweaks (compared to days of old) and better crowd control. Similarly, just because a venue may be deeply urban doesn't mean it HAS to be a transport or security nightmare. It simply requires more attention than some venue in the middle of acres of open space.

I don't think anyone is doubting your intentions or spirit, Mo. It's simply a thin line in determining how much the architecture should be compromised to accommodate various functions, and I for one don't wish to see a sport in some space that's so dehumanizing and stale that I'm not at a sporting event but rather some interactive corporate commercial that coincidentally features some type of athletic activity.

Then again this is FIFA. Sepp probably thinks we're all there to see him and are simply catching a game or two while in the neighborhood.
I hear you. But deeply urban, in the form of a city centre/nearby is very different to deeply urban, stuck in the middle of a neighbourhood with houses on each side of the venue.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old March 3rd, 2009, 10:34 PM   #577
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,240
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
So far as FIFA is concerned they are NOT in the same nation. It's not complicated.

... And don't get me started on the use of tax-payers money. Let's not forget that Scottish taxes are spent by the Scottish parliament, Welsh taxes by the Welsh, Irish by the Irish, but English by the British (thus spent on national projects including Wales, Scotland and Ireland)!
Whether its "fair" of not there would be political capital to be made from it just as there is by having venues for the olyimpic football there in 2012.

I'm not saying theres nothing standing in the way of it but the outright dismissals here are more down to peoples nationism and natural desire to see there local venues used IMHO. A German WC with 1 polish venue would not be in the best interests of any german organisation involved and would damage the image of the event, an English WC with 1 welsh and Scottish venue would be in the interests of many and not be nearly as damaging, maybe even a positive.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old March 3rd, 2009, 10:47 PM   #578
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10341

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
Perhaps the community based stadium is no longer suited to hosting major events, cannot cope with the security required in these times, or the level of safety required for the movement of spectators.
The trouble with this logic is the stadiums which have supposedly been brought into question in our bid are the Emirates and St James' - stadiums which hold "major events" every fortnight.

It's got sod-all to do with safety and security and everything to do with $$$ and these corporate tents in my opinion.

-----

Don't take this as me having a go btw Mo. I know your posts only try to reflect FIFA's thinking and your country having gone through this process means you know a lot about it - so your contribution is valued.
RobH no está en línea  
Old March 4th, 2009, 03:15 AM   #579
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,022
Likes (Received): 4813

So Mo....are to believe that, if the Spain / Portugal bid was to win the vote to host the 2018 World Cup, the Bernabeu will NOT be among the selected stadiums? After all, it is surrounded by buildings and major roads.

Somehow, I think FIFA will find a way around having their beloved tents immediately adjacent to the stadium. They would be made to look irredeemably foolish if they were to exclude one of the greatest and most iconic stadiums in all of world football (if not THE greatest and most iconic) on the basis of the lack of space to erect a few sheets of canvass.
JimB no está en línea  
Old March 4th, 2009, 03:18 AM   #580
Blackpool88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 720
Likes (Received): 159

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
The trouble with this logic is the stadiums which have supposedly been brought into question in our bid are the Emirates and St James' - stadiums which hold "major events" every fortnight.

It's got sod-all to do with safety and security and everything to do with $$$ and these corporate tents in my opinion.

-----

Don't take this as me having a go btw Mo. I know your posts only try to reflect FIFA's thinking and your country having gone through this process means you know a lot about it - so your contribution is valued.

Exactly my thoughts. Every two weeks 52,000 cram into St James's Park and there is no security issue here, suddenly the venue is considered unsafe? You'd be ruling out some of the most historic grounds in the country, Anfield is penned in too.
Blackpool88 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 04:44 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