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 June 29th, 2008, 11:46 PM   #161
Its AlL gUUd
Cute but Psycho...
 
Its AlL gUUd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 6,017
Likes (Received): 296

yeah i know it won't be used. i just meant if it was purely down to increasing capacity thats all.
__________________
I T S Y
Its AlL gUUd no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old June 30th, 2008, 01:41 AM   #162
berkshire royal
Registered User
 
berkshire royal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 557
Likes (Received): 1

to be honest although yes twickenham would be good for its capacity it is associated with a sport that firstly has nothing to do with football and secondly when it comes to english rugby i hate it and the people who support it the two social circles are completely different and both wouldn't want to see a football WC played there. If Twickenham is going to be used then they might as well include the millenium stadium.
berkshire royal no está en línea  
Old June 30th, 2008, 01:47 AM   #163
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

It's a shame about Twickers but that's just how it is.

The rule about only one city having 2 stadiums is pretty tough on England.

Twickenham is out, Chelsea/Spurs/West Ham/Olympic could all be worthy WC hosts in 2018 but will likely not get the chance. Same goes for City of Manchester and Everton. One of Villa/New Brum will have to miss out too.

Perhaps we can convince FIFA that Old Trafford is in the City of Salford (which it is) but I think the big red letters 'M A N C H E S T E R' would kill that idea off.

I still think we have the best bid though. Lets not forget that almost all of our stadiums already exist and were purpose built for football. There's a bit of work to do of course but I genuinely feel we're in pole position. I'd love to see Scotland/Wales get 2016 as a side note too.
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old June 30th, 2008, 02:48 AM   #164
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain1974 View Post
Yeah, Wembley would be definite for the opening game, one semi and the final. There's likely be a group based in London using Wembley/Emerites so one 2nd round and qtr final in addition. I'd guess Old Trafford for the other semi.
I doubt they would do 'groups based in' for an England world cup, I'd suspect it would be a lot more akin to the German model of spreading fixtures around. Thus one team would play it's group games in Newcastle, Birmingham and London, another would play in Manchester, Leeds/Sheffied and Portsmouth/Southampton/Bristol, etc.

I'd agree that it will be Wembley for the start and finish, with a semi at Old Trafford. As Wembley isn't THAT huge, I wouldn't be surprised if they were to switch the other semi to Stanley Park, to balance out the big games (semis in the north, final in the south).
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old June 30th, 2008, 03:02 AM   #165
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain1974 View Post
St James Park - 52,000 (60,000 planned at an outrageous $600M)
So, about £3 at current exchange rates!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I outlined my opposition to the idea that Twickenham cannot or even should not be used earlier in this thread:

The first major issue is that the Emirates Stadium has very little surrounding land for the required media circus. A few years ago, I remember reading an article in the Telegraph, perhaps based on something Sepp Blatter said, although I cannot be sure that it was Blatter, that the lack of space around England stadia could adversely affect an England bid. Of all the stadia that we could all guarantee would be used, Emirates is the only one that is problematic - the nearest potential area for the media tents etc. is nearly half a mile away.

I would never suggest that one stadium, especially one of the quality of the Emirates, could jeopardise England's bid but it could prove problematic, especially with an alternative option like Twickenham little over ten miles away and in the same city.

The second thing is that Twickenham, rather than the Emirates, would enhance the bid. From reading through this thread, I'm disappointed to see some of the views directed about this stadium - the RFU will care only about their cut from a World Cup game that will, no doubt, pack the place to capacity, which is something that even Guinness Premiership finals didn't do until this season - the RFU are a moneymaking organisation and some of the aspersions cast on it simply do not correspond with the reality of a modern business.

Twickenham enhances England's bid and that shouldn't be underestimated by anyone, especially English people. I do not mean this in an insulting way but as someone with a non-English view but whom would love to see the tournament in England (as Scotland, Ireland, Wales or Northern Ireland have no chance of ever hosting it), I can see the serious competition that an English bid faces and the competition is stiff. A lot of English friend of mine seem under the assumption that the 2018 WC is a certainty for England and I'm seeing the same thing in this thread - it is far from certain and the FA and British Government would do well not to take such a similarly assured stance. Anything that enhances an English bid is a good thing, regardless of pretensions or opposition to sports primarily played at a stadium.

Twickenham offers 22,000 extra seats in the capital city, plenty of space for the media and corporate tents, not to mention an attached 156 room hotel, six large corporate function rooms overlooking the pitch. This is a stadium that further enhances England's bid and I have no doubt the RFU would gladly welcome anything bringing in the kind of money a world cup game would. It makes sense from the view of the bid, even if certain football fans would be opposed to it.

Iain1974, I'm not sure I agree with you about the opening game - a fully developed Old Trafford with a capacity of about 96k would get the opening game. Personally speaking, I'd also say it should get the final because 6,000 extra fans at the final is always a good thing but it would be a major embarrassment for the FA not to have the final at Wembley. As such, the compromise would be that OT gets the first game and Wembley the final.
__________________
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.
NeilF no está en línea  
Old June 30th, 2008, 05:11 AM   #166
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

Well of course we don't know the details of the FA's bid but I'd be surprised if Wembley didn't feature at both ends of the tournament. The FA have got bills to pay the same as anybody else.

Twickenham? Iffy. I don't know the RFU's opinion but I would guess they're not in favor. I understand that they're only allowed a set number of events and I'm not sure they'd be willing to give any up for 'kev-ball'. That said, they aren't stupid, financially, so who knows?

Old Trafford - I'd assume 76,000 for the time being until the next expansion is announced. If OT were at 96,000 then clearly it would be an attractive option for the opening game.

Does anyone know when host candidate countries will submit their detailed plans for hosting?
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old June 30th, 2008, 06:03 AM   #167
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

As a matter of opinion, I don't think it will be too long before some further expansion at Old Trafford is announced, although exactly what it will be I have no idea - Alex Ferguson has suggested filling in the South quadrants but I don't see that as the most feasible. Personally speaking, I'd say somewhere between about 4,000 and 5,000 more seats, in the mould of the North quadrants would be the maximum without bridging the railway line and that doesn't seem a worthwhile investment in the long term. Ultimately, it makes little financial sense for Manchester United not to explore this avenue as attendances over the past season or two indicate that demand for further expansion is there.

And you're right - there is some kind of restriction on what can take place at Twickenham. Whether this is a set restriction on the number of events or a specific application for each event I don't know. At the same time, Twickenham has a restricted capacity of about 55,000 for concerts, compared to 82,000 for sports. The ticket prices between events wouldn't be drastically different, so it seems likely the RFU would make more from a sold out sporting event than a concert or some other kind of event - as such, one less concert and one more sporting event in a year would be deemed suitable for the stadium.
__________________
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.
NeilF no está en línea  
Old June 30th, 2008, 06:22 AM   #168
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

I too wouldn't be surprised to hear about another expansion at OT before too long. They've sold out every seat for 17 seasons with say 25 home games a year so 425 games in a row (with a few exceptions like league cup games). The southern quadrants would add 8,000 to 84,000 and I suppose another 10-12,000 from the southern stand if the railway could be built over.

I remember a few years ago, Ruud van Nistlerooy said, in an interview, that he'd seen plans for Old Trafford to go beyond 100,000. I'd love to know more about those plans.

It's possible that Man Utd could be getting a lump sum in the region of 70M shortly and I'd consider it a very wise investment to look into adding a few thousand seats.

Twickenham? I honestly don't know about Twickers. I'm sure the RFU could lose the Varsity game (Oxford v Cambridge) and a few others freeing up some space and charge world cup fans 50 quid a ticket.

I'd like an English World Cup to average 60,000+. The record of USA 94 is likely unreachable, especially given the way they count 'attendance', but there's no reason why we can't beak 60K.
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old June 30th, 2008, 06:54 AM   #169
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

I'm almost certain that someone involved with Man Utd said quite recently that reaching a 100,000 capacity at Old Trafford was architecturally impossible. I can't find the article but will post it if I find it. I'd say it's possible, but would require a large third tier on the south stand, holding somewhere in the region of 9,000 people, which is larger than the second tier of the North Stand. A remodel of the north side, with the larger second on third tier to this magnitude would give a capacity of around 30,000 on the south side of the stadium. Possible but not altogether feasible.

There are two main issues with expanding the south quadrants - the first is that it would require the current roof of the south stand to be raised to the height of the new quadrants, extended back and, likely, some kind of wall built above the current south stand. The second is that full quadrants would require a small amount of bridging of the railway - as this is what we assume is preventing more immediate expansion of the south stand, it wouldn't make financial sense to carry out such works without going the whole way.

Given that the club offices are behind the south stand, it may be possible to remodel it with a second tier holding about 6,000 fans - while perhaps more instantly realisible, this again makes little sense financially as it would either prevent full expansion or only be a temporary measure.

I don't think the Varsity Match would, or even could go, although financially it generates little to no money for the RFU, it's just one of those 'things' - an embarassment of tradition to some and a fine institution showing the history of the country to others. As the Varsity Match tends to be held in December, the impact of removing the fixture may be fairly negligible. I'd say summer concerts would be the most likely sacrifice - three world cup games; say, two group games and a quarter final in place of the concerts should easily get the green light.

On an average capacity of 60,000; this will prove incredibly difficult for England on its own - given a 96k Old Trafford, 71k New Anfield and 60k St James' Park, the maximum average capacity would be 59,900. Close enough and comparatively favourable to both Germany and France but also, perhaps, a little hopeful - when you lop off 20k from Old Trafford, 11k from New Anfield and 8k from St James' Park, the 60,000 figure is a fair distance away.
__________________
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.
NeilF no está en línea  
Old June 30th, 2008, 07:08 AM   #170
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

Yeah, I doubt very much that 100,000 is feasible. I think its perfectly realistic to see 83-85K in the next 5 yrs. SAF himself said he's been pushing for expansion for years.

Given that the larger stadia are likely to receive a disproportionate number of games an we can realistically expect to see close to 60K. If Sunderland have a team worth expanding for we may see the Stadium of Light at 64,000. Villa should be 53K before too long. I certainly think it's possible but yes, there is some construction work to do. MAybe Newcastle will decide that 300M for an extra 8,000 seats (albeit with hotels) would be better spent on a new facility where they're not hemmed in. Sir John had talked of a new 75,000 in Keegan's glory days a while back.
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old June 30th, 2008, 04:01 PM   #171
berkshire royal
Registered User
 
berkshire royal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 557
Likes (Received): 1

I would never want to see Old Trafford over take Wembley how about a slightly different stand design from the 3 other sides and the 2 quadrants that will take capacity to 85,000. And why doesn't Wembley stick 1 extra row of seating around the stadium I’m sure there would be space somewhere and I'm guessing it would increase capacity between 1-3,000 which even though it would be marginal and probably relatively expensive I believe it would be well worth it as long as the roof doesn't have to be moved that is. I also think villa park should be a WC host stadium with that expansion taking it to 51,000 I reckon it would look great. And I think it wouldn't be the end of the world if Newcastle doesn't expand the Gallowgate End to be the same as the two big stands as currently it gives SJP a real unique feel. I reckon they should expand the Gallowgate by adding 5/6 rows to the back keep the general feel as it is and would increase capacity by something like 1500 and would surely not be to expensive and would keep the unique feel to the stadium. Also I would love to see Norwich being a host they could bring permanent capacity to 32,000 and stick 7-8000 temporary seats like they did in Austria + Switzerland i reckon Norwich would be great because it's a really underrated city and region and it would give the WC a real spread around England and I think the legacy a WC would have in Norwich would be greater possibly then in any other region.
berkshire royal no está en línea  
Old June 30th, 2008, 05:25 PM   #172
Its AlL gUUd
Cute but Psycho...
 
Its AlL gUUd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 6,017
Likes (Received): 296

Old Trafford will be the venue for the Opening game and Wembley for the final, thats a certainty for any English bid that will be put forward. I doubt Old Trafford capacity would even get to 96,000 architecturally it would be a nightmare.

Twickers would be an excellent venue for the World Cup but i doubt the FA will ask the RFU unless they have no other choice.
__________________
I T S Y
Its AlL gUUd no está en línea  
Old June 30th, 2008, 06:08 PM   #173
canarywondergod
Registered User
 
canarywondergod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Camberley/ Norwich/ Birmingham
Posts: 713
Likes (Received): 83

im sure wembley has in place the possibility of going up to 100k however the council didnt allow it due to a lack of surrounding infrastructrue, for example in athletic track mode some 3-5k seats are added on the disabled platform, combined with digging down a little further this could surely bring it up to 100k
canarywondergod no está en línea  
Old June 30th, 2008, 07:14 PM   #174
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

I seem to remember that the original plans for Wembley said it could be reconfigured for 100,000.
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old June 30th, 2008, 08:15 PM   #175
Walbanger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,241
Likes (Received): 1111

It would be interesting to see how the FA and RFU would come to talks. Could it be anything like the Irish FA and the GAA over Croke Park?
I remember writing to the FA wondering about there stadium options when Wembley was being rebuilt. They responded in saying that they'd have ideally like to have used Twickenham over Millenium Stadium for the FA Cup but the RFU wouldn't play ball.
Walbanger no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 12:54 AM   #176
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,130
Likes (Received): 3205

- A 60k average would be possible if England desires, and FIFA permits, more than one city with multiple stadiums. This would likely mean Liverpool, Manchester and possibly Birmingham featuring two WC venues. Early indications are that England and the FA might prefer to use the WC to see investment in communities and clubs that don't need large facilities but would greatly benefit from a quality 40k+ seat venue. For this reason I've set my sights on simply having great venues and hoping for a 50k average. It may not break records, but would leave the lasting benefit English fans are looking for.

- Expansion of Old Trafford is likely, but will be studiously considered and reviewed, as any further additions will be very costly, not yield great profit margins, and could prohibit future expansions if not done correctly. Previously I've suggested a wall of suites, shallow tiers along the railroad side could produce a complete shell and stadium for marginal costs. It would probably max capacity around the 84-86k range, but they may not need more than this financially speaking. If they want to go higher, it'll either be a massive one time investment over the railroad, or they'd best start planning for an eventual relocation.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 01:27 AM   #177
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

To get to a 60K average, which I believe is a reasonable target, in 2018;

The FA need to demand

1) First round venues capacity be a minimum 50,000.
2) Second round venues minimum 60,000.
3) QTR final venues a minimum of 70,000.
4) Semis/Final a minimum of 80,000.

Requirements

2 - 80,000+
2 - 70,000+
4 - 60,000+
4 - 50,000+

Total of 12 stadiums
Lets be more specific;

Semis/Final - Wembley (90K) and Old Trafford (85K)
QTR's - W+OT+Stanley Park(73K) + Twickers(82)? or AN Other
2nd Round - QTRS+St James/Emerites/St. Light/New Brum?
1st Round - 2nd Rnd + 4 from Derby/Nottingham/Southampton/Madjeski/Pompey/one from Yorkshire

Now, remember that I'm not being paid millions to think this up, but is this so unreasonable?

Apart from the new builds, all the stadiums I've mentioned are within reasonable grasp of the capacities I've suggested.

Not sure what the spread of games would be but surely this outline will take us past 60K.

Last edited by Iain1974; July 1st, 2008 at 01:33 AM. Reason: cleaning up
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 01:30 AM   #178
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walbanger View Post
It would be interesting to see how the FA and RFU would come to talks. Could it be anything like the Irish FA and the GAA over Croke Park?
I'd seriously doubt it - there is nothing in the RFU's constitution about soccer being played at Twickenham. There is an article in the GAA's constitution about 'foreign sports' being played in any GAA stadium, Croke Park included - Rule 42. Ultimately, the discussions between the IRFU, FAI and GAA led to a full vote of all 336 delegates of the GAA and required a 2/3 majority to pass. It's doubtful that any negotiations between the RFU and FA would follow the complexities of the Croke Park situation as, really, it's just business, as opposed to the business and politics involved with the use of Croke Park.

Incidentally, the discussions were between the Football Association of Ireland, the Irish Rugby Football Union and the GAA - the Irish FA is the football association of Northern Ireland, rather than either the whole island or the Republic of Ireland.
__________________
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.
NeilF no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 03:34 AM   #179
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain1974 View Post
To get to a 60K average, which I believe is a reasonable target, in 2018;

The FA need to demand

1) First round venues capacity be a minimum 50,000.
2) Second round venues minimum 60,000.
3) QTR final venues a minimum of 70,000.
4) Semis/Final a minimum of 80,000.

Requirements

2 - 80,000+
2 - 70,000+
4 - 60,000+
4 - 50,000+

Total of 12 stadiums
Lets be more specific;

Semis/Final - Wembley (90K) and Old Trafford (85K)
QTR's - W+OT+Stanley Park(73K) + Twickers(82)? or AN Other
2nd Round - QTRS+St James/Emerites/St. Light/New Brum?
1st Round - 2nd Rnd + 4 from Derby/Nottingham/Southampton/Madjeski/Pompey/one from Yorkshire

Now, remember that I'm not being paid millions to think this up, but is this so unreasonable?

Apart from the new builds, all the stadiums I've mentioned are within reasonable grasp of the capacities I've suggested.

Not sure what the spread of games would be but surely this outline will take us past 60K.
Can't have Wembley, Twickers and Emirates in the same bid.
Derby, Pompey, Southampton and Reading can't go up to 50k with current designs.

I'm really split, I'd like to see the World Cup played at venues that would exist anyway without the World Cup - but at the same time, I'd love to see a few new stadiums built to service the communities and clubs in areas like East Anglia (new stadium for Norwich) and the South West (new stadium in Bristol), and I'd love to see the City of Birmingham Stadium getting built.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 03:43 AM   #180
theespecialone
Top
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 309
Likes (Received): 0

would the government be able to fund any proposals without opposition from oppsing clubs?
theespecialone 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 11:05 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