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 August 11th, 2009, 02:16 AM   #1501
El Mariachi
Registered User
 
El Mariachi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 7,155
Likes (Received): 5995

Would it be possible, if I was a billionaire, to buy Manchester United and move them to say----Oklahoma City?
El Mariachi no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old August 11th, 2009, 02:22 AM   #1502
KingmanIII
Registered User
 
KingmanIII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Killa City, Misery
Posts: 2,627
Likes (Received): 415

Quote:
Originally Posted by metros11 View Post
Judging by your reply you're more like Hank Hill from Bevis and Butthead.
Hank Hill is from King of the Hill but based upon Tom Anderson from Beavis and Butthead.
KingmanIII no está en línea  
Old August 11th, 2009, 02:33 AM   #1503
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Mariachi View Post
Would it be possible, if I was a billionaire, to buy Manchester United and move them to say----Oklahoma City?
Yeah, since they're like Wimbledon and OKC is like Milton Keynes. Same thing, really.
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old August 11th, 2009, 11:22 AM   #1504
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,883
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Mariachi View Post
Would it be possible, if I was a billionaire, to buy Manchester United and move them to say----Oklahoma City?
It is certainly possible. Just that your club can't compete in English and European club competitions any more. Which will result in a revenue downturn of about 98%. And you will receive hatred.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  
Old August 11th, 2009, 04:56 PM   #1505
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Mariachi View Post
Would it be possible, if I was a billionaire, to buy Manchester United and move them to say----Oklahoma City?
No it's not possible, they changed the rules after the wimbledon fiasco. I'm sure if you did you'd have to forfeit all intellectual property etc etc

Moving teams to different cities just isn't tolerated over here.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old August 11th, 2009, 06:11 PM   #1506
trmather
Registered User
 
trmather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: St. Helens, Merseyside
Posts: 523
Likes (Received): 73

Do we reckon FIFA would allow the US to submit 20 stadiums in the interest of keeping a spread of venues, but minimising how far teams have to travel?

They did it for Korea-Japan...
trmather no está en línea  
Old August 11th, 2009, 08:26 PM   #1507
metros11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 418
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
No it's not possible, they changed the rules after the wimbledon fiasco. I'm sure if you did you'd have to forfeit all intellectual property etc etc

Moving teams to different cities just isn't tolerated over here.
If a billionaire bought Manchester United and owned the majority of the club then he could do whatever he desired with it. If he wanted to move it to Oklahoma City, then he most certainly could. The problem would be in the fact that Man U would no longer be eligible to play in the Premier League or any FA authorized league for that matter, which would of course mean the end of european football as well. But if this billionaire wanted to bring Man U to United States and join MLS, then he theoretically could do so. And he would be able to keep all the names, badges and colors associated with the club as Man U is a publicly traded company and everything is reserved.

Of course this would never happen as it would be dumbest move in the history of sports.
metros11 no está en línea  
Old August 11th, 2009, 08:29 PM   #1508
galaxtico
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 67
Likes (Received): 0

According to www.stadiumzone.net the US has enough stadiums that can be used as a World Cup venue. There are so many stadiums in the US, no other country comes close.
galaxtico no está en línea  
Old August 11th, 2009, 08:34 PM   #1509
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by metros11 View Post
If a billionaire bought Manchester United and owned the majority of the club then he could do whatever he desired with it. If he wanted to move it to Oklahoma City, then he most certainly could. The problem would be in the fact that Man U would no longer be eligible to play in the Premier League or any FA authorized league for that matter, which would of course mean the end of european football as well. But if this billionaire wanted to bring Man U to United States and join MLS, then he theoretically could do so. And he would be able to keep all the names, badges and colors associated with the club as Man U is a publicly traded company and everything is reserved.
Theoretically yes, but trust me the British government would get involved, and so would FIFA and UEFA, there is literally no chance.

Man united are a they not an it btw. As they are a club aka a group of individuals.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old August 11th, 2009, 08:54 PM   #1510
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,883
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by metros11 View Post
If a billionaire bought Manchester United and owned the majority of the club then he could do whatever he desired with it. If he wanted to move it to Oklahoma City, then he most certainly could. The problem would be in the fact that Man U would no longer be eligible to play in the Premier League or any FA authorized league for that matter, which would of course mean the end of european football as well. But if this billionaire wanted to bring Man U to United States and join MLS, then he theoretically could do so. And he would be able to keep all the names, badges and colors associated with the club as Man U is a publicly traded company and everything is reserved.

Of course this would never happen as it would be dumbest move in the history of sports.
Manchester United might be big. But they are still just a tiny fraction of European football.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  
Old August 11th, 2009, 09:45 PM   #1511
KingmanIII
Registered User
 
KingmanIII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Killa City, Misery
Posts: 2,627
Likes (Received): 415

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Mariachi View Post
Would it be possible, if I was a billionaire, to buy Manchester United and move them to say----Oklahoma City?
European football teams are clubs, not franchises, which means they're far more symbiotic with their cities.
KingmanIII no está en línea  
Old August 11th, 2009, 09:49 PM   #1512
KingmanIII
Registered User
 
KingmanIII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Killa City, Misery
Posts: 2,627
Likes (Received): 415

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Man united are a they not an it btw. As they are a club aka a group of individuals.
One of the many differences between American and British syntax, I guess.

We tend to construe collectives as one gender-neutral entity, hence, "it."
KingmanIII no está en línea  
Old August 11th, 2009, 09:58 PM   #1513
Bobby3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,267
Likes (Received): 52

He couldn't bring "Manchester United" to the US, the Borough of Trafford would municipalize the name.
Bobby3 no está en línea  
Old August 11th, 2009, 11:12 PM   #1514
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
Manchester United might be big. But they are still just a tiny fraction of European football.
I think he meant for Manchester United not for everyone, i doubt he's niave enough to think man united are European football

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingmanIII
One of the many differences between American and British syntax, I guess.

We tend to construe collectives as one gender-neutral entity, hence, "it."
We do use it (or i think we do), from what i hear on most of the continent, clubs are hers and hims...

I'd always thought it was because Americans were more detached from their sports so that's why they refer to them like that, i didn't know it was how English is over there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingmanIII
European football teams are clubs, not franchises, which means they're far more symbiotic with their cities.
exactly it's only within the last 30 years in England that owners have been allowed to take profit out of clubs, in many countries they still can't or are member owned. It just wouldn't happen to a big or medium or even small club as there would be riots. Wimbledon were a speck in all reality.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old August 12th, 2009, 04:15 AM   #1515
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by trmather View Post
Do we reckon FIFA would allow the US to submit 20 stadiums in the interest of keeping a spread of venues, but minimising how far teams have to travel?

They did it for Korea-Japan...
I doubt it because 12 venues would allow enough spread while still limiting travel.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old August 12th, 2009, 09:56 AM   #1516
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

I can see maybe 16 but not 20.
hngcm no está en línea  
Old August 12th, 2009, 10:17 AM   #1517
Lord David
Registered User
 
Lord David's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,785
Likes (Received): 104

Quote:
Originally Posted by trmather View Post
Do we reckon FIFA would allow the US to submit 20 stadiums in the interest of keeping a spread of venues, but minimising how far teams have to travel?

They did it for Korea-Japan...
Korea-Japan was a different story. They both wanted to host the WC, but were bickering to the point that FIFA decided that they could both joint host. Which is why FIFA permitted 10 venues for each nation. Which is why now they're bidding again so they can host the WC alone, without the constraints of the other nation.

20 venues would not be permitted by FIFA, not by one nation, and not by any joint bid (Assuming that said nations bidding in a joint bid are mutually bidding together with the knowledge that either can't host alone).
Lord David no está en línea  
Old August 12th, 2009, 02:20 PM   #1518
parcdesprinces
churches & stadia/arenas
 
parcdesprinces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auteuil, Paris XVI | Quercy | Monaco, MC
Posts: 16,713
Likes (Received): 9711

I don't know if there an official rule about a maximum number of venues (a minimum, yes).


Brazil 2014: 12 stadiums, 10 minimum (32 teams/64 games)
South Africa 2010: 10 stadiums (32 teams/64 games)
Germany 2006: 12 stadiums (32 teams/64 games)
Korea-Japan 2002: 20 stadiums (32 teams/64 games)
France 98: 10 stadiums (32 teams/64 games)
USA 94: 9 stadiums (24 teams/52 games)
Italy 90: 12 stadiums (24 teams/52 games)
Mexico 86: 12 stadiums (24 teams/52 games)
Spain 82: 17 stadiums (24 teams/52 games)
...........

By comparison UEFA Euro:

Euro 2016: "9 stadiums minimum" (24 teams/51 games)
Poland-Ukraine 2012: 8 stadiums (16 teams/31 games)
Austria-Switzerland 2008: 8 stadiums (16 teams/31 games)
Portugal 2004: 10 stadiums (16 teams/31 games)
Belgium-Netherlands 2000: 8 stadiums (16 teams/31 games)
England 1996: 8 stadiums (16 teams/31 games)
..........

Last edited by parcdesprinces; August 12th, 2009 at 02:27 PM.
parcdesprinces no está en línea  
Old August 12th, 2009, 06:59 PM   #1519
metros11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 418
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Man united are a they not an it btw. As they are a club aka a group of individuals.
Man United is a business that's publicly traded, which means it can potentially have 1 owner.
metros11 no está en línea  
Old August 12th, 2009, 06:59 PM   #1520
metros11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 418
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
Manchester United might be big. But they are still just a tiny fraction of European football.
I meant the 'end of European football' for Manchester United, not the end of all European football.
metros11 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 02:27 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