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 November 25th, 2009, 08:33 AM   #861
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Twickenham has shitty transport links, the olympic stadium is by Stratford one of the best connected places in London and has a massive park surrounding it...
bigbossman no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old November 25th, 2009, 05:01 PM   #862
r0w84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 32
Likes (Received): 0

Portsmouth have just pulled out of the race to be a host city: http://www.football365.com/story/0,1...718856,00.html

This must be a massive boost for both Milton Keynes & Plymouth now who were both considered outsiders. I bet Southampton are a bit regretful they didnt put St.Marys forward now.
r0w84 no está en línea  
Old November 25th, 2009, 05:49 PM   #863
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,130
Likes (Received): 3205

Quote:
Originally Posted by r0w84 View Post
Portsmouth have just pulled out of the race to be a host city: http://www.football365.com/story/0,1...718856,00.html

This must be a massive boost for both Milton Keynes & Plymouth now who were both considered outsiders. I bet Southampton are a bit regretful they didn't put St.Marys forward now.
Bad news for the England bid, if I do say. Portsmouth provided a nice alternative destination and some geographic disparity, especially as a partner city with Bristol or Plymouth. I feel for the club, too, as this would've been a boon for their efforts to improve their status among mid-tier clubs.

One other note, no way in Hades does Milton Keynes make the cut, and if they do England likely wouldn't, and likely shouldn't, win the bid. If that's among the best the nation has to offer then woe be unto England.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old November 25th, 2009, 06:33 PM   #864
r0w84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 32
Likes (Received): 0

I duno i have a sneaky feeling about Milton Keynes. Already have an impressive Uefa 4* Stadium and is much better looking than say Pride Park & Walkers Stadium, has the awsome MK Bowl as a fan park nearby, is like the fastest growing place in europe and will be pretty huge by 2018, location wise it just about sneaks into the East Anglia region and is the only contender in the bid to do so, Also has a unique driving grid system so easy for people to travel around the city.

Also people go on about what MK did to Wimbeldon football club etc. Absoloute Horseshit...that wasnt Milton Keynes/Peter Winkleman's fault....it was the fault of the Wimbeldon council who had like 15years to sort Wimbeldon a ground out yet they couldnt be bothered and didnt see it as that important. Winkleman bought a club to a city which a whole city community can now enjoy insted of letting a club continue to rot being watch by only a couple of thousand every week on the other side of London.....and if winkelman hadnt of taken them to MK i guernetee Wimbeldon FC would of gone out of business now anyway....there was no way Wimbeldon FC could of continued like that sharing at Selhurst Park and the Wimbeldon Council were not willing to do anything about it so what other option was there??

Last edited by r0w84; November 25th, 2009 at 06:52 PM.
r0w84 no está en línea  
Old November 25th, 2009, 07:30 PM   #865
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

what?

Firstly the council is called MERTON, sheeesh

Secondly if Wimbledon had gone out of business so be it. It happens, it's not the councils fault that the club moved away from Plough lane before working out a contingency.

Thridly Wimbledon Football Club were a London football club and represented that community, this is the 21st century and football isn't american sport where you can move a club to another city to tout for business, 100 years ago when the game was more turbulent by all means. Most countries have a minimum relocation distance rule, and so now does the FA who stupidly had this loophole

Fourthly, MK didn't show that they deserved a club, they didn't get behind the club they already had. You can argue MK is a new town yadda yadda, but so is Stevenage, Crawley and Telford and they all at the time had clubs in the Conference, so they got behind there team despite being as young. The facts are MK didn't and the only reason the team was moved there was to cash in.

Fifthly the AFC wimbledon fans have proven that there was and is on option, given the fact that they now own a stadium and get healthy crowds in the conference. Youth forgot about the fans in your analysis didn't you...

Sixthly given the fact the Winkleman has given up all claims to the legacy of Wimbledon (FA cup etc now held by Merton Council) and MK dons are considered a completely new entitity I think we can infer from that he knows that the club isn't wimbledon anymore thus they might as well have gone bust.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old November 25th, 2009, 08:34 PM   #866
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,641
Likes (Received): 1543

Furthermore it isn't the fastest growing urbanisation in the UK let alone Europe (the growth rate has also slowed significantly in both absolute and relative terms since the early 1980s, although I appreciate there are plans to increase its size over the next couple of decades). It also has nothing to do with East Anglia; it is officially part of the South East of England according to government records and quite a bit away from Norfolk and Suffolk.

Finally, the town suffers from a negative image in both a football and social sense. There would be a pretty large backlash from supporters groups.

Personally, I don't get this desire to rush forward this process and rule anywhere out since the 2018 WC is almost 10 years away. Things could change hugely in just a couple of years. Brazil hadn't chosen their host cities until well after they were awarded the event. In fact, they only picked them last May (or FIFA did). England should just follow suit and say they have 18/20 cities bidding for the right to host games and present the bid as such. If they want to make it easier just declare the very obvious hosts now (London, Manchester, etc) and say the rest is up for grabs, which would probably only be about 5 cities.
kerouac1848 no está en línea  
Old November 25th, 2009, 08:37 PM   #867
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10338

Well, as I said, Belgium and Holland have narrowed their bid to 12 cities. Perhaps it's a FIFA requirement at this stage of the bidding process that 12 cities are presented.
RobH no está en línea  
Old November 25th, 2009, 08:42 PM   #868
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,641
Likes (Received): 1543

Fair enough if that is the case. Personally, however, i think it should be fine to present more than 12 bidding cities as long as a) each one will meet the necessary requirements (a given i guess) b) it is sorted no more than 4 months (or whatever) after being given the right to host the WC c) half of the host cities should already have been confirmed, including the final and opening venue (which would be easy in England's case).

But whatever, its FIFA's cashcow.
kerouac1848 no está en línea  
Old November 25th, 2009, 09:06 PM   #869
r0w84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 32
Likes (Received): 0

well the East Anglia news seem to include Milton Keynes in their section....tho it is kinda on the border.

tho the birth of MK Dons wasnt ideal, the wimbeldon/merton council (whichever one it is) has to take a lot of the blame for it. At the end of the day this bid isnt about MK Dons its about the Town/City of Milton Keynes and looking at the facts it already has a fantastic 4* stadium, great transport links to all the other cities in the bid and is perfectly set up with the MK Bowl near the stadium as a fanpark, is extremley modern looking and shall be a pretty big city by 2018with loads to do for visiting fans. Its an exciting Place and will only get bigger.

I still think it will be the surprise candidate along with plymouth (good chance due to location it will be used now because of portsmouth pulling out ) and be selected. The cities i think will fall out are Hull (Leeds & Sheffield will be chosen instead), Sunderland (to near to Newcastle), Leicester and Derby (Nottingham for East Midlands)
r0w84 no está en línea  
Old November 25th, 2009, 10:05 PM   #870
SSE
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 124
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by r0w84 View Post
there was no way Wimbeldon FC could of continued like that sharing at Selhurst Park and the Wimbeldon Council were not willing to do anything about it so what other option was there??

Out of interest (and as a Palace fan) why was this not a realistic option? Not owning their stadium and having to pay rent is something that a fair number of clubs do around Europe (Palace were doing it themselves at the time), so that can't be a factor. In 1999 a Wimbledon had their highest ever average attendance of just over 18,000, and it was only in 2001, after the rumours about the Milton Keynes plans surfaced that the supporters left and formed AFC Wimbledon in 2002. It was the Milton Keynes plans that killed off that club and nothing else.

If Wimbledon had got the money together (maybe 10-15m or so), there is no reason they couldn't have bought Selhurst Park from Ron Noades. Croydon Council have always said they'd only allow the land to be used for sporting purposes so Noades would have been delighted to make a profit (during the deal when he sold CPFC to Mark Goldberg, Noades valued the ground at around 7 million). They could have owned their own stadium in an area close enough to maintain their original fanbase, and where they were clearly building a decent local following. They would have had Palace paying rent to play there as a source of extra income as well! This was talked about by Palace fans at the time and was outlined as the nightmare scenario!


Back on topic, given it's impressive stadium, transport links and it's rapid growth, I think Milton Keynes could be a very good shout for a world cup bid. I think it might be a good ploy to throw it in as well, FIFA might look more kindly on a bid that mixes traditional, classic stadiums along with new stadiums in areas that aren't necessarily hotbeds of English football.
SSE no está en línea  
Old November 25th, 2009, 11:30 PM   #871
r0w84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 32
Likes (Received): 0

Think we'll just agree to disagree on the wimbeldon thing but i dont think it should effect Milton Keynes bid as a host city as this bid is not about MK Dons but as Milton Keynes as a City as a whole.

I personally would like to see Twickenham used as the 2nd London stadium but this now looks unlikely so i think the bid will look a little like:

LONDON

Wembley 90,000

Emirates 60,000

MANCHESTER

Old Trafford 76,000 (possible expansion to 95,000 by 2018)

LIVERPOOL

New Anfield 61,000 -70,000

NEWCASTLE/GATESHEAD

St James Park 52,000 (60,000 for 2018 by expanding stand behind the goal)

BIRMINGHAM

Villa Park (44,000 - expand to 52,000 for 2018)

LEEDS

Elland Road (40,000 - desperately need to redovelop 3 of the stands for 2018)

SHEFFIELD

Hillsborough (44,000 for 2018)

NOTTINGHAM

New City Ground (45,000 built for 2018)

MILTON KEYNES

Stadium:MK (44,000 expansion for 2018)

BRISTOL

New Stadium (40,000 for 2018)

PLYMOUTH

Expand Home Park to 40,000 for 2018


Also i read earlier on the Telegraph website i think (not 100% sure) that they have said that contrary to reports more than one city can actually have more than 2 stadiums and that both stadiums in Manchester and all 4 in London could actually all be used. Not sure where they got this info from tho.....and of course typically i cant find this article now so cant post it up
r0w84 no está en línea  
Old November 26th, 2009, 01:32 PM   #872
Bobsi
Registered User
 
Bobsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 108
Likes (Received): 26

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo....html?ITO=1490


How does it work, does the the clubs involved rely on public funding, if their stadium (to-be-built) is chosen as a venue?
Bobsi no está en línea  
Old November 26th, 2009, 01:42 PM   #873
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

I back England but they are redefining the words self implode
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old November 26th, 2009, 03:22 PM   #874
Luke80
Registered User
 
Luke80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 774
Likes (Received): 4

England wants this but we seem to be doing everything possible to **** it up!

Here's a thought - the 2 London stadiums of Wembley and the stunning-looking new WHL?
Luke80 no está en línea  
Old November 26th, 2009, 03:22 PM   #875
Luke80
Registered User
 
Luke80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 774
Likes (Received): 4

EDIT: Double Post!
Luke80 no está en línea  
Old November 26th, 2009, 03:32 PM   #876
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10338

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke80 View Post
England wants this but we seem to be doing everything possible to **** it up!

Here's a thought - the 2 London stadiums of Wembley and the stunning-looking new WHL?
Could well be. London are putting forward 4 stadiums for consideration. I suspect Wembley and the Emirates will be the two, but I'd love it if the New WHL was selected instead of the Death Star.

The Olympic stadium's a non-starter for me. It should be converted into legacy mode as soon as possible after the Games, along with the rest of the Olympic Park. And whilst running tracks haven't been a problem for FIFA in the past, if given the choice between a stadium without one, and a stadium with one there will only ever be one answer. London, Boris Johnson et al are playing silly buggers for even considering the Olympic Stadium as a world cup venue given the wealth of purpouse built football stadiums the capital will have by 2018, and the millions it will cost to maintain the stadium for the 6 years between the Olympics and the world cup.
RobH no está en línea  
Old November 26th, 2009, 03:47 PM   #877
r0w84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 32
Likes (Received): 0

Yeah i think they should ditch the Olympic Stadium idea.....it would be great to hold the first ever World Cup without a Single Running Track in 1 of the venues. The Olympic Park tho would make an amzing Fan Park though!

Also just said on Sky Sports that 10 cities and 12 stadiums will be chosen, take it this means they plan on using 'City Of Manchester Stadium' aswel as Old Trafford and 2 London Venues?
r0w84 no está en línea  
Old November 26th, 2009, 03:48 PM   #878
TallPaul_H
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Derby
Posts: 14
Likes (Received): 0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslate..._2018_tru.html

A blog from today about the host cities, alot of good points made by people in reply to it
TallPaul_H no está en línea  
Old November 26th, 2009, 03:51 PM   #879
TallPaul_H
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Derby
Posts: 14
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by r0w84 View Post
Yeah i think they should ditch the Olympic Stadium idea.....it would be great to hold the first ever World Cup without a Single Running Track in 1 of the venues. The Olympic Park tho would make an amzing Fan Park though!

Also just said on Sky Sports that 10 cities and 12 stadiums will be chosen, take it this means they plan on using 'City Of Manchester Stadium' aswel as Old Trafford and 2 London Venues?

Wembley is guaranteed, so I'm guessing it would be 1 of the Emirates or the new White Hart Lane?
TallPaul_H no está en línea  
Old November 26th, 2009, 03:52 PM   #880
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10338

Quote:
Originally Posted by r0w84 View Post
Yeah i think they should ditch the Olympic Stadium idea.....it would be great to hold the first ever World Cup without a Single Running Track in 1 of the venues. The Olympic Park tho would make an amzing Fan Park though!
Exactly! Don't faff around trying to get the 80,000 seat stadium maintained for six years, get the PARK ready for a world cup after the Olympics - make sure it's in full legacy mode by 2018! A huge fan site, with concerts, entertainment etc. And it's even been suggested the reduced Olympic stadium could be a training base for a team like Brazil, which is a fabulous idea.

RobH 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 01:20 PM.


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