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 20th, 2008, 04:16 PM   #621
massp88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,182
Likes (Received): 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
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.



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?
New York, Washintgon and Boston all have venues that currently host an MLS team and have previously hosted the WC, along with several other national matches. Those 2 are almost certainties to host. Nashville will not be hosting a WC event, period. Charlotte has very small chance of hosting the WC as well. Both of those cities are not as well known, don't have the as good of venues as a Dallas or Houston. I still think Orlando will probably get the nod if Florida is to have a host city.

"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."

The MLS will take decades upon decade before it is to achieve the number of teams that the NBA of NFL has. People need to remember that a few MLS teams have folded, the Miami Fusion, the Tampa Bay Mutiny for example.
massp88 no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old October 20th, 2008, 04:26 PM   #622
massp88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,182
Likes (Received): 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby3 View Post
Charlotte and Nashville have their own cultures, and people are apparently quite taken by them if you look at migration rates. Both stadiums will be upgraded and/or replaced by 2022.

The southeast isn't a "weak" soccer area either. It's just ignored by MLS. The Southern USL teams are quite successful, and well respected among their peers. Charleston, Atlanta, and Raleigh (Cary) have special stadiums just for soccer, and Charlotte and Greensboro (Browns Summit) are building them.

It doesn't really have to be the biggest city. Japan hosted without Tokyo and the provincial cities like Oita, Kashima, and especially Niigata did a spectacular job.

Hartford's stadium can be expanded, and UConn has big dreams for their team. Giants Stadium (whatever the new one is called) won't fit a soccer pitch. There is one stadium in New York proper that can, Yankee Stadium, but that presents issues of it's own.
I don't think it's the culture that is attracting people to places like Charlotte and Nashville. I think it might have to do with the cost of living maybe?

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.
How are Charlotte and Nashville better equipped to host as a WC city? Both lack a decent mass transit system. Philadelphia has a larger and much more diverse population than both.

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...
Lucas Oil Field would probably have to be modified in order to fit a full soccer pitch which would mean smaller capacity. That and Indianapolis has almost a zero chance of hosting anyways.
massp88 no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 04:45 PM   #623
WeimieLvr
Love me, love my dog...
 
WeimieLvr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 3,085
Likes (Received): 420

Quote:
I don't think it's the culture that is attracting people to places like Charlotte and Nashville. I think it might have to do with the cost of living maybe?
But you've obviously never visited either city (obvious from your comments) so you're going by...what? Hearsay?


Quote:
How are Charlotte and Nashville better equipped to host as a WC city? Both lack a decent mass transit system. Philadelphia has a larger and much more diverse population than both.
Again...this is what you've heard, not what you know.
WeimieLvr no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 05:12 PM   #624
massp88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,182
Likes (Received): 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by WeimieLvr View Post
But you've obviously never visited either city (obvious from your comments) so you're going by...what? Hearsay?




Again...this is what you've heard, not what you know.
I have visited both cities and am making judgment based on what I have experienced there and simple common sense . You can honestly sit here and say a family in Connecticut is saying to themselves, gee Charlotte sure has a lot of culture, lets move there. Nope. The single reason a lot of the these southern cities are seeing large growth spurts are the low cost of living and jobs moving there. Nothing else.

You mean to tell me that Nashville and Charlotte both have a better public transportation system than Philadelphia? You mean to tell me that Nashville and Charlotte both have a more diverse population than Philadelphia? Are you high or something?
massp88 no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 08:15 PM   #625
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
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.
Where I would like to match has nothing to do with this argument. The argument behind all of this is if Dortmund were dropped in the US, would it be an obvious choice to host a WC match and I claimed no, with the stadium being a major reason why. I would love to see a match at Signa-Iduna and would find it superior to a lot of the proposed stadiums in the US; however, that is not what matters when hosting a WC. FIFA and the organizing committee want to make as much money as possible and be able to satisfy all their sponsors. That is why Signal-Iduna would not compete with the US stadiums. The US stadiums have all the luxury suites and club seats needed to satisfy FIFA's sponsors and make the tournament extremely successful monetarily. Matches at any of the US stadiums proposed would bring in far more money than Signal-Iduna. Where I sit and watch matches or where I'd like to see the matches played is irrellevant in this discussion. Where the most money can be made is what's relevant and the answer to that is any US stadium over Signal-Iduna.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 09:06 PM   #626
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 massp88 View Post
I have visited both cities and am making judgment based on what I have experienced there and simple common sense . You can honestly sit here and say a family in Connecticut is saying to themselves, gee Charlotte sure has a lot of culture, lets move there. Nope. The single reason a lot of the these southern cities are seeing large growth spurts are the low cost of living and jobs moving there. Nothing else.

You mean to tell me that Nashville and Charlotte both have a better public transportation system than Philadelphia? You mean to tell me that Nashville and Charlotte both have a more diverse population than Philadelphia? Are you high or something?
Please show me where I said anything of the sort about transportation or diversity. I simply stated that you didn't know this for a fact or by first hand experience.

I don't comment on Philadelphia very often because I've only had a layover in the airport there and never experienced the city. I know many good things about it, but not enough to say much for sure. On the other hand, I guess the family in Connecticut can comment on the culture in Charlotte without knowing about it, much as you're doing.

Your lack of knowledge about the reasons for the pouplation growth in Charlotte is apparent and obviously limited to what you hear and read as well. I'm sure you've spent LOTS of time in both Charlotte and Nashville...what reason would have for being in such culture-less cities? What in the world could bring you to spend time in either place?
WeimieLvr no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 09:11 PM   #627
JohanSA
Registered User
 
JohanSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Napier/Stellenbosch/Cape Town
Posts: 2,426
Likes (Received): 478

Its a atitude like this that makes the world hate americans! South Africa has to comply with exactly the same standerds as Germany did and as you did in 1994 ( its acsually higher now than that in 1994 ) . Just because South Africa is on the African continent doesnt make it a shitty backwater country. South Africas economy might be a small fraction of that of the US but in South Africa it is and has been the most important thing for people and government the last 6 years and up until 2010 . Your not going to get that same commitment from neither your government nor your people! Seems theres one lesson the USA will never learn : a small guy with passion and determination will destroy a uncommited giant ....... Goodluck with your bidding because I have a feeling Australia might just destroy you with their passion for sport...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreed View Post
Wow, so you really are fruity. Damn, I thought they were joking.
Twitter, Instagram : @JohanTTBlom
JohanSA no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 09:40 PM   #628
SIC
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by massp88 View Post
Lucas Oil Field would probably have to be modified in order to fit a full soccer pitch which would mean smaller capacity. That and Indianapolis has almost a zero chance of hosting anyways.
Wrong. The seats are retractable.



A Minneapolis-Chicago-Indianapolis would be a great cluster. They're all within driving distance and I can see why Indy would want to host. To improve it's image and as an impetus in new projects (public transport, roads, hotels and etc). I mean, they have hotels, restaurants and etc. Since they do have similar amounts of people travel every year for the the Indy 500.

Heres my list of the best venues/cities. Mainly thinking of stadiums and cities.

Boston/NYC/DC (except fed ex field can't fit a FIFA and I'm not sure about Gillete, but the redskins might get a new stadium)

Minneapolis/Chicago/Indianapolis (Soldier Field and Lucas can fit FIFA reqs, the new Minn. stadium...remains to be seen)

The Midwest and northeast are the easiest to cluster.
The rest of the country, not so much.

It's a grab bag of hosts.
Dallas/Houston/Phoenix/Seattle/LA/Bay Area (49rs should get a new stadium)


Also, whats up with JohanSA? Who pissed in his cheerios?

Although thats the beauty of the United States, we don't need government commitment or the whole populace onboard to pull off a World Cup. We can do most of it through private entities and pre-existing stadiums. The fraction of people who love soccer, well it dwarfs the population of several European countries and no...not San Marino...more like England. But we're spread out, but a world cup match would have most of us make a pilgrimage.
Pretty much every stadium I listed fits FIFA standards with covered seating and field dimensions. Most new stadiums are built with soccer in mind, like in seattle. So it's not as much of an issue.
SIC no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 09:46 PM   #629
JohanSA
Registered User
 
JohanSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Napier/Stellenbosch/Cape Town
Posts: 2,426
Likes (Received): 478

Statemants earlier that wished South Africa would fail in preparations so the the USA could get 2010 . Statemants that standerds had been lowered for South Africas sake. That pissed me off because its statements born out of arrogance and peopel being uniformed or backward in their views of the world!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreed View Post
Wow, so you really are fruity. Damn, I thought they were joking.
Twitter, Instagram : @JohanTTBlom
JohanSA no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 09:59 PM   #630
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIC View Post
A Minneapolis-Chicago-Indianapolis would be a great cluster. They're all within driving distance and I can see why Indy would want to host. To improve it's image and as an impetus in new projects (public transport, roads, hotels and etc). I mean, they have hotels, restaurants and etc. Since they do have similar amounts of people travel every year for the the Indy 500.
I can't see both Minneapolis and Indianapolis hosting in the Midwest. Neither is a huge city and they're co close to eachother I think it will hinder them. People from one city who really want to see a WC match can drive to the other. I think Denver goes into the Midwest cluster. It'd be tough to ignore the entire Mountain time zone so I think Denver hosts with the Midwest. Minneapolis would host if they were willing to expand their stadium (it was built with room to expand to 80,000), if not Indianpolis may get in the mix with a city from Ohio also getting consideration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIC View Post
Heres my list of the best venues/cities. Mainly thinking of stadiums and cities.

Boston/NYC/DC (except fed ex field can't fit a FIFA and I'm not sure about Gillete, but the redskins might get a new stadium)
Gillette Stadium can fit a field so they're in along with NY. FedEx doesn't have the room, but you can be sure that by 2022 Daniel Snyder will have his new stadium and it's been reported he will make it wide enough to host WC matches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIC View Post
It's a grab bag of hosts.
Dallas/Houston/Phoenix/Seattle/LA/Bay Area (49rs should get a new stadium)
After the Midwest and Northeast, we'd still need two more clusters. One will be the West with Seattle and LA definitely getting to host. The last one goes to San Francisco if they get a new stadium. If not then look for San Diego (should they get a new stadium) and Phoenix to battle it out for the final spot in the cluster.

The last cluster would include Dallas and Houston. The last spot in the southern cluster would almost certainly include a spot in the southeast. The Citrus Bowl hosted in 1994, but that stadium would need a MAJOR overhaul to be able to host again. Some here want to see Nashville or Charlotte in the mix, but I can't see it happening. Miami will get the call IMO. Atlanta is the only other city that could compete with Miami in the Southeast, but they don't have the stadium to do it.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 10:02 PM   #631
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohanSA View Post
Statemants earlier that wished South Africa would fail in preparations so the the USA could get 2010 . Statemants that standerds had been lowered for South Africas sake. That pissed me off because its statements born out of arrogance and peopel being uniformed or backward in their views of the world!
Standards had been lowered for S. Africa. It's been admitted by FIFA, but that doesn't mean S. Africa won't be a deserving host. The goal of the S. Africa WC is to spread the WC to a continent that has never experienced it and S. Africa will succeed in that goal. As of now, there's no reason to believe they won't do a fine job hosting either, but the standards have been lowered for them. It's not like this hasn't been done before. When the US hosted the 1994 WC standards were lowered, yet it was considered one of the finest WC's at that time. Standards have been lowered for S. Africa, just as they've been lowered before and will be lowered again (the standards for the 2014 WC in Brazil look like they'll be lower than those in SA), but this does not mean it won't make for a fine host.

The statements weren't even that S. Africa was being held to lower standards, but that the US would be held to a higher standard. That is absolute fact and there is no way you can argue otherwise.

As for people wishing S. Africa would fail and the WC would be moved here, that's just people hoping they can get the WC sooner. Whether the WC were in S. Africa or any other country, people here want to host the WC as soon as possible. It has nothing to do with S. Africa specifically outside of the fact that S. Africa was behind in their preparations. It was not a personal hate for the country.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 10:23 PM   #632
massp88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,182
Likes (Received): 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIC View Post
Wrong. The seats are retractable.



A Minneapolis-Chicago-Indianapolis would be a great cluster. They're all within driving distance and I can see why Indy would want to host. To improve it's image and as an impetus in new projects (public transport, roads, hotels and etc). I mean, they have hotels, restaurants and etc. Since they do have similar amounts of people travel every year for the the Indy 500.

Heres my list of the best venues/cities. Mainly thinking of stadiums and cities.

Boston/NYC/DC (except fed ex field can't fit a FIFA and I'm not sure about Gillete, but the redskins might get a new stadium)

Minneapolis/Chicago/Indianapolis (Soldier Field and Lucas can fit FIFA reqs, the new Minn. stadium...remains to be seen)

The Midwest and northeast are the easiest to cluster.
The rest of the country, not so much.

It's a grab bag of hosts.
Dallas/Houston/Phoenix/Seattle/LA/Bay Area (49rs should get a new stadium)


Also, whats up with JohanSA? Who pissed in his cheerios?

Although thats the beauty of the United States, we don't need government commitment or the whole populace onboard to pull off a World Cup. We can do most of it through private entities and pre-existing stadiums. The fraction of people who love soccer, well it dwarfs the population of several European countries and no...not San Marino...more like England. But we're spread out, but a world cup match would have most of us make a pilgrimage.
Pretty much every stadium I listed fits FIFA standards with covered seating and field dimensions. Most new stadiums are built with soccer in mind, like in seattle. So it's not as much of an issue.
Thank you for showing a picture to support my claim that the seats would have to be modified in order fit a soccer pitch. By retracting the seats to make the pitch fit, it would thus lower the amount of seats available to sell and thus making Indianapolis even less unlikely to host the WC. I guess that's what happens when you build a football stadium with basketball in mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WeimieLvr View Post
Please show me where I said anything of the sort about transportation or diversity. I simply stated that you didn't know this for a fact or by first hand experience.

I don't comment on Philadelphia very often because I've only had a layover in the airport there and never experienced the city. I know many good things about it, but not enough to say much for sure. On the other hand, I guess the family in Connecticut can comment on the culture in Charlotte without knowing about it, much as you're doing.

Your lack of knowledge about the reasons for the pouplation growth in Charlotte is apparent and obviously limited to what you hear and read as well. I'm sure you've spent LOTS of time in both Charlotte and Nashville...what reason would have for being in such culture-less cities? What in the world could bring you to spend time in either place?
Well you seem to be an expert here, so care to explain? If the reasons behind the large population growth in places like Charlotte, Nashville, Atlanta, etc. have nothing to do with the low cost of living and the large amount of job growth, then what is ?

As for what has brought me to cities such as Charlotte and Nashville, the answer is business.

You say you won't comment on Philadelphia because you have never been there, but I have been to both Nashville and Charlotte several times and commented, but I am wrong in doing so? I don't see the logic.
massp88 no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 10:26 PM   #633
rantanamo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 3,507
Likes (Received): 353

I apologize if posters are making statements like that. No excuses for that.
rantanamo no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 10:38 PM   #634
massp88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,182
Likes (Received): 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
I can't see both Minneapolis and Indianapolis hosting in the Midwest. Neither is a huge city and they're co close to eachother I think it will hinder them. People from one city who really want to see a WC match can drive to the other. I think Denver goes into the Midwest cluster. It'd be tough to ignore the entire Mountain time zone so I think Denver hosts with the Midwest. Minneapolis would host if they were willing to expand their stadium (it was built with room to expand to 80,000), if not Indianpolis may get in the mix with a city from Ohio also getting consideration.



Gillette Stadium can fit a field so they're in along with NY. FedEx doesn't have the room, but you can be sure that by 2022 Daniel Snyder will have his new stadium and it's been reported he will make it wide enough to host WC matches.



After the Midwest and Northeast, we'd still need two more clusters. One will be the West with Seattle and LA definitely getting to host. The last one goes to San Francisco if they get a new stadium. If not then look for San Diego (should they get a new stadium) and Phoenix to battle it out for the final spot in the cluster.

The last cluster would include Dallas and Houston. The last spot in the southern cluster would almost certainly include a spot in the southeast. The Citrus Bowl hosted in 1994, but that stadium would need a MAJOR overhaul to be able to host again. Some here want to see Nashville or Charlotte in the mix, but I can't see it happening. Miami will get the call IMO. Atlanta is the only other city that could compete with Miami in the Southeast, but they don't have the stadium to do it.
Gillette should be a host, as it fits a pitch without losing any seats and the Revolution play there with no problems.

There really will only need to be an addition 3 stadiums added to the mix to handle the current 32 team format for a total of 12 venues. I think you will see Seattle, Houston and perhaps Philadelphia added. This whole notion of clusters really may not happen. I don't think it will and don't think there is a need. 12 cities will be all that are needed if the US is to get the cup.

Boston
New York
Philadelphia
Washington, D.C.
Chicago
Dallas
Houston
Seattle
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Miami


All would be good choices in my mind.
massp88 no está en línea  
Old October 20th, 2008, 11:57 PM   #635
SIC
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 0

Actually Lucas oil has a whole tier on one of the goal sides that was left to be expanded easily. But come on, even with reduce capacity it would still be above the requirements for a world cup. Way more than Soldier Field and that's always seen as a shoo-in in these sorts of lists. Soldier Field can fit a pitch, but I'm not sure how big it is. It's enough for MLS and friendlies and CONCACAF tourneys but I'm not sure if it's World Cup ready.

My point for the clusters was just to negate the knee-jerk criticisms that are always bandied about. That the United States is too large and the fans can't travel and see their team like in other countries and have a grand old time without flying. Blah blah blah. My point is to show that it needn't be so and it's completely up to organizers.

So I looked into it, I think Gillete can fit a soccer pitch but I'm not sure it's the preferred 120x75. But it's close enough.

As for assuming because an MLS team plays in a stadium, it's automatically fits World Cup standards/Dimensions. LOL.

Meet CommunityAmerican Ballpark.


Home of the Kansas City Wizards.
Terrible, I hate watching games there.

Hell, a lot of fields in the Premiership aren't technically big enough or have enough space between the sidelines and seats.

Maybe Browns stadium in Cleveland could host, but other than that I can't think of stadium that could host it. I'm also assuming that Cleveland must be really bad when people from there diss it for the most part.

Actually, it's funny how Europeans are against the cup being hosted by the US just based on anti-American biases. Because thats all it is, it's not so much based on reality or ability to host.
Another BS reason I hear/read a lot"we don't appreciate the game"...which is crap when the MLS draws almost as many people as the Argentine and Brazilian leagues on average. A lot has changed since 1994, Americans have better access to more soccer on TV than anyone else.
Your average hardcore soccer fan is better versed than your average _______ countries fan. Because they charge much more for coverage and they mainly concentrate on their domestic league.
We have access to every major European leage and cup competition as well as CONCACAF and CONMEBOL competitions and a smattering of A and J League games. (Fox Soccer, Gol TV, Fox Sports in espaņol and Setanta and also the games shown by Univision and Telemundo and ESPN).

It's a small number of people percentage wise in the US, but even that small percentage is at least about the size of Portugal when they're added up. Perhaps the Netherlands when your add in Latinos.
The USA vs Mexico game in the Gold Cup got better ratings than your average World Series/Stanley cup game.
SIC no está en línea  
Old October 21st, 2008, 12:01 AM   #636
JohanSA
Registered User
 
JohanSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Napier/Stellenbosch/Cape Town
Posts: 2,426
Likes (Received): 478

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
Standards had been lowered for S. Africa. It's been admitted by FIFA, but that doesn't mean S. Africa won't be a deserving host. The goal of the S. Africa WC is to spread the WC to a continent that has never experienced it and S. Africa will succeed in that goal. As of now, there's no reason to believe they won't do a fine job hosting either, but the standards have been lowered for them. It's not like this hasn't been done before. When the US hosted the 1994 WC standards were lowered, yet it was considered one of the finest WC's at that time. Standards have been lowered for S. Africa, just as they've been lowered before and will be lowered again (the standards for the 2014 WC in Brazil look like they'll be lower than those in SA), but this does not mean it won't make for a fine host.

The statements weren't even that S. Africa was being held to lower standards, but that the US would be held to a higher standard. That is absolute fact and there is no way you can argue otherwise.

As for people wishing S. Africa would fail and the WC would be moved here, that's just people hoping they can get the WC sooner. Whether the WC were in S. Africa or any other country, people here want to host the WC as soon as possible. It has nothing to do with S. Africa specifically outside of the fact that S. Africa was behind in their preparations. It was not a personal hate for the country.
South Africa werent behind in preparations - Fifa changed the rules for the Confed cup because it experienced problems in 2005 when Germany finished fitting the stadium a day before the start of the Confed cup . Thus they moved the deadline to march next year . Nelson Mandela stadium construction started very quickly so they wanted it to host games for the confed cup , however meeting that deadline would always depend on the weather and how the prefabrication in Koeweit and Germany of the roof would progress. The roof contracters in Koeweit and Germany couldnt live with the new faster build time and when this became apparent they removed Nelson Mandela stadium from the Confed cup hostlist . It will still finish on time but has already been dropped because of the new rules . This is very apparent from the fact that seat installation and outfitting of the stadium is almost finished but roof installation has only just begun. Nelson Mandela Stadium is still almost 6 months ahead of schedule for the worldcup deadline of October 2009. Greenpoint stadium in Cape Town fell almost two months behind schedule due to roof delays in Germany but its now 3 weeks ahead of schedule . Moses Mabhida in Durban is now two months ahead of schedule with the suspension cables that will connect the roof to the hundred metre high arch already being pulled into place ( Durban stadium is higher wider and longer than the birds nest in Beijing . It will however have only 70 000 seats for the worldcup and not 80 000 which will be installed if Durban wins the bid to host 2016 or the 2020 olympics ) . The 95 000 seater Soccercity stadium in Johannesburg is also more than a month ahead of schedule with installation of the facade elements ongoing and seats are almost finished . The same is true for the smaller stadia , new airport terminals in all the major cities ( Durbans new airport is on schedule ) , the gautrain highspeed metro bullet train system is on track , commuter rail modernizing on schedule, Construction of the BRT systems are on schedule , TV Digital migration is on schedule , The four new high bandwith undersee SA -> Europe cables for HDTV broadcasting ( and bringing Africa on par with world telecoms ) is on schedule . Safety and security plans have gotten the nod from Fifa and anti Terror cops are being trained by your FBI . All new hotels are on schedule including a "seven" ( Burj al Arab service levels) star super luxury hotel in Cape Town ( Its said that Oprah bought a penthouse in the hotel for R120 million ~ US$ 15 million ) .

Which standerds were dropped to accomodate South Africa ?? The only one that I know off is that Guesthouse accomodation are now allowed because South Africa has more of a Guesthouse than hotel culture and thus they would have excluded more than half the accomodation in the country.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreed View Post
Wow, so you really are fruity. Damn, I thought they were joking.
Twitter, Instagram : @JohanTTBlom
JohanSA no está en línea  
Old October 21st, 2008, 12:12 AM   #637
JohanSA
Registered User
 
JohanSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Napier/Stellenbosch/Cape Town
Posts: 2,426
Likes (Received): 478

South Africa has 10 host stadia with four dedicated 45 000+ Fifa compliant Soccer stadia not being used .

Capacity from largest to smallest of the stadia being used.
95 000
70 000
67 000
65 000
55 000
50 000
48 000
45 000
45 000
45 000
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreed View Post
Wow, so you really are fruity. Damn, I thought they were joking.
Twitter, Instagram : @JohanTTBlom
JohanSA no está en línea  
Old October 21st, 2008, 01:30 AM   #638
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,882
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
Where I would like to match has nothing to do with this argument. The argument behind all of this is if Dortmund were dropped in the US, would it be an obvious choice to host a WC match and I claimed no, with the stadium being a major reason why. I would love to see a match at Signa-Iduna and would find it superior to a lot of the proposed stadiums in the US; however, that is not what matters when hosting a WC. FIFA and the organizing committee want to make as much money as possible and be able to satisfy all their sponsors. That is why Signal-Iduna would not compete with the US stadiums. The US stadiums have all the luxury suites and club seats needed to satisfy FIFA's sponsors and make the tournament extremely successful monetarily. Matches at any of the US stadiums proposed would bring in far more money than Signal-Iduna. Where I sit and watch matches or where I'd like to see the matches played is irrellevant in this discussion. Where the most money can be made is what's relevant and the answer to that is any US stadium over Signal-Iduna.
I know that a lot of money can be made from corporate boxes and club seats. However, the biggest source of income will be TV rights. And TV companies prefer noisy stadiums filled with enthusiastic supporters. Too many corporates will harm this picture. You shouldn't forget that large parts of the main stand will already be occupied by the media itself. Would be really spooky with a ground full of corporates and TV commentators. Certainly not the right picture sponsors want to be associated with.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  
Old October 21st, 2008, 01:44 AM   #639
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
I know that a lot of money can be made from corporate boxes and club seats. However, the biggest source of income will be TV rights. And TV companies prefer noisy stadiums filled with enthusiastic supporters. Too many corporates will harm this picture. You shouldn't forget that large parts of the main stand will already be occupied by the media itself. Would be really spooky with a ground full of corporates and TV commentators. Certainly not the right picture sponsors want to be associated with.


You forget that the biggest sponsors in the world are in the US.
hngcm no está en línea  
Old October 21st, 2008, 01:44 AM   #640
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
I know that a lot of money can be made from corporate boxes and club seats. However, the biggest source of income will be TV rights. And TV companies prefer noisy stadiums filled with enthusiastic supporters. Too many corporates will harm this picture. You shouldn't forget that large parts of the main stand will already be occupied by the media itself. Would be really spooky with a ground full of corporates and TV commentators. Certainly not the right picture sponsors want to be associated with.
World Cup ratings have nothing to do with atmosphere. It's the WC and people will pack them regardless of how many suites and club seats there are. They will be noisy even with the suites and the ratings won't suffer one bit. If the stadium is three decibels quieter, people aren't going to turn off their TVs. Just like people will sell out a stadium for a WC regardless of where that stadium is, people will watch the WC even if the atmosphere is just a wee bit worse. Why does FIFA want the WC to return to the US? Because we have the biggest stadiums, with the most VIP seats and the sponsors want it to be here to capitalize on all the consumers here.

Your argument is not only based on a falsity that sponsors don't want slightly quieter stadiums, but the notion that people won't watch because there are extra VIP seats is blasphemous.
ryebreadraz 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 06:45 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