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.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 23rd, 2005, 11:56 AM   #81
bubomb
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,093
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdomca
Yes but its rather unlikely Ibrox will ever host a final as I believe any final brought to Glasgow will go to Hampden.

Anyway, why is the spirit of scottish sport so negative and sad these days.

Rangers and celtic fans just live to hate the other club, most other scots hate them both, all scots seem to unite to hope for bad things for England.

No one seems to really support anything in a positive sense. Probably because the league is poor, the national football team even worse, the rugby team a farce.

The administrators seem utterly incompetent. wasting money they dont have on a national stadium they dont need just because thats they way its done in England in completly different circumstances.

Sharing, as other small countries with few events do? forget it. This is scotland.
ideas to improve games and competition. forget it.
Talent development? what, come on this is scotland. No need for skill.

The image of scottish sport is ever more that of a talentless clumsy clueless individual staggerring around a muddy field in poring rain. Fans focusing on others losing as there is nothing worth supporting.

Highlights in 2006 for scotland will be:

Rugby:
6-nations, the usual battle to hope to finish second from bottom rather than dead last.
Summer tour of defeats in all games
this is repeated for the autumn internationals with some opponents only bothering to field reserve sides these days to beat scotland in their own empty Murrayfield echoing with apathy.

Football:
hoping to achieve a few draws in euro qualifiers against other small struggling east- european teams.
the usual festival of bigotry at the great Glasgow derbies before both teams usually go out of europe very early as they enter actual skill based competitions.
And the biggest event of all. Getting ready for the world cup and hope England lose. That will be some party for scotland.

No, we have high hopes for the international team, it might take a few years, but there is young talent coming through. Scotland fans have always hated England, it's just rivalry. Plus the English media and some England fans make it worse, as they are so biased it's unbelievable.

If you knew about the politics of Rangers/Celtic, then you would know why they hate each other.

Per head of population, the Scottish league has the highest average attendances in the world. The 6th Highest in Europe on their own. Not bad for 5 million people. We now have 2 teams getting entry to the champions league, with one of them in the last 16. Poor league? Don't think so.

Rangers and celtic may dominate Scottish football, but this is the same everywhere. In England, only one team has a chance of winning the league - Chelsea, before that Man United won nearly everything for about 10 years. In Italy, Juventus or AC Milan always win the league. In Germany, Bayern Munich nearly always win the league. In Norway it's Rosenberg. In nearly every league in Europe, it's always only one or two teams at the beginning of the season who can win the league.

The national stadium has been a huge success. I don't like it, but it has been a success. Relatively cheap, with one Champions League final and one UEFA Cup final being held in the stadium. We average crowds of 48500 for Scotland games. That's far more than nearly every country in Europe. That's amazing when you consider the size of the country and the poor quality of football Scotland has been playing recently. I think the only country that has a higher per head of population attendance when it comes to football is Wales. It must be very close.

Rangers and Celtic share stadiums? Hearts and Hibs share stadiums? Have you ever visited planet earth?

Don't know about Rugby. Who cares about rugby!

Rangers v Villareal will be a good start to 2006. I've booked my trip to Spain. I can't wait. We might even make the quater finals.

Last edited by bubomb; December 23rd, 2005 at 12:27 PM.
bubomb no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 23rd, 2005, 09:42 PM   #82
Lostboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,028
Likes (Received): 19

An excellent analysis Kingdomca, couldn't have put it better myself.
__________________
The Scottish people have a moral duty to vote SNP in May.
Lostboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2005, 07:53 AM   #83
kingdomca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 411
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by bubomb
No, we have high hopes for the international team, it might take a few years, but there is young talent coming through. Scotland fans have always hated England, it's just rivalry. Plus the English media and some England fans make it worse, as they are so biased it's unbelievable.

If you knew about the politics of Rangers/Celtic, then you would know why they hate each other.

Per head of population, the Scottish league has the highest average attendances in the world. The 6th Highest in Europe on their own. Not bad for 5 million people. We now have 2 teams getting entry to the champions league, with one of them in the last 16. Poor league? Don't think so.

Rangers and celtic may dominate Scottish football, but this is the same everywhere. In England, only one team has a chance of winning the league - Chelsea, before that Man United won nearly everything for about 10 years. In Italy, Juventus or AC Milan always win the league. In Germany, Bayern Munich nearly always win the league. In Norway it's Rosenberg. In nearly every league in Europe, it's always only one or two teams at the beginning of the season who can win the league.

The national stadium has been a huge success. I don't like it, but it has been a success. Relatively cheap, with one Champions League final and one UEFA Cup final being held in the stadium. We average crowds of 48500 for Scotland games. That's far more than nearly every country in Europe. That's amazing when you consider the size of the country and the poor quality of football Scotland has been playing recently. I think the only country that has a higher per head of population attendance when it comes to football is Wales. It must be very close.

Rangers and Celtic share stadiums? Hearts and Hibs share stadiums? Have you ever visited planet earth?

Don't know about Rugby. Who cares about rugby!

Rangers v Villareal will be a good start to 2006. I've booked my trip to Spain. I can't wait. We might even make the quater finals.
So you really think scottish sport is amazing??

I never said clubs should share grounds, I said the national teams football and rugby, should share as they do in Ireland, Wales, France, etc everywhere but England which is so different from scotland.

I dont see Hampden is a success. If Ibrox is so great they could have got the finals if there was no Hampden and Scotland would probably average more if they played in 67,000 Murrayfield rather than Hampden.

But Of course, you dont care about rugby, a comment that epitomises whats wrong with scottish sport. To talk about the state of a nations sport with that attitude is just sad. I guess I left the football-hate-rugby factor out of the scottish hate-fest.
Why are similar sized Wales and Ireland so much more enlightened and at the same time far better on the field.

I know why Rangers and Celtic hate eachother, but is that an explanation why they are so sorrily incapable of moving the rivalry out of the gutter of bigotry. Its hugely embarrassing for Scotland but I guess many scots dont even see it.

to comment about national team attendances per population is ridiculous as bigger countries would need to get half a million crowds to beat scotland. As thats impossible it makes the statistic hopeless and pointless, but no doubt a well rehearsed scottish argument to keep from facing reality.
But anyway if crowds are so good, why are scotland so poor?

As for 6th highest league crowds etc.. well its all about rangers and celtic but even so I agree, good support so?? thats actually my point. If the crowds are so good. If celtic and Rangers are so rich, why is nothing achieved? why did Rangers for nearly a decade constantly lose out to minnows whose entire team cost less than Rangers latest signing.

Why is all scottish sport so poor?

Is any scottish athlete good at anything?

Scotland doesnt really have much of a rivalry with England anymore. There is little contest. The gap is too big these days. Scottish fans just obsess about England losing whereas English fans simply ignore scotland. Its no longer a real rivalry.
kingdomca no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2005, 08:41 AM   #84
bubomb
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,093
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdomca
So you really think scottish sport is amazing??

I never said clubs should share grounds, I said the national teams football and rugby, should share as they do in Ireland, Wales, France, etc everywhere but England which is so different from scotland.

I dont see Hampden is a success. If Ibrox is so great they could have got the finals if there was no Hampden and Scotland would probably average more if they played in 67,000 Murrayfield rather than Hampden.

But Of course, you dont care about rugby, a comment that epitomises whats wrong with scottish sport. To talk about the state of a nations sport with that attitude is just sad. I guess I left the football-hate-rugby factor out of the scottish hate-fest.
Why are similar sized Wales and Ireland so much more enlightened and at the same time far better on the field.

I know why Rangers and Celtic hate eachother, but is that an explanation why they are so sorrily incapable of moving the rivalry out of the gutter of bigotry. Its hugely embarrassing for Scotland but I guess many scots dont even see it.

to comment about national team attendances per population is ridiculous as bigger countries would need to get half a million crowds to beat scotland. As thats impossible it makes the statistic hopeless and pointless, but no doubt a well rehearsed scottish argument to keep from facing reality.
But anyway if crowds are so good, why are scotland so poor?

As for 6th highest league crowds etc.. well its all about rangers and celtic but even so I agree, good support so?? thats actually my point. If the crowds are so good. If celtic and Rangers are so rich, why is nothing achieved? why did Rangers for nearly a decade constantly lose out to minnows whose entire team cost less than Rangers latest signing.

Why is all scottish sport so poor?

Is any scottish athlete good at anything?

Scotland doesnt really have much of a rivalry with England anymore. There is little contest. The gap is too big these days. Scottish fans just obsess about England losing whereas English fans simply ignore scotland. Its no longer a real rivalry.
Ibrox doesn't get finals because the SFA never put forward Ibrox as a host. They never will either as they have their own interests in Hampden. You are commenting on things you know nothing about. You claim Celtic and Rangers are rich?? Both are heavily in debt as there is no TV money as Scotland is such a small country. Rangers must have the smallest wage bill/squad value of the last 16 teams in the Champions League, so they have done superb to get there. In the past 10 years Rangers should of done better, but they nearly always got into the Champions League group stages. There are no minnows in the Champions League group stages, every game is a tough game, as Man United will tell you. If Rangers and Celtic played in England
(which will never happen), both would easily get average crowds of 100000+ if they had large enough stadiums. Rangers sold over 600000 strips in Scotland alone last year. Celtic sell loads as well. Both are massive massive clubs, that are hugely limited because they play in a tiny country. No other country in the world has 2 clubs with such massive supports for such a small country.

Hate Rugby? What are you talking about? I don't hate it, i'm just not interested in it. I'm not interested in cricket either, so does that mean I hate it? According to your logic, any sport you are not interested in means you hate it!! This is nonsense.

Murrayfield is the home of Scottish rugby, Hampden the home of Scottish football, they would never share due to the history associated with the stadiums. Both stadiums have been successes. What's the problem? You obviously know nothing about the history of Hampden. You don't just abandon 100+ years of history. Why do you think England rebuilt Wembley instead of sharing Twickenham? I don't even think the SFA could legally use Murrayfield, as it is owned by a completely different organisation. What about Scottish cup finals and CIS cup finals? You can't have them in Edinburgh, as nearly every final has a Glasgow team in it.

You have simply ignored the fact that Scottish football has huge support in Scotland. Absolutely massive for the size of the country. Both clubs and country have massive support, so we are enjoying our football every week.

"Is any scottish athlete good at anything?"

I don't know, I only watch football. Is any Norwegian athlete good at anything? Any Finnish athlete good at anything? any Lithuanian athlete good at anything? Do you know that Scotland only has 5 million people? That is less than half the population of London!!! For 5 million people, we have a superb record in sports.

Yes, the rivalry with England has fairly died due to the yearly game being abandoned in the mid 80's, and a large gap in ability appearing between the teams. So what do you want Scottish fans to do? Kill themselves because of this? Stop watching football? England are much better than Scotland at football, so what?

It seems you simply don't like Scotland. Fair enough. I can only say one thing - Yer maw doesn't moan about my big Scottish boaby, she loves it.

Last edited by bubomb; December 29th, 2005 at 09:08 AM.
bubomb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2005, 12:44 PM   #85
Carter
Custom User Title.
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Tilburg
Posts: 297
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
No other country in the world has 2 clubs with such massive supports for such a small country.
What about Portugal? And perhaps even the Netherlands, although there are much more people in the Netherlands.
__________________
Eenzaam en nooit alleen...
Carter no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2005, 01:53 PM   #86
Lostboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,028
Likes (Received): 19

That is less than half the population of London!!! For 5 million people, we have a superb record in sports.

Plenty of other smaller nations do better. Wales with half your population, is far superior on almost any field, except perhaps curling.

If Rangers and Celtic played in England (which will never happen), both would easily get average crowds of 100000+ if they had large enough stadiums. Rangers sold over 600000 strips in Scotland alone last year.

I dunno. Playing in the the second or third tier of the English League can't be much more exciting than playing in the Scottish Premiership.
__________________
The Scottish people have a moral duty to vote SNP in May.
Lostboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2005, 03:47 PM   #87
matherto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St. Helens, Merseyside
Posts: 475
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by bubomb
No, we have high hopes for the international team, it might take a few years, but there is young talent coming through.
like who exactly......
matherto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2005, 06:32 PM   #88
bubomb
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,093
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lostboy
That is less than half the population of London!!! For 5 million people, we have a superb record in sports.

Plenty of other smaller nations do better. Wales with half your population, is far superior on almost any field, except perhaps curling.

If Rangers and Celtic played in England (which will never happen), both would easily get average crowds of 100000+ if they had large enough stadiums. Rangers sold over 600000 strips in Scotland alone last year.

I dunno. Playing in the the second or third tier of the English League can't be much more exciting than playing in the Scottish Premiership.

Wales record in football isn't even close to Scotland's, not even close. They may be have been better for a couple of years, but that's it. Out of 100+ years, Scotland have been better for about 95% of those years, far better. You cannot be better than a country every single year, but overall, Scotland thrashes Wales. We will soon be back to being much better than Wales. In fact, I think we are now better than Wales.

Wales have had 3 good years out of 100. It was just a one off for Wales, and they still failed to qualify. Scotland has had 7 word cup finals, Wales have had 1. Scotland has been in 2 Euro Championship finals, Wales have had 0. We finished 3rd top in our 2006 group. Wales finished 2nd bottom in their group.

Please explain to me how Wales have a better record in international football?


Average attendances in Portugal are - 9.698
Average attendances in Scotland are - 16222

Portugal has 10.4 million people, Scotland has 5 million people. Portugal has more than double the population of Scotland.

In terms of support, the 3 big Portuguese teams are tiny compared to the 2 big Scottish teams. The Dutch league also has smaller attendances. Rangers sold 600000 strips in Scotland, only Man United sold more in the UK.

As for the future, we have Darren Fletcher, James McFadden, Paul Hartley, Kris Boyd, Chris Burke, Shaun Maloney, Craig Gordon (amazing goalkeeper), Garry O'Connor, Scott Brown, Derek Riordan, Ian Murray etc.

Not world beaters by any stretch of the imagination (except Craig Gordon, amazing keeper), but enough to give us a fighting chance of qualifying for tournaments. We also now have a decent manager which is very important. Bertie Vogts was useless and didn't have a clue how to get the best out of Scottish players. Now that he has gone, you will see a huge improvement. In fact, we already have seen a huge improvement in the the few months Walter Smith had been in charge.

As for other sports? I don't know, I only watch football. But I would be surprised if Wales have produced better athletes, snooker players, motorsport or golf players over the history of these sports. I think Wales have a good history in Rugby (I think it is their national sport), but I don't know of any other sports where Wales have a better record than Scotland. Darts maybe?

Here are some great Scottish sports men and women -

Louise Aitken-Walker - Rally Driving
Alister Alan - Shooting
Captain Robert Barclay Allardice - Walking
Tommy Armour - Golf
Leslie M Balfour-Melville - All Rounder
Jim Baxter - Association Football
Ian Black - Swimming
Sir Chay Blyth - Sailing
James Braid - Golf
Billy Bremner - Association Football
Ken Buchanan - Boxing
Sir Matt Busby - Association Football
Finlay Calder - Rugby Union
Dr Willie Carson - Horse Racing
Dr John Cattanach - Shinty
Jim Clark - Motor Racing
Kenny Dalglish - Association Football
Michael Denness - Cricket
Donald Dinnie - Athletics
W I Douglas Elliot - Rugby Union
Launceston Elliot - Weightlifting/Wrestling
Elenor Gordon - Swimming
John Greig - Association Football
Jimmie Guthrie - Motorcycle racing
Helen Elliot Hamilton - Table Tennis
Gavin Hastings - Rugby Union
Dougal Haston - Mountaineering
Wyndham Halswelle - Athletics
Sir Peter Heatly - Diving
Stephen Hendry - Snooker
Andy Irvine - Rugby Union
Jimmy Johnstone - Association Football
George Kerr - Judo
Ellen King - Swimming
Denis Law - Association Football
Eric Liddell - Athletics
Sandy Lyle - Golf
Benny Lynch - Boxing
Liz McColgan - Athletics
Walter McGowan - Boxing
Bob McGregor - Swimming
Jimmy McGrory - Association Football
Dr Hamish McInnes - Mountaineering
Bob McIntyre - Motor Cycle Racing
Billy McNeill - Association Football
George McNeill - Athletics
John McNiven - Weightlifting
GPS Macpherson - Rugby Union
Colin McRae - Rallying
Richard McTaggart - Boxing
Robert Millar - Cycling
"Old" Tom Morris - Golf
"Young" Tom Morris - Golf
Mark Coxon Morrison - Rugby Union
Jackie Paterson - Boxing
Rodney Pattisson - Sailing
Nancy Riach - Swimming
Arthur James Robertson - Athletics
Belle Robertson - Golf
Bill Shankly - Association Football
Robert Wilson Shaw - Rugby Union
Gordon Smith - Association Football
Jock Stein - Association Football
Ian Stewart - Athletics
Sir Jackie Stewart - Motor Racing
Bobby Thomson - Baseball
Jessie Valentine - Golf
Jim Watt - Boxing
Allan Wells - Athletics
David Wilkie - Swimming
Winifred Mason Wooldridge - Tennis
Jack Wardrop - Swimming

As for the Scottish league being boring? We have 2 teams competing at the top each year (this year it's Hearts and Celtic, which makes a nice change). In England only Chelsea can win the league, and only Chelsea will be able to win it for the next 10 years, if not more. Yes, that's very exciting.

No thanks, but I would rather watch a league where more than one team has a chance of winning it. The English league is decided before a ball is kicked. Now that's boring.

Unfortunately we would have zero chance of holding a Word Cup.

Last edited by bubomb; December 29th, 2005 at 06:55 PM.
bubomb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2005, 08:12 PM   #89
Carter
Custom User Title.
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Tilburg
Posts: 297
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
No thanks, but I would rather watch a league where more than one team has a chance of winning it. The English league is decided before a ball is kicked. Now that's boring.
This is such a load of bullshit, any country in the world looks with envy in their eyes at
the English competition. Even countries as Spain and Italy. If the premiership is so easily decided then why did Liverpool win the champions league?

And if you like small competitions so much, why don't you follow the Danish, Swedish and Norwegian leagues?
__________________
Eenzaam en nooit alleen...
Carter no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2005, 09:28 PM   #90
bubomb
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,093
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter
This is such a load of bullshit, any country in the world looks with envy in their eyes at
the English competition. Even countries as Spain and Italy. If the premiership is so easily decided then why did Liverpool win the champions league?

And if you like small competitions so much, why don't you follow the Danish, Swedish and Norwegian leagues?
I do follow the smaller leagues. They are normally very exciting.

Do you watch football? Chelsea won the league before a ball was kicked, and they will win it next year, and the next and the next. Liverpool won the Champions League because it is mainly a cup format tournament. That's why we have cups, so smaller/inferior teams have a chance of winning something or a chance at getting to a final.

Liverpool finished 37 points behind Chelsea last year. 37 points!!!! The gap between the clubs is massive. If you think the premiership is the envy of Italians and the Spaniards, then you have clearly never met an Italian or a Spanish football fan.

It's Chelsea all the way for the next 10 years i'm afraid. Nobody can touch them.
bubomb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2005, 01:30 AM   #91
Edson-CMA
Registered User
 
Edson-CMA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Belo Horizonte
Posts: 21
Likes (Received): 1

Some brazilianīs clubs getting started some projects for 2014 WC.

Kyocera Arena

Today:

Project:




Orlando Scarpelli

Today:

Project:




Other plans:

Beira-Rio


João Havelange
Edson-CMA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2005, 03:38 AM   #92
jeicow
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,044
Likes (Received): 2

Canada has no chance of ever getting realisticly but could probably host it.

Olympic Stadium (Montreal): 66,000+
Commonwealth Stadium (Edmonton): 60,000+
BC Place Stadium (Vancouver): 60,000+
Rogers Centre (Toronto): 53,000+
Ivor Wynne Stadium (Hamilton): 30,000+
Canad Inns Stadium (Winnipeg): 30,000+
Frank Clair Stadium (Ottawa): 29,000+
+New soccer stadiuim under construction in TO (waterfront)
+New soccer stadium under construction in Vancouver (waterfront)

Really though, I wish they did it like the last World Cup of Hockey, where they had games all over North American and Europe. I find that puts the WORLD into world cup more than just having it all in one location.
jeicow no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2005, 04:12 AM   #93
Noostairz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 9,896
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by bubomb
It's Chelsea all the way for the next 10 years i'm afraid. Nobody can touch them.
yes, any half-wit knows chelsea are entering a period of dominance (note: relative dominance, not total dominance), but that's football. it was liverpool in the eighties, united in the nineties, and now chelsea in the "naughties". who cares? it just gives the other big clubs another level to aspire to, another big-boy to topple. their reign will come to an end and someone else will replace them, but unlike in scotland (the land of poor, predictable football) it won't necessarily be one of two mediocre teams.

Last edited by Noostairz; December 30th, 2005 at 04:41 AM.
Noostairz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2005, 04:30 AM   #94
Noostairz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 9,896
Likes (Received): 10

double-post.

Last edited by Noostairz; December 30th, 2005 at 04:40 AM.
Noostairz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2005, 01:47 PM   #95
CharlieP
Tax avoider
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 23,762
Likes (Received): 1980

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeicow
Really though, I wish they did it like the last World Cup of Hockey, where they had games all over North American and Europe. I find that puts the WORLD into world cup more than just having it all in one location.
I totally disagree - having a World Cup in one country makes it much more of an event, with a much greater sense of occasion.
__________________
This signature is socialist and un-American.
CharlieP no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2005, 02:57 PM   #96
Lostboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,028
Likes (Received): 19

Plus the English media and some England fans make it worse, as they are so biased it's unbelievable.

Fancy English Fans being biased in favour of the England Teams - shocking!
__________________
The Scottish people have a moral duty to vote SNP in May.
Lostboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2005, 02:59 PM   #97
Lostboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,028
Likes (Received): 19

Canada has no chance of ever getting realisticly but could probably host it.

Olympic Stadium (Montreal): 66,000+
Commonwealth Stadium (Edmonton): 60,000+
BC Place Stadium (Vancouver): 60,000+
Rogers Centre (Toronto): 53,000+
Ivor Wynne Stadium (Hamilton): 30,000+
Canad Inns Stadium (Winnipeg): 30,000+
Frank Clair Stadium (Ottawa): 29,000+


Exclude the Last Three Stadia from your list - capacity needs to be at least 40,000. Additionally exclude Montreal - by the time a theoretical opportunity for Canada holding the world cup comes Quebec will have left.
__________________
The Scottish people have a moral duty to vote SNP in May.
Lostboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2005, 03:15 PM   #98
wolbol
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Turnhout
Posts: 49
Likes (Received): 1

I would suggest an co-operation between the netherlands , belgium and Luxemburg to host a WC because the Netherlands and Belgium have proven that they are able to host a Euro 2000 so I think they should be able to host a bigger event like for example a WC

of course, if this ever would happen many new stadiums should be built because the present infrastructure isn't realy reliable... but The benelux has the capital and economy so this wouldn't be a big problem to find money


ps: I also would like to see turkey to host a WC
wolbol no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2005, 05:27 PM   #99
bubomb
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,093
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lostboy
Plus the English media and some England fans make it worse, as they are so biased it's unbelievable.

Fancy English Fans being biased in favour of the England Teams - shocking!
There's a big difference between being biased and being a biased fanny. Commentators etc are supposed to be professional and objective, but John Motson is a an embarrassment. A total clown who commentates as if he is an idiotic fan. As for Ian Wright, a complete moron who made a fool of himself by taking a tantrum on live tv because England got beat. I was on the floor laughing at him, I couldn't believe I was watching a grown man acting in that manner. The English media/fans have no humility at all, no other country acts the way they do. That's is one of the main reason why everbody hates England and wants them to get beat. It's a shame, because they bring down all the decent English fans with them.

I reckon out of the 32 teams, England will have the most amount of football fans wanting them to get beat. If Turkey had qualified, Turkey would have been a close 2nd to England for the most hated country at the World Cup. Nobody likes you.
bubomb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2005, 05:46 PM   #100
bubomb
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,093
Likes (Received): 0

I think World Cups should be in one country of smallish physical size so that fans can travel quickly. Transport should be superb and the country should be well developed with many hotels etc. Germany, for me, is the perfect country to host the World cup. A wealthy country with superb transport and infrastructure. It's also a great country and I holiday in Bavaria each year, so everybody will have a great time in a beautiful country (stay clear of England fans though). I'm going to follow the Czech Republic as they are a good bunch and the women are amazing. I'm going to start in Hamburg. I was hoping for a trip to Nuremberg, but England are playing there so they will ruin the fun for fans in that city. It's a shame, as Nuremberg is a superb city. Go to Munich if you can, one of the best cities in the world and there shouldn't be many England fans there.

I think South Africa will also be superb if they can ensure the safety of the fans. By this I don't mean England fans beating people up (although that might be a problem), I mean sorting out the huge crime problem in South Africa, or at least ensuring it doesn't effect the fans.
bubomb no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
olympics

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 09:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium