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 October 19th, 2008, 11:34 PM   #601
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
The Olympics doesn't touch the World Cup. The World Cup takes over an entire city while the Olympics is relegated to a single city. Take a look at the ratings too. The World Cup dwarfs the Olympics ratings. The World Cup is far and away the world's biggest event.

Why would you want the US to put on the same kind of show that S. Africa does? We can do far more than they can so why limit ourselves. Why host in Birmingham when we have many superior cities to host? Because Dortmund hosted? Hell no. If we get the right to host in 2022, why would we hold ourselves to a low level when we can do better. If we're going to do it, do it the best that we can. The basic requirements for every host are the same. Hotel rooms in each host city, stadium capacity and other stadium requirements. That's all the same, but if we want to host like S. Africa, Birmingham, San Jose, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati are hosting. Why should we do that?
San Jose has an MLS team, genius. It is a soccer city, not a tourist city.
krudmonk no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old October 19th, 2008, 11:43 PM   #602
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
San Jose has an MLS team, genius. It is a soccer city, not a tourist city.
I'm well aware that San Jose has a MLS team, but that doesn't mean it should host. By 2011 there will be 17 cities with MLS teams. At least 1 will be in Canada, but the point is that just because a city has a MLS team doesn't mean it deserves to host in a WC. You can't have 16 hosts so a few MLS cities won't host. Cities like San Francisco, which doesn't have a team will likely host. Being a MLS city has little to no bearing on which city hosts. Plus, San Jose plays in a 10,000+ seat stadium that they don't even sell out every game so while it is a soccer city, I wouldn't call it the strongest of soccer cities.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 12:04 AM   #603
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

San Francisco has a zero-seat stadium and they don't even sell out.

Also, if you don't think MLS will be heavily tied to a US bid, you shouldn't even be in this conversation.
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 12:08 AM   #604
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,882
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
Dortmund is a fine city, but it doesn't register on the world scale like a lot of other cities. It's roughly the size of Louisville, Kentucky. It has a lot of soccer history, but nearly every city has more soccer history than US cities. If you want to base a cities ability to host by soccer history England would have hosted the first WC and every WC since. Dortmund is a fine city and was a deserving host in 2006, but if it were a US city, do you think it would host over San Francisco or Chicago? I don't think so.
Its record and history alone would lift Dortmund to top spot. The stadium dwarfs any american venue by class. And the transportation to and from the ground is excellent and doesn't rely on a single mode.
So, all things considered Dortmund would be first choice.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 12:11 AM   #605
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
San Francisco has a zero-seat stadium and they don't even sell out.

Also, if you don't think MLS will be heavily tied to a US bid, you shouldn't even be in this conversation.
MLS will be somewhat involved in a bid, but not so strongly. The USSF will put the bid together and submit it to FIFA. The USSF has a spot in FIFA. The USSF has contacts around the world that will garner votes when choosing a host. MLS will only be involved via SUM so it will essentially be relegated to cross marketing. How will MLS be involved outside of cross marketing? The MLS stadiums aren't big enough. FIFA doesn't allow pre-sales to local season ticket groups. In what sense will MLS be involved in the bid? All there is is marketing.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 12:19 AM   #606
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
Its record and history alone would lift Dortmund to top spot. The stadium dwarfs any american venue by class. And the transportation to and from the ground is excellent and doesn't rely on a single mode.
So, all things considered Dortmund would be first choice.
It's a nice stadium no doubt, but it would also be the second smallest stadium in my proposal. Only Soldier Field is smaller. The stadium also has fewer luxury suites and club seats than any other American stadium. It has plenty of history, but when you consider the fact that the stadium itself doesn't compare with most US stadiums and the city of Dortmund is not a city recognized all over the world, it certainly wouldn't be first choice.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 12:36 AM   #607
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
MLS will be somewhat involved in a bid, but not so strongly. The USSF will put the bid together and submit it to FIFA. The USSF has a spot in FIFA. The USSF has contacts around the world that will garner votes when choosing a host. MLS will only be involved via SUM so it will essentially be relegated to cross marketing. How will MLS be involved outside of cross marketing? The MLS stadiums aren't big enough. FIFA doesn't allow pre-sales to local season ticket groups. In what sense will MLS be involved in the bid? All there is is marketing.
The USSF will use a World Cup to promote the domestic league. Sites would have "hosts" and such to build awareness of the local clubs. Hosting in places that have nothing to do with MLS would be a huge waste.
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 01:08 AM   #608
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
The USSF will use a World Cup to promote the domestic league. Sites would have "hosts" and such to build awareness of the local clubs. Hosting in places that have nothing to do with MLS would be a huge waste.
IF that were the case then why did Orlando and San Francisco host in 1994. The same goes for Detroit. Detroit hadn't even submitted a bid for a MLS team in 1994 when they were taking city bids. Columbus had been assured of a team prior to the WC so why didn't any city in Ohio host? The USSF doesn't even take MLS into account when scheduling WCQ's so why would they do so for a WC?

The goal of the 1994 WC was to build awareness of soccer throughout the country and to create a pro league. It did that. The goal of the next WC in the US would be to take soccer to a larger scale and make it one of the nation's biggest sports. Sunil Gulati said in a prior interview that a WC in the US would be to increase the popularity of soccer, then those people who caught on would choose clubs, not make people fans of specific clubs. The USSF's plan has been stated as one to build soccer, not MLS and MLS would just benefit from the growth of the sport.
How can you host in San Jose? There's not a stadium there. You can't host in Columbus either. You can't host in Salt Lake City either. Are you going to ignore the whole southeast in your proposal since there's not a team there? The USSF has no financial stake in MLS and if you don't believe Gulati that building MLS is secondary to building soccer then I can't help you.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 01:22 AM   #609
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

[QUOTE=ryebreadraz;26833626]IF that were the case then why did Orlando and San Francisco host in 1994. The same goes for Detroit. Detroit hadn't even submitted a bid for a MLS team in 1994 when they were taking city bids. Columbus had been assured of a team prior to the WC so why didn't any city in Ohio host? The USSF doesn't even take MLS into account when scheduling WCQ's so why would they do so for a WC?
There was no MLS back then. Equating Detroit's lack of a bid to their lack of a team now is stupid. It was all up in the air. The USSF was building from nothing back then. They used shitty stadia, too. Priorities were far different. MLS was thrown together simply to justify their bid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
The goal of the 1994 WC was to build awareness of soccer throughout the country and to create a pro league. It did that. The goal of the next WC in the US would be to take soccer to a larger scale and make it one of the nation's biggest sports. Sunil Gulati said in a prior interview that a WC in the US would be to increase the popularity of soccer, then those people who caught on would choose clubs, not make people fans of specific clubs. The USSF's plan has been stated as one to build soccer, not MLS and MLS would just benefit from the growth of the
MLS is not near reaching the entire soccer market already present in the United States. Teams need to grow for the league to grow. If you hold a successful event in San Diego and Phoenix, they'll just whine "how come we don't have teams?" The efforts are better spent on building existing markets than teasing new ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
How can you host in San Jose? There's not a stadium there. You can't host in Columbus either. You can't host in Salt Lake City either. Are you going to ignore the whole southeast in your proposal since there's not a team there? The USSF has no financial stake in MLS and if you don't believe Gulati that building MLS is secondary to building soccer then I can't help you.
The two are tied together. MLS is a much bigger vehicle for building soccer than a tournament we host once every 28 years (if that). Also, San Jose would host if the 49ers build in Santa Clara or if Stanford is deemed big enough. Even if there is a stadium/venue in SF, I'd expect the Earthquakes name to be plastered all over. By 2022, it is likely that MLS will be in the southeast, too.
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 01:38 AM   #610
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

[QUOTE=krudmonk;26834246]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
IF that were the case then why did Orlando and San Francisco host in 1994. The same goes for Detroit. Detroit hadn't even submitted a bid for a MLS team in 1994 when they were taking city bids. Columbus had been assured of a team prior to the WC so why didn't any city in Ohio host? The USSF doesn't even take MLS into account when scheduling WCQ's so why would they do so for a WC?
There was no MLS back then. Equating Detroit's lack of a bid to their lack of a team now is stupid. It was all up in the air. The USSF was building from nothing back then. They used shitty stadia, too. Priorities were far different. MLS was thrown together simply to justify their bid.
There was no MLS in 1994, but there was a plan for one and bids were submitted by '94. Detroit was an option to have a team, but when MLS reached out to them there was no owners willing to make the investment. The USSF knew that Detroit wouldn't have a team, yet they got to host in '94.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
MLS is not near reaching the entire soccer market already present in the United States. Teams need to grow for the league to grow. If you hold a successful event in San Diego and Phoenix, they'll just whine "how come we don't have teams?" The efforts are better spent on building existing markets than teasing new ones.

The two are tied together. MLS is a much bigger vehicle for building soccer than a tournament we host once every 28 years (if that). Also, San Jose would host if the 49ers build in Santa Clara or if Stanford is deemed big enough. Even if there is a stadium/venue in SF, I'd expect the Earthquakes name to be plastered all over. By 2022, it is likely that MLS will be in the southeast, too.
MLS is trying to grow the game nationally now. They've admitted as much so limiting a WC to MLS cities wouldn't fit with that. MLS wants cities like San Diego to whine "how come we don't have teams?" That means cities want MLS teams and MLS can use it as leverage to get improved stadiums and competition for teams like that will increase franchise values when expansion comes around. The NFL has been able to use LA to get cities to pony of up for stadiums and if there was enough interest from other cities MLS would be able to do the same.

No matter where matches are held you will not see MLS logos plastered over the stadium. FIFA takes control of signage at stadiums and it is always limited to FIFA sponsors, team names, stadium names and cities. How many Bayern Munich or Hannover and Borrussia Dortmund logos did you see in 2006?

You've yet to address the fact that Gulati said growing MLS is not the goal of hosting a WC and that they key for them is to increase exposure throughout the country and make it a major sport in the nation's largest cities.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 02:22 AM   #611
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
There was no MLS in 1994, but there was a plan for one and bids were submitted by '94. Detroit was an option to have a team, but when MLS reached out to them there was no owners willing to make the investment. The USSF knew that Detroit wouldn't have a team, yet they got to host in '94.
First of all, there were only ten teams then so fewer options were open in that sense. Second, there were fewer quality facilities. Third, like I said before, the effort was less concerted because USSF was very green behind the ears. The event was pretty much tossed together and a stab in the dark from FIFA to hook in a huge American audience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
MLS is trying to grow the game nationally now. They've admitted as much so limiting a WC to MLS cities wouldn't fit with that. MLS wants cities like San Diego to whine "how come we don't have teams?" That means cities want MLS teams and MLS can use it as leverage to get improved stadiums and competition for teams like that will increase franchise values when expansion comes around. The NFL has been able to use LA to get cities to pony of up for stadiums and if there was enough interest from other cities MLS would be able to do the same.
They already have plenty of bids from many cities without that. Entry fees are now up to $50 million.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
No matter where matches are held you will not see MLS logos plastered over the stadium. FIFA takes control of signage at stadiums and it is always limited to FIFA sponsors, team names, stadium names and cities. How many Bayern Munich or Hannover and Borrussia Dortmund logos did you see in 2006?
You think Germans need to be made aware of the Bundesliga??
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
You've yet to address the fact that Gulati said growing MLS is not the goal of hosting a WC and that they key for them is to increase exposure throughout the country and make it a major sport in the nation's largest cities.
If Gulati really thinks that, then he should be fired. Why would creating MLS have been a stipulation of getting WC94 if a strong domestic competition was not important? A World Cup merely piques interest that only MLS could maintain.
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 02:32 AM   #612
Bobby3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,267
Likes (Received): 52

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
If you're tying to put on the best tournament possible, you want to host matches in your 12 biggest and most internationally renowned cities. If you want to give Charlotte a Nashville matches, who loses them? Miami? Dallas? Houston? DC? Boston? I don't think either Charlotte or Nashville would beat out a single one of those cities for the right to host. They're great cities, but not every great city can host.
I'd sacrifice Philadelphia to include Charlotte or Nashville. They're less known, but they could handle it better.

Philly is sandwiched between three cities (Boston, NY, DC) which are basically shoe ins. Charlotte or Nashville would create a bridge between the Northeastern cities and Florida and Texas.

The USSF's job isn't to promote MLS though. They actually don't see eye to eye on many issues. Judging on the way they act, Don Garber being as hard headed as he is, he'd probably have MLS play during the World Cup. I mean, he does now, that and every other international date.
Bobby3 no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 02:33 AM   #613
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

So if you want to see all these MLS cities hosting, what would your proposal be?
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 02:41 AM   #614
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
So if you want to see all these MLS cities hosting, what would your proposal be?
I have no idea how MLS will look in 2012, let alone a decade after that.
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 03:00 AM   #615
WeimieLvr
Love me, love my dog...
 
WeimieLvr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 3,085
Likes (Received): 420

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
They are great cities with great people and even with good very adequate stadiums. However FIFA wants the 12 best options. Those cities may not have the best market to go and get premium ticket prices to fill up 60-75k stadiums.
And Indianapolis is a "world renowned" city in comparison to Charlotte or Nashville? Please! It's smaller than both of these cities...There is no real argument there. Indianapolis has a great stadium, but a great stadium sitting in Gary doesn't make Gary a host...
WeimieLvr no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 03:05 AM   #616
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
I have no idea how MLS will look in 2012, let alone a decade after that.
Well it looks like FIFA will award the WC's of 2018 and 2022 at the same time and bids for both must be submitted by 2009 so USSF won't have the luxury of knowing what MLS will look like. Two additional franchises will be awarded by then (most likely Montreal, Portland, St. Louis or Miami), but we won't know any more than 18 teams so we know nearly everything we're going to know by the time bids must be submitted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby3 View Post
I'd sacrifice Philadelphia to include Charlotte or Nashville. They're less known, but they could handle it better.

Philly is sandwiched between three cities (Boston, NY, DC) which are basically shoe ins. Charlotte or Nashville would create a bridge between the Northeastern cities and Florida and Texas.

The USSF's job isn't to promote MLS though. They actually don't see eye to eye on many issues. Judging on the way they act, Don Garber being as hard headed as he is, he'd probably have MLS play during the World Cup. I mean, he does now, that and every other international date.
I don't think most people have Philly hosting. NY, DC and Boston are considered the frontrunners for the northeast cluster and Philly is just a backup for one of those 3 cities. The only place southeast cities will fit is in a south cluster. Most assume Dallas and Houston will get 2 of the spots and Miami the thirs so if you're going to add Charlotte or Nashville, who would you take out?
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 03:33 AM   #617
jkramb
Registered User
 
jkramb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 104
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by WeimieLvr View Post
And Indianapolis is a "world renowned" city in comparison to Charlotte or Nashville? Please! It's smaller than both of these cities...There is no real argument there. Indianapolis has a great stadium, but a great stadium sitting in Gary doesn't make Gary a host...
indy is actually probably known more world wide than those cities due to the racing.
jkramb no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 03:40 AM   #618
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,209
Likes (Received): 2761

Quote:
Originally Posted by WeimieLvr View Post
And Indianapolis is a "world renowned" city in comparison to Charlotte or Nashville? Please! It's smaller than both of these cities...There is no real argument there. Indianapolis has a great stadium, but a great stadium sitting in Gary doesn't make Gary a host...
No, it does have a decidely better stadium then Nashivlle or Charlotte have though and it does make sense in its potential cluster then Charlotte or Nashivlle are likely to.

Also when comparing the three cities we are not comparing Liverpool to London here. Indy's metro is 1.76m , Charlotte is 1.65m, and Nashville is 1.5m. So Indy isn't any "Gary" unless if Charlottes/Nashvilles equates to Erie/Newark.
__________________
Stephane Charbonnier, “I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.”

Last edited by nomarandlee; October 20th, 2008 at 03:54 AM.
nomarandlee no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 04:39 AM   #619
WeimieLvr
Love me, love my dog...
 
WeimieLvr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 3,085
Likes (Received): 420

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
No, it does have a decidely better stadium then Nashivlle or Charlotte have though and it does make sense in its potential cluster then Charlotte or Nashivlle are likely to.

Also when comparing the three cities we are not comparing Liverpool to London here. Indy's metro is 1.76m , Charlotte is 1.65m, and Nashville is 1.5m. So Indy isn't any "Gary" unless if Charlottes/Nashvilles equates to Erie/Newark.
Charlotte population - 2,491,000
Indianapolis population - 2,014,000
Nashville population - 1,521,000

They are peer cities, but Charlotte is larger. Indianapolis is only more well known to racing fans, which may overlap with country music fans but banking fans outweigh both.
WeimieLvr no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 12:27 PM   #620
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,882
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
It's a nice stadium no doubt, but it would also be the second smallest stadium in my proposal. Only Soldier Field is smaller. The stadium also has fewer luxury suites and club seats than any other American stadium. It has plenty of history, but when you consider the fact that the stadium itself doesn't compare with most US stadiums and the city of Dortmund is not a city recognized all over the world, it certainly wouldn't be first choice.
We have completely different idea of a football ground. Your argument about club seats makes me wonder where you sit when you watch football.
Concerning the awareness level of Dortmund I can assure you that this city is well recognised at least in those parts of the world that care about football.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy 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 11:21 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