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 July 3rd, 2009, 03:27 PM   #701
Luke80
Registered User
 
Luke80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 774
Likes (Received): 4

I'd sooner see Tickers get the 2nd London slot. 82,000 plays 60,000. It wouldn't take that much work, I think the RFU were quite keen, and the bid looks pretty poor with only 1 stadium over 76,000. (The capacities will decrease remember). Old Trafford won't be expanded to 96,000 - it would cost too much.
Luke80 no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old July 3rd, 2009, 04:44 PM   #702
CharlieP
Tax avoider
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 23,754
Likes (Received): 1975

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke80 View Post
I'd sooner see Tickers get the 2nd London slot. 82,000 plays 60,000. It wouldn't take that much work
We might even be able to afford to get the roof finished
__________________
This signature is socialist and un-American.
CharlieP no está en línea  
Old July 3rd, 2009, 05:07 PM   #703
Luke80
Registered User
 
Luke80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 774
Likes (Received): 4

I thought they restored the bowl a couple of years ago.
Luke80 no está en línea  
Old July 3rd, 2009, 06:29 PM   #704
Joop20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluey Mike View Post
I cant see them implementing this rule of only 1 host city can have two stadia. I hope they dont anyway, will be a shame if we have to use 2nd rate stadia just because of location, instead of larger, better equiped missing out just because of a nearby ground.
It's not a case of whether they'll implement that rule or not - it already is a rule. Only one city can have two stadia in any world cup bid. For example, in South Africa only Johannesburg has two stadia, in France only Paris had two stadia, and in Germany, Japan + Korea there were no cities with two stadia. And it's nonsense to have 16 stadia in a world cup bid - 10 is the minimum, 12 is likely.

This is too bad for you guys in the UK, since some pretty good stadia will have to be left out, assuming London will be the city with two venues. I must say I'm somewhat disappointed with the list of stadiums that you've got at the moment, especially considering you have the biggest football league in the world! Stadiums like Elland road etc are no good for a world cup... I always thought of England as the favourite for 2016, but I think Spain/Portugal or the USA are real contenders, with Australia and Belgium/Netherlands as outsiders.

And besides, you guys already have the Olympics and probably the Rugby World cup comming your way, leave something for the rest of the world
Joop20 no está en línea  
Old July 3rd, 2009, 07:27 PM   #705
Luke80
Registered User
 
Luke80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 774
Likes (Received): 4

What?! US had it 15 years ago. It would be ridiculous if they got it again. They don't even like football ffs. We've waited 40 years - that's long enough.

12 stadiums make it a bit easier. Personally pick our best 10 and do up the ones that are too small.
Luke80 no está en línea  
Old July 3rd, 2009, 07:44 PM   #706
RMB2007
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,529
Likes (Received): 15652

Using Twickenham as part of the 2018/2022 bid would be awesome!

RMB2007 no está en línea  
Old July 4th, 2009, 06:53 PM   #707
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,508
Likes (Received): 17832

New stadium will be Nottingham's biggest challenge
3 July 2009
Nottingham Evening Post

The biggest challenge Nottingham may face in mounting a successful bid to be a host city in the 2018 World Cup is delivering the stadium.

However, it is a challenge faced by all the other cities seeking to stage World Cup matches in the UK.

Only eight of the 21 stadiums put forward from 15 cities can accommodate 40,000 fans, plus the seats for VIPs and media.

Furthermore, it is estimated that only one stadium - Wembley - currently has the additional facilities required.

Even Old Trafford may struggle to provide the media centre, broadcast compound, and volunteering centre FIFA says it wants.

Nottingham will have to construct a new stadium to meet the necessary capacity and other requirements.

As reported in the Post last September, a master plan has been produced for a new sports quarter at Holme Pierrepont, which would include a new 50,000-seat ground for Nottingham Forest and as well as 10,000-seat stadium alongside.

Discussions between Nottingham Forest, Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council and Rushcliffe Borough Council have continued.

Although the aspiration to create a stadium with associated sport and leisure facilities, including a five-star hotel remains the same, the site has not been fixed.

Land at Gamston is also under consideration.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea  
Old July 5th, 2009, 09:31 AM   #708
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,508
Likes (Received): 17832

Soccer-Beckenbauer says 2018 World Cup should go to Europe

SYDNEY, July 5 (Reuters) - Franz Beckenbauer believes Europe should host the World Cup in 2018 after South Africa and Brazil stage the next two finals.

The former World Cup-winning captain and coach with West Germany stopped short of endorsing any individual bids but said England would be capable of hosting the tournament.

"It's (the decision) too far away, it's more than one year to go," he told Australia's Sun-Herald: "(But) It will be Europe's turn (in 2018).

"As a UEFA member, I would like to see it in Europe but it is an open race as to which country might get it.

"England could host it tomorrow because they have the stadiums, the infrastructure, the fans, everything.

"But there are a lot of other different countries bidding. Let's wait and see."

Beckenbauer is one of 24 members of FIFA's Executive Committee that will decide which countries host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups at a meeting in December next year.

FIFA have received nine bids for 2018 and 11 for 2022 although bids from the same continent as the successful host for 2018 would be ineligible for 2022.

The 2010 World Cup will be held in South Africa while Brazil will stage the 2014 event.

Beckenbauer said a country like Australia could be a strong candidate for 2022 if 2018 went to Europe.

"I think they have a good chance because the World Cup's never been to Australia," he said.

"Australia's a beautiful country, a beautiful continent."
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea  
Old July 5th, 2009, 06:31 PM   #709
Bogus Law
Registered User
 
Bogus Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Białystok, Polska
Posts: 136
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joop20 View Post
It's not a case of whether they'll implement that rule or not - it already is a rule. Only one city can have two stadia in any world cup bid. For example, in South Africa only Johannesburg has two stadia, in France only Paris had two stadia, and in Germany, Japan + Korea there were no cities with two stadia.
Although the same rule applies to hosting EURO, they made an exception for Portugal in 2004. They had 2 stadia in Lisbon and another 2 in Porto. So, you never know...
Bogus Law no está en línea  
Old July 6th, 2009, 12:16 PM   #710
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

That's UEFA though, not FIFA.
hngcm no está en línea  
Old July 6th, 2009, 01:18 PM   #711
CorliCorso
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Stockport
Posts: 215
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke80 View Post
I'd sooner see Tickers get the 2nd London slot. 82,000 plays 60,000. It wouldn't take that much work, I think the RFU were quite keen, and the bid looks pretty poor with only 1 stadium over 76,000. (The capacities will decrease remember). Old Trafford won't be expanded to 96,000 - it would cost too much.
First, I don't see why the RFU would be keen to have football there? They certainly weren't when the FA approached them about playing FA Cup finals there. I wouldn't want them offered the chance of making something out of a World Cup, not when they wouldn't help football out back then.

Second, why would capacities decrease? The 40,000 minimum requirement includes VIP & media. Does anyone actually think capacity requirements are *after* you take them out? Bloody hell, no-one would have held a world cup recently if that was the case.

Third, why wouldn't OT increase to that size? Such a development would cost around £100m - seeing as an English bid infrastructure is already in place, all that's needed is money for expansions, and so it'd probably be cheaper than bids for other countries.

Fourth, why would a bid with 1 stadium larger than 76,000 be poor? Brazil & South Africa will only have 1 stadium bigger than that. Germany didn't even have one.
CorliCorso no está en línea  
Old July 6th, 2009, 02:01 PM   #712
Luke80
Registered User
 
Luke80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 774
Likes (Received): 4

I think a deal could be struck should England get the rugby world cup in 2015 where the FA agree for Wembley to be used for rugby in return for Twickenham to be used for World cup 2018.

Surely seats have to be taken out to accomodate the extra media and executive seats. Granted some of the stadia chosen might not need to change, but some must see small decreases.

OT expansion involves either bridging over or moving the railway and demolishing a row of houses. Do the Glazers have £100m? The Ronaldo money which isn't spent on transfers will probably be used for loan repayments on the debt.
Luke80 no está en línea  
Old July 6th, 2009, 10:45 PM   #713
CorliCorso
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Stockport
Posts: 215
Likes (Received): 6

As I say, other World Cup bids involve lots of central government spending. I'm sure there'd be financing for other expansions, so I don't see why Man Utd couldn't apply for it too.
CorliCorso no está en línea  
Old July 7th, 2009, 10:16 AM   #714
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,780
Likes (Received): 10345

Yeh, the goverment are really likely to give Man Utd, the second richest club in the world, money for development when the national debt is so huge! Old Trafford doesn't need expanding for a world cup bid, and Man Utd are big enough to do it themselves if they want a bigger ground.
RobH está en línea ahora  
Old July 7th, 2009, 11:16 AM   #715
LandOfGreenGinger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 55
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Yeh, the goverment are really likely to give Man Utd, the second richest club in the world, money for development when the national debt is so huge! Old Trafford doesn't need expanding for a world cup bid, and Man Utd are big enough to do it themselves if they want a bigger ground.
Why shouldn't the goverment put some money back into football infrastructure, surely football's world cup will bring in millions in increased revenues for the government?
LandOfGreenGinger no está en línea  
Old July 7th, 2009, 07:08 PM   #716
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,134
Likes (Received): 3206

Clubs whose facilities are already sufficient for hosting will likely not see access to funding unless it's a stipend to cover venue modification (Handicap access, media boxes, etc.) Otherwise preliminary indications are that this will be a thrifty bid, and as such government spending will be for the minimum amount of investment needed.

Now, if a local community wishes to increase their investment that will be up to them. Thus, if the powers that be behind Old Trafford can convince the local governments that they'll see a return on their investment in exchange for help with an expansion they'll be free to explore that.

Conversely, communities like Bristol and Portsmouth are likely to see substantial help for several reasons:
- The organizers and English government have expressed a desire in, and have a sincere interest in, spreading the games across the country as a means of distributing tourism and financial impacts. This will require direct involvement in order to make this happen, and thus government spending.
- This support will be levied with likely specific conditions that ensures proper return on investment and doesn't exactly equate to outright gifts to local clubs. Bristol had been planning a new venue, anyway, so odds are the extra funding they'll receive will cover the modifications to ensure WC capability. Meanwhile the club will be burdened with the expenses due to repay the local government for their share and not necessarily enjoy full ownership (at least, not for a while) like other clubs.
- Ensuring WC capability at some venues means not only expansion but possibly temporary conversions/ expansion. Government support for this is seen as payment in exchange for the use of the venue.

Bottom line, as each facility will have unique needs to reach WC viability they will be treated differently with respect to access to government aid.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old July 7th, 2009, 08:58 PM   #717
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
Clubs whose facilities are already sufficient for hosting will likely not see access to funding unless it's a stipend to cover venue modification (Handicap access, media boxes, etc.) Otherwise preliminary indications are that this will be a thrifty bid, and as such government spending will be for the minimum amount of investment needed.

Now, if a local community wishes to increase their investment that will be up to them. Thus, if the powers that be behind Old Trafford can convince the local governments that they'll see a return on their investment in exchange for help with an expansion they'll be free to explore that.

Conversely, communities like Bristol and Portsmouth are likely to see substantial help for several reasons:
- The organizers and English government have expressed a desire in, and have a sincere interest in, spreading the games across the country as a means of distributing tourism and financial impacts. This will require direct involvement in order to make this happen, and thus government spending.
- This support will be levied with likely specific conditions that ensures proper return on investment and doesn't exactly equate to outright gifts to local clubs. Bristol had been planning a new venue, anyway, so odds are the extra funding they'll receive will cover the modifications to ensure WC capability. Meanwhile the club will be burdened with the expenses due to repay the local government for their share and not necessarily enjoy full ownership (at least, not for a while) like other clubs.
- Ensuring WC capability at some venues means not only expansion but possibly temporary conversions/ expansion. Government support for this is seen as payment in exchange for the use of the venue.

Bottom line, as each facility will have unique needs to reach WC viability they will be treated differently with respect to access to government aid.
jeez louise. finally somebody gets it.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old July 9th, 2009, 07:29 AM   #718
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
Clubs whose facilities are already sufficient for hosting will likely not see access to funding unless it's a stipend to cover venue modification (Handicap access, media boxes, etc.) Otherwise preliminary indications are that this will be a thrifty bid, and as such government spending will be for the minimum amount of investment needed.

Now, if a local community wishes to increase their investment that will be up to them. Thus, if the powers that be behind Old Trafford can convince the local governments that they'll see a return on their investment in exchange for help with an expansion they'll be free to explore that.

Conversely, communities like Bristol and Portsmouth are likely to see substantial help for several reasons:
- The organizers and English government have expressed a desire in, and have a sincere interest in, spreading the games across the country as a means of distributing tourism and financial impacts. This will require direct involvement in order to make this happen, and thus government spending.
- This support will be levied with likely specific conditions that ensures proper return on investment and doesn't exactly equate to outright gifts to local clubs. Bristol had been planning a new venue, anyway, so odds are the extra funding they'll receive will cover the modifications to ensure WC capability. Meanwhile the club will be burdened with the expenses due to repay the local government for their share and not necessarily enjoy full ownership (at least, not for a while) like other clubs.
- Ensuring WC capability at some venues means not only expansion but possibly temporary conversions/ expansion. Government support for this is seen as payment in exchange for the use of the venue.

Bottom line, as each facility will have unique needs to reach WC viability they will be treated differently with respect to access to government aid.
I've said for some time that I suspect a lot of clubs are announcing plans for 35-40k seater stadiums in the hope that England wins the world cup and the authorities will step in with assistance to bump capacities up over the 45k mark. Pompey being the prime example - they've announced 2 or 3 plans to build a 35-36k venue if memory serves me.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old July 9th, 2009, 08:11 AM   #719
lilyayo
Bredden :)
 
lilyayo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Atlantic City, NJ
Posts: 399
Likes (Received): 1

...
__________________
Victoria Concordia Crescit
lilyayo no está en línea  
Old July 9th, 2009, 09:30 AM   #720
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Anyway. A world cup venue meeting FIFA standards does not necessarily imply a lack of atmosphere or a non-intimate bowl. The image below is a comparison of the Mbombela World Cup Stadium and Wembley Stadium.

Mo Rush 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 12:11 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