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 29th, 2008, 12:11 AM   #101
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobo View Post
This is my ideal list of English cities and stadiums I would like to be used for a 2018 world cup. The stadiums have a minimum and maximum capacity which have been suggested in the past, and some stadiums I have made up as I feel something new would have to be built in that city. However when the bid goes in I don't think that all the stadiums will have the maximum capacity, although I would like them too. But please bear in mind Sepp Blatter has said he wants the minimum stadium size in 2018 to be 45,000.


Ideal list:
1. London, Wembley Stadium, 90,000.

2. Manchester, Old Trafford, 76,212 - 95,212.

3. Liverpool, New Anfield, 70,000 - 80,000.

4. London, Emirates Stadium, 60,432.

5. Newcastle, St James Park, 60,390.

6. Birmingham, Villa Park, 52,000.

7. Leeds, New Leeds Stadium, 40,00 - 50,000.

8. Nottingham, New Nottingham stadium, 45,000 - 50,000.

9. Sheffield, New Sheffield Stadium, 40,000 - 48,000.

10. Portsmouth, New Stadium 40,000 - 48,000.

11. Bristol, New Bristol Stadium, 40,000 - 45,000.

12. Norwich, New Norwich Stadium, 40,000 - 45,000.


What do you think about these cities?

Reserve Stadiums:
1. London, New West Ham Stadium, 55,000 - 60,000.
2. London, New Chelsea Stadium, 55,000 - 65,000.
3. London, White Hart Lane, 55,000.
4. Birmingham, City of Birmingham Stadium, 55,000.
5. Liverpool/ kirkby, New Everton Stadium, 50,000 - 60,000.
6. Sunderland, Stadium of Light, 49,000 - 64,000.
7. Manchester, City of Manchester Stadium, 47,726.
8. Southampton, St Mary's, 40,000 - 45,000.
Lose Sheffield OR Leeds, and Nottingham, and I'd say that's the "ideal" 10 for the bid.
Benjuk no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old May 29th, 2008, 12:46 AM   #102
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
Lose Sheffield OR Leeds, and Nottingham, and I'd say that's the "ideal" 10 for the bid.
Going from this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...018.portsmouth the English bid intends to have 10 host cities 3 of which could be Bristol, Portsmouth and Nottingham. I suppose there could be regional fights to see which cities could host, this is something that happened in Germany for 2006 World Cup, with individual cities bidding against one another. Here is another website people might be interested with: http://www.2018england.co.uk/
Kobo no está en línea  
Old May 29th, 2008, 02:33 AM   #103
ccfc-4-life
Play up Sky Blues
 
ccfc-4-life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 820
Likes (Received): 2

Forget Leicester's ground, I would consider Coventry's Ricoh Arena instead because it is expandable, is in a large city and has supurb transport links - it lies right next to the M6 - linking it to almost every major location in the country! AND there is a major airport less than 12 miles away (BHX) - perfect choice for a world cup bid
ccfc-4-life no está en línea  
Old May 29th, 2008, 03:37 AM   #104
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,134
Likes (Received): 3208

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
Lose Sheffield OR Leeds, and Nottingham, and I'd say that's the "ideal" 10 for the bid.
I prefer 12 grounds, myself, but agree that Leeds, Sheffield and Nottingham won't all receive games. That would place too many host sites in the Midlands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobo View Post
Going from this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...018.portsmouth the English bid intends to have 10 host cities 3 of which could be Bristol, Portsmouth and Nottingham. I suppose there could be regional fights to see which cities could host, this is something that happened in Germany for 2006 World Cup, with individual cities bidding against one another.
Thanks for the link. That's interesting they're committing to 10 cities, suggesting 11 venues. An odd number both figuratively and literally! I'm glad to see they're looking at cities, but I do hope they also don't sell themselves too short and have an adbundance of minimum capacity grounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc-4-life View Post
Forget Leicester's ground, I would consider Coventry's Ricoh Arena instead because it is expandable, is in a large city and has supurb transport links - it lies right next to the M6 - linking it to almost every major location in the country! AND there is a major airport less than 12 miles away (BHX) - perfect choice for a world cup bid
I assumed Coventry would be too close to Birmingham. And personally, I'm not too fond of that wall on the Telnet(?) stand - Makes the ground feel way too bland, IMO.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old May 29th, 2008, 05:54 AM   #105
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
For instance, Hull and Bristol would help spread the wealth but undoubtedly don't need a 45k seat venue long-term.
I wouldn't be so sure - I guess it ultimately depends on how long Hull City are likely to stay in the Premier League but if they become permanent fixtures, a la Bolton, then a 40k+ stadium becomes feasible. Hull is a one team town and has a population and metro area not significantly smaller than Newcastle and we've seen the massive growth in Newcastle United crowds during their stay in the Premier League.

I realise that Hull is a very unfashionable place within the UK and may suffer from a distinct lack of hotel facilities when compared with Leeds, for example, but at this moment in time, especially given Duffen's backing, the stadium itself is the most realistic contender. Considerable investment has come into the city in recent times with redevelopments on the banks of the Hull and the Humber, as well as in the city centre. Ultimately, Hull is a city that has a lot to gain from hosting a world cup and provides easy access for mainland Europeans through the ferry port. I wouldn't put money on it but I'd say it has a reasonable shout.

I also realise that it seems a little taboo to mention Twickenham as a possible world cup venue yet it is hard to ignore an 82,000 capacity stadium because of the sport predominantly played there. I know that because of its location, the number of events staged there is limited by planning in some way but I'm sure a couple of World Cup games could easily be fitted into the stadium's schedule. More importantly, it has more surrounding land than the Emirates Stadium for the hosting of the media circus and corporates. I can't imagine Arsenal being terribly happy about it but the use of Twickenham, especially as a potential semi-final stadium, would enhance the bid significantly. The lack of space near the Emirates Stadium could have negative effect.

Another interesting thing is that, I believe, Nottingham is closer to Manchester than it is to Hull. If we're dealing with 10 cities, theoretically, both Hull and Nottingham could be used. Should Leeds be a candidate city, this may not be the case and could lead to an over-concentration with Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds all used. We must assume that Liverpool and Manchester will provide stadia, so we may actually be ruling Leeds out on geographic spread.

Surely, any bid that theoretically brings Scotland into consideration would see Murrayfield used? I can see the thinking behind England only wanting an England bid but the use of the Millennium Stadium and / or Murrayfield could deeply enhance the bid. As niether the Millennium Stadium nor Murrayfield are owned by the relevant Welsh and Scottish FA's, it could also lead to a situation where the complexities of a joint bidding process, such as multiple qutomatic qualification, are foregone.

Ultimately, I doubt the use of either of these stadia would make the bid any less desirable to FIFA. If it is a tight bidding process against Spain, for example, then they could actually greatly enhance the bid and I'm sure the FA would prefer a successful bid involving these stadia to a failed bid involving only English stadia. Consider what would look better on a bid - a 40,000 capacity stadium in Bristol that may not be sustainable or a 75,000+ capacity stadium just across a bridge with fantastic facilities. So long as it doesn't overcompliate the bid, and given ownership of the stadia, I doubt it would, then this will enhance the English bid.

To consider that another way, I doubt the SRU or the WRU are going to be particularly concerned that the Scottish and Welsh football sides don't gain automatic World Cup qualification but are going to be making money out of the whole thing. When you look at some of the stadia going up in Spain at the moment, I'd say it would be imprudent for the FA and any English bid not to persue these potential avenues when both stadia have so much to offer because they are too damn proud to realise the potential limitations of an England only bid.

Ultimately, a lot of stadium changes can be expected, if not predicted in 10 years so it's quite difficult, at this time, to really comment on which stadia will be used. As such, my list aims to be fairly broad and would choose from the best available stadium and other such matters from a few towns.

Given that, I have two lists below. The first for an English bid involving only English stadia, the second for an exclusive English bid involving Murrayfield and the Millennium Stadium:

England Only Bid:

1. London - Wembley Stadium - 90,000+(?)
2. London - Twickenham Stadium - 82,000 / Emirates Stadium (60,000)
3. Manchester - Old Trafford - 76,000+
4. Liverpool - New Anfield - 60,000+
5. Newcastle - St. James' Park - 52,000+ / Sunderland - Stadium of Light - 49,000+
6. Nottingham - New Nottingham Forest Stadium - 45,000 - 50,000
7. Birmingham - Villa Park - 51,000+ / New Birmingham City Stadium - 50,000+
8. Bristol - New Bristol Stadium - 40,000+
9. Ipswich - New Ipswich Town Stadium 40,000+ / New Norwich City Stadium 40,000+
10. Portsmouth - New Portsmouth Stadium - 40,000+
11. Kingston-Upon-Hull - K.C. Stadium - 40,000+ / Leeds - New Leeds United Stadium - 40,000+

Composite Exclusive English Bid:

1. London - Wembley Stadium - 90,000+(?)
2. London - Twickenham Stadium - 82,000 / Emirates Stadium - 60,000+(?)
3. Manchester - Old Trafford - 76,000+
4. Cardiff - Millennium Stadium - 75,000+
5. Edinbrgh - Murrayfield Stadium - 67,800
6. Liverpool - New Anfield - 60,000+
7. Newcastle - St James' Park - 52,000+ / Sunderland - Stadium of Light - 49,000+
8. Birmingham - Villa Park - 51,000+ / New Birmingham City Stadium - 50,000+
9. Nottinham - New Nottingham Forest Stadium - 45,000 - 50,000
10. Portsmouth - New Portsmouth Stadium - 40,000+
11. Ipswich - New Ipswich Town Stadium 40,000+ / New Norwich City Stadium 40,000+ / Kingston-Upon-Hull - K.C. Stadium - 40,000+ / Leeds - New Leeds United Stadium - 40,000+

The second one of these lists makes for a FAR more impressive bid - especially if the Gallowgate End at St. James' were to be redeveloped or Sunderland went with a redevelopment of the Stadium of light, we're looking at 7 stadia with capacities of 60,000 or more. With that, we could be potentially talking about this bid providing nearly as many seats, overall, as the much vaunted USA bid for some future world cup. While I can understand the FA not wanting to use stadia in the UK that are not in England, any bid will face stiff competition, especially from Spain. It would be fairly arrogant for the FA not to at least consider the use of two non-English stadia that could tip the scales in favour of the English bid. Given the quality of stadia in Spain, it could be that the potential use of Twickeham, Murrayfield and the Millennium Stadium could be what tilts the balance in favour of an English bid.

An interesting question could arise about the hosting of the final - should Old Trafford have a capacity of 95,000+ at that stage, it may be desirable for FIFA to see the final held there, although no doubt would meet from vast opposition from the FA. Perhaps we could finally see if there is any truth in those postings and rumours that by moving the seats closer together at Wembley, capacity could be significantly increased - as a temporary move for a World Cup, I'm sure there wouldn't be too much planning opposition?

EDIT: To consider the serious potential for the England bid involving Murrayfield and the Millennium Stadium, I compared the 11 stadia in my list above with 11 potential stadia in the USA. For this, I worked under the assumption of maximum English capacities (Old Trafford at 96,000 and New Anfield at 70,000, for example but 40,000 for stadia in Hull, Ipswich et al, so it's hypothetical in itself):

The overall capacities of the 11 stadia in the USA were 733,000 (Mean: 66,500) and for the UK, 722,000 (Mean: 65,600). To compare this, only three stadia used in Germany had capacities larger than the mean of such an English bid and the total available capacity was 635,000 for 12 stadia (Mean: 52,900). Working with the same figures and ignoring Murrayfield and the Millennium Stadium, overall capacity for 11 stadia drops to 659,000 (Mean: 59,900). The inclusion of Murrayfield and the Millennium Stadium allows England a bid that in terms of pure capacity, may only be rivaled by the USA and that is some statement in itself.
__________________
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.

Last edited by NeilF; May 29th, 2008 at 06:23 AM.
NeilF no está en línea  
Old May 29th, 2008, 06:39 AM   #106
marrio415
Registered User
 
marrio415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mansfield and Oxford UK
Posts: 835
Likes (Received): 22

It will be an english bid only if scotland or anyone else want it then they can bid for it.after 2002 fifa are against co hosts for future world cups
marrio415 no está en línea  
Old May 29th, 2008, 06:50 AM   #107
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

It wouldn't be co-hosts, Marrio, as I quite clearly stated - we're talking about the use of stadia that have no attachements to the Scottish or Welsh Football Associations. There is a significant difference between co-hosting and using stadia that are, technically, within the same political entity as England. If anything, I'd say the people of Scotland and Wales wouldn't want these stadia used in a way that didn't guarantee automatic qualification for those international sides but that's another matter for discussion elsewhere.

As I said, given the stiffness and quality of competition that an English bid will face, especially from the likes of Spain/Portugal, USA and Russia, it would be arrogant to simply assume that England will win. By using these stadia, England can put a significantly better bid on the table than they otherwise could. Unfortunately, it seems some want to bring national rivalries and other such nonsense into something that could mean the difference between a World Cup in England an no World Cup in England in 2018. It's not a slur against England's ability to provide good enough stadia, it is about England providing the best possible bid that stands the best possible chance of winning. As we are dealing with theoretical expansions and temporary seats to take capacities above 40,000 in many key cities, most notably Portsmouth, England are not in an automatic position to provide the strongest bid for 2018 in terms of stadia. The use of stadia in Scotland and Wales provides a bid that would be almost unrivalled. I'm sorry that all of that reduces to your kind of, "England, only," argument.

Given the theoretical potential for the use of Murrayfield and the Millennium stadium without complicating the bidding process with co-hosts, the use of those stadia provides a better bid and any suggestion otherwise, especially those based on national attitudes, is absurd.
__________________
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.
NeilF no está en línea  
Old May 29th, 2008, 04:39 PM   #108
marrio415
Registered User
 
marrio415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mansfield and Oxford UK
Posts: 835
Likes (Received): 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilF View Post
It wouldn't be co-hosts, Marrio, as I quite clearly stated - we're talking about the use of stadia that have no attachements to the Scottish or Welsh Football Associations. There is a significant difference between co-hosting and using stadia that are, technically, within the same political entity as England. If anything, I'd say the people of Scotland and Wales wouldn't want these stadia used in a way that didn't guarantee automatic qualification for those international sides but that's another matter for discussion elsewhere.

As I said, given the stiffness and quality of competition that an English bid will face, especially from the likes of Spain/Portugal, USA and Russia, it would be arrogant to simply assume that England will win. By using these stadia, England can put a significantly better bid on the table than they otherwise could. Unfortunately, it seems some want to bring national rivalries and other such nonsense into something that could mean the difference between a World Cup in England an no World Cup in England in 2018. It's not a slur against England's ability to provide good enough stadia, it is about England providing the best possible bid that stands the best possible chance of winning. As we are dealing with theoretical expansions and temporary seats to take capacities above 40,000 in many key cities, most notably Portsmouth, England are not in an automatic position to provide the strongest bid for 2018 in terms of stadia. The use of stadia in Scotland and Wales provides a bid that would be almost unrivalled. I'm sorry that all of that reduces to your kind of, "England, only," argument.

Given the theoretical potential for the use of Murrayfield and the Millennium stadium without complicating the bidding process with co-hosts, the use of those stadia provides a better bid and any suggestion otherwise, especially those based on national attitudes, is absurd.
well which ever way you look at it murryfield is scotland and the mellennium is wales.Not england,wouldn't bother me if they had them as venues would be fine but fifa won't see it that way.And you state yourself that using these would help englands bid maybe true but then it wouldn't be an england bid would it.
marrio415 no está en línea  
Old May 29th, 2008, 04:47 PM   #109
BeestonLad
PQS
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 3,226
Likes (Received): 553

There is no way that the east midlands wont get a venue and at this rate it is likely to be Nottingham or Derby, 50,000 or 44,000 respectively.
BeestonLad no está en línea  
Old May 29th, 2008, 04:50 PM   #110
Steel City Suburb
Registered User
 
Steel City Suburb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,711
Likes (Received): 230

I doubt that Sheffield will be missed out, purely because its the birth place of football.
Steel City Suburb no está en línea  
Old May 29th, 2008, 04:54 PM   #111
Flogging Molly
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 3,495
Likes (Received): 3

Its such a shame that Wolverhampton is a shit hole and that its so close to Brum. New Molineux would be a fine stadium to host and famous.
Flogging Molly no está en línea  
Old May 29th, 2008, 04:54 PM   #112
Flogging Molly
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 3,495
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steel City Suburb View Post
I doubt that Sheffield will be missed out, purely because its the birth place of football.

Flogging Molly no está en línea  
Old May 29th, 2008, 04:57 PM   #113
Steel City Suburb
Registered User
 
Steel City Suburb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,711
Likes (Received): 230

Whats so funny?

It is. Sheffield FC was the first club ever, it hosts so many clubs within the local area.

Sheffield rightly deserves one venue.
Steel City Suburb no está en línea  
Old May 29th, 2008, 05:13 PM   #114
Flogging Molly
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 3,495
Likes (Received): 3

I think it should, but on the football front there were plenty of teams before Sheffield FC, you were just the first non-university one.

Not to mention you were'nt even founder members of the football league.
Flogging Molly no está en línea  
Old May 29th, 2008, 05:22 PM   #115
Steel City Suburb
Registered User
 
Steel City Suburb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,711
Likes (Received): 230

Sheffield FC was the first club, and is recognised by FA and FIFA as the first club.

Im sure they or Hallam FC were founders too.
Steel City Suburb no está en línea  
Old May 29th, 2008, 05:35 PM   #116
Flogging Molly
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 3,495
Likes (Received): 3

Like I said, first club outside Universities. However, to call it the home of football is laughable considering there were many teams before it and that it had no part in the first football league.
Flogging Molly no está en línea  
Old May 29th, 2008, 05:38 PM   #117
Steel City Suburb
Registered User
 
Steel City Suburb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,711
Likes (Received): 230

It did though.

The actual club was a founding member of the Sheffield FA, who played by the rules the league used.

You can see all the facts on Wikipedia.
Steel City Suburb no está en línea  
Old May 29th, 2008, 05:44 PM   #118
Flogging Molly
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 3,495
Likes (Received): 3

Ahh yes. Wikipedia. Whatever you do dont use it for essays.
Flogging Molly no está en línea  
Old May 29th, 2008, 05:49 PM   #119
Steel City Suburb
Registered User
 
Steel City Suburb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,711
Likes (Received): 230

Wikipedia is reliable on the topic of Sheffield FC and the Sheffield FA.
Steel City Suburb no está en línea  
Old May 29th, 2008, 06:36 PM   #120
veronika
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 130
Likes (Received): 0

It is inconceivable that England will host a world cup and not include yorkshire. If the current fortunes of Leeds and the scum (swfc) continue then it will be Bramall lane for sure as they have modernised on a regular basis now for 10 years and have plans to double teir the kop fill in remaining corner and expand hallam fm stand if neccessary for a world cup which would bring capacity in at 45,000. Leeds and weds would not entertain new stadia at the moment as they are struggling big time. The blades on the otherhand have been yorkshires top club for last 6 years either top 6 championship or lower parts of prem. They also get the 11th highest crowd in all english football last two seasons according to stats around 28,000 av in a 32k stadium which is good considering away support in championship is crap and it leaves often up to 3000 seats empty.
Leeds only have one good stand and whilst hilsboro is big it is truly one of the most dated stadiums left for a club of that size and truth be told all 4 stands need major upgrades if not replacement. If in 5 years leeds and weds have got back to where they were 10 years ago i.e top ten premier sides then anything is possible and yorkshire will be a difficult decision as it may well have 3 very decent 45,000 seater stads so who do you go for?
veronika 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 01:44 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