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.


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old June 7th, 2008, 07:30 PM   #221
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain1974 View Post
South Africa? Brazil? They are managing.

Of the likely potential bidders I don't think a single one would struggle to invest $10bn for a World Cup.

China? Russia? England? Ned/Belgium? Australia can all easily afford €6Bn

Are you ignorant or arrogant?
South Africa? yeah - right. Have you seen the recent riots where local So. Africans are hacking away at immigrants taking awy their jobs? Right there something tells me that all is not right if locals have to blame hard-working immigrants for their own woes. And they would spend -- I don't know how much RSA has budgeted -- for bricks-and-mortar monuments rather than focusing on their social problems? And all for the glory to say that "RSA becomes the first African Nation to host the WOrld Cup!" Yeah, Hallelujah!!

Did I say England, Australia CANNOT?

I know Russia can -- but would their 8 or 9 cities have the supporting luxury hotel rooms that western crowds are used to? You also have to build those hotels and hope that they will be self-sustaining afterwards. You just don't dream and build new stadia and a dozen hotels or so per city just for a gloroious month's use, if you won't be using them with some regularity for years to come!!

Sure, any old fascist gov't, calling North Korea, Cuba and Burma... can raise $10 billion overnight to build 20 stadia, 40 hotels, 9 gleaming airports if that's what you want!! But surely something must give -- and those would be social programs, etc. But hey, if in your priority list, games and stadia are more important then nutrition, proper plumbing and electricity, education, improved medicine and services for the elderly, etc. -- then MORE POWER TO YOU!!
rover3 no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old June 7th, 2008, 07:37 PM   #222
michał_
Registered User
 
michał_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Krk | Stw
Posts: 1,633
Likes (Received): 71

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
(...)

#1 - What do you think the alternation is? By country? Except for 2 occasions (1934-38) and (1954-58) when I believe no other South American countries could take on the challenge (or FIFA just decided to keep the 1938 and 1958 tourneys local?), this tournament has always ALTERNATED between 2 continents.

#2 - And since the inaugural WC in URUGUAY in 1930, the tournament has returned to Latin/South America six (6x) and the 7th in 2014. So, what are you talking about 'Latin America' being excluded before?

#3 - And agreed that football has only w/in the last 2 decades picked up great popularlty in other parts of the world, then it's all the more imperative to encourage the further growth of the game in the new 'markets,' especiallly one as vast and important as the US/North America.

Again, as I said, except for some prissy quarters who insist on perfect stadia dimensions and roofs for the spoiled, sissy crowds, there aren't TOO many countries that can spend $10 billion dollars to host these expensive behemoths without taking away social services from their programmes which must have priority over such non-essential activities as a football tournament.
No idea what you're trying to proove. As for Latin America I meant that since 1994 no Latin American country was able to host it (it's changed quite significantly since 1930 you know and it seems no other latin country will be able to hosti it again soon...) and it went by continent only not to exclude them further. I'm not saying the alteration is by country solely, but it's both continent and country. And how can you be surprised by the rotation between Europe and Latin America in the past? You know, we all have proffesional fotoball for a centenary, that does make a difference.
By that I'm not saying USa doesn't deserve it, but that other new markets are opening. I wouldn't be surprised if some bid from the ASEAN region would be successive, plus China. I could even imagine India or Canada trying. Because I sincerely belive they won't succeed in 2018, as Europe will host it again.

Plus- as I said. I don't care that USA can spend 10bn cause it doesn't take that much. I know everything you have is big, I know you got great potential, but it's not all about economy. Or I like to believe it isn't. And hosting these expensive behemots is an investment, not expence. So I see many countries willing to do this. The fact that it would cost them more effort than US changes nothing...

A few years ago I thought Poland would never be able to host Euro. Now I see our country will have a Championship a lot bigger than the one that has just started. I would never have believed we could have so many hotels (in case you don't know- private money builds them and operates them) and now Krakow alone will have 3 Hiltons, tens of bids for more high class hotels came to the city for more. The airport that was just modernized already needs a new terminal and will get it within a year. A new bust station that was planned 5 years ago is already too small. That's how fast situation can turn around. I would never believe our infastructure will change so rapidly.
So keep your ignorance to yourself, cause I bet RSA will produce a great sporting event that will be hard to match for many countries. YES, they have their problems. But since when having problems disqualifies a country?!
Your stereotypes of the world with fascist govt bids are pathetic. It's as if USA only competed with North Korea and Cuba... or ever competed.

PS: Talking about sissy crowds has a lot stronger connection to USA, where fans sit and eat (compare catering services, consumption, hospitality and comfort level to Europe), so cut the crap. It's about standards, word you don't accept, but prefer to insult people instead. Worldwide accepted standard is building stadiums with a roof [for a variety of reasons] and this standard is also introduced in the US. Which doesn't mean people would melt from rain... you don't like it? Fine, but is calling those who want roofs sissies the smartest thing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
Africans are hacking away at immigrants taking awy their jobs?
Funny you should say that. Cause I've heard quite some bitter words of aggression towards Polish immigrants working in USA or recently Great Britian and Ireland for the same reason. So I guess you're [we're all not, it's a recognized social reaction to mass immigration] not so different from Africans in the end.

Last edited by michał_; June 7th, 2008 at 07:57 PM.
michał_ no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 07:54 PM   #223
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
Sure, any old fascist gov't, calling North Korea, Cuba and Burma... can raise $10 billion overnight to build 20 stadia, 40 hotels, 9 gleaming airports if that's what you want!! But surely something must give -- and those would be social programs, etc. But hey, if in your priority list, games and stadia are more important then nutrition, proper plumbing and electricity, education, improved medicine and services for the elderly, etc. -- then MORE POWER TO YOU!!
Exactly when did North Korea/Cuba/Burma bid to host a World Cup?

Come on, stop acting like a child, you're making yourself look pretty foolish here.
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 07:57 PM   #224
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by michał_ View Post
Plus- as I said. I don't care that USA can spend 10bn cause it doesn't take that much. I know everything you have is big, I know you got great potential, but it's not all about economy. Or I like to believe it isn't. And hosting these expensive behemots is an investment, not expence. So I see many countries willing to do this. The fact that it would cost them more effort than US changes nothing...
What are you so defensive about? Because my points make sense. I detect a tinge of jealousy in you in only what I am pointing out is the priority of spending -- not that others CANNOT afford it. You are purposely twisting my points.

As I said, if someone like you were in power, and the order of the day is to secure the World Cup at all cost -- prestige means everything -- which means postponing budgets for new schools or roads or hospitals or improved asylums -- then fine -- MORE POWER TO YOU. May you be happy in your priorities.

What I'm saying is that here in the US -- because things like Olympics or World Cups are staged with private money -- we therefore do NOT take away funds that would otherwsie go to better school programs, more research and development in medicine, better, more humane programs for the elderly and dying, etc., etc.. We try to keep our priorities in order -- AND STILL are able to afford non-essential frivolities like World Cups or Olympics -- which to most of you here are the BE ALL and END ALL of your lives.

Now go start planning your next stadium before you miss the next FIFA deadline. Don't let me keep you.

Last edited by rover3; June 7th, 2008 at 08:07 PM.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 08:00 PM   #225
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain1974 View Post
Exactly when did North Korea/Cuba/Burma bid to host a World Cup?

Come on, stop acting like a child, you're making yourself look pretty foolish here.
Oh yeah, for me to advocate that maybe social programs have more priority over MORE and MORE STADIA, I am acting like a child??

Why don't you look at yourself first, retarded nitwit?
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 08:04 PM   #226
michał_
Registered User
 
michał_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Krk | Stw
Posts: 1,633
Likes (Received): 71

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
What are you so defensive about? Because my points make sense. I detect a tinge of jealousy in you in only what I am pointing out is the priority of spending -- not that others CANNOT afford it. You are purposely twisting my points.
First learn to read, then start to discuss.
So what our bid made Polish economy hustle a bit? New working places are opening, we're on the rise. DO YOU UNDERSTAND that making this expense is worth it in the end? It pays off, also to the people. I won't change your view of the world, but at least you have the same power

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
AND STILL are able to afford non-essential frivolities like World Cups or Olympics -- which to most of you here are the BE ALL and END ALL of your lives.
Oh mighty American with the power to have a frivolity like a World Cup, may I wash yuor feet? sheesh.
So what? We need to try harder to do it. And?...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
Now start planning your next stadium before you miss the next FIFA deadline.
I bet you're so proud of that response It's UEFA, do I have to spell it?
michał_ no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 08:06 PM   #227
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
Oh yeah, for me to advocate that maybe social programs have more priority over MORE and MORE STADIA, I am acting like a child??

Why don't you look at yourself first, retarded nitwit?
I'll just repeat myself;

Come on, stop acting like a child, you're making yourself look pretty foolish here.
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 08:09 PM   #228
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain1974 View Post
I'll just repeat myself;

Come on, stop acting like a child, you're making yourself look pretty foolish here.
Then, I'll also just repeat myself.

Why don't you examine yourself first? You're making yourself more and more like a retarded ntiwit.

Do you want to keep this going? I can last as long as you.

Last edited by rover3; June 7th, 2008 at 08:14 PM.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 08:11 PM   #229
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by michał_ View Post
First learn to read, then start to discuss.
So what our bid made Polish economy hustle a bit? New working places are opening, we're on the rise. DO YOU UNDERSTAND that making this expense is worth it in the end? It pays off, also to the people. I won't change your view of the world, but at least you have the same power


Oh mighty American with the power to have a frivolity like a World Cup, may I wash yuor feet? sheesh.
So what? We need to try harder to do it. And?...


I bet you're so proud of that response It's UEFA, do I have to spell it?
Ho-hum. Boring...

Last edited by rover3; June 7th, 2008 at 08:16 PM.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 10:46 PM   #230
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
Ho-hum. Boring...
Your making yourself look bad dude...im not taking any sides here, but i think you should just stop. Im sure your trying to make a point, but its just not going to work here. And if you do think your right, then quit while your ahead.
en1044 no está en línea  
Old June 8th, 2008, 12:40 AM   #231
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
Your making yourself look bad dude...im not taking any sides here, but i think you should just stop. Im sure your trying to make a point, but its just not going to work here. And if you do think your right, then quit while your ahead.
So what you're telling me is that the level of intelligence here must be -3 or something like that. Then I vastly overestimated the level.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 8th, 2008, 01:01 AM   #232
brightside.
Honorary Scouser
 
brightside.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,110
Likes (Received): 8132

Okay, I think rover3 has a point. For a lot of countries, the case may be that building new stadiums, hotels, airports, train stations, bridges etc for the world cup may take away funds from more important programs that may actually help the country's population in a better fashion.

I mean, if the stadiums are going to be less than half-empty for league games after the world cup is over, it surely isn't worth it. A mega event like a world cup is supposed to be a launching pad for both the sport and the local economy. After USA 94 soccer became relatively popular in the country. MLS attendances are relatively high considering where the sport ranks in terms of popularity here.

A lot of countries may be bidding on the world cup just in the hopes that they will be able to brag about hosting the world cup for the rest of their lives, instead of the world cup actually bringing in any monetary benefit to the country.

Can anyone link any document which shows the effect a world cup has had on a country's economy or social indicators?
__________________
Bahria Icon Tower[PK] Motorways & Highways
brightside. no está en línea  
Old June 8th, 2008, 01:17 AM   #233
michał_
Registered User
 
michał_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Krk | Stw
Posts: 1,633
Likes (Received): 71

Quote:
Originally Posted by brightside. View Post
Okay, I think rover3 has a point. For a lot of countries, the case may be that building new stadiums, hotels, airports, train stations, bridges etc for the world cup may take away funds from more important programs that may actually help the country's population in a better fashion.

I mean, if the stadiums are going to be less than half-empty for league games after the world cup is over, it surely isn't worth it. A mega event like a world cup is supposed to be a launching pad for both the sport and the local economy. After USA 94 soccer became relatively popular in the country. MLS attendances are relatively high considering where the sport ranks in terms of popularity here.

A lot of countries may be bidding on the world cup just in the hopes that they will be able to brag about hosting the world cup for the rest of their lives, instead of the world cup actually bringing in any monetary benefit to the country.
Nobody said he had no point. The thing is, it proves nothing. It's not an argument pro-America and against any poorer countries.
And all in all, it's hilarious to see Americans being so caring for others...
So once again I will repeat that it's NOT the country that builds hotels. It doeasn't have to be the country to build all highways. It doesn't have to be the country to build airports! Actually Krakow airport will rebuild itself based on own resources and EU support from what I know. So your thesis is pretty weak, and the patronising approach looks a bit fake.

Besides- this is NOT an investment only for a huge event. It's something that has to be done either way. I'm talking about how our country is currently changing. We desperately need these highways that were due to be constructed years ago and finally, because of the Euro pressure we see them coming. Have you got any idea how many promises were made by the authorities about new stadiums, new communication infrastructure? Thanks to having won the Euro, we finally see it coming. And it is built for everybody. So cut the crap about not solving other problems, becuse it looks as if you blamed countries for having problems at all and not being able to solve them at once.

And finally, speaking en1044's language: you have no right to judge countries that bid even though they have other things to do. Because you just don't understand that the support for World Cup in RSA and Euro in Poland is HUUUUGE. And nobody dies in hospitals because of it. On the countrary, this event brings new investments, work, money, brings the infrastructure that is in fact essential for country's economy to rise.

Looking at it from that point of view (and that has to be the point taken by UEFA when giving Poland and Ukraine the Euro)- USA is less probable to win with its bid*. Why? Because it has everything needed. For other countries World Cup might be the catalyst of changes that have to be done.

*- this doesn't have to be the case. It's just theory, may the best bid win.
michał_ no está en línea  
Old June 8th, 2008, 01:40 AM   #234
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by brightside. View Post
Can anyone link any document which shows the effect a world cup has had on a country's economy or social indicators?
The 2010 World Cup is expected to boost the South African economy by $21Bn.

SA has already hosted the Rugby World Cup in 1995 and while it's a smaller event, it shows that the country can step up when a big event hits town.

FIFA are hardly likely to award a World Cup to a country that either doesn't have the infrastructure to cope or have an idea of how they are going to pay for the investments.
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old June 8th, 2008, 02:04 AM   #235
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain1974 View Post
The 2010 World Cup is expected to boost the South African economy by $21Bn.

SA has already hosted the Rugby World Cup in 1995 and while it's a smaller event, it shows that the country can step up when a big event hits town.

FIFA are hardly likely to award a World Cup to a country that either doesn't have the infrastructure to cope or have an idea of how they are going to pay for the investments.
There I agree with you. Everything seems sensible and in proportion.

However, let me ask you this: if RSA had the the luxury of choice -- and knowing that a World Cup would be its for the asking -- would RSA have gone for 2010 (which is FIFA's date of choice), or say pick a sooner or later date?
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 8th, 2008, 02:29 AM   #236
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by michał_ View Post
Nobody said he had no point. The thing is, it proves nothing. It's not an argument pro-America and against any poorer countries.
And all in all, it's hilarious to see Americans being so caring for others...
So once again I will repeat that it's NOT the country that builds hotels. It doeasn't have to be the country to build all highways. It doesn't have to be the country to build airports! Actually Krakow airport will rebuild itself based on own resources and EU support from what I know. So your thesis is pretty weak, and the patronising approach looks a bit fake.

Besides- this is NOT an investment only for a huge event. It's something that has to be done either way. I'm talking about how our country is currently changing. We desperately need these highways that were due to be constructed years ago and finally, because of the Euro pressure we see them coming. Have you got any idea how many promises were made by the authorities about new stadiums, new communication infrastructure? Thanks to having won the Euro, we finally see it coming. And it is built for everybody. So cut the crap about not solving other problems, becuse it looks as if you blamed countries for having problems at all and not being able to solve them at once.

And finally, speaking en1044's language: you have no right to judge countries that bid even though they have other things to do. Because you just don't understand that the support for World Cup in RSA and Euro in Poland is HUUUUGE. And nobody dies in hospitals because of it. On the countrary, this event brings new investments, work, money, brings the infrastructure that is in fact essential for country's economy to rise.

Looking at it from that point of view (and that has to be the point taken by UEFA when giving Poland and Ukraine the Euro)- USA is less probable to win with its bid*. Why? Because it has everything needed. For other countries World Cup might be the catalyst of changes that have to be done.

*- this doesn't have to be the case. It's just theory, may the best bid win.
Michal, I see your points. But what I am saying is why use a once-in-a-lifetime sporting event which yields very uncertain returns as the main excuse to improve a country's standard of living and quality of life? Why not something less risky? Perhaps a World's Fair, marketed properly, would give just as great returns -- without having to pour billions into structures whose after-use yield is really very low.

Take yourself out of your sports fan mode for a moment, and look at it objectively. I'm NOT saying totally divorce yourself from the idea of hosting a WC but think outside the box. Think that spending for a budget-busting event that lasts 2 weeks or one month ISN'T the only way to go. That there are other less 'emotional' ways to achieve the same result. That you don't have to hock your first-born children or mortgage the next 3 generations ALL for a 1-month tournament.

There is only one WC (or one Summer Olympics) that comes around every 4 years to a chosen region of the earth. It is set by FIFA or the IOC's (and the networks') calendar -- NOT by the individual country's. Why depend on that, and put so much energy and angst into getting or NOT getting it -- when chances are maybe 1-in-5 or 1-in-6, and pinning the residual returns on that one solitary event?

* Why not invest to a lesser degree in new technologies, or greener industries, or something that will get your BETTER and easier loans from the IMF, or the World Bank -- rather than just see a whole generation of brick-and-mortar structures that could lie idle for many months. It would be very interesting if we could get a TOTALLY CANDID, no-holds-back assessment of Korea and Japan's expenses/investments for 2002, devoid of any 'loss of face' posturing.

And you know what, michal? I can surmise all I like about what I believe is sensible, reasonable, etc., etc. This is an open forum after all. I am allowed to state my positions as much as you are. But then these are just my views. If a sovereign country can pay for it-- fine. That is most commendable. If it wants to go ahead and bust their budget, then who am I to stop them? Except that we are all intertwined today. Like the real estate crisis presently bedevilling the US, such excesses have repercussions in other parts of the world. Go ahead, michal, I just gave you an opening to thrust....

Last edited by rover3; June 8th, 2008 at 02:35 AM.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 8th, 2008, 02:41 AM   #237
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by michał_ View Post
Nobody said he had no point. The thing is, it proves nothing.
#1 - It's not an argument pro-America and against any poorer countries.

#2 - And all in all, it's hilarious to see Americans being so caring for others...
I just reread your post.

#1 - No it's not an argument pro-America -- so you have a problem with that? And if it's for poor countries, then I should just shut up and say nothing? I am not stupid ya know.

On your point #2 -- uhmm, yeah -- who is the first one to respond in global disasters (even when we have our own disasters)? Who was leading the charge, with our friends in Europe, to demand from those generals in Burma and the like, to allow aid that was ready and waiting to go to the victims of the disastrous of the deadly monsoons and tidal waves over there?

I will write my congressperson and State Department to withhold any disaster relief or aid for Krakow because 'michal' is insulted. Never fear; US aid shouldn't darken your door if they are not wanted there -- after all, it was only the Marshall Plan that helped a war-ravaged Europe get back on its feet after World War 2. Now, michal, I forget what equivalent plan, if any, the Soviets put into effect in your neck of the woods. It was a puppet government, right?

Last edited by rover3; June 8th, 2008 at 03:02 AM.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 8th, 2008, 02:52 AM   #238
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
There I agree with you. Everything seems sensible and in proportion.

However, let me ask you this: if RSA had the the luxury of choice -- and knowing that a World Cup would be its for the asking -- would RSA have gone for 2010 (which is FIFA's date of choice), or say pick a sooner or later date?
Actually 2006 was FIFA's date of choice. I think RSA wanted to host the World Cup as soon as possible after a mid-size Rugby World Cup (which was very successful btw) to use the momentum in putting their country back on the international map.
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old June 8th, 2008, 02:59 AM   #239
michał_
Registered User
 
michał_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Krk | Stw
Posts: 1,633
Likes (Received): 71

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
Michal, I see your points. But what I am saying is why use a once-in-a-lifetime sporting event which yields very uncertain returns as the main excuse to improve a country's standard of living and quality of life? Why not something less risky? Perhaps a World's Fair, marketed properly, would give just as great returns -- without having to pour billions into structures whose after-use yield is really very low.

Take yourself out of your sports fan mode for a moment, and look at it objectively. I'm NOT saying totally divorce yourself from the idea of hosting a WC but think outside the box. Think that spending for a budget-busting event that lasts 2 weeks or one month ISN'T the only way to go. That there are other less 'emotional' ways to achieve the same result. That you don't have to hock your first-born children or mortgage the next 3 generations ALL for a 1-month tournament.

There is only one WC (or one Summer Olympics) that comes around every 4 years to a chosen region of the earth. It is set by FIFA or the IOC's (and the networks') calendar -- NOT by the individual country's. Why depend on that, and put so much energy and angst into getting or NOT getting it -- when chances are maybe 1-in-5 or 1-in-6, and pinning the residual returns on that one solitary event?
heh, it's not about being in the sports fan mode [though today all Poles are deeply in that mode, for obvious reasons], nor stadium enthusiast mode. I had quite the same opinion as you: why the hell would Gdansk or Wroclaw need a 40k+ stadium if their 2nd league teams barely attract 4k?

But then I've seen reports made by world's best analysts, that say it's actually feasible in the long run, not only for the Euro. So if Polish cities of 500-700k may afford these huge [in our scale] venues without actually deteriorating their citizens condition [although yes- some investments have to wait longer because of this- but then again, it's a once in a lifetime chance], than why doesn't this have to be the option for other countries?

I understand that the multi-generation mortgage is a metaphore, but I don't see where it applies anyway. Whatever is left after the Euro (in our case) or World Cup is the infrastructure serving everybody generations to come...
Of course we might say- why not spend it on fighting alcoholism in Poland and Ukraine, eh? But I think it's a lot better to create opportunities for the economies to grow and people's status to upgrade- it allows so much more, as I said- it's an investment, not expense. This infrastructure and this tournament just boosted our economy [4 years before happening so don't say about a month duration]. Though I didn't think I would notice it, I already see the changes. You think that without the Euro Poland would be ranked 1st among European countries most often regarded as a location for foreign investors? [Earnst&Young just released this report]. I don't think so, even though our economy was on a high for a few years already, but euro just added so much more to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
I just reread your post.

#1 - No it's not an argument pro-America -- so you have a problem with that? And if it's for poor countries, then I should just shut up and say nothing? I am not stupid ya know.

On your point #2 -- uhmm, yeah -- who is the first one to respond in global disasters (even when we have our own disasters)? Who was leading the charge, with our friends in Europe, to demand from those generals in Burma and the like, to allow aid that was ready and waiting to go to the victims of the disastrous of the deadly monsoons and tidal waves over there?

I will write my congressperson and State Department to withhold any disaster relief or aid for Krakow because 'michal' is insulted. Never fear; US aid shouldn't darken your door if they are not wanted there -- after all, it was only the Marshall Plan that helped a war-ravaged Europe get back on its feet after World War 2. I don't know what equivalent plan the Soviets put into effect in your neck of the woods, michal.
Purely pathetic. You really have some kind of America vs the rest of the world...
You know, we have a saying in Poland that if you help just to remind everyone of it later, then don't do this at all. I know it's not what you're country is doing but mixing this kind of international relations here is a huuuge misunderstanding.
Somehow I think you knew very well what I meant- that a couple of you, from America (which doesn't mean I accuse the whole country and it's policy!) suddenly care of issues that other countries have to solve before starting bidding for anything and you oppose this with USA's situation without major problems. Thinking that way, all major tournaments would be split between some USA, Germany, Britain and a couple of others. Thankfully, it doesn't work that way and countries that have even big problems like Poland and Ukraine get their chance to get better thanks to these sporting events.
Maybe it's because my English isn't good enough to make my stand clear you somehow have a very bad impression of what I'm trying to say.

Last edited by michał_; June 8th, 2008 at 03:08 AM.
michał_ no está en línea  
Old June 8th, 2008, 04:22 AM   #240
HUSKER
NUEVO ESTADO DE LA LAGUNA
 
HUSKER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: TORREON, ESTADO DE LA LAGUNA
Posts: 1,596
Likes (Received): 418

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallasbrink View Post
USA hosted World Cup = USA viewers. The USA does not watch a bunch of soccer, but if the World Cup was hosted in the USA, every American and every person on the north and south american continence would watch every second. And soccer is one of those sports where no matter what time the game is played, you will stay up and watch. 3:00 am in Asia, trust me, they will be awake. 4:00 pm in Europe, the cities will call it a holiday and they will be watching. If FIFA can start the UIFA Championship at midnight in Moscow, then im sure game times in America wont be a problem.
Damn, totally true!!!!., Here in Mexico when we played Ecuador, Croatia or Italy in the early am hours everybody was awake, in bars and having the time of our life.
HUSKER no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Tags
los angeles, united states of america, world cup

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 09:34 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