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 December 17th, 2009, 03:53 PM   #981
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,134
Likes (Received): 3208

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Erm, neither of those cities bid.
Now, Rob, you may be a s**** fan but surely even you know where we're coming from.

Neither City bid and that's their decision, it just seems a shame that they couldn't muster up even an attempt considering that Plymouth and Bristol have made the cut. Over the past decade or two Ipswich and Norwich have arguably been more feature players in English football than either of those other two, or compared to Milton Keynes. But as I've said before, I'll trust the organizer's to make what they feel is the most plausible bid.

Put another way, if I'm a government bloke or banker about to subsidize a stadium improvement, on paper I'd presume the facilities at Norwich and Ipswich would be used more and for greater crowds than we've come to expect in the southwest. Then again, a few months ago I would've assumed the folks at Portsmouth would've been smart enough not to waste this chance, either.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old December 17th, 2009, 03:57 PM   #982
roninja1999
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 73
Likes (Received): 6

7 to 8 of the proposed stadia have capacities of between 40k to 50k. Lets hope some of those grounds can be increased in terms of capacities to a more exiciting number.
roninja1999 no está en línea  
Old December 17th, 2009, 04:36 PM   #983
BhamJim
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 716
Likes (Received): 180

I think it's appalling that a southern overspill town like Milton Keynes gets chosen to host matches, over an established traditional footballing city like Derby.

I've seen posts from brazilians, and other foreigners hoping Englands wins the 2018 bid, and that 'football will come home again.'

Yeah nice one! Instead of the footballing town of Derby, with it's glorious footballing history and staue of legendary Brian Clough, we're gonna stick you in Milton Keynes!!

Idiots.
BhamJim no está en línea  
Old December 17th, 2009, 05:25 PM   #984
r0w84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 32
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by BhamJim View Post
I think it's appalling that a southern overspill town like Milton Keynes gets chosen to host matches, over an established traditional footballing city like Derby.

I've seen posts from brazilians, and other foreigners hoping Englands wins the 2018 bid, and that 'football will come home again.'

Yeah nice one! Instead of the footballing town of Derby, with it's glorious footballing history and staue of legendary Brian Clough, we're gonna stick you in Milton Keynes!!

Idiots.
Have u been to milton keynes or are u just another sheep with a stereotypical view? Its not just about history its also the chance to leave a city with a legacy and this gives the likes of MK and Plymouth a great oppurtunity. Jesus we've already got 10 other cities with amazing history so its not a problem. location wise Derby is right next door to Nottingham & Sheffield whilst MK is in a good location and fifa likes cities to be spread out. Stadium wise - I've been to both stadia and Stadium MK is much better than Pride Park in terms of facilities and looks. Also MK is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe and will be a much better place for fans to visit than Derby in 2018

...and before you get the 'Wimbeldon' card out.....this bid is not about MK dons/Wimbeldon its about England providing the best cities/venues to FIFA for their 2018 bid - which after numerous presentations and visits is what they have done.
r0w84 no está en línea  
Old December 17th, 2009, 07:19 PM   #985
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,134
Likes (Received): 3208

Quote:
Originally Posted by r0w84 View Post
Have u been to milton keynes or are u just another sheep with a stereotypical view? Its not just about history its also the chance to leave a city with a legacy and this gives the likes of MK and Plymouth a great oppurtunity. Jesus we've already got 10 other cities with amazing history so its not a problem.
All well and good, but it does smack of irony when England is touting the bid as bringing the game back home while possibly leaving out very historic places like Sheffield, Derby, etc. A little bit of trying to have it both ways, it seems. That's all I'm saying, in this regard.
Quote:
... and fifa likes cities to be spread out.
Sounds like a plug for Portsmouth, Hull and Norwich over Milton Keynes if you ask me.
Quote:
Also MK is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe and will be a much better place for fans to visit than Derby in 2018
Considering the investment being made in some of these communities and venues this is arguable. Surely Pride Park would be renovated and upgraded before hosting a World Cup, and who knows an expanded Stadium MK might look attrocious.
Quote:
...and before you get the 'Wimbeldon' card out.....this bid is not about MK dons/Wimbeldon its about England providing the best cities/venues to FIFA for their 2018 bid
I wouldn't take this angle if the club associated with the venue promised not to use this event as an opportunity to spread their own brand, but we know that's exactly what MK Dons is doing. The club is very aware of what this bid means to them, the venue and MK. Considering the history and prestige of some of the brands being touted to lure the World Cup to England (ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool, Wembley...) Milton Keynes stands out with some infamy, and this is a way of placing their brand in the spotlight and being viewed as big time. Good for them for trying, but you'll pardon us if some of us on the outside view this case as a pompous neveau riche person getting his way.

Cheers.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."

Last edited by GunnerJacket; December 17th, 2009 at 07:25 PM.
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old December 17th, 2009, 07:28 PM   #986
BhamJim
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 716
Likes (Received): 180

Why would I have ever been to Milton Keynes?

I'd say the same wherever it was. Derby being left out, over a place like this is criminal and smells dodgy to me. I just cannot understand it.

The close proximity to Nottingham makes no difference. Look at the other choices, some are even closer together.

Portsmouth Hull and Norwich all have more of a claim than Milton Keynes, but Derby in particular has been shat on here.
BhamJim no está en línea  
Old December 17th, 2009, 08:08 PM   #987
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by BhamJim View Post
I think it's appalling that a southern overspill town like Milton Keynes gets chosen to host matches, over an established traditional footballing city like Derby.

I've seen posts from brazilians, and other foreigners hoping Englands wins the 2018 bid, and that 'football will come home again.'

Yeah nice one! Instead of the footballing town of Derby, with it's glorious footballing history and staue of legendary Brian Clough, we're gonna stick you in Milton Keynes!!

Idiots.
Established traditional football city? Well, to outsiders:

- The club is Derby County, despite Derby being a place within the county Derbyshire. Do most people even know there's a town in there?

- One of the worst Premiership seasons in recent memory. Not all tradition is great.

- They played forever at the Baseball Ground in a country where baseball is not known to exist. Not too prestigious to be second billing in your home venue.

These are just superficial observations from a foreigner. Perceptions are likely different in England, but I doubt this will wreck the bid.
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old December 17th, 2009, 08:40 PM   #988
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Derby is just a suburb of Nottingham....
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old December 17th, 2009, 08:54 PM   #989
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Exactly, these 'rules' seem fairly malleable. The bid knows what they're doing and will have consulted with FIFA every step. Something as basic as picking the right number of stadiums per city won't have been overlooked!
I think England is hoping for FIFA to make an exception and allow them to have three hosts in a single city, but IMO, that's a bad way to go. Even if it is allowed, I think some executive committee members won't like it and may hold it against them bid. It's unnecessary and could potentially hurt the bid.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old December 17th, 2009, 09:32 PM   #990
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,780
Likes (Received): 10347

Nah, it won't hurt the bid. We're giving FIFA options. If FIFA only want two in London, we'll only have two, but if they think they capital can cope with three, we'll have three. The list of 16 stadiums will be cut to around 12 if we win and that may or may not include London losing a stadium. It's flexible in that sense.

England isn't like Germany or the US with many regional centres of power. London is a primate city, almost the dictionary definition of one. It is not unreasonable for it to have three stadiums, though I'd imagine it will probably end up with two.
RobH no está en línea  
Old December 17th, 2009, 09:34 PM   #991
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

well we're not giving FIFA options are we, giving FIFA options would not be culling Hull, derby and Leicester!
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old December 17th, 2009, 10:17 PM   #992
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,641
Likes (Received): 1543

But Paris is argubly even more so than London, yet it only got two venues and no other French city got more than one
kerouac1848 no está en línea  
Old December 17th, 2009, 10:27 PM   #993
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

technically Paris got one, The stade de france is in Saint-Denis.

I think though in france there are more efforts to decentralise away from Paris than have been ade to get rid of our Iron grip on our country... I may just be bullshitting though...
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old December 17th, 2009, 11:22 PM   #994
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,641
Likes (Received): 1543

Yes, in the same way Old Trafford is technically not in Manchester However, it is part of the wider Paris region, which is an official area I believe. And besides, they didn't purpose 3 stadia!

French cities def have more autonomy than ours, hence their better transport and so forth. However, kinda paradoxically, Paris I think gets far more attention from central gov. I mean, look at how Sarkozy is leading the way for a 'Grand' (greater) Paris project, spending 20 billion or so on some outer orbital metro thing. Can you imagine Brown or whoever doing that for London? Before that there was the whole RER project which got massive assistance from central gov; crossrail is getting a little less than a 3rd of funding from central gov and that is just one line not a whole network. I guess its just different views of how and where the State works though.
kerouac1848 no está en línea  
Old December 17th, 2009, 11:28 PM   #995
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,134
Likes (Received): 3208

The thoughts about London are correct but I think this is less cultural thing and simply a factor of geography and urbanity (or the lack thereof). England's portion of the isle represents a smaller space than Germany, Spain or France, and the distribution of mid-sized urban centers meant some compromise (compared to most other hosts) was inevitable.

I've no objection to London using 3 venues, or multiple cities hosting more than one venue if it makes for the best bid. Better that than having stadiums with tracks, I say. It's merely a question of how the host nation wants to manage the tourism.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old December 18th, 2009, 12:23 AM   #996
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
technically Paris got one, The stade de france is in Saint-Denis.
So the Aussie bid could get away with two in City of Melbourne, one in City of Sydney and one in Auburn Council (Homebush)?

Doesn't London operate on a similar level? Does FIFA consider London to be the small borough at the center or the collection of boroughs?
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old December 18th, 2009, 12:28 AM   #997
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

London isn't a city (technically it's just the city of London which has 10,000 people), although it has a mayor, it's complicated. Greater London was never given city status so essentially Greater London is just a county made up 31 urban boroughs and city of westminster, run by a leader who calls himself the mayor and works from city hall.

Political Geography in England needs a massive overhaul anyway, as does the postal code syste because in many ways that dictates to people where they live. For instance although middlesex hasn't existed for over 40 years, people still say they live there because that's what their address says!

But on your actual question I think FIFA really means urban areas, or maybe even metropolitan areas!
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old December 18th, 2009, 12:52 AM   #998
SSE
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 124
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by BhamJim View Post
Why would I have ever been to Milton Keynes?

I'd say the same wherever it was. Derby being left out, over a place like this is criminal and smells dodgy to me. I just cannot understand it.

The close proximity to Nottingham makes no difference. Look at the other choices, some are even closer together.

Portsmouth Hull and Norwich all have more of a claim than Milton Keynes, but Derby in particular has been shat on here.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. For the bid to be successful it has to be a combination of different things. As well as traditional football stadiums and cities, we need to include some that are in other, less popular areas. FIFA loves to talk about 'legacy' which is why as well as Old Trafford and Wembley, it's important to have games played in Bristol, Plymouth, Milton Keynes etc. At the moment Derby and MK are about the same size, but MK is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe.

Besides, Pride Park isn't the Baseball Ground. It's a typical modern bowl. If the choice is between Pride Park or a newer, better stadium then I think it's reasonable to choose MK. We still have the history and tradition of Hillsborough, St. James' Park, Old Trafford etc.
SSE no está en línea  
Old December 18th, 2009, 12:57 AM   #999
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

why are you lumping Bristol and Plymouth in with MK. That's rather insulting to them!
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old December 18th, 2009, 01:58 AM   #1000
SSE
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 124
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
why are you lumping Bristol and Plymouth in with MK. That's rather insulting to them!

I meant only in terms of the way that Bristol City/Rovers and Plymouth Argyle aren't big names in terms of English football. I have the greatest respect for them as clubs, but I doubt many people outside of England will be familiar with them.
SSE 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 05:47 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