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 May 20th, 2009, 01:07 AM   #661
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

jimb there is no reason why we can't have more stadiums, except that thems the rules...

Euro 2008 8 stadiums for 31 games

World cup 2018 16 stadiums for 64 games

would give a greater distribution of games per stadium than the euros, by FIFAs rules the euros should use 6 stadiums...

So i wouldn't have thought that 1-2 more stadiums would be a problem...
bigbossman no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old May 20th, 2009, 01:33 AM   #662
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,023
Likes (Received): 4814

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
jimb there is no reason why we can't have more stadiums, except that thems the rules...

Euro 2008 8 stadiums for 31 games

World cup 2018 16 stadiums for 64 games

would give a greater distribution of games per stadium than the euros, by FIFAs rules the euros should use 6 stadiums...

So i wouldn't have thought that 1-2 more stadiums would be a problem...
Yup. Those are the rules. Except......

....rules are there to be broken - especially if there is no overwhelmingly good reason for them.

FIFA probably won't deviate from the current plan but you never know. They're forever fiddling with the rules after all. The tournament only grew to 32 teams as recently as France 1998 (when 10 venues were used). And it wasn't so long ago (Spain 1982, in fact) that as many as 17 different stadiums and 14 cities hosted games for only 24 teams. Four years earlier, there were 16 teams in Argentina and only 6 stadiums and 5 cities hosted games. Finally, of course, two different countries hosted games in 2002!

So the precedent for change is certainly there even if not, currently, the desire.
JimB no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2009, 01:44 AM   #663
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

I agree FIFA just changes the rules when it suits them, what was it 20 stadiums for 2002? But will they again for England...

For me the only thing i see counting against us adding more stadiums is that they didn't let Germany in 2006, they had to leave out Bremen, Dusseldorf and Monchengladbach. 2 of which were brand new stadium. So that was the time to set a precedent really, although Germany did seem to redefine tournaments and more cities joining the party can only be better if we can create something like that.

I would love 16 stadiums, then nobody misses out but hey we'll probably lose out to the USA anyway...
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2009, 02:31 AM   #664
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,023
Likes (Received): 4814

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
I agree FIFA just changes the rules when it suits them, what was it 20 stadiums for 2002? But will they again for England...

For me the only thing i see counting against us adding more stadiums is that they didn't let Germany in 2006, they had to leave out Bremen, Dusseldorf and Monchengladbach. 2 of which were brand new stadium. So that was the time to set a precedent really, although Germany did seem to redefine tournaments and more cities joining the party can only be better if we can create something like that.

I would love 16 stadiums, then nobody misses out but hey we'll probably lose out to the USA anyway...
Forget USA. And Australia. And any other non European bid.

England's only competition will be Spain / Portugal, Netherlands / Belgium and Russia.

One of 2018 or 2022 will definitely be hosted by a European country (or joint bid) - which means, of course, that the other will definitely not be hosted by a European country (or joint bid). So England is not in competition with the USA. It's all about European rivals.
JimB no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2009, 03:20 AM   #665
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

i know i was being flippant, my views on world cups in america and australia are well publicised

It's clear that the three best candidates are from Europe regardless...
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2009, 11:48 AM   #666
ArchieTheGreat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
It's a fair bet that a few of those stadiums will be considerably bigger by 2018 or 2022 - especially once they are chosen as WC venues:

Old Trafford - 76K--------> 90-95K
St James Park - 52K------> 60K

I'd be very surprised if either of those fails to materialise.

Emirates - 60K --------> 70-75K?

That's also very possible.

New Anfield / Stanley Park - isn't that 72-73K?

And the new Elland Road will, I reckon, be at least 50K. There hardly seems to be any point increasing capacity by a mere 5,000.

It will also be interesting to see whether FIFA are prepared to allow the use of more than 12 stadia. For instance, I've seen a couple of articles that have Twickenham down as one of the stadiums entered in the initial bid venues. The new White Hart Lane and whatever stadium Chelsea might have by then too. Also the new Everton stadium and Eastlands.

There's no reason why FIFA couldn't allow England to showcase all its best stadia. So rather than St James' Park, say, hosting three games, it could host two and the Stadium of Light could host the third game in the north east.

Probably won't happen but it would make the distribution of games even more egalitarian.
I'll be shocked if St James' park is extended to 60K! It would be massively expensive to do, with the slope, road and Metro station behind the Gallowgate end. Besides after Sunday and the fire sale that will start next week I don't think they will have the money to expand.
ArchieTheGreat no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2009, 01:07 PM   #667
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,023
Likes (Received): 4814

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchieTheGreat View Post
I'll be shocked if St James' park is extended to 60K! It would be massively expensive to do, with the slope, road and Metro station behind the Gallowgate end. Besides after Sunday and the fire sale that will start next week I don't think they will have the money to expand.
Newcastle announced plans to increase capacity to 60K just over two years ago. So we know that they've already looked into the feasibility.

Yes, if they go down on Sunday, any increase in capacity will be put on hold. But 2018 and 2022 are, respectively, nine and thirteen years away. Plenty of time for Newcastle to win promotion back to the Premiership.

And, as I said, if (as is almost certain) St James' is chosen as a World Cup venue, I will be amazed if capacity isn't increased to 60K.
JimB no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2009, 01:51 PM   #668
Schmeek
Registered User
 
Schmeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,568
Likes (Received): 1

You say you would be amazed, but why would it be expanded for the WC Jim? Yes if Newcastle stay up and get themselves out of this current muddle or come back up to become title contenders again (I can't see it I'm afraid) they may want to expand.
But for the WC is another matter, and I fail to see who would want to pay for this, especially as 52k is a decent capacity anyway.
Schmeek no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2009, 02:03 PM   #669
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,023
Likes (Received): 4814

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmeek View Post
You say you would be amazed, but why would it be expanded for the WC Jim? Yes if Newcastle stay up and get themselves out of this current muddle or come back up to become title contenders again (I can't see it I'm afraid) they may want to expand.
But for the WC is another matter, and I fail to see who would want to pay for this, especially as 52k is a decent capacity anyway.
Until this dreadful, relegation threatened season (when they're still averaging 93% of capacity), Newcastle sold out pretty much every home Premiership game over the past 15 years - even when their league form was no more than average. Clearly, the demand is there to justify a bigger capacity - as recognized two years ago when Newcastle announced plans to increase capacity to 60K.

So I'm not suggesting that Newcastle would increase capacity just to impress at the World Cup. But the World Cup would be an excuse, a deadline or a catalyst to get the work done.
JimB no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2009, 04:49 PM   #670
ArchieTheGreat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
Newcastle announced plans to increase capacity to 60K just over two years ago. So we know that they've already looked into the feasibility.

Yes, if they go down on Sunday, any increase in capacity will be put on hold. But 2018 and 2022 are, respectively, nine and thirteen years away. Plenty of time for Newcastle to win promotion back to the Premiership.

And, as I said, if (as is almost certain) St James' is chosen as a World Cup venue, I will be amazed if capacity isn't increased to 60K.
Yes they did look into it under Freddy Shepperd. The cost though was going to be ridiculously high for only 8000 extra seats, due to the nature of the site. To help pay for it they would have included a conference centre, apartments and a casino.The whole development was costed at £300m. The plans for large casino's were scraped by the government. Plus trying to get money for apartments and a conference centre at this moment and the foreseeable future is going to be difficult.
ArchieTheGreat no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2009, 05:09 PM   #671
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,134
Likes (Received): 3208

Re: St. James expansion
Unless the costs for construction (excluding land) throughout different parts of England are directly disproportionate as general costs of living, the problem here is that expansion may not yield the net benefit suggested. I can't find it but somewhere I recently saw a table of season ticket prices for the Premiership clubs, related to articles about ManU's coming increase in prices. The table was truly amazing as I hadn't figured how diverse the costs really were. Even at the lower levels Arsenal and other London clubs had prices far beyond what the likes of Wigan and WBA were charging, almost to geometric proportions.

Bottom line, Newcastle may have the fan base but expansion costs may not provide the financial returns to make the idea worth pursuing. The modern economic structure of the game is to maximize the revenues on a per seat basis. In some cases it's better to raise prices on existing capacity (wherein your operating costs would remain the same) then to expand at additional costs.

Re: Leeds and Elland Road
Yes, they may go to 50k and, as with Newcastle, they likely have the base for such expansion. But seeing as so much of the stadium already needs a makeover I'd heard that renovation costs may eat into prospects for larger expansion. Especially considering they're now wallowing in League 1 for at least one more season. If the long term model allows for further expansion, the suspicion is they'll aim for a masterful renovation at something they know they'll sell out even for most Championship games, again to maximize revenue per seat.

Re: Number of stadiums
Comparable to the "per seat" theory applied above, FIFA and the English organizers will certainly look to minimize their expenditures for the event. While simply moving a game from St. James to SOL may seem innocuous, it means a whole new security plan, a whole new set of ushers and servicemen to work with, additional transport to coordinate, etc. Especially for what would likely amount to just 1-2 games for such venues, it's not worth it, IMO. Noble idea, and if you're going to do it go whole hog. But as I've opined before there will be a lot of discussion about the net benefit of such measures, and I suspect they'd rather maximize revenues and then do some special dispensation to a stadium fund for all members, rather then do extra work for marginal benefit to just a few other clubs.

and lastly...
Quote:
You say you would be amazed, but why would it be expanded for the WC Jim? Yes if Newcastle stay up and get themselves out of this current muddle or come back up to become title contenders again (I can't see it I'm afraid) they may want to expand.
But for the WC is another matter, and I fail to see who would want to pay for this, especially as 52k is a decent capacity anyway.
If someone is thinking about an expansion then the WC is exactly the time to do it (pending funding, of course). Hosting clubs gain their return from this event via tickets and concessions. Why postpone an expansion when doing one before the event might yield an additional 1-2M GBP per match hosted? Especially considering the events will be guaranteed sell-outs at maximum prices.

It's not much difference by comparison, but it's money there for the taking. So if you're thinking expansion, doing so to cash in on this event makes sense, pending other conditions.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2009, 05:39 PM   #672
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,023
Likes (Received): 4814

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchieTheGreat View Post
Yes they did look into it under Freddy Shepperd. The cost though was going to be ridiculously high for only 8000 extra seats, due to the nature of the site. To help pay for it they would have included a conference centre, apartments and a casino.The whole development was costed at £300m. The plans for large casino's were scraped by the government. Plus trying to get money for apartments and a conference centre at this moment and the foreseeable future is going to be difficult.
No reason why that plan should have been permanently shelved.

The £300 million scheme was to have been funded primarily by outside parties - not NUFC. It may have been on the back burner since Mike Ashley took over but it's still an option - casino or no casino. And yes, the market conditions are not ripe for major development now but, I repeat, 2018 and 2022 are, respectively, nine and thirteen years away. The economic outlook will be considerably brighter within five years.

So I'm sticking to my guns. I'll be amazed if SJP isn't increased to 60K in time for the World Cup, if England wins the right to host in 2018 or 2022.
JimB no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2009, 06:18 PM   #673
BeestonLad
PQS
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 3,226
Likes (Received): 553

2018 World Cup: England, East Midlands Venues

After the announcement that 3 cities from the East Midlands are in the running as possible hosts for England’s 2018 World Cup bid, its likely that only one will be picked in the final 12 venues. Which venue would you chose and why?

New Forest Stadium, Capacity 50,000


(Actual designs expected Mid-late 2009)

Redeveloped City Ground, Capacity 40-45,000



Extended Pride Park, Capacity 44,000



Extended Walkers Stadium, Capacity 40-45,000



Sorry for the crappy pics I couldnt be bothered to spend hours searching for decent ones!
BeestonLad no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2009, 06:48 PM   #674
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

Interesting thread BeestonLand. I personally prefer the idea of a new Nottingham Forrest stadium and look forward to seeing their images later this year. Do you think it is likely that 2 stadiums in the east midlands might be chosen?
Kobo no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2009, 08:10 PM   #675
ArchieTheGreat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post

Re: Leeds and Elland Road
Yes, they may go to 50k and, as with Newcastle, they likely have the base for such expansion. But seeing as so much of the stadium already needs a makeover I'd heard that renovation costs may eat into prospects for larger expansion. Especially considering they're now wallowing in League 1 for at least one more season. If the long term model allows for further expansion, the suspicion is they'll aim for a masterful renovation at something they know they'll sell out even for most Championship games, again to maximize revenue per seat.
The part of Elland road that needs renovating first is the west stand as it was built in the 50's. Leeds have stated that they aren't going to renovate it they will just pull it down and replace it. When they replace it, it will be with a stand similar in size to the east stands 17K seats. That gives an extra 6k-7k seats. Thus renovating and expanding the stadiums capacity in one go.
ArchieTheGreat no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2009, 09:06 PM   #676
duane
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,127
Likes (Received): 110

This question is bias. The pictures of Leicester and Derby's stadiums are actual pictures from the inside. The Nottingham one is from the outside and it just a picture. You can't judge this fairly on this. Beestonlad you really are a tit! To make up for this I have added the pictures of Derbys stadium and Leicester stadium.

Walkers Stadium



Pride Park



The Nottingham forrest stadium is not likely to be built. The other stadiums are already built. There is no evidence for the figures you state for seats and I'm sure both Pride Park and the Walkers Stadium could both extend their capacity to 50,000 quite easily. Don't let Beestonlad twist facts.
duane está en línea ahora  
Old May 20th, 2009, 09:30 PM   #677
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,023
Likes (Received): 4814

Ummmm.........duane - am I not right in thinking that BeestonLad only posted that one tiny, poor quality picture of the proposed new Forest ground because there aren't actually, as yet, any proper renders for us to see?

If so, it seems to me that you're making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill.

He posted two pictures each of the existing three stadium interiors - which seems fair enough.
JimB no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2009, 09:37 PM   #678
Ecological
BANNED
 
Ecological's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,518
Likes (Received): 23

For a carnival atmosphere taking into account I have visited all three with Wolves.

Nottingham Forest is the only winner in my oppinion. Im not sure where the new stadium is to be located but the current city ground is a million times better as a venue then the other two for a World Cup.

The only thing Pride Park offers is fast food outlets which would be fine for the US national team to play at but apart from that it offers nothing. The accoustics in all 3 are good, but I cant look any further then the City of Nottingham hosting East Midlands games.
Ecological no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2009, 09:44 PM   #679
BeestonLad
PQS
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 3,226
Likes (Received): 553

JimB, got it in one! Yes there are no renders available I guess Duane missed this line "Actual designs expected mid-late 2009", but I'm still apparently a tit, and I twist facts hmm?

Here is a photo of the extrerior of the city ground and its surroundings.

BeestonLad no está en línea  
Old May 20th, 2009, 09:54 PM   #680
BeestonLad
PQS
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 3,226
Likes (Received): 553

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobo View Post
Interesting thread BeestonLand. I personally prefer the idea of a new Nottingham Forrest stadium and look forward to seeing their images later this year. Do you think it is likely that 2 stadiums in the east midlands might be chosen?
Cheers Kobo . I'm pretty sure that only one will be chosen, there are 16 bids and the general consensus is that 4 will miss out. So looking at things geographically I would assume that 2 of these to miss out will be from the East Midlands. Im torn between a new stadium in Nottingham or a redeveloped city ground myself, the current location of the city ground is perfect and actually quite picturesque but the downside is at least one stand will need replacing and am not sure how feasable it would be
BeestonLad 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 01:38 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